Folks: I don't think anyone on the GEPED list has yet mentioned Mike Hulme's new 2009 Cambridge University book *Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity*. The book presents climate change as both a physical phenomenon and also, given the attention it gets, as a social one too.
Its not an immediate 'response to skeptics' piece, but if teaching these things is on your mind, Hulme's book may be an interesting way into teaching all this come the Fall semester, and given that its immediately available in paperback and clearly written with students and a general audience in mind it has classroom potential. Simon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dunlap, Riley <riley.dun...@okstate.edu> Date: Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' To: "gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" <gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu> 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&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 -- Simon Dalby, Ph.D. Professor, Carleton University www.carleton.ca/~sdalby Co-editor of Geopolitics http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/14650045.asp Author, Security and Environmental Change http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745642918
