Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Myanna Lahsen]

Hello GEPers,

As someone who has studied and written about climate skepticism, there
are many strands in this discussion I would like to pick up on.

I will start with whether or not skepticism is "almost exclusively a
global North position."

As I wrote in the 2005 “Democracy, Technocracy and US Climate
Politics” article Peter Jacques cited, no other countries dispose of a
similarly large body of contrarians. However, I think it is important
to stress:

(1)  We don’t know enough about most national contexts. This is partly
because there are surprisingly few studies focused on this topic,
especially outside of US and Europe. STS research is overwhelmingly
focused on the most industrialized countries. Anthropology and
sociology, as disciplines, have engaged with climate change timidly,
and have a lot of work to do yet. Knowledge politics – the upstream
production of scientific knowledge and the downstream uses of it – are
understudied in this area, despite calls for such studies in both
fields. This is a longer discussion that I won’t go into here. Suffice
it to say that our disciplinary traditions and the institutional
structures in which they flourish (universities) are part of the
problem.

(2)  There may be more skepticism than we know of outside of the
“global North.” It is important to recognize that science tends to be
scrutinized the more economic interests are at stake. As long as
countries do not have binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol nor
other types of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
skeptical views that *may* exist inside such countries – or outside,
for that matter – are less likely to be expressed and/or receive a lot
of attention domestically. Some non-Annex 1 countries in the UNFCCC
process may even have economic interests in belief in climate change,
at least as long as they are not being pressured to reduce their own
emissions and might receive funding and other benefits through the
Clean Development Mechanisms and other similar schemes that have
emerged out of efforts to reduce global emissions.

Like Dunlap, Jacques, and others, I have analyzed the structural
reasons for climate skepticism. I will include references to some of
this work below. As an anthropologist, I have focused relatively more
on the role of culture and value-related differences in structuring
the differences among scientists involved in US climate- and climate
science politics. Some of this work may interest those of you who have
expressed interest in those dimensions on this discussion list and/or
who teach about the subject. For instance, in the 2008 article titled
“Experiences of Modernity in the Greenhouse”, I analyze a subgroup of
US contrarian physicists supporting the Conservative backlash against
global warming, concluding that their engagements are best understood
through a variety of non-determining but contributing factors that
reflect tensions related to transformations in US science and society
since the Second World War.

The March 29 New York Times article on Dyson served to support key
elements of this analysis. So did the Brazilian Brazilian incident
that Dale Jamieson referred to in his contribution to this discussion
today, an incident which was provoked by a contrarian publication in
the prominent Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo. The incident
revealed the global dissemination and use of US climate contrarianism
and their proponents; as his scientific authority, the Brazilian
invoked US contrarians Fred Seitz and Bill Nierenberg – two of the
physicists I analyze in the 2008 article. It also revealed the
transnational dimension of skepticism; the person who wrote the
contrarian piece in the Folha de Sao Paulo shared not only the
rhetoric and values of US skeptics, but also an important part of the
traits that I argue – in conjunction with other factors - explain the
US physicists’ engagements.

For the record, the prestige of the person who wrote the contrarian
piece in the Folha de Sao Paulo is debatable. He is a former rector of
the esteemed University of Brasilia. However, he is not a climate
expert and he gained his rector position due to his alignment with the
military dictatorship, which he actively served in that position,
according to accounts I have gathered. For those reasons and others,
he is also not a credible person in many circles. His arguments
reflect deep ignorance about central things, including what the IPCC
really does, and he explicitly associates environmentalism with
Nazism. When I published a response to his piece in the same newspaper
a few months back, his response was a rabid personal attack in which
he called me a Nazist. His background, style and other features thus
limit both his impact and his prestige. Still, writing in such a
prominent newspaper will have some effects, and Dale apparently saw
evidence to that effect. It would be interesting to chart who picks up
on his arguments and authority, and who does not.  It will also be
inte

Re: Fwd: FW: Skepticism and all that

[DG Webster]

Here's the text that went with that URL. Also, below, a response to Ken's
query...

Earth Justice did some interesting survey work that reveals a relationship
between a variation of the "high falutin'" ideas that Ronnie put forward and
the "outside the bubble" opinions observed by Wil. It seems that a person's
perspectives regarding the role of the individual in society have a lot to
do with the type of information they'll accept regarding climate change. One
facet of their results showed that people who are more individualistic
(Ronnie's liberal individualists) tend to be wary of environmental science
and, perhaps more importantly, the implications for public policy. They are
therefore much more likely to accept what the skeptics have to say than the
consensus science (Wil's arguments from cab drivers). It's these types of
"frames" that I eluded to in my earlier note and, being a fairly lonely
liberal in a large and pretty conservative family, I can attest to the
linkage from first hand, non-ivory tower experience.

Since their results are much more nuanced than the short explanation above,
here's the url for a summary by Earthjustice, which may be slanted but is
certainly interesting:
http://scp.earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/ReGreen%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

I use it in my green business class to get students thinking about the many
ways in which people view (or frame) environmental issues like climate
change. Plus they've decided to make the data publically available upon
request, which some might find to be useful.

In response to Ken's query, I've just recently started my lit review on
framing as a distinct element of/from prospect theory, but as far as I can
tell, the application of framing in political science generally and GEP
specifically has been pretty haphazard. The biggest problem is that there's
some confusion between the use of "framing" in rhetoric and philosophy vs.
the study of "framing" in psychology (as I mentioned earlier). So far, it
seems that those who write about framing in GEP use its rhetorical form
without much interest in the psychology of framing. My initial hypothesis is
that there is an implicit assumption that diplomacy is an area of rational
discourse rather than irrational argument. If anyone's interested I'm happy
to share my lit list/review once it's completed. Just let me know. Also,
please feel free to send suggestions to me personally and I'll add them to
the compilation.

livwell,
dgwebster

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Michael Maniates wrote:

>  Looks good, DG.  Thanks!  FYI, nobody got your initial email...it
> decomposed and was bounced to me and only me for processing.
>
> MM
>
>
> At 04:07 PM 7/6/2009, you wrote:
>
> Apologies for the extra e-mail. Apparently the attachment didn't make it to
> everyone, so here's the url:
>
> http://scp.earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/ReGreen%20Exec%20Summary.pdf
>
> dgwebster
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: *DG Webster* 
> Date: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: FW: Skepticism and all that
> To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net
> Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
>
>
> Earth Justice did some interesting survey work that reveals a relationship
> between a variation of the "high falutin'" ideas that Ronnie put forward and
> the "outside the bubble" opinions observed by Wil. It seems that a person's
> perspectives regarding the role of the individual in society have a lot to
> do with the type of information they'll accept regarding climate change. One
> facet of their results showed that people who are more individualistic
> (Ronnie's liberal individualists) tend to be wary of environmental science
> and, perhaps more importantly, the implications for public policy. They are
> therefore much more likely to accept what the skeptics have to say than the
> consensus science (Wil's arguments from cab drivers). It's these types of
> "frames" that I eluded to in my earlier note and, being a fairly lonely
> liberal in a large and pretty conservative family, I can attest to the
> linkage from first hand, non-ivory tower expirience.
>
> Since their results are much more nuanced than the short explanation above,
> I've attached a summary by Earthjustice, which may be slanted but is
> certainly interesting. I use it in my green business class to get students
> thinking about the many ways in which people view (or frame) environmental
> issues like climate change. Plus they've decided to make the data publically
> available upon request, which some might find to be useful. Mike, I hope
> this is an OK use of the list!
>
> livwell,
> dgwebster
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Dr. Wil Burns 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Ronnie,
>
>
> I can't say I agree with you as to how we confront this issue, or your
> premises about science's role on this issue. I think many of us live in an
> academic bubble (not to mention an ideological bubble for folks like you in
> the 'Cruz and me in Berkeley). However, when you tal

Fwd: FW: Skepticism and all that

[DG Webster]

Apologies for the extra e-mail. Apparently the attachment didn't make it to
everyone, so here's the url:

http://scp.earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/ReGreen%20Exec%20Summary.pdf

dgwebster

-- Forwarded message --
From: DG Webster 
Date: Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Skepticism and all that
To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu


Earth Justice did some interesting survey work that reveals a relationship
between a variation of the "high falutin'" ideas that Ronnie put forward and
the "outside the bubble" opinions observed by Wil. It seems that a person's
perspectives regarding the role of the individual in society have a lot to
do with the type of information they'll accept regarding climate change. One
facet of their results showed that people who are more individualistic
(Ronnie's liberal individualists) tend to be wary of environmental science
and, perhaps more importantly, the implications for public policy. They are
therefore much more likely to accept what the skeptics have to say than the
consensus science (Wil's arguments from cab drivers). It's these types of
"frames" that I eluded to in my earlier note and, being a fairly lonely
liberal in a large and pretty conservative family, I can attest to the
linkage from first hand, non-ivory tower expirience.

Since their results are much more nuanced than the short explanation above,
I've attached a summary by Earthjustice, which may be slanted but is
certainly interesting. I use it in my green business class to get students
thinking about the many ways in which people view (or frame) environmental
issues like climate change. Plus they've decided to make the data publically
available upon request, which some might find to be useful. Mike, I hope
this is an OK use of the list!

livwell,
dgwebster


On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Dr. Wil Burns
wrote:

>
> Hey Ronnie,
>
>
> I can't say I agree with you as to how we confront this issue, or your
> premises about science's role on this issue. I think many of us live in an
> academic bubble (not to mention an ideological bubble for folks like you in
> the 'Cruz and me in Berkeley). However, when you talk to folks outside the
> confines of these bubbles many of them aren't resistant to climate change
> policy on such high falutin' grounds, such that climate policy would
> undermine "liberal individualism" but because: a. They have heard some of
> allegedly science-based arguments of the skeptics (especially several I've
> talked about in previous messages, i.e. that temperatures allegedly haven't
> been increasing for the past ten years and that increases in carbon dioxide
> in the paleoclimatic record actually occurs 600-700 years AFTER
> temperatures
> increase, which means that causation is the reverse of what we assert. I
> have heard those arguments from cab drivers taking me back to the airport
> from climate change conferences, as well as folks in my gym watching
> television at the stairmaster next to me) and b. As a consequence, they
> believe that climate change is a hoax and they don't want to make the
> sacrifices necessary to address what they feel is a non-problem.
>
> If we continue to frame this issue in terms of more grandiose theories, I
> believe we'll lose in the public forum. I take your point that science is
> always rhetorically mediated; however, we premise our call for action to
> address climate change not on the basis of our embrace of "liberal
> collectivism," but rather because we believe that the SCIENCE, albeit
> freighted with uncertainties intrinsic to this discipline, justifies taking
> action. We can't have it both ways, which is why when Chris Matthews is
> screaming at Dana Rohrbacher for allegedly being "anti-science" when the
> guy
> is proffering obstensibly science-based arguments it's Matthews that looks
> stupid. Yes, we have to explain the underlying values that justify our
> position, and yes, we have to realize the limits of science, but in the
> end,
> proving the science is both the most ethical, and effective, means of
> engendering public support for climate policy.
>
> Dr. Wil Burns
> Class of 1946 Visiting Professor
> Center for Environmental Studies
> Williams College
> 11 Harper House, Room 12
> 54 Stetson Ct.
> Williamstown, MA 01267
> william.c.bu...@williams.edu
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
> [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Ronnie
> Lipschutz
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:51 AM
> To: undisclosed-recipients:
> Subject: Skepticism and all that
>
> Dear All:
>
> I've tried to keep up with this exchange, and I am a bit surprised it
> has generated so much interest.  Forgive me if I restate the obvious
> below--I am pretty sure someone has already made these points.
>
> 1. Science is not TRUTH.  Science generates truths that are very
> dependent on the assumptions and analytical methods that go into
> research ("

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' -- framing theory

[Kenneth Wilkening]

Hi All,

One of the most frequently used terms in the recent skeptics discussion is 
"framing." DG Webster and Adam Henne specifically refer to framing theory (ie, 
the literature on frames). How widespread is the application of framing theory 
(alternatively called frame theory, frame analysis, or framework analysis) in 
the international/global environmental politics literature? Multiple 
disciplines such as media studies, political science, psychology, social 
movement studies, and sociology all have a fair share of works using this 
theory (or, better, collection of approaches and methods). However, I have seen 
few works in the international/global environmental study literature. Am I 
missing something or has this theory/method not received much attention in our 
field? I would appreciate any references.

I hope I framed my question correctly . . .

Thanks,
Ken

Ken Wilkening
International Studies Program
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
 University Way
Prince George, BC
Canada V2N 4Z9

Tel: (250) 960-5768
Fax: (250) 960-5545
Email: k...@unbc.ca



From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of DG Webster
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 3:06 PM
To: Simon Dalby
Cc: rldavis; Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail); Global Environmental Education
Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' -- FRAMING

To add to some of the threads above...

In all this talk about framing, it's important to remember the difference 
between the psychological term and how it's used by political scientists. 
Originally, framing referred to the set of stereotypes that an individual uses 
to interpret information and experience into action (or inaction). Political 
scientists use the words "framing" and "reframing" interchangeably to refer to 
attempts by some (usually be elite groups) to alter the frames used by others 
(usually the public, although in this case, it seems we're really discussing 
inter-elite reframing of issues). In this, people are bound to be frustrated 
because of the many types of cognitive biases that inhibit individuals from 
changing their frames (or stereotypes). There's everything from conservatism 
bias (not to be confused with conservative political views, this is the proven 
tendancy for individuals to discard information that counters prior beliefs 
even if its true and accept information that shores up prior beliefs even if 
its false) to group polarization (get a bunch of moderates together and they'll 
end up with more extreme beliefs) to group attribution error (the mistaken 
belief that outgroup behaviors are a result of personality rather than 
circumstances). Furthermore, these biases can feedback onto one another, 
magnifying the degree of polarization among groups. Combine this with post-hoc 
rationalization once a decision has been made, and you've got a path dependent 
processes of polarization that is incredebly potent. (just consider the recent 
news-worthy examples provided by the legislatures of CA and NY).

Long story short, people are not rational (ourselves included) and we don't 
changes our minds easily, especially when our opinions are backed by group as 
well as individual identities. If we get 'em young, before their frames have 
solidified (usually happens by early 20s) then what psychologists call 
frame-realignment can be easier. But once people reach adulthood it's very 
difficult. Argumentation (in the classic sense of the world) can work, 
particularly if we are just trying to bridge, amplify, or extend current 
frames, but for a transformation to take place there usually needs to be a 
highly available (vivid and salient) event that literally shocks people into 
frame transformation. Or, with something as complex as climate change, it may 
take many events.

All this is frustrating, but it is the nature of the beast. It doesn't mean 
that we shouldn't try to reframe the debate (I'll second Ron & Larry's 
statements about clarifying the scientific method and role of science here), 
just that we should take it all with a grain of salt. Personally, I find that 
understanding the underlying psychology helps me to keep my own head when 
engaged in such debates and also lets me know when an individual is really 
arguing their emotional attachment to an idea rather than its underlying logic. 
Plus, I find the social-science implications of it all to be absolutely 
fascinating.

livwell,
dgwebster







On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Simon Dalby 
mailto:sda...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Folks:

A slightly different take picking up from Larry Davis' post and thinking 
through "framing" rather than anger ...

Science doesn't explain everything, and the huge problem with framing climate 
change as an either or, right wrong matter is precisely that it pretends 
science is something it plainly and simply isn't.

Framing what matters as only climate change too is a

FW: Skepticism and all that

[Dr. Wil Burns]

Hey Ronnie,


I can't say I agree with you as to how we confront this issue, or your
premises about science's role on this issue. I think many of us live in an
academic bubble (not to mention an ideological bubble for folks like you in
the 'Cruz and me in Berkeley). However, when you talk to folks outside the
confines of these bubbles many of them aren't resistant to climate change
policy on such high falutin' grounds, such that climate policy would
undermine "liberal individualism" but because: a. They have heard some of
allegedly science-based arguments of the skeptics (especially several I've
talked about in previous messages, i.e. that temperatures allegedly haven't
been increasing for the past ten years and that increases in carbon dioxide
in the paleoclimatic record actually occurs 600-700 years AFTER temperatures
increase, which means that causation is the reverse of what we assert. I
have heard those arguments from cab drivers taking me back to the airport
from climate change conferences, as well as folks in my gym watching
television at the stairmaster next to me) and b. As a consequence, they
believe that climate change is a hoax and they don't want to make the
sacrifices necessary to address what they feel is a non-problem. 

If we continue to frame this issue in terms of more grandiose theories, I
believe we'll lose in the public forum. I take your point that science is
always rhetorically mediated; however, we premise our call for action to
address climate change not on the basis of our embrace of "liberal
collectivism," but rather because we believe that the SCIENCE, albeit
freighted with uncertainties intrinsic to this discipline, justifies taking
action. We can't have it both ways, which is why when Chris Matthews is
screaming at Dana Rohrbacher for allegedly being "anti-science" when the guy
is proffering obstensibly science-based arguments it's Matthews that looks
stupid. Yes, we have to explain the underlying values that justify our
position, and yes, we have to realize the limits of science, but in the end,
proving the science is both the most ethical, and effective, means of
engendering public support for climate policy. 

Dr. Wil Burns
Class of 1946 Visiting Professor
Center for Environmental Studies
Williams College
11 Harper House, Room 12
54 Stetson Ct.
Williamstown, MA 01267
william.c.bu...@williams.edu




-Original Message-
From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Ronnie Lipschutz
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:51 AM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Skepticism and all that

Dear All:

I've tried to keep up with this exchange, and I am a bit surprised it 
has generated so much interest.  Forgive me if I restate the obvious 
below--I am pretty sure someone has already made these points.

1. Science is not TRUTH.  Science generates truths that are very 
dependent on the assumptions and analytical methods that go into 
research ("black boxing," in Bruno Latour's words). Science is also 
premised on radical skepticism, in terms of what constitutes "proof."  
 From this, I take the point that one should be careful about basing a 
case on Science.

2. Science can tell us what could happen; it cannot tell us what we 
should do.  Science can tell me what will happen if I step off a cliff; 
it cannot prevent me from stepping off the cliff (only I can do that).  
We are free to burn in hell, if we wish.  There are no more transcendent 
sources of authority to tell us what we must do, although there are many 
who would like to re-establish such a source.

3. Ultimately, acting on climate change requires as much a collective 
ethical-spiritual-normative shift as evidence that we will burn.  That 
means Politics.

4. Finally, we should probably not get too  bogged down in the 
theological details.  I am reminded that one of the central points of 
conflict during the 30 years war was on the nature of 
transubstantiation: were the wine and wafer actually part of Jesus's 
body (signified) or were they representative of his body (signifiers).  
We ought to recognize that there is a much more fundamental point of 
conflict here than climate, having to do with liberal individualism vs. 
liberal collectivism (something of a neologism, I realize).  Whether 
this implies a shift away from profit-oriented capitalism and private 
property to something more social(ist) is as yet unclear.  We should 
figure out what the signified is rather than argue about the signifier 
(climate change).

Ronnie

-- 

Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Professor of Politics, 234 Crown College 
UC-Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA  95064  USA
Phone: (831) 459-3275; Email: rlip...@ucsc.edu; 
Web: http://people.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch; 

Skepticism and all that

[Ronnie Lipschutz]

Dear All:

I've tried to keep up with this exchange, and I am a bit surprised it 
has generated so much interest.  Forgive me if I restate the obvious 
below--I am pretty sure someone has already made these points.


1. Science is not TRUTH.  Science generates truths that are very 
dependent on the assumptions and analytical methods that go into 
research ("black boxing," in Bruno Latour's words). Science is also 
premised on radical skepticism, in terms of what constitutes "proof."  
From this, I take the point that one should be careful about basing a 
case on Science.


2. Science can tell us what could happen; it cannot tell us what we 
should do.  Science can tell me what will happen if I step off a cliff; 
it cannot prevent me from stepping off the cliff (only I can do that).  
We are free to burn in hell, if we wish.  There are no more transcendent 
sources of authority to tell us what we must do, although there are many 
who would like to re-establish such a source.


3. Ultimately, acting on climate change requires as much a collective 
ethical-spiritual-normative shift as evidence that we will burn.  That 
means Politics.


4. Finally, we should probably not get too  bogged down in the 
theological details.  I am reminded that one of the central points of 
conflict during the 30 years war was on the nature of 
transubstantiation: were the wine and wafer actually part of Jesus's 
body (signified) or were they representative of his body (signifiers).  
We ought to recognize that there is a much more fundamental point of 
conflict here than climate, having to do with liberal individualism vs. 
liberal collectivism (something of a neologism, I realize).  Whether 
this implies a shift away from profit-oriented capitalism and private 
property to something more social(ist) is as yet unclear.  We should 
figure out what the signified is rather than argue about the signifier 
(climate change).


Ronnie

--

Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Professor of Politics, 234 Crown College 
UC-Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA  95064  USA
Phone: (831) 459-3275; Email: rlip...@ucsc.edu; 
Web: http://people.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch;