Re: Climategate Impacts
this technology. Processes and dynamics associated with GCM modeling challenge the common assumption in science studies and beyond that producers of a given technology and its products are the best judges of their accuracy. Drawing on participant observation and interviews with climate modelers and the atmospheric scientists with whom they interact, the study analyzers the political dimensions of how modelers talk and think about their models, suggesting that modelers sometimes are less able than some users to identify shortcomings of their models. __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4704 (20091220) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: promu...@susannemoser.com __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4704 (20091220) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com
Re: Climategate Impacts
entists surveyed conclude that..." will be a trump card in political debates. Related to this issue, I was wondering what the listserv folks think of this recent editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sarewitzthernstrom16-2009dec16,0,952168,print.story From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Susanne Moser Sent: Sun 12/20/2009 2:22 PM To: Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe Subject: Re: Climategate Impacts This strikes me as an interesting thing to pursue a bit. So, let's take quick stock: For years, scientists were the most trusted regarding climate change, although overall shrinking, especially among some audiences. There always has been and is more so now a deep partisan divide over trust in scientists (I actually think there is also a class divide here, but that's for another day). By comparison anyway, the media, NGOs, industry or government have all had lower ratings of trust. Second, scientists have been widely criticized for their slow response to the hacked email (I really think it's wrong that we perpetuate the misguided allusion to Watergate, so I don't), which has given this entire affair a double whammy: exposure of emails that could easily be and have, of course, been terribly, savagely misinterpreted (though NO wrong-doing has actually been found, let's recall!) AND the completely lame, politically naive response of the wider scientific community. Consequently drum roll please... the curtain rises for rightwing media publicly slaughtering scientists and the science of global warming (which was, let's recall, already prior to the hacked emails on the downturn for a variety of reasons), and now this unsurprising polling result. Duh! What - is my question here - can be done? Who is left to be trusted as messengers for climate change? Do we now depend on Mother Nature as the most immediate, un-media-ted "witness" to tell us her truth? Or is there someone else to fill the gaping hole? As we know from hazards and other studies, trust, once lost, is VERY hard to rebuild. If we lose the weakly, but still (relatively) most trusted messenger, and only untrusted ones remain - who is left to speak for climate change? Thanks for indulging me. Susi Wallace, Richard wrote: Lovely. The poll is a blunt instrument to be sure, but let’s hope public disaffection with the climate debate and resulting distrust of “scientists on the environment” doesn’t bleed into other areas, like biodiversity, deforestation, transboundary pollution, etc. Worth watching, anyway. Rich -- Richard L. Wallace, Ph.D. Associate Professor Environmental Studies Program Ursinus College P.O. Box 1000 Collegeville, PA 19426 (610) 409-3730 (610) 409-3660 fax rwall...@ursinus.edu mailto:rwall...@ursinus.edu *From:* owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] *On Behalf Of *Wil Burns *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:48 PM *To:* envlawprofess...@lists.uoregon.edu; 'Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe' *Subject:* Climategate Impacts Ooops… scientists getting hit…a new Washington Post-ABC News poll after “climategate.” Scientists “significantly” losing credibility with the public: “Scientists themselves also come in for more negative assessments in the poll, with four in 10 Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment. That’s up significantly in recent years. About 58 percent of Republicans now put little or no faith in scientists on the subject, double the number saying so in April 2007. Over this time frame, distrust among independents bumped up from 24 to 40 percent, while Democrats changed only marginally. Among seniors, the number of skeptics more than doubled, to 51 percent.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR200912182.html * * * * * * *Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief*** */Journal of International Wildlife Law Policy/*** *1702 Arlington Blvd.*** *El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA* *Ph: 650.281.9126* *Fax: 510.779.5361* *ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org mailto:ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org*** *http://www.jiwlp.com http://www.jiwlp.com/* *SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348* *Skype ID: Wil.Burns* __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4704 (20091220) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute
Re: Tragedy of the celestial commons
I don't recall at the moment specific citations though at least in the environmental NGO literature I recall writings on the right to darkness, the right to see the moon and stars at night, and other common property things related to the sky - like blue sky, silence, etc Maybe that's at least a lead. So, a bit closer to Earth than the space literature offered below, but maybe of interest. Susi Nancy Quirk wrote: Hi Delyse - Sounds like an interesting project! The Moon Treaty and related space debris regulation might be an interesting place to start. Below are a few citations. I haven't taught Intl Law for a couple of years, so a couple of the cites are a little dated. Nancy Quirk, LEED AP * 1. Karl Grossman. Disgrace into Space. The Ecologist 31/2 (March 2001). http://www.space4peace.org/articles/ecologist.htm 2. Susanne Reif. Shaping a Legal Framework for the Commercial Use of Outer Space. Space Policy 18 (2002): 157-162. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6V52-458P49W-4_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=d_docanchor=view=c_searchStrId=1138230422_rerunOrigin=google_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=8dc6567d0b61ba29368a926bbd7ea5c0 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6V52-458P49W-4_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=d_docanchor=view=c_searchStrId=1138230422_rerunOrigin=google_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=8dc6567d0b61ba29368a926bbd7ea5c0 This website has several related articles listed. 3. Michael O'Hanlon. The Real Star Wars. Newsweek (16 Sep 2002). http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/0916defense_ohanlon.aspx 4. James Kitfield. The Permanent Frontier. National Journal 33/11 (17 March2001):780. http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2001/010317-nj.htm 5. Robert C. Bird. Procedural Challenges to Environmental Regulation of Space Debris. American Business Law Journal 40 (Spring 2003):635+. 6. Ten Stories the World Should Hear More About. UN 2008. Space Debris: Orbiting Debris Threatens Sustainable Use of Outer Space. http://www.un.org/en/events/tenstories/08/spacedebris.shtml 7. Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (1967) http://fletcher.tufts.edu/multilaterals.html Atmosphere and Space 8. William Broad. Orbiting Junk, Once a Nuisance, Is Now a Threat. New York Times (February 6, 2007). http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/space/06orbi.html From: d.v.spring...@massey.ac.nz To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:44:41 +1300 Subject: Tragedy of the celestial commons Dear Gep-ers, I have a student who is interested in basing his Masters dissertation on the tragedy of the celestial commons, possibly focusing on attitudes to the celestial commons in the era of space tourism. He has found some interesting literature (for example, Laver, 1986; Baum, 2008), but I wondered if anyone could suggest further reading in the area? Best wishes, Dr Delyse Springett Massey University New Zealand. Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4691 (20091215) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: promu...@susannemoser.com __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4691 (20091215) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com
Re: The Telegraph - Cold water on UN monsoon forecast models
for the perfect gift?* Give the gift of Flickr!* http://www.flickr.com/gift/ -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: promu...@susannemoser.com __ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4615 (20091117) __ The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com
Re: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Valuable new references - thanks, all. My 2 cents on this is: instead of punch-by-punch countering of phony arguments, it's far more advisable to actually frame the debate how you want to frame it instead. Make them be on the defensive rather than you dance to their tune Aaron McCright has also written a "communication strategy" chapter in our edited volume that some of you may find helpful. (Moser, and Dilling 2007, Creating a Climate for Change, Cambridge UP). Best, Susi Dunlap, Riley wrote: From the flyer I've seen on Hulme's book, I agree with Simon that it should be a valuable read. And since my post yesterday regarding Morano Inhofe's "650 list" may have seemed too dismissive to some, I've decided to share a few references that may help put their list into a broader context by documenting the ideological basis of the bulk (not all) of climate-change skepticism--and in the process hopefully indicate that there was a lot of "research and scholarship" behind my comments. Also, as I told Steve Hoffman in a personal message, Morano has quite a background for leading the fight against climate-change policy. Before joining Inhofe's staff he worked for Rush Limbaugh and then played a key role in the 2004 "Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth" campaign against Kerry. He recently left Inhofe and is now running "Climate Depot," the latest of the multitude of climate skeptic websites which can be found here: http://www.climatedepot.com/ The two articles with McCright are based on work that is getting a bit dated, but I think are still highly relevant--especially the second piece. The article with Jacques is more current, and while it focuses on "environmental skepticism" more generally I think you'll find the evidence that links over 90% of the books espousing it with one or more conservative think tanks of interest--as well as the overall argument. Jacques and I are in the process of doing an update that focuses specifically on books espousing climate-change skepticism (of which there are now nearly 80), and hope to have a paper ready in the next few months. McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims.” Social Problems 47:499-522. McCright, Aaron M. and Riley E. Dunlap. 2003. “Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy.” Social Problems 50:348-373. Jacques, Peter, Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman. 2008. “The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism.” Environmental Politics 17:349-385. From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Simon Dalby [sda...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 9:57 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Fwd: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Folks: I don't think anyone on the GEPED list has yet mentioned Mike Hulme's new 2009 Cambridge University book Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. The book presents climate change as both a physical phenomenon and also, given the attention it gets, as a social one too. Its not an immediate 'response to skeptics' piece, but if teaching these things is on your mind, Hulme's book may be an interesting way into teaching all this come the Fall semester, and given that its immediately available in paperback and clearly written with students and a general audience in mind it has classroom potential. Simon -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: promu...@susannemoser.com
Re: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Wil - I agree to some extent, but look at it from a slightly different perspective. Don't think for a minute that it isn't PRECISELY one of their tactics to engage scientists or pro-environmental folks in defensive conversation so that that side doesn't get to make its arguments. I guess, I come down on ATM - answer-transition-message. In other words, don't end with the A to them, help the audience reframe the issue. The problem with an extended debate over factoids is that it hides a values-based discussion behind a factual discussion, and you do it with a public that is unlikely to have the scientific training to really judge the truth. They will go with a gut feeling because that's where a judgment comes from when you don't know the facts. The rhetorical skill of contrarians is typically far better because they know how to use precisely this fact for their case. So, the response to contrarians needs to help people see the values choice they have to make, and not reinforce the erroneous belief that climate science is something that is decided in a democratic forum (see Ron's message, or any of Steve Schneider's statements to the same effect) or in a shouting match. That said, I don't believe plain stupid, cherry-picked, or blatantly wrong stuff should EVER stand. And I agree with you on the valuable teaching involved in parsing apart the contrarian arguments. Just don't forget to also take apart the rhetorical aspects of their approach. If we taught our students not just how to counter false scientific arguments but also how to recognize the elements of rhetoric - I think they would be able to help the audience see the bigger picture of what's going on in one of these debates, and audiences (and the facts about climate change) would be better served. Maybe we don't differ all that much, Susi Dr. Wil Burns wrote: *I actually don’t agree with this statement, Susi. I’ve seen students (and academic) engage in debates with skeptics in public forums where they haven’t been able to respond to arguments e.g. global dimming and the allegation that warming actually causes carbon dioxide levels to rise. If you simply state your position without responding to specific counterarguments, you can look dumb. * * * *I’ll give you a perfect example, I watched Representative Jim Moran debate Representative Duncan Hunter (who no one would accuse of being a towering intellectual) on Hardball with Chris Matthews a few weeks ago on climate change. Moran stubbornly kept saying “this is what the IPCC is telling us.” Hunter hit him with a fusillade of contrarian arguments, including the alleged impact of solar intensity variability and cooling in portions of the Antarctic, and when Moran didn’t address those specific issues, Hunter argued, “you guys accuse of ignoring science, but these are scientific facts.” I think Hunter ended up drubbing him as a result. We need to train our students to address the specific arguments that they guys are making or we risk being accused of turning tail and running from “the truth.” wil* * * *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* *Williams Purple Cow* * * * * *From:* owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] *On Behalf Of *Susanne Moser *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2009 10:35 AM *To:* gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu *Subject:* Re: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Valuable new references - thanks, all. My 2 cents on this is: instead of punch-by-punch countering of phony arguments, it's far more advisable to actually frame the debate how you want to frame it instead. Make them be on the defensive rather than you dance to their tune Aaron McCright has also written a communication strategy chapter in our edited volume that some of you may find helpful. (Moser, and Dilling 2007, Creating a Climate for Change, Cambridge UP). Best, Susi Dunlap, Riley wrote: From the flyer I've seen on Hulme's book, I agree with Simon that it should be a valuable read. And since my post yesterday regarding Morano Inhofe's 650 list may have seemed too dismissive to some, I've decided to share a few references that may help put their list into a broader context by documenting the ideological basis of the bulk (not all) of climate-change skepticism--and in the process hopefully indicate that there was a lot of research and scholarship behind my comments. Also, as I told Steve Hoffman in a personal message, Morano has quite a background for leading the fight against climate-change policy. Before joining Inhofe's staff he worked for Rush Limbaugh and then played a key role in the 2004 Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Kerry. He recently left Inhofe and is now running Climate Depot
Re: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Wil - It's the history of the climate change discourse that we think this will get decided on the science. I am not convinced that this is where we will win the engagement of the public. Sorry - too skeptical. Of course, you're right that politics gets decided on values. My point before is precisely that this is where most of the winning and losing will happen - on our values, in our guts. The shouting match over scientific factoids simply allows people to postpone some really tough choices that they will need to make on the basis of heuristics (do I trust this contrarian guy better or this liberal greeny, for example). Very few people will process this stuff deeply, systematically, and carefully informed by science. Thus I agree with you that a no-response to contrarians will look like you're avoiding something and THAT will influence people's judgment over what's true about the science, more so than their understanding of the science. So, by all means, keep explaining what's phony science and cherry-picked arguments to your students. Help them respond in a way that make them the more trustworthy debater in the match. But maybe also explain what tough things may be coming down the pike (for them and the vast majority of humankind) if we don't learn to make choices in the face of moral and factual uncertainty and help them help the audience see that necessity (and if you feel so inclined, how to make that choice). Clearly, if this topic had an easy answer I don't think we'd still had these discussions. Susi Dr. Wil Burns wrote: I'm a bit skeptical that a values-based framing is any easier when engaging the general public, Susi, but you've done far more work in this context than I have! I do think that some of these canards (e.g. no warming since 1998) have really helped shift the public's attitudes and need to be confronted directly, because otherwise it's really hard to re-frame the issues. Whether we like it or not, climate policy is decided in democratic forums, and if we lose the debates on science, we lose the critical public support that moves us forward. wil 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: Susanne Moser [mailto:promu...@susannemoser.com] Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 11:55 AM To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Re: FW: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Wil - I agree to some extent, but look at it from a slightly different perspective. Don't think for a minute that it isn't PRECISELY one of their tactics to engage scientists or pro-environmental folks in defensive conversation so that that side doesn't get to make its arguments. I guess, I come down on ATM - answer-transition-message. In other words, don't end with the A to them, help the audience reframe the issue. The problem with an extended debate over factoids is that it hides a values-based discussion behind a factual discussion, and you do it with a public that is unlikely to have the scientific training to really judge the truth. They will go with a gut feeling because that's where a judgment comes from when you don't know the facts. The rhetorical skill of contrarians is typically far better because they know how to use precisely this fact for their case. So, the response to contrarians needs to help people see the values choice they have to make, and not reinforce the erroneous belief that climate science is something that is decided in a democratic forum (see Ron's message, or any of Steve Schneider's statements to the same effect) or in a shouting match. That said, I don't believe plain stupid, cherry-picked, or blatantly wrong stuff should EVER stand. And I agree with you on the valuable teaching involved in parsing apart the contrarian arguments. Just don't forget to also take apart the rhetorical aspects of their approach. If we taught our students not just how to counter false scientific arguments but also how to recognize the elements of rhetoric - I think they would be able to help the audience see the bigger picture of what's going on in one of these debates, and audiences (and the facts about climate change) would be better served. Maybe we don't differ all that much, Susi Dr. Wil Burns wrote: *I actually don't agree with this statement, Susi. I've seen students (and academic) engage in debates with skeptics in public forums where they haven't been able to respond to arguments e.g. global dimming and the allegation that warming actually causes carbon dioxide levels to rise. If you simply state your position without responding to specific counterarguments, you can look dumb. * * * *I'll give you a perfect example, I watched Representative Jim Moran debate Representative Duncan Hunter (who no one would
Re: sustainability and pedagogy material
Peter - I just happened upon this book and I thought it goes right with your list: SUSTAINABLE EDUCATION (Schumacher Briefing No. 6) by Sterling, Stephen 5.00 $7.10 5.55 How will we move towards sustainability? By learning through crisis, or by design? In this Briefing, Stephen Sterling points out that ? Progress towards a more sustainable future critically depends on learning, yet most education and learning take no account of sustainability ? The reorientation of education towards sustainable development since the Agenda 21 agreement of 1992 has been very slow ? Education is largely behind other fields in developing new thinking and practice in response to the challenge of sustainability. The Briefing argues that an ecological view of educational theory, practice and policy is necessary to assist the sustainability transition. It then shows how ?sustainable education??a change of educational culture towards the realization of human potential and the interdependence of social, economic and ecological wellbeing?can lead to transformative learning. It ends with a discussion of change strategies, and includes action suggestions for both policymakers and practitioners. Best, Susi Peter Jacques wrote: Hi folks, here are the responses I received for my request linking sustainability and pedagogy, thanks to those who sent me these suggestions: __ See Peggy F. Bartlett and Geoffrey W. Chase (eds.), /Sustainability on Campus/ (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2004) you might also look at the following for ideas: http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/classes/ee080s/Fall08/ _ "Wackernagel, Mathis, and William E. Rees. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gaboriola Island: New Society Publ." Peter J. Jacques, Ph.D. Department of Political Science University of Central Florida P.O. Box 161356 4000 Central Florida Blvd. Orlando, FL 32816-1356 Phone: (407) 823-2608 Fax: (407) 823-0051 http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: promu...@susannemoser.com
[Fwd: CALL FOR AUTHORS: Green Series]
An opportunity maybe someone on this list is interested in? Please direct all inquiries to Dustin Mulvaney; I don't know any more than what is in this message. Best, Susi From: Dustin Robert Mulvaney dustin.mulva...@gmail.com Date: January 21, 2009 7:15:25 PM PST Subject: [C8] CALL FOR AUTHORS: Green Series please forward to folks working on food or energy... Hello colleagues, There are a few unclaimed entries in the Green Series I am editing through SAGE. I've listed them at the bottom of this email. If you are interested and have the time please contact Ellen below. You will have your deadline extended beyond that described in the call for authors. Thanks! Dustin Mulvaney CALL FOR AUTHORS: Green Series We are inviting academic editorial contributors to the Green Series, a new electronic reference series for academic and public libraries addressing all aspects of environmental issues, including alternative energies, sustainability, politics, agriculture, and many other subjects that will comprise a 12-title set. Each title has approximately 150 articles (much like encyclopedia articles) on major themes, ranging from 1,000 to 4,000 words. We are starting the assignment process for articles for the first three titles in the series with a deadline of February 2, 2009: Green Energy Green Politics Green Food This comprehensive project will be published in stages by SAGE eReference and will be marketed to academic and public libraries as a digital, online product available to students via the library’s electronic services. The Series Editor is Paul Robbins, Ph.D., University of Arizona, and the General Editor for the first three titles is Dustin R. Mulvaney, Ph.D., UC-Santa Cruz. Both editors will be reviewing each submission to the project. If you are interested in contributing to this cutting-edge reference, it can be a notable publication addition to your CV/resume and broaden your publishing credits. SAGE Publications offers an honorarium ranging from SAGE book credits for smaller articles up to free access to the online product for contributions totaling 10,000 words or more per volume. The list of available articles is already prepared, and as a next step we will e-mail you the Article List (Excel file) from which you can select topics that best fit your expertise and interests. Additionally, Style and Submission Guidelines will be provided that detail article specifications. If you would like to contribute to building a truly outstanding reference with the Green Series, please contact me by the e-mail information below. Please provide a brief summary of your academic/publishing credentials in environmental issues. Thanks very much. Ellen Ingber Author Manager Golson Media gr...@golsonmedia.com entries and word counts Green Energy Alternative Energy, 1200 Automobiles, 1500 Batteries and energy storage, 1250 Best Management Practices, 1250 Biodiesel, 1200 Biogas digester, 1000 Carbon Emission Factors, 1200 Combustion Engine, 1250 Compact Fluorescent Bulb, 1200 Electric Vehicles, 1500 Flex Fuel Cars, 1200 Food Miles, 1500 Forecasting, 1000 Landfill methane, 1250 Life Cycle Analysis, 1500 Metering, 1200 Mountaintop Removal, 1500 Oil Majors, 2000 Petroviolence, 2000 Volatile Organic Compound, 1000 Wave Power, 1000 Green Politics PCBs, 1200 Green Food Agricultural Commodity Programs, 1500 California Certified Organic Farmers, 1200 Corn, 2000 Dairy, 1500 USDA, 1500 Disappearing Middle, 1250 Dioxins, 1200 Farm Bill, 2000 Fertilizer, 1000 Food Justice, 1250 Grain-fed beef, 1200 Irradiation, 1200 Just-in-time, 1200 Legume Crops, 1250 Mechanization, 1500 Nanotechnology and Food, 1200 Nitrogen Fixation, 1250 Northeast Organic Farming Association, 1250 Permaculture, 1500 RoundUp Ready Crops, 1200 Salmonella, 1200 Sewage Sludge, 1250 Stewardship, 1500 Supermarket chains, 1500 Sustainable Agriculture, 2000 Weed management, 1250 -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: promu...@susannemoser.com
Re: thesis and dissertation writing -- noted without comment
Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: promu...@susannemoser.com
Re: book recommendations
Hm, interesting - we had a related question on this before. Depends obviously on the flavor of the family, age, leanings etc. But the coffee table approach - Gary Braasch's photographs of stuff already happening may be an aesthetically pleasing introduction... (this is one of his books, there are several) http://www.amazon.com/Know-What-About-Changing-Climate/dp/1584691034/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1228929064sr=1-21 How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming (About Our Changing Climate) http://www.amazon.com/Know-What-About-Changing-Climate/dp/1584691034/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1228929064sr=1-21 by Lynne Cherry and Gary Braasch Houghton's overview, a bit dated, haven't read - but he does this interesting balance in speaking from science and values: http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Complete-John-Houghton/dp/0521528747/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1228929117sr=1-35 Global Warming: The Complete Briefing http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Complete-John-Houghton/dp/0521528747/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1228929117sr=1-35 by John Houghton (Paperback - Sep 6, 2004) Also extremely credible, post-humously published is this historical account by one deeply involved: A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.amazon.com/History-Science-Politics-Climate-Change/dp/0521088739/ref=sr_1_55?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1228929342sr=1-55 by Bert Bolin (Paperback - Oct 30, 2008) Not sure any of these make for a merry holiday dinner conversation, but good for these kids to want to try. (Note the approach to social change!) Susi VanDeveer, Stacy wrote: Hi -- My students were just saying last week that they were taking the Doughman ed. book (which I used in a Freshman seminar) home for the holidays. So, they seemed to think that was a good one. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Betsill,Michele Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:30 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: book recommendations I had an interesting request from a couple of students taking my undergrad climate change politics course. They want to buy a book for their parents for Xmas that will help open up a conversation on climate change. They want something that is written for the lay public and not too in your face. The first books that came to my mind were Speth's RED SKY AT MORNING and Doughman's edited volume CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT IT MEANS FOR US, OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN. Any other suggestions? Thanks, M ___ Michele M. Betsill Associate Professor Department of Political Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 USA 970.491.5270 -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technological optimism (or is it?)
Dear colleagues - For scholarly and practical reasons I am interested in a particular facet of the American mind and I am wondering if you can point me to some insightful, thoughtful literature on this matter: I get to be on a lot of panels with other scientists doing outreach to a variety of publics on climate change, the most recent one yesterday to representatives of the entertainment industry (writers, directors, producers etc.) in Hollywood. (The audience may be an item of conversation for another time... certainly interesting). What I am concerned with here is the particular bias of the messengers that seems to hook nicely into a particular kind of wishful thinking present in the audience: and that is the almost universal and uncritical optimism that technology alone will save us. I say this with some trepidation as many of you may share that same belief (or hope anyway) that technological improvements and innovation will pull this fossil cart out of the hot climate ditch. And I hasten to add that I am not an anti-technologist, but rather believe that technology will play an important role in many aspects of how we will lower our greenhouse gas emissions. My challenge with the technological optimism is that it seems to come almost invariably with a denial of the need for concurrent social change (from individual behavioral changes to deeper social norm and value changes regarding the number of children and gadgets we seem to desire). Among many who believe in the technology will save us-credo it also seems to come with a dismissal of the unintended consequences as warranting careful consideration (oh of course... but that's the price we have to pay, we will just have to manage those consequences). The worst of that sort of optimism I notice around the Green Revolution (as a model for what we need in agriculture) and around geosequestration (having given up on markets and policies, proponents view technologies like space mirrors as inevitable). We could go off an any one of these tangents. What interests me most though is where this American techno-optimism (and concurrent denial of the need to look at personal choices) comes from. In my work in Europe and Australia, I find - by contrast - quite a readiness to consider behavior, consumerism, value changes as viable targets to address. Not that Europe or Australia aren't interested in technological innovation; I simply find there a greater (civic?) willingness to look at one's own behavior, and to be more skeptical of what technology can do for us. Do any of you know of literature that discusses (explains, critiques, denies, examines) this phenomenon? Maybe it's just my serendipitous experience, but I doubt it. So, if you can point me in the right direction, or tell me of smart listserves where I can inquire, I'd much appreciate your help. If you just want to reply to me, I am happy to collect the replies but maybe this will spawn some interesting discussion for all. Many thanks, Susi -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question: history of federally funded climate change research in US
Hi folks - Am wondering whether you ever-so-helpful people could give me a quick hand. I am trying to capture (in a paragraph. or two...) the history of climate change research funded through federal funds in the US. I am pretty familiar with the US Global Change Research Act of 1990, and its continuation through the Clinton years, and then the transformation of the USGCRP into the Climate Change Science Program under Bush the Lesser. What I am less familiar with (essentially pre-dating my presence in the US and my interest in it) is what was happening with federal funds on climate change prior to 1990 and what are some of the earlier roots. I'd most appreciate little summaries with references, or attached articles, or links to sources - am under deadline pressure so won't have time to go to a library right now. It also doesn't have to be very specific. I just want to get it basically right. Many thanks for your help! Susi -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pacific Climate Solutions Center
may be of interest to some: The Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS), funded by a $90M endowment, headquartered at the University of Victoria, in Victoria BC, is looking for a director. The ad and a position profile are found here http://pics.uvic.ca/directorsearch/index.php Susi -- ~~ Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Director, Principal Scientist Research Associate Susanne Moser Research Consulting Institute of Marine Sciences 134 Shelter Lagoon Dr. University of California-Santa Cruz Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: frameworks for social-ecological studies?
Michael - Since you already mention resilience - I definitely would point you to the work of the Resilience Alliance and the countless cases and studies and more conceptual/theoretical writings of allied researchers that are published in the RA's scientific outlet called /Ecology and Society/ - which is an open access, online journal. Easy to find, if you haven't already. You may want to be aware that in the resilience and global change literatures there are fine differences (and grand debates) over whether to call these systems socio-ecological, social-ecological, or coupled human-natural systems, or any other such flavor. Search under each keyword and you will uncover a wider range of relevant literature, and a discussion of the differences. Best, Susi Kathy McAfee wrote: Michael, The framework for understanding human-environment relations and challenges that I find most useful is political ecology, especially work by geographers. There are many classics in that field, starting with Piers Blaikie 1985/ The Political Economy of Soil Erosion/ Methuen Some more recent synthesis include: Roderick P. Neumann 2005/ Making Political Ecology/ Oxford Univ P Hodder Arnold Paul Robbins 2004/ Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction/ Wiley-Blackwell Tim Forsyth 2003/ Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental Scienc/e Routledge Karl Zimmerer and Thomas Bassett 2003/ Political Ecology/ Guilford Raymond Bryant and Sinead Bailey 1997/ Third World Political Ecology/ Routledge There are also several recent edited collections that may contain gems you could use for yourself it not your students. A 2008 issue of/ Geoforum/ in assesses the field via a focus on the legacy of Piers Blaikie. Also germane to your question: Noel Castree/ Nature/ Routledge 2005 Kathy McAfee Hi everyone, I'm currently teaching a course on People and the Environment, and I'm trying to find a few different analytical frameworks for studying human-environment interactions for this class and for a paper that I'm finishing up. I am currently using the IAD Framework and theories of resilience to study these interactions. Ultimately, I'm looking for ways of thinking about social systems that will resonate with people struggling with challenges in conservation. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Mike Michael L. Schoon Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis School of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University 513 N Park St. Bloomington, IN 47408 (w): (812) 856-2693 (m): (812) 360-9681 Skype: mlschoon1 -- Kathleen McAfee Department of International Relations San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, CA 94321 Spring 2007 office hours: Mon. 3:30-5:30 in HSS 381 /[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ -- Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Institute for the Study of Society and Environment (ISSE) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 303.921.6539 Url: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/moser/ *** NOTE: I am on leave from NCAR from August 2007 through July 2008 at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. You can continue to reach me via this email and phone number. ***
Re: for consideration: adding your voice to the fight against political manipulation of science
Simon (and others outside the U.S.)- Here is the answer I got from Michael Halpern at UCS, clarifying whether this is open to non-US scientists: Hi Susi - Sorry for the ambiguity. The statement is only open to U.S. residents or U.S. citizens living abroad. U.S. residents, or those with a U.S. mailing address, can sign the statement _through the website._ The latter can send an email with their name and address to sign on, as international addresses submitted through the webform will be rejected. Sorry if this caused you to send to the wrong folks, and thanks for your help. Michael Simon Dalby wrote: Hi: Is this limited to Americans only or is it an international appeal? S.D. On Jan 4, 2008 11:00 AM, Susanne Moser [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Gep-ed'ers - Not sure it's appropriate to have a bit of political activism in the name of science here (Wil? - please advise). If it's not o.k. - push the delete button now. Otherwise, maybe you might consider this (and forward to colleagues): I want to draw your attention to a statement I signed to voice my concern about the manipulation, suppression, and distortion of science for political reasons. Signatories to this statement include 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and almost 200 members of the National Academies. You can read more about the statement and add your name by visiting http://www.ucsusa.org/rsi_statement . The deadline for signing the statement is January 25, 2008. We have seen political interference in science on issues from toxic mercury pollution to global warming to prescription drug safety. Because of these actions, decisions about our health and environment are made without access to the best available science. Since 2004, more than 12,000 scientists, engineers, and public health professionals have signed on to the scientist statement on restoring scientific integrity to federal policy making. This document continues to be regularly referenced by the media and Congress as evidence of the scientific community's deep concern about this problem. Visit http://www.ucsusa.org/rsi_statement to read the letter and sign on today. By signing the statement, you'll help demonstrate widespread concern among scientists about this increasing problem. And you'll have the option to receive updates once or, at most, twice a month from UCS with the latest news about efforts to prevent the misuse of science on a variety of issues--as well as what steps you can take to defend science from political interference. For more information about this issue, visit http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/ . If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for the Scientific Integrity Network at: http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction3/join.html?r=Q7Lm4j7qXaZpE; http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction3/join.html?r=Q7Lm4j7qXaZpE; thanks for considering it, Susi -- Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Institute for the Study of Society and Environment (ISSE) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 303.921.6539 Url: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/moser/ *** NOTE: I am on leave from NCAR from August 2007 through July 2008 at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. You can continue to reach me via this email and phone number. *** -- Simon Dalby, Ph.D. Professor, Carleton University www.carleton.ca/~sdalby http://www.carleton.ca/%7Esdalby Political Geography Section Editor of Geography Compass (www.blackwell-compass.com http://www.blackwell-compass.com) -- Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Institute for the Study of Society and Environment (ISSE) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 303.921.6539 Url: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/moser/ *** NOTE: I am on leave from NCAR from August 2007 through July 2008 at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. You can continue to reach me via this email and phone number. ***
for consideration: adding your voice to the fight against political manipulation of science
Hi Gep-ed'ers - Not sure it's appropriate to have a bit of political activism in the name of science here (Wil? - please advise). If it's not o.k. - push the delete button now. Otherwise, maybe you might consider this (and forward to colleagues): I want to draw your attention to a statement I signed to voice my concern about the manipulation, suppression, and distortion of science for political reasons. Signatories to this statement include 52 Nobel Laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and almost 200 members of the National Academies. You can read more about the statement and add your name by visiting http://www.ucsusa.org/rsi_statement . The deadline for signing the statement is January 25, 2008. We have seen political interference in science on issues from toxic mercury pollution to global warming to prescription drug safety. Because of these actions, decisions about our health and environment are made without access to the best available science. Since 2004, more than 12,000 scientists, engineers, and public health professionals have signed on to the scientist statement on restoring scientific integrity to federal policy making. This document continues to be regularly referenced by the media and Congress as evidence of the scientific community's deep concern about this problem. Visit http://www.ucsusa.org/rsi_statement to read the letter and sign on today. By signing the statement, you'll help demonstrate widespread concern among scientists about this increasing problem. And you'll have the option to receive updates once or, at most, twice a month from UCS with the latest news about efforts to prevent the misuse of science on a variety of issues--as well as what steps you can take to defend science from political interference. For more information about this issue, visit http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/ . If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for the Scientific Integrity Network at: http://ucsaction.org/ucsaction3/join.html?r=Q7Lm4j7qXaZpE; thanks for considering it, Susi -- Susanne C. Moser, Ph.D. Institute for the Study of Society and Environment (ISSE) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) P.O. Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 303.921.6539 Url: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/moser/ *** NOTE: I am on leave from NCAR from August 2007 through July 2008 at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. You can continue to reach me via this email and phone number. ***
