Re: Climategate Impacts
Dear all, In response to DG Webster's comment: If we all believed the same thing, then when we are wrong we will be very very wrong. When there are many different beliefs, it's more likely that some will be right, but less likely that we'll all act together based on that person's position. Thus, as frustrating as the stolen e-mails, the climate negotiations, and the differences of opinion may be to the list, these are symptoms of a profound aspect of human--and non-human--existence: variation is key to our survival. That it could also be the source of our downfall is ironic, but not inevitable. The notion of societal strength through diversity of perspectives is a common one in anthropology, and an important one, also in climate science and associated politics. I personally do not conflate the categories of climate skeptics and climate deniers, as many commentators and even scholars do; there are very honest and earnest skeptics whose interpretations get muffled by that, and they may indeed know part of the puzzle - see the third of the articles listed below for an example of that. So it is important to not alienate these scientists through use of such language. Others may rightly be called deniers. A key point I want to make in response to you, DG, is the importance of attending to power inequities. There is a need to analyze, expose and seek to transform the political and economic systems that give such power to the voice of a few, in particular those I indeed would call the deniers. In other words, recognition of strength through diversity should not result in laissez-faire - in a position which overlooks the financial and political machinery that explains why climate skepticism is so strong in the US compared to other countries. I have developed this argument in the first of the articles listed below. I appreciate Susi's rejection of the term ClimateGate; those of us who generally support the IPCC and are concerned about global warming should seek not to use it, as its mere use places the IPCC scientists in the position of accused and guilty by association. Having analyzed US climate politics since the mid 1990s, this hacked email incident is yet another instance of carefully crafted theater, similar to that which was been crafted in the wake of the releases of IPCC reports. The second of the references below is a careful analysis of one such incident. Only with hindsight did the key IPCC scientist involved also himself recognize that he was but an unwilling actor in a staged event, which started at a hearing in US Congress. It seems to me that the important role for concerned analysts is to seek ways to inform decision-makers and publics (those who are disposed to listen and think, anyhow; the rest are a lost cause) about both the limits and the strenghts of peer-reviewed science; we need to develop a more critical understanding of what science can and cannot do, getting rid of the erroneous scientific fundamentalism that exists in US culture (cf. Chris Toumey's book, Conjuring Science) without throwing the baby out with the bath water - that is, while salvaging and strengthening recognition of the importance of peer-reviewed science. Again, see the first reference for my attempt to do that. The second article serves the same purpose to the extent that it shows, in careful detailed analysis, that the distortions and biases that prevail on the anti-environmental side is much, much greater than those that exist on the other side, and also in large measure disingenuous. A key point, however, is that this kind of analysis needs to get outside of the academy. My own article is a case in point. It's difficult to do that, in current academic incentive structures and an age of sound bites...which gets us to the problem of the political economy and orientation of current educational and media structures. By contrast to the work of most academics, the theatrics of the anti-climate forces and associated scientists are supported by the expensive services of top public relations firms. Cheers, Myanna -- Myanna Lahsen, Associate Researcher Center for Earth System Science, The National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Av. dos Astronautas, 1.758 - Jd. Granja São José dos Campos, SP 12227-010 Brazil Telephone: Direct tel. number: +55 12 3945-7133; Secretary +55 12 3945 7126 / 3945-7127 Fax: +55 12 3945-7126 -- *Lahsen, Myanna. “Technocracy, Democracy, and **U.S.** Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations” *Article published in *Science, Technology, and Human Values* Vol. 30, No. 1 (Winter 2005), pp. 137-169. Electronically available at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1892-2005.50.pdf Ulrich Beck and other theorists of reflexive modernization are allies in the general projectto reduce technocracy and elitism by rendering decision making more democratic and robust. However, this study of U.S. climate politics reveals complexities and
Re: Climategate Impacts
Greetings, I woke up this morning to this long train of GEP emails on Copenhagen and climategate, all of which make interesting if now divergent readings. I thought I'd add a comment to Myanna's, DG's, Mat and Suzi's thread about East Anglia and the email fiasco as I have some personal experience with this matter that casts it in a somewhat different light and raises important questions that go beyond the science debate. As it happened, I made several visits to EAU between 2001 and 2005 as part of my effort to get inside of the EU climate policymaking process during my tenure with California's Resources Agency. As it happened, I struck up a friendship with Tim O'Riodan - true scholar and gentleman - who generously introduced me to Phil Jones and the other scientists working at the Climate Research Unit. As has been generally true with most scientists with whom I have worked over the years, they were affable and enthusiastic about sharing their research. Yet, as time went on something less flatering began to emerge. I think the problem crystalized in my mind during a conversation that I had with Tim in his office in 2002, which coincided with California's energy crisis and the emerging role of Enron in manipulating the Western power grid to run up the price of electricity. To my horror, Tim began extolling the green credentials of Kenneth Lay and opined that he would be an excellent point around which climate policymaking could be formed in the U.S. Of course, he was oblivious as to the corporate Ken Lay and his criminal activities onbehalf of Enron, which then suggested that Tim had a sadly limited view of the world of real politics notwithstanding his many, many years of writing about the politics of EU climate policy. From that point forward, I began to look at the EAU and its role in British climate policymaking differently, eventually coming to see how Tim has built that program as the flagship U.K. climate research centre that it now is as an extension of the U.K. government and not in any sense as an independent research entity. Hence, the problem, as Nietzsche observed, is that developing relationships with power shifts control to the centre of power, even while developing an illusion of power at the margins. For Tim and the CRU, this meant that a certain hubris developed around their science knowledge and relationships with policymakers, leading to the sad attacks on those, such as Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who were not sufficiently enthusiastic about their views and program. This problem, however, is not CRU's alone, as I had similar experiences with other government associated programs in the U.S. and Europe, and witnessed other instances of personal and professional attacks on climate scientists and policy analysts who dared raised questions or expressed reservations about the substance and/or direction of climate policymaking. The problem with the CRU emails is much deeper than the evidence they provide of disputes within climate science: they represent a pattern of isolation and arrogance that developed as CRU and EAU moved inside the policymaking process. Knowing some of the participants and retaining at least one friendship at CRU, I know they are deeply troubled by what has happened, and at least a few of them recognize how it came to be. What was lost there over the years - humility for what they didn't know and respect for those with whom they had honest disagreements, is always at risk when the politics of policymaking intrudes into careers and creates hierarchies of power. I have worked long enough (forty years) in community politics to know that publics high and low, rich and poor, implicitly understand this problem, even when they don't know the details, and their skepicism about climate science, which in any case varies from culture to culture for a variety of reasons, reflects their exclusion from it. Best regards Darrell Whitman Davis, California - Original Message - From: Myanna Lahsen To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: Wallace, Richard ; Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:07 AM Subject: Re: Climategate Impacts Dear all, In response to DG Webster's comment: If we all believed the same thing, then when we are wrong we will be very very wrong. When there are many different beliefs, it's more likely that some will be right, but less likely that we'll all act together based on that person's position. Thus, as frustrating as the stolen e-mails, the climate negotiations, and the differences of opinion may be to the list, these are symptoms of a profound aspect of human--and non-human--existence: variation is key to our survival. That it could also be the source of our downfall is ironic, but not inevitable. The notion of societal strength through diversity of perspectives is a common one in anthropology, and an important one, also
RE: Climategate Impacts
Darrell, While I dont agree with your portrayal of CRU, or Phil, lets assume, arguendo, youre correct about the hubris, conspiracies, etc. The bottom line is that CRUs datasets for temperature increases are virtually identical with the raw data from weather stations; in fact, CRUs findings are a little LOWER. At the end of the day I dont give a plug nickel about the foibles of scientists, who like all of us in academia, the corporate world, and government, can demonstrate pettiness and vindictiveness, and yes, frustration. Also, as APs analysis, and that of Pew convincingly demonstrate, the conclusions at CRU have been replicated in many other venues. If you want to allege that all climatologists are engaged in this conspiracy (I guess for the big bucks, ha ha; if you want to cash in, you become a skeptic scientist, a lot less competition and a real pile of money supplied by the folks who gave you the Global Climate Coalition), then all bets are off. wil 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 mailto:ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org http://www.jiwlp.com/ http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns From: Darrell Whitman [mailto:dwhit...@dcn.davis.ca.us] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 9:44 AM To: Myanna Lahsen; williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: Wallace, Richard; Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe Subject: Re: Climategate Impacts Greetings, I woke up this morning to this long train of GEP emails on Copenhagen and climategate, all of which make interesting if now divergent readings. I thought I'd add a comment to Myanna's, DG's, Mat and Suzi's thread about East Anglia and the email fiasco as I have some personal experience with this matter that casts it in a somewhat different light and raises important questions that go beyond the science debate. As it happened, I made several visits to EAU between 2001 and 2005 as part of my effort to get inside of the EU climate policymaking process during my tenure with California's Resources Agency. As it happened, I struck up a friendship with Tim O'Riodan - true scholar and gentleman - who generously introduced me to Phil Jones and the other scientists working at the Climate Research Unit. As has been generally true with most scientists with whom I have worked over the years, they were affable and enthusiastic about sharing their research. Yet, as time went on something less flatering began to emerge. I think the problem crystalized in my mind during a conversation that I had with Tim in his office in 2002, which coincided with California's energy crisis and the emerging role of Enron in manipulating the Western power grid to run up the price of electricity. To my horror, Tim began extolling the green credentials of Kenneth Lay and opined that he would be an excellent point around which climate policymaking could be formed in the U.S. Of course, he was oblivious as to the corporate Ken Lay and his criminal activities onbehalf of Enron, which then suggested that Tim had a sadly limited view of the world of real politics notwithstanding his many, many years of writing about the politics of EU climate policy. From that point forward, I began to look at the EAU and its role in British climate policymaking differently, eventually coming to see how Tim has built that program as the flagship U.K. climate research centre that it now is as an extension of the U.K. government and not in any sense as an independent research entity. Hence, the problem, as Nietzsche observed, is that developing relationships with power shifts control to the centre of power, even while developing an illusion of power at the margins. For Tim and the CRU, this meant that a certain hubris developed around their science knowledge and relationships with policymakers, leading to the sad attacks on those, such as Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who were not sufficiently enthusiastic about their views and program. This problem, however, is not CRU's alone, as I had similar experiences with other government associated programs in the U.S. and Europe, and witnessed other instances of personal and professional attacks on climate scientists and policy analysts who dared raised questions or expressed reservations about the substance and/or direction of climate policymaking. The problem with the CRU emails is much deeper than the evidence they provide of disputes within climate science: they represent a pattern of isolation and arrogance that developed as CRU and EAU moved inside the policymaking process. Knowing some of the participants and retaining at least one friendship at CRU, I know they are deeply troubled by what has happened, and at least a few of them recognize how it came to be. What was lost
Re: Climategate Impacts
Judy Curry - a climate scientists with laurels earned in the trenches of dealing with skepticsm and attach (though not necessarily denialism) has called what Darrell describes at UEA as tribalism and you can search for her open letters to students and the world under that keyword online. It's hard for us outsiders to judge whether that is truly what is going on there. I am just struck by not just the politics of this issue, but the psychology of it. There are growing numbers of people freaking out about what they see as a climate crisis of utmost urgency given we don't have a back-up habitable planet in our back pockets. On the other side is an equally freaked-out vocal minority that blocks action to preserve the status quo (as Mayanna rightfully pointed out a failure of our allegedly democratic and multi-lateral political systems) with a vast malleable populace in between. Everyone involved very human, every stance explainable, yet as we get into these more existential matters, people do things they would not necessarily call decent under less threatening circumstances (and I mean, threatening to both sides of this polarized debate). How do we conduct ourselves civicly in such circumstances? There is after all a chance it won't get any better climatologically, economically, psychologically and politically Susi Wil Burns wrote: *Darrell,* * * *While I don’t agree with your portrayal of CRU, or Phil, let’s assume, arguendo, you’re correct about the hubris, conspiracies, etc. The bottom line is that CRU’s datasets for temperature increases are virtually identical with the raw data from weather stations; in fact, CRU’s findings are a little LOWER. At the end of the day I don’t give a plug nickel about the foibles of scientists, who like all of us in academia, the corporate world, and government, can demonstrate pettiness and vindictiveness, and yes, frustration. Also, as AP’s analysis, and that of Pew convincingly demonstrate, the conclusions at CRU have been replicated in many other venues. If you want to allege that all climatologists are engaged in this conspiracy (I guess for the big bucks, ha ha; if you want to cash in, you become a skeptic scientist, a lot less competition and a real pile of money supplied by the folks who gave you the Global Climate Coalition), then all bets are off. wil* * * * * *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* * * *From:* Darrell Whitman [mailto:dwhit...@dcn.davis.ca.us] *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2009 9:44 AM *To:* Myanna Lahsen; williamcgbu...@comcast.net *Cc:* Wallace, Richard; Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe *Subject:* Re: Climategate Impacts Greetings, I woke up this morning to this long train of GEP emails on Copenhagen and climategate, all of which make interesting if now divergent readings. I thought I'd add a comment to Myanna's, DG's, Mat and Suzi's thread about East Anglia and the email fiasco as I have some personal experience with this matter that casts it in a somewhat different light and raises important questions that go beyond the science debate. As it happened, I made several visits to EAU between 2001 and 2005 as part of my effort to get inside of the EU climate policymaking process during my tenure with California's Resources Agency. As it happened, I struck up a friendship with Tim O'Riodan - true scholar and gentleman - who generously introduced me to Phil Jones and the other scientists working at the Climate Research Unit. As has been generally true with most scientists with whom I have worked over the years, they were affable and enthusiastic about sharing their research. Yet, as time went on something less flatering began to emerge. I think the problem crystalized in my mind during a conversation that I had with Tim in his office in 2002, which coincided with California's energy crisis and the emerging role of Enron in manipulating the Western power grid to run up the price of electricity. To my horror, Tim began extolling the green credentials of Kenneth Lay and opined that he would be an excellent point around which climate policymaking could be formed in the U.S. Of course, he was oblivious as to the corporate Ken Lay and his criminal activities onbehalf of Enron, which then suggested that Tim had a sadly limited view of the world of real politics notwithstanding his many, many years of writing about the politics of EU climate policy. From that point forward, I began to look at the EAU and its role in British climate policymaking differently, eventually coming to see how Tim has
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: Climategate Impacts
And isn't it fascinating that the skeptics can publish petitions of scientists (virtually none of whom are climatologists) that also includes the names of some of the Spice Girls and the public's faith in science doesn't budge, but this incident .. But I guess the skeptics couldn't lose even if their often unethical actions resulted in less faith in science, because the default would be to not act . 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 mailto:ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org http://www.jiwlp.com/ http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns From: Wallace, Richard [mailto:rwall...@ursinus.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:13 AM To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net; Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe Subject: RE: Climategate Impacts 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 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/AR2009121800 002.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 mailto:ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org http://www.jiwlp.com/ http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns
