Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
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
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
patterns of growth and humanity’s ‘continuing transformation of the earth’ (Schellnhuber et al.), has in fact made the pursuit of more sustainable futures that much harder, and vulnerable to endless debates on scientific ‘truths’ (which Wil and Larry remind us, are actually not that uncertain). But we are on our way to Copenhagen. Happy Sunday, Olivia ps. a quote from Suzanne Duarte which somehow links to Simon’s point about the shift needed: ‘…people who don’t like the message blame, or ‘shoot,’ the messenger. The message of ‘hope’ that is demanded by these people is actually the hope that we don’t have to take responsibility for ourselves and our world by changing how we live, and with what we preoccupy ourselves. The hope that many people want is very conditional. They can only take hope if they are reassured that things will continue as they have been during this very extraordinary last few decades’. Suzanne Duarte, Waking Up in a Former Empire at the End of the Industrial Age http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/05/waking-up-in-a-former-empire-at-the-end-of-the-industrial-age/ Posted May 18th, 2009 *** Olivia Bina Assistant Professor, Energy and Sustainable Development Programme Director, Centre for Strategic Environmental Assessment for China Department of Geography and Resource Management The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong S.A.R. work: (00852) 2609 6647 email: o.c.bina...@cantab.net skype: oliviabina *** On 5 Jul 2009, at 06:21, Alcock, Frank wrote: I understand the anger and frustration that is widely felt among those that are concerned about climate change -- I hold many similar sentiments. I dont't doubt that the cathartic venting can be a theraputic exercise. And I realize that some skeptics and some conservatives are a lost cause -- no evidence or argument will persuade them to think differently. But there are a number of key constituencies (in key congressional districts and states) that are pivotal to passing legislation in the US: blue-collar dems, moderate republicans and independents of various stripes. How do each of these constituences frame the climate issue and what types of arguments and associated evidence are likely to persuade them to support a progressive climate and energy agenda? I'll refrain from a longwinded answer to this question but would recommend Drew Westen's The Political Brain for a general take on how we process information and respond to political arguments and Tony Leiserowitz' work for a more specific focus on public opinion associated with climate and energy issues. Suffice it to say that what appears to be self-righteous indignation and shaming is often counterproductive. Ditto the doomsday scenarios. Krugman's anger might have been directed at Congress (it wasn't just directed at republicans but also dems who voted against the bill...he seems to have a considerable amount of contempt for moderate dems if you haven't noticed) but he indirectly labels all Americans who have doubts about the bill as traitors. Whether or not you agree with him is one issue. How the folks in key constituency groups (many of whom are experiencing severe economic turmoil and associated anxiety) respond is another. I suspect it'll make them more receptive to liberal environmentalist caricatures as framed by conservative skeptics. From: VanDeveer, Stacy [mailto:stacy.vandev...@unh.edu] Sent: Sat 7/4/2009 2:43 PM To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net; Alcock, Frank; 'Paul Wapner' Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu ; 'Steve Hoffman' Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' I agree with Wil on this one. Krugman's anger and contempt are not aimed all all citizens who are skeptical, but squarely at Republicans in Congress -- elected in theory to represent people's interests. Yes, some are representing shorter term economic interests of their districts. But most, in fact, are working to do very serious harm to millions of people (Americans and not) and they don't give a damn and they have offered nothing in the way of constructive policy ideas. Some anger and contempt for such folks is not misplaced, in my view... From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu ] On Behalf Of Dr. Wil Burns [williamcgbu...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:29 PM To: 'Alcock, Frank'; 'Paul Wapner' Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu ; 'Steve Hoffman' Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Hi Frank, I actually didn’t find Krugman’s piece as so much smug as extremely angry, and I have to say it’s exactly how I feel on this issue, especially when I watch my six-year
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
of unsustainable patterns of growth and humanity’s ‘continuing transformation of the earth’ (Schellnhuber et al.), has in fact made the pursuit of more sustainable futures that much harder, and vulnerable to endless debates on scientific ‘truths’ (which Wil and Larry remind us, are actually not *that* uncertain). But we are on our way to Copenhagen. Happy Sunday, Olivia ps. a quote from Suzanne Duarte which somehow links to Simon’s point about the shift needed: ‘…people who don’t like the message blame, or ‘shoot,’ the messenger. The message of ‘hope’ that is demanded by these people is actually the hope that we don’t have to take responsibility for ourselves and our world by changing how we live, and with what we preoccupy ourselves. The hope that many people want is very conditional. They can only take hope if they are reassured that things will continue as they have been during this very extraordinary last few decades’. Suzanne Duarte, Waking Up in a Former Empire at the End of the Industrial Age http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/05/waking-up-in-a-former-empire-at-the-end-of-the-industrial-age/Posted May 18th, 2009 *** Olivia Bina Assistant Professor, Energy and Sustainable Development Programme Director, Centre for Strategic Environmental Assessment for China Department of Geography and Resource Management The Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong S.A.R. work: (00852) 2609 6647 email: o.c.bina...@cantab.net skype: oliviabina *** On 5 Jul 2009, at 06:21, Alcock, Frank wrote: I understand the anger and frustration that is widely felt among those that are concerned about climate change -- I hold many similar sentiments. I dont't doubt that the cathartic venting can be a theraputic exercise. And I realize that some skeptics and some conservatives are a lost cause -- no evidence or argument will persuade them to think differently. But there are a number of key constituencies (in key congressional districts and states) that are pivotal to passing legislation in the US: blue-collar dems, moderate republicans and independents of various stripes. How do each of these constituences frame the climate issue and what types of arguments and associated evidence are likely to persuade them to support a progressive climate and energy agenda? I'll refrain from a longwinded answer to this question but would recommend Drew Westen's The Political Brain for a general take on how we process information and respond to political arguments and Tony Leiserowitz' work for a more specific focus on public opinion associated with climate and energy issues. Suffice it to say that what appears to be self-righteous indignation and shaming is often counterproductive. Ditto the doomsday scenarios. Krugman's anger might have been directed at Congress (it wasn't just directed at republicans but also dems who voted against the bill...he seems to have a considerable amount of contempt for moderate dems if you haven't noticed) but he indirectly labels all Americans who have doubts about the bill as traitors. Whether or not you agree with him is one issue. How the folks in key constituency groups (many of whom are experiencing severe economic turmoil and associated anxiety) respond is another. I suspect it'll make them more receptive to liberal environmentalist caricatures as framed by conservative skeptics. -- *From:* VanDeveer, Stacy [mailto:stacy.vandev...@unh.edustacy.vandev...@unh.edu ] *Sent:* Sat 7/4/2009 2:43 PM *To:* williamcgbu...@comcast.net; Alcock, Frank; 'Paul Wapner' *Cc:* gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman' *Subject:* RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' I agree with Wil on this one. Krugman's anger and contempt are not aimed all all citizens who are skeptical, but squarely at Republicans in Congress -- elected in theory to represent people's interests. Yes, some are representing shorter term economic interests of their districts. But most, in fact, are working to do very serious harm to millions of people (Americans and not) and they don't give a damn and they have offered nothing in the way of constructive policy ideas. Some anger and contempt for such folks is not misplaced, in my view... From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [ owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Wil Burns [ williamcgbu...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:29 PM To: 'Alcock, Frank'; 'Paul Wapner' Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman' Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Hi Frank, I actually didn’t find Krugman’s piece as so much smug as extremely angry, and I have to say it’s exactly
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
dear kate (et al), i was lecturing in brazil a couple of weeks ago and the 'is it really true' question came up with surprising frequency. turns out that a very prestigious figure, the former rector of the university of brazilia, is a climate change denier. there have been strong replies to him in the brazilian media, but nevertheless his influence seems to have kept the doubts alive. all best, dale ** Dale Jamieson Director of Environmental Studies Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy Affiliated Professor of Law Environmental Studies Program New York University 285 Mercer Street, 901 New York NY 10003-6653 Voice 212-998-5429 Fax 212-995-4157 http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/dalejamieson.html Intellectuals are reliable lagging indicators, near infallible guides to what used to be true.--Charles R. Morris - Original Message - From: Kate O'Neill kone...@nature.berkeley.edu Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 1:18 pm Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: Peter Jacques pjacq...@mail.ucf.edu Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Hi Peter (and everyone, thanks for the discussion), One thing you say below caught me by surprise: that skepticism is almost exclusively a global North position. Is this true? Can you elucidate? It's certainly not intuitively obvious, although I would guess that our boys are the loudest skeptics using this particular framing. Kate On Jul 5, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Peter Jacques wrote: Our discussions on skepticism have always been really interesting on this list, and they have helped me evolve my own thoughts on the matter, so thank you to all posting. The issue of political economic and energy structure raised by Olivia, as well as some of the issues raised by DG on psych frames are interesting. It appears to me that as social scientists, one of the more powerful things we can do is provide insight into the social structure and patterns in skepticism. For example, we have briefly discussed and implied the fact, but isn't it peculiar that such strong demands on knowledge claims (and impeding action) can be asserted from a singular ideology (contemporary conservatism, with only minor exceptions), whereas we have a multitude of ideological voices (not just contemporary liberal) that assert a number of different lines of argument but which are in stark contrast to skepticism? Doesn't the fact that such perspectives are held by so narrow a position, in fact, call into question the legitimacy (let's leave truth aside for the moment) of the claim? I think this might be the Achilles heel of skepticism (remember the original post here was about the Inhofe/Morano list that attempts to refute the imputed illegitimacy of skepticism by showing there are supposed skeptical experts), because if something were true, wouldn't we expect a multitude of perspectives to have some degree concurrence? (this was my ISA paper in Feb, The Science Trap). Beyond ideology, skepticism is almost exclusively a global North position (and mostly in the US, with some UK and less Australian counterparts). Accepting that any position can be wrong to various degrees, over time as different epistemologies concur, this should provide mounting legitimacy. Assuming that most groups can not tell the difference between a real and manufactured controversy in the actual science communities, legitimacy may be more politically viable for evaluation than truth because it is clear that many (even elite) communities have been completely snowed. These are truncated points that Riley Dunlap, Bob Brulle and myself are trying to hammer out now in a different paper(so any comments are appreciated on or off list). Perhaps a synthesis of Wil's concerns and Suzi's comments, it is my own position that we should use the skeptical arguments as teaching (social science, and science and society) moments. I do so in my classes by using social science literature and research as the way to think about framing, political theory, ideology, social movements and knowledge claims, etc... It is only when I provide this context (not when I present my understanding of climate sciences which end up in point-counterpoint conversations) that my students are willing to move out of the true-not true trench. Once I have done the work of presenting enough of the social science on skepticism, (knowing many of my students are in fact skeptics) I rarely have much trouble moving on to other parts of climate and ecological discourse, and I am in the Bible Belt- a pretty conservative part of the US. It is not always successful but it has helped me survive teaching environmental politics in this part of the world! Some of these issues
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
And please add in the other group of 'skeptics' one would encounter in developing countries, those pro-growth enthusiasts who don't want anything coming between their playing catch-up with the industrialized North. China and India certainly fall in this category. Deb. - Original Message - From: Dr. Wil Burns williamcgbu...@comcast.net snip Many folks in developing countries believe that they are confronted with a host issues far more pressing than climate change snip
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Yes, it's interesting to see how the 'polluter pays' argument (developed countries put the vast majority of the GHGs currently in the atmosphere up there as they industrialized, and so should bear the brunt of international efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels) and the 'per capita' argument (the emissions of individual countries should be measured on a per-capita basis) loom large in the positions of the governments of India and China, but are conspicuous by their absence in the positions of the US and Canada. Graham - Original Message - From: Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail) debsi...@gmail.com Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu And please add in the other group of 'skeptics' one would encounter in developing countries, those pro-growth enthusiasts who don't want anything coming between their playing catch-up with the industrialized North. China and India certainly fall in this category. Deb. - Original Message - From: Dr. Wil Burns williamcgbu...@comcast.net snip Many folks in developing countries believe that they are confronted with a host issues far more pressing than climate change snip --- Graham Smart Associate Professor Carleton University School of Linguistics Language Studies 215 Paterson Hall 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1S 5B6 --
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
An interesting 'skeptics' view was aired in the UK a couple of years ago, called The Great Global Warming Swindle which blamed climate change on sunspots, inter alia and questioned the underlying science: http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/ I don't know if the original program is available online or on DVD, but it's worth seeing and it's certainly interesting material to provoke conversation in the classroom. I recall that at least one of the experts interviewed were quoted out of context and infuriated afterward (check news sources on google for refs). Thus this particular piece of work is interesting both in terms of content and in terms of context/manipulation. The documentary itself makes an interesting assertion about the science/policy interface in terms of how climate change is dominating the agenda in terms of research funding. Some of these arguments have a 'conspiracy theory' flavour, but nonetheless are likely to be brought up by students and are thus worth consideration. Regards, Elizabeth Elizabeth M. De Santo, Ph.D. --- On Sun, 5/7/09, Graham Smart gsm...@connect.carleton.ca wrote: From: Graham Smart gsm...@connect.carleton.ca Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail) debsi...@gmail.com Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Date: Sunday, 5 July, 2009, 11:04 PM Yes, it's interesting to see how the 'polluter pays' argument (developed countries put the vast majority of the GHGs currently in the atmosphere up there as they industrialized, and so should bear the brunt of international efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels) and the 'per capita' argument (the emissions of individual countries should be measured on a per-capita basis) loom large in the positions of the governments of India and China, but are conspicuous by their absence in the positions of the US and Canada. Graham - Original Message - From: Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail) debsi...@gmail.com Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu And please add in the other group of 'skeptics' one would encounter in developing countries, those pro-growth enthusiasts who don't want anything coming between their playing catch-up with the industrialized North. China and India certainly fall in this category. Deb. - Original Message - From: Dr. Wil Burns williamcgbu...@comcast.net snip Many folks in developing countries believe that they are confronted with a host issues far more pressing than climate change snip --- Graham Smart Associate Professor Carleton University School of Linguistics Language Studies 215 Paterson Hall 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1S 5B6 --
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues. Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions. IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey. My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that includes title III -- the cap and trade program) areincreasingly remote this year. There is a renewed wave of recycled skepticclaims attacking climate science, to be sure, but thereis also afusillade of arguments regarding multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction. I just don't see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening. As for the arguments against the bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate concerns. Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat out-of-touch, playing right into the stereotype of liberals that conservatives are trying to project. I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all smiles when he read it. Frank Alcock Associate Professor of Political Science New College of Florida 5800 Bay Shore Road Sarasota, FL 34243 (941) 487-4483 (phone) (941) 487-4475 (fax) From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul WapnerSent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PMTo: williamcgbu...@comcast.netCc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Interesting discussion. Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress. His views are not news but a nice context for the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html Paul WapnerAssociate ProfessorDirector, Global Environmental Politics ProgramSchool of International ServiceAmerican University4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington DC 20016(202) 885-1647
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Hi Frank, I actually didn't find Krugman's piece as so much smug as extremely angry, and I have to say it's exactly how I feel on this issue, especially when I watch my six-year old playing in the back yard, or I travel to a small island state, and despair over the world we're leaving them to cope with. It may be that liberals need to rant every now and then about issues of this saliency purely as a means of catharsis. Having said that, yes, it doesn't bring us together, so I'm sure far sager communicators on this list, such as Susi, would tell me it's probably a dumb strategy. However, I wonder if any message would prove effective with the GOP this year, so maybe catharsis ain't a bad thing to pursue at this point. It also may be that moral indignation, framing this as an issue of patriotism and our moral responsibility to the most vulnerable of this generation and generations to come, may be critical to ultimately changing norms, as was true in the civil rights movement in this country, the battle against apartheid, etc. I've reached a point where I'm running out of ways to frame this issue that might prove effective. 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: Alcock, Frank [mailto:falc...@ncf.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:45 AM To: Paul Wapner; williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; Steve Hoffman Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues. Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions. IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey. My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that includes title III -- the cap and trade program) are increasingly remote this year. There is a renewed wave of recycled skeptic claims attacking climate science, to be sure, but there is also a fusillade of arguments regarding multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction. I just don't see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening. As for the arguments against the bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate concerns. Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat out-of-touch, playing right into the stereotype of liberals that conservatives are trying to project. I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all smiles when he read it. Frank Alcock Associate Professor of Political Science New College of Florida 5800 Bay Shore Road Sarasota, FL 34243 (941) 487-4483 (phone) (941) 487-4475 (fax) _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul Wapner Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PM To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman' Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Interesting discussion. Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress. His views are not news but a nice context for the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html Paul Wapner Associate Professor Director, Global Environmental Politics Program School of International Service American University 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC 20016 (202) 885-1647 image001.gif
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
I agree with Wil on this one. Krugman's anger and contempt are not aimed all all citizens who are skeptical, but squarely at Republicans in Congress -- elected in theory to represent people's interests. Yes, some are representing shorter term economic interests of their districts. But most, in fact, are working to do very serious harm to millions of people (Americans and not) and they don't give a damn and they have offered nothing in the way of constructive policy ideas. Some anger and contempt for such folks is not misplaced, in my view... From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Wil Burns [williamcgbu...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:29 PM To: 'Alcock, Frank'; 'Paul Wapner' Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman' Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Hi Frank, I actually didn’t find Krugman’s piece as so much smug as extremely angry, and I have to say it’s exactly how I feel on this issue, especially when I watch my six-year old playing in the back yard, or I travel to a small island state, and despair over the world we’re leaving them to cope with. It may be that liberals need to rant every now and then about issues of this saliency purely as a means of catharsis. Having said that, yes, it doesn’t bring us together, so I’m sure far sager communicators on this list, such as Susi, would tell me it’s probably a dumb strategy. However, I wonder if any message would prove effective with the GOP this year, so maybe catharsis ain’t a bad thing to pursue at this point. It also may be that moral indignation, framing this as an issue of patriotism and our moral responsibility to the most vulnerable of this generation and generations to come, may be critical to ultimately changing norms, as was true in the civil rights movement in this country, the battle against apartheid, etc. I’ve reached a point where I’m running out of ways to frame this issue that might prove effective. 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 [cid:image001.gif@01C9FC89.A5A4A640] From: Alcock, Frank [mailto:falc...@ncf.edu] Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:45 AM To: Paul Wapner; williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; Steve Hoffman Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues. Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions. IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey. My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that includes title III -- the cap and trade program) are increasingly remote this year. There is a renewed wave of recycled skeptic claims attacking climate science, to be sure, but there is also a fusillade of arguments regarding multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction. I just don't see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening. As for the arguments against the bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate concerns. Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat out-of-touch, playing right into the stereotype of liberals that conservatives are trying to project. I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all smiles when he read it. Frank Alcock Associate Professor of Political Science New College of Florida 5800 Bay Shore Road Sarasota, FL 34243 (941) 487-4483 (phone) (941) 487-4475 (fax) From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul Wapner Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PM To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman' Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Interesting discussion. Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress. His views are not news but a nice context for the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html Paul Wapner Associate Professor Director, Global Environmental Politics Program School of International Service American University 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC 20016 (202) 885-1647
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Reading this debate, I was reminded again of an excellent article I read back in March on Freeman Dyson (see below). I, personally, have always thought of myself as a skeptic - not of global warming but its global and local effects. I often find my skepticism scary, given the fact that I am somewhat educated and also an educator. But, at the same time, I also find it disturbing when almost any kind of natural disaster starts getting blamed on global warming. I have noticed that voicing these internal doubts aloud in my classrooms made my students more acceptable of global warming (but it could be biased group). But, more importantly, I want to pass on the habit of being critical about every little piece of information that comes your way. As this point this is the best I can do. In some ways we are all cherry-picking and trying our best to understand what is really going on. I worry, though, if we will ever understand enough to come to a rational conclusion. Deb. Climate-change specialists often speak of global warming as a matter of moral conscience. Dyson says he thinks they sound presumptuous. As he warned that day four years ago at Boston University, the history of science is filled with those who make confident predictions about the future and end up believing their predictions, and he cites examples of things people anticipated to the point of terrified certainty that never actually occurred, ranging from hellfire, to Hitler's atomic bomb, to the Y2K millennium bug. It's always possible Hansen could turn out to be right, he says of the climate scientist. If what he says were obviously wrong, he wouldn't have achieved what he has. But Hansen has turned his science into ideology. He's a very persuasive fellow and has the air of knowing everything. He has all the credentials. I have none. I don't have a Ph.D. He's published hundreds of papers on climate. I haven't. By the public standard he's qualified to talk and I'm not. But I do because I think I'm right. I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think it's true my career doesn't depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an expert on climate. I think it's more a matter of judgement than knowledge. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html something similar: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090630/ts_alt_afp/scienceusreligionevolution_20090630134058
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
As a natural scientist, I wanted to weigh in on this. The key for me was the predictive and explanatory power of global warming theory. This is the strength of any successful scientific hypothesis. So many observed phenomena are explained by the theory that it becomes very, very likely that it is the explanation for most of them. Does it expalin everything? No. Should we be skeptical of additional claims (as Deb suggests). Yes! Do some slight flaws negate the whole theory? Not any that have been raised. What disturbs me most, I guess, is the failure of the public to understand that scientific knowledge is incomplete and evolving. As new data is gathered, we alter our hypotheses accordingly. This means that there may be some apparent contradictions. Did we say one thing 15 years ago and the opposite now? Could be, but we know a whole lot more now. Furthermore, as we gain knowledge, our explanations become better and more likely. These are complex concepts, I know. However, if I could, with a magic wand, teach the public anything, it would be how science actually works: how hypotheses are generated and tested, what the role of the skeptic is, how scientific consensus is reached and what that means-not a democratic vote but rather a consensus of many scientists from many related fields that an hypothesis is successful at explaining a wide variety of observations. I very much appreciate this discussion and hope to see more comments on this thread. Larry Davis * R. Laurence Davis, Ph.D. Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences University Research Scholar Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences University of New Haven 300 Boston Post Road West Haven, Connecticut 06516 rlda...@newhaven.edu Office: 203-932-7108Fax: 203-931-6097 UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN- A Leader in Experiential Education *
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
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 also a problem because other changes are part of the mix. Media stories blaming climate change for every disaster are obviously silly, but nonetheless it seems clear that greater instabilities in the climate system are to be expected as GHGs increase and other ecological shifts happen simultaneously. If you will please all forgive my flagrant self promotion here for a minute, the little book I sent a note around about yesterday was in part designed to re-frame, or as I usually prefer to put matters, re-contextualise this debate. It does so by trying to link environmental history, current thinking about earth system science (which includes climate change of course but is about more than that) and the literature on vulnerability, which is crucial for understanding who dies in disasters. I am trying to find a simple vocabulary to explain to students how we collectively have taken our fate into our own hands without necessarily realising we have in fact done this. The new forcing mechanisms in the biosphere are urban industrial production systems that literally turn rocks into air, which is what fossil fuel consumption is doing. As new geological actors we set things in motion which impact humanity in the increasingly artificial ecologies of the urban settings we now live in. State boundaries frequently get in the way of seeing these processes clearly. This all cuts right across the human/natural science divides that so stymie creative thinking. Industrial production decisions have geological effects; infrastructure provision is effectively applied geomorphology. We haven't really got a clear understanding of globalization as a physical process but its moving vast amounts of material around in the biosphere. The habitat loss consequences of all this are profound too as the MA folks, and the GEO4 folks documented in great detail. Politics is at the heart of this, but politics understood in the classical sense of how collective decisions about how we all ought to live together, and makes rules for this living, rather than partizan yelling/competing for office, are really difficult because who decides what kind of planet our great grandchildren will inherit is what GEP is all about. The cultural shift which makes us realise that we are part of a biosphere we are actively changing, rather than on an earth which is a given context for human struggles for power and prestige, is immense. But shifting from physics metaphors to ecological ones (not old environmental notions of preserving what was taken to be stable) is key to all this and the next generation of students has to be prodded, inspired, stimulated to start thinking in these terms. We don't know what the future will be; science can't tell us, but what we do know is that we are making it, literally by our economic actions, our production decisions, and the kind of infrastructure we provide and the buildings we design and make. All of which may make things worse or better in many complicated ways. Its about thinking about the consequences of actions; a theme which ironically sometimes resonates rather well with right wing thinkers. But until we can shift the contextualisations away from autonomous individuals separate from everything else to a comprehension of us as interconnected biosphere beings, the connection to consequences remains difficult. But then since when was teaching either environment or politics easy!? Hope this rant helps a little ... Simon On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, rldavis rlda...@newhaven.edu wrote: As a natural scientist, I wanted to weigh in on this. The key for me was the predictive and explanatory power of global warming theory. This is the strength of any successful scientific hypothesis. So many observed phenomena are explained by the theory that it becomes very, very likely that it is the explanation for most of them. Does it expalin everything? No. Should we be skeptical of additional claims (as Deb suggests). Yes! Do some slight flaws negate the whole theory? Not any that have been raised. What disturbs me most, I guess, is the failure of the public to understand that scientific knowledge is incomplete and evolving. As new data is gathered, we alter our hypotheses accordingly. This means that there may be some apparent contradictions. Did we say one thing 15 years ago and the opposite now? Could be, but we know a whole lot more now. Furthermore, as we gain knowledge, our explanations become better and more likely. These are complex concepts, I know. However, if I could, with a magic wand, teach the public anything, it would
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
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 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 also a problem because other changes are part of the mix. Media stories blaming climate change for every disaster are obviously silly, but nonetheless it seems clear that greater instabilities in the climate system are to be expected as GHGs increase and other ecological shifts happen simultaneously. If you will please all forgive my flagrant self promotion here for a minute, the little book I sent a note around about yesterday was in part designed to re-frame, or as I usually prefer to put matters, re-contextualise this debate. It does so by trying to link environmental history, current thinking about earth system science (which includes climate change of course but is about more than that) and the literature on vulnerability, which is crucial for understanding who dies in disasters. I am trying to find a simple vocabulary to explain to students how we collectively have taken our fate into our own hands without necessarily realising we have in fact done this. The new forcing mechanisms in the biosphere are urban industrial production systems that literally turn rocks into air, which is what fossil fuel consumption is doing. As new geological actors we set things in motion which impact humanity in the increasingly artificial ecologies of the urban settings we now live in. State boundaries frequently get in the way of seeing these processes clearly. This all cuts right across the human/natural science divides that so stymie creative thinking.
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Many thanks to all who responded. Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage in this debate. I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously' presented to me: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church and state' with 'separation of politics and science.' Steve _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is a joke. You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two: Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog [http://www.desmogblog.com/]. There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed. Riley E. Dunlap Regents Professor Department of Sociology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-6108 _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman [shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Dear All - While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with the following article: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.BlogsConten tRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't crunched the numbers myself. That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following: a) For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many IPCC scientists are in this group of 700? On the other hand, how many IPCC scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and human-caused? b) Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large, and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of this group, may be important here. Quite a bit may have been lost in the translation, so to speak - in both directions. [Also, how many participants were there at this symposium?] Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the article. c) How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties'? As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be skeptical. However, my sense on climate change is that the scientific consensus has become near-overwhelming, and while politics are of course not 100% divorced from this, the data are very compelling. But again, I'm most curious to know what sort of response might come from folks on this list who are much more well informed on this set of issues than I. Best Regards, -- Steven Hoffman, Ph.D. Environmental Consulting and Innovation Bow (Samish Island), WA shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com (360) 720-4378
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Despite the frustration attendant to grappling with this issue, as someone who teaches a climate change course virtually every semester, I can attest to the fact that devoting a day to the argument of the skeptics is a great teachable moment. First, whether we want to admit it or not, a third to a half of our students are probably climate skeptics (really); many won't admit it because of the orthodoxy our field often imposes, but they are. So we blithely dismiss the skeptics at our own peril (maybe it doesn't happen in your fields, but law professors usually say why teach them about this stuff; the issue is settled). Second, even if our students don't buy the arguments of the skeptics, it's critical to grapple with these arguments if they want to be able to clearly articulate to others why skeptic constructs are misguided, and grappling with the issues is a great way to foster active learning. Third, it's a great way to introduce broader issues, including the role of peer review in the scientific process, how scientific findings are mediated by the political process, and why society still chooses to act sometimes in the face of substantial scientific uncertainty. Thanks for some great new suggestions in this context from the list! 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 Steve Hoffman Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:04 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Many thanks to all who responded. Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage in this debate. I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously' presented to me: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church and state' with 'separation of politics and science.' Steve _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is a joke. You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two: Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog [http://www.desmogblog.com/]. There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed. Riley E. Dunlap Regents Professor Department of Sociology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-6108 _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman [shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Dear All - While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with the following article: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.BlogsConten tRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't crunched the numbers myself. That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following: a) For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many IPCC scientists are in this group of 700? On the other hand, how many IPCC scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and human-caused? b) Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large, and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of this group, may be important here. Quite a bit may have been lost in the translation, so to speak - in both directions. [Also, how many participants were there at this symposium?] Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the article. c) How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties'? As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes
Re: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
As someone who teaches contemporary environmental debates where a certain level of engagement on this issue is expected, I still don't see a need to play on the field of the skeptics with such overwhelming science and the national and international debate where it is. I often describe the evolution of the debate to the class up to the 4th IPCC and that becomes the starting point of the discussion of the contemporary debate (North-South perspectives, carbon trading/carbon tax, climate as a security threat, etc.). That said, I agree with Wil that students often have doubts and feel the full debate has not been presented to them. To address this, I assign Bjorn Lomborg's book which is an easy read and while not denying climate science, Lomborg assigns different values to the conclusions. The students appreciate this different perspective in the course and it is discussed robustly in class. Howard S. Schiffman, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D. - Original Message - From: Dr. Wil Burns williamcgbu...@comcast.net Date: Friday, July 3, 2009 1:36 pm Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: 'Steve Hoffman' shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com, gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Despite the frustration attendant to grappling with this issue, as someone who teaches a climate change course virtually every semester, I can attest to the fact that devoting a day to the argument of the skeptics is a great teachable moment. First, whether we want to admit it or not, a third to a half of our students are probably climate skeptics (really); many won't admit it because of the orthodoxy our field often imposes, but they are. So we blithely dismiss the skeptics at our own peril (maybe it doesn't happen in your fields, but law professors usually say why teach them about this stuff; the issue is settled). Second, even if our students don't buy the arguments of the skeptics, it's critical to grapple with these arguments if they want to be able to clearly articulate to others why skeptic constructs are misguided, and grappling with the issues is a great way to foster active learning. Third, it's a great way to introduce broader issues, including the role of peer review in the scientific process, how scientific findings are mediated by the political process, and why society still chooses to act sometimes in the face of substantial scientific uncertainty. Thanks for some great new suggestions in this context from the list! 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 Steve Hoffman Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:04 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Many thanks to all who responded. Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage in this debate. I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously' presented to me: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church and state' with 'separation of politics and science.' Steve _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is a joke. You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two: Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog [http://www.desmogblog.com/]. There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed. Riley E. Dunlap Regents Professor Department of Sociology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK 74078 405-744-6108 _ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman [shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com] Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Dear All - While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with the following article: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Interesting discussion. Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress. His views are not news but a nice context for the discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html Paul Wapner Associate Professor Director, Global Environmental Politics Program School of International Service American University 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington DC 20016 (202) 885-1647
Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Steve, A good place for an overview on this stuff is http://www.realclimate.org/ The arguments in the web link you provide have been around, in varied forms, for some time, even though they're regularly contextualized and refuted. There's a nice literature on the political strategy and forces driving the stuff of the website you've posted here, a literature that others on the list may wish to illuminate. In my experience, the first best entry point into much of this is realclimate.org Mike Maniates At 06:41 PM 7/2/2009, Steve Hoffman wrote: Dear All While discussing climate change with skeptics, Ive been presented with the following article: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.BlogsContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.BlogsContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I havent crunched the numbers myself. That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following: a) For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many IPCC scientists are in this group of 700? On the other hand, how many IPCC scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and human-caused? b) Knowing what I do about Japan, I dont put an enormous amount of stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union symposium didnt believe the IPCC report the language barrier is large, and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call cultural push-back [reflex skepticism], as well as follow the leader, and the particular nature of this group, may be important here. Quite a bit may have been lost in the translation, so to speak in both directions. [Also, how many participants were there at this symposium?] Yet that is the lead fact in the article. c) How many of the 700 are on the payroll of interested parties? As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be skeptical. However, my sense on climate change is that the scientific consensus has become near-overwhelming, and while politics are of course not 100% divorced from this, the data are very compelling. But again, Im most curious to know what sort of response might come from folks on this list who are much more well informed on this set of issues than I. Best Regards, -- Steven Hoffman, Ph.D. Environmental Consulting and Innovation Bow (Samish Island), WA shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com (360) 720-4378
RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Two perhaps useful thoughts: 1) something from a piece I wrote for a conference recently: We also do not want scientific truth decided by votes, whether those of the public or of scientists. We do not trust something as the truth about how the world works because it meets the democratic criterion of receiving the most votes. Indeed, references to a consensus of scientific opinion about climate change get it quite wrong. Scientific revolutions occur precisely because there are historical moments at which the overwhelming (and sometimes unanimous) consensus of scientific opinion is dead wrong -- the Copernican revolution being the obvious example. The consensus of scientific opinion on climate change is useful shorthand for communicating some more accurate but less felicitous phrase such as a mutually-reinforcing convergence of critically-evaluated and empirically-supported evidence from multiple indicators. The strength of our belief in some scientific truth derives neither from its being supported by a consensus nor from its being supported by the opinion of informed scientists but from its being supported by evidence, logic, and argument. I think getting people to understand why we might want to trust scientists about climate change begins with understanding what the underpinnings of this sort of knowing are. The social processes that generate some approximation of truth in science are quite separate and distinct from those that generate some approximation of truth in law or politics (or love for that matter). 2) its worth making clear how outliers often diverge from trends. Thus, we had 8 no-school snow days where I live this past year, more than most years in a long time. Some glaciers are getting bigger these days. Europe will be colder if the Gulf Stream shuts down due to the collapse of thermohaline circulation. But none of these mean that climate change isn't occurring. Climate vs. weather metaphor: I am a quite bald man (ask any of my friends) - when I wake up in the morning, I often find a few stray hairs growing in the middle of my otherwise bald head. The hair is like cold weather existing in a climate on my noggin that is no longer particularly conducive to hair-growing. From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:41 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' Dear All - While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with the following article: http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.BlogsConten tRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't crunched the numbers myself. That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following: a) For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many IPCC scientists are in this group of 700? On the other hand, how many IPCC scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and human-caused? b)Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large, and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of this group, may be important here. Quite a bit may have been lost in the translation, so to speak - in both directions. [Also, how many participants were there at this symposium?] Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the article. c) How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties'? As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be skeptical. However, my sense on climate change is that the scientific consensus has become near-overwhelming, and while politics are of course not 100% divorced from this, the data are very compelling. But again, I'm most curious to know what sort of response might come from folks on this list who are much more well informed on this set of issues than I. Best Regards, -- Steven Hoffman, Ph.D. Environmental Consulting and Innovation Bow (Samish Island), WA shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com (360) 720-4378
