Engaging across blogging divides on climate
Last week, an anthropology PhD student in New Zealand wrote a summary and response to a paper I gave at the Association for Journalism Education annual conference, in September this year. I though her commentary was a thoughtful piece with a fair set of conclusions: that bloggers self-select their networks based on beliefs. And that my beliefs were as rigid as any “climate sceptic”.
One thing Picking Up Sticks noted in the piece was the lack of engagement across the networks; “deniers” and “believers” rarely talk. This is a currently recognised theme online, and not just around climate change: take the U.S. election, for example. The TV producer Adam Curtis described blogging self-selection in an interview with The Register last year:
…the people who do blogging, for example, are self-selecting. Quite frankly it’s quite clear that what bloggers are is bullies. The internet has removed a lot of constraints on them. You know what they’re like: they’re deeply emotional, they’re bullies, and they often don’t get out enough. And they are parasitic upon already existing sources of information - they do little research of their own. What then happens is this idea of the ‘hive mind’, instead of leading to a new plurality or a new richness, leads to a growing simplicity.
The describing of my views as ‘rigid’ is something I do agree with; but it is also something that I do try to challenge. This is why Picking Up Sticks refers to me as a counter to the argument above: that I do communicate with and address bloggers/people who have different views from mine. In fact, most bloggers I’ve engaged with through this blog have different, opposing views.
I’ll be honest. I had backed away from publishing a summary of the paper, because of the experience of being attacked by other bloggers previously, when trying to think through the issues around accountable media communication. Some of those attacks were valid, in that an original blog post on this subject had been lazy and ill-thought through. People make mistakes. Which I addressed. Some comments did not warrant a response, as they were personal, abusive and added nothing to the debate.
So, following Picking Up Sticks covering my paper, the process of amplification and social channeling that both I and she describe has kicked into gear. It seems that her article (or possibly some comments from Doc Bud on a post from Dark Optimism) were picked up by Australia’s Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt, and an Englishman’s Castle, which then fed into Longrider’s post and Moderna Myter’s response; meanwhile, the well-read, eloquent and formidable Devil’s Kitchen has already prompted Sam Tarran to get involved in the response. And of course there are the comments (although far less this time, so far, than the previous flare up of this issue, as mentioned above). There are some problems with the attacks:
1. There’s some selective quotation going on (see Andrew Bolt, Moderna Myter)
2. There are some unfair attacks on those not connected with this blog, e.g. my university
3. Naivety regarding how science is necessarily organised for it to have social and democratic efficacy
However, here’s a summary of responses (some attacks, some accusations, some heartfelt and constructed arguments) that are worth responding to, e.g. not those who just throw around expletives. So, these were the important responses:
Responses
1. That I am wrong in accepting the IPCC’s findings and those of other credible scientific sources in my understanding that dangerous climate change is happening, is a global threat to our biosphere and ways of life, and is anthropogenic
2. That I am not a scientist
3. That in the paper I made a specific call for censorship of climate scepticism (online)
4. Concern that I am a lecturer, preaching a faith rather than teaching investigation and reporting
Quick responses to these:
1. It doesn’t make sense to me that thousands of scientists, including ecologists, geologists and climatologists, could or would organise such a hoax, either for funding or prestige, as some of the bloggers and commenters accuse. If the IPCC is so wrong, then how has it established such a growing and credible agreement that climate change is happening, is dangerous and is anthropogenic? Why would the Geographical Societies of Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK issue a joint public statement signalling a commitment to action on dangerous anthropogenic climate change in October’s Geographical magazine? Why would an economist such as Nicholas Stern now work to convince people that action is cheaper than inaction? Or, conservative groups to come out in acceptance of its impacts?
2. No, I’m not a scientist. As Mark Lynas says in his researched communication on the scientific basis for climate change, Six Degrees, “I am not a climatologist, I am merely the interpreter”. The Devil’s Kitchen doubts that I read scientific papers, or at least not to the extent that he does. I’d be happy to meet in person and have a chat about it? I read a lot of scientific peer-reviewed papers, and try to make the best sense of them that I can. I am continually learning, and most probably making mistakes in that learning. I would in fact respond to most of the bloggers here who attack my views to the same challenge on the depth and breadth of their engagement with the primary scientific, social scientific and policy processes involved in climate change. If people can assign credibility to Devil’s Kitchen–aka Chris Mounsey, a freelance writer and graphic designer–then why not also a journalism lecturer who is also engaging in researching and writing on climate change?
3. Actually, there is no specific call for censorship in the paper. Those that have been discussed in relation to online in general were rejected as “repressive” or “dangerous”. To be explicit, there is a single call for research into the impact of disinformation (and some scepticism, although not all, is disinforming: there is a long history of this). There is also a learning towards Ladle et. al’s (2005) paper calling for more clarity and transparency online regarding climate change science and argument. Jeff Jarvis wrote a column in the Guardian on Monday discussing the post-article internet. One potential next step is the Twine. Maybe this is a step towards a positive and democratic, free and open electronic agora, that does include scepticism but rejects disinformation.
4. As my blog clearly states, the views here are not those of my employer, and not a single person who has picked up on this point (Sunderland and my students have come in for a bit of stick, which I feel is unfair) can prove that I “preach the global warming faith” to my students. I don’t. Full stop. This is my blog, my work, and in no way should I or do I let my ideas in formation affect the teaching of the basics of journalism that I teach to my students regarding the passion and determination they have and hold for their future careers. I think very little of celebrity gossip, but if one of my students wants to pursue a career in this field, I give them everything they need. The same is for those who want to write for fossil-fuel intensive industries, such as the car magazines. We engage in debate on lots of issues including environmental, and some, if not all, of my students, are pretty engaged, and far more polite when in disagreement, than many of the bloggers and commentators here.
Ways to improve
One thing I am always telling my students is that there are always ways to improve. And one of the reasons for engaging with those with different views from your own is to help this process: arguments have to be tested and strengthened if they are to hold up. And ‘green communication’ is difficult in academia also. So, improvements I can see, from the criticisms, would include:
1. Proper definitions of differences between scepticism and disinformation. Scepticism is a doubting or questioning. Disinformation is knowing something to be false and yet communicating it with the hope/intention it is believed. (There are also arguments here around what is ‘knowing’ that need to be unpicked, particularly when psychological understandings of denial are brought into the discussion. Although these factors can make ‘knowing’ difficult to identify–do we know unconsciously what we refuse consciously, etc–that doesn’t mean the differences should be mistaken for each other.) Recently Nestle and GlaxoSmithKline were found guilty of making claims in their advertising that were just not true. This is disinformation. Who agrees that banning this disinformation is an infringement on their freedom of speech? How about Lexus’s claims, found to be misleading by the ASA, about their “climate-friendly” SUVs. What I am attempting to get through is a thinking of the regulations that are already in place, e.g. Ofcom and the IPCC, that govern our media responsibilities and protect free speech, and restrict disinformation.
2. Should not have called Steve McIntyre just a sceptical blogger: thanks DK. People do need full crediting and context for their work and words. (By the way, Chris Mounsey (DK) and Englishman’s Castle, knowing your backgrounds would also provide some context. Any chance? Chris, I see you are a graphic designer but you allude to scientific training. What would it be?)
3. Make more of Robert Dahl’s sense of competing sets of information, and establish more clearly that i recognise that as part of the necessary debate, where it is information and not disinformation.
Finally, for those who’ve not been for a while, or have not attended, academic conference papers are generally presented in rhetorical or provocative ways to stimulate debate and interrogation. They can be, at least in my experience, formative ideas that do take up positions to be picked apart. They are also extremely limited in time: this one had 15-minutes. It was to an audience of some of the most insightful names in journalism education, such as Mick Temple and Bob Franklin. There were a few questions, one of which was along the same lines as the bloggers re: freedom of expression.
One of the parts of the paper that no-one has quoted or commented upon is the reference to Raymond Williams, who introduced the idea of the “extreme social choice” in responding to the ways in which technology can come to control and affect our lives. Not only the media, but the fossil-fuel dependent lifestyles of the Western world who have benefited from industrialisation in ways that the developing world have not. As Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth formulates, the question of climate change is invariably interlinked with that of energy and of our growing population: 9 billion by 2050. As he asks, how can we move forward with the fewest regrets for all the world, not just the privileged. It’s the same frame that Nicholas Stern uses in his reports. Bloggers are asking if growth needs to stop, and can we achieve instead ’steady-state economics’ that looks after both sides of the Oikos?
If what I have done is put this question alongside the statement from the IPCC that we have only seven years left to act, then this extreme social choice must be asked. And I disagree with my critics that I cannot ask that question AND support freedom of expression, where it is held fairly, and is not disinformation.
A number of academics I know began blogging, and then stopped, because they felt blogs were not conducive to the depth of thought and debate that is required to ask really hard questions. I both agree and disagree. The abuse of Longrider, for example, pointless. The disinformation of the right-wing blogs of thinktanks such as Cato-at-Liberty, for example, is harmful and needs a response. The strength of argument from people such as Devil’s Kitchen, worthwhile, and worth responding to, even if in disagreement.
I re-read this article this morning, from Stephen Schneider publishing in Ernest Zedillo’s book on Global Warming, and it is still what makes me blog, despite the attacks (my comments in bold):
Expertise is required in every stage of the assessment of climate change and associated key vulnerabilities [including its communication and dissemination through the media], which is why governments set up assessment bodies of scientists and policy analysts to help them sort out the bewildering set of often contradictory claims found in the public debate. But in the end these scientific judgements must be supplemented with value judgements of what is just, or how much should be invested in adpatation and mitigation activities, or who should pay for these policies now and over time, or even what questions are to be assessed.
Finally, rational polcy is best accomplished when stakeholders, decision-makers, and the public are well informed, which means an accurate media accounting that does not simply pit a few extreme opposite opinions against each other as if they were representative of a wholly divided expert community. Rather, the media should report the preponderance of evidence as assessed by peer-reviewed reports like those of the IPCC or those of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, rather than polarized, non-peer-reviewed press releases of myriad special interests that all too often dominate the media debate and do not reflect the best judgments of the relevant expert communities. Democracy thrives on credible information… to achieve that condition, assessments that both report literature and assign confidence to the many available conclusions are essential.
An ‘accurate media accounting’ is perhaps a good phrase to think on for now.
Ways to improve: “Proper definitions of differences between scepticism and disinformation. Scepticism is a doubting or questioning. Disinformation is knowing something to be false and yet communicating it with the hope/intention it is believed.” And what about “denialist”? A very loaded term I would have thought.
As for my background many years ago I did a science degree at Oxford, but its relevance now is only to the way it taught me to question, be sceptical? and insist looking at sources rather than feeds.
On a logical note I don’t think that people accusing the IPCC et al of being wrong are necessarily accusing them of being members of a hoax, maybe they are just wrong. And groups of many millions of people are wrong all the time; millions of people are mistaken as to who will be the next President of the USA, they aren’t hoaxing anyone, they are just wrong (and I can say that whoever wins!)
Thanks EC.
What would your definition of “denialist” be? I agree, it does need a definition, as does “AGW believer”; not so that they are universally applied, but so they can mean something in context of any particular piece/article. It is a loaded term, so you’re right, it is worth unpicking.
Of course there’s some difference between voting in an election and reading and accepting/not accepting scientific study. SO yes, you’re absolutely right, you can say people are wrong all the time. Most people are often wrong about a lot of things, because as you say they don’t take the time to investigate primary sources, only the feeds. How about we set up a situation where we both look at the same scientific report and address it in our specific blogs?
In regard to your logical point, here are a number of links to individuals and blogs and organisations explicitly suggesting that the IPCC are perpetrating a hoax:
Elephant Owners: IPCC is a hoax
UN Climate Summary Designed to Dupe (says GW Hoax)
Jennifer Mahorasy
Online Opinion.au
Kae’s bloodnut blog
What surprises, and worries, me about your stance is that a Lecturer in Journalism is prepared to accept unquestioningly a consensus, any consensus, so meekly. Surely you should be teaching your students how to be skeptics, how to test any assertions made by specialist bodies and to be on their guard whenever a consensus forms between any group that benefits from that consensus and the political class.
It is even more important in a scientific debate, especially a new science, given the history of scientific consensus being shown to be wrong. Of course you would expect me to use the example of Galileo at this point and this is good case, not least because of the way he was punished for holding those heretical views, but I’m sure you will dismiss it as history.
But even in modern times there are those who have been pilloried for their theories which were eventually accepted. Alfred Wegener was ostracised for his theory of continental drift which he proposed in 1915. It didn’t really get accepted until the 1960’s when the gerontocracy of geology had died off and it was accepted by the open minded younger geologists. It is now a scientific discipline called Plate Tectonics.
Then there is the recent case of Robin Warren and Barry Marshall, who showed that ulcers were the product of bacteria, Barry Marshall self medicating to prove the point. Their Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas.
Alex,
I need to do a proper reply, but briefly…
“Chris, I see you are a graphic designer but you allude to scientific training. What would it be?”
Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Statistics GCSEs; Biology and Chemistry A Levels; two years of Microbiology at Edinburgh University.
And (excuse the language) this post contains a number of links (from scientists and economists) that discredit the Stern Review. I can dredge up more, if you like.
DK
Thanks Simpleton,
As I wrote above, my research and position on climate change does not come into my teaching. You are also assuming, of course, that I have not been working in or researching climate and environmental change, in one form or another, since 2001.
It may also be unclear of my first hand experiences. For example, the six months in southern Africa witnessing first hand the impacts of climate change, and reading the corroboating scientific reports.
It may also be unclear that it was an interrogative process of research and listening that has brought me to my current position. I’d very much recommend Fleming’s ‘Historical Perspectives on Climate Change’ followed by, say three months working out of India with government, journalistic and funding bodies examining the on-the-ground impacts.
Alex,
wrt Nicholas Stern, if you really do not believe that he who pays the piper calls the tune (notice how Ross Garnaut has changed his tune in Australia in line with what the government thinks industry and the electorate will wear), then I feel you should not be in charge of a broom let alone a room full of students.
As for scientists, the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not involved with the question of “does the burning of fossil fuels cause global warming”? Only tens of scientists are involved in answering this question. Most are involved with answering the question “given that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming, what will be the impacts”? It is rather strange that the answers are invariably negative given that the history of the planet clealry shows that a warmer planet is a healthier and more productive planet.
I’m interested in knowing, from your unscientific perspective, what ratio of believers to sceptics do you consider provides overwhelming proof that you should believe in anthropogenic climate change and campaign for global economic suicide to solve the supposed problem of anthropogenic climate change?
Alex,
Its not your opinion on climate change that I was concerned about but your acceptance of a consensus and how that plays out with you students. I had always believed journalists were born skeptics.
BTW, I think most people do accept that CO2 does cause warming and anyway even the IPCC reckons CO2 on its own will not cause more than about 1 deg increase in temperature. Most skeptics I read accept that, what they don’t believe are the claims that this will somehow cause positive feedback and lead to ever higher temperatures. The earth has been warmer and had higher CO2 levels and we didn’t get positive feedback then, otherwise the planet would be like MArs or Venus.
I too have worked in India, Africa and Asia and have seen abject poverty and would like to see their lives improved. I don’t believe that the way to do this, though, is to impoverish the rest of the world. We should do it by trade and investment, as proposed by the Copenhagen Consensus.
FYI I became a skeptic after reading widely on the subject. Although I am naturally skeptical of any political consensus I had accepted the CO2 story and had a couple of business ideas based on CO2 driven AGW. I was rather surprised when I started my research to find that there are a lot of people, by no means all them them swivel eyed conspiracy theorists, who do a lot of research in their own time. I realised then that this debate is far from over and we need a lot more discourse, not less. And by that I mean both sides of the debate and if it includes the wilder claims of both alarmists and skeptics than that is a small price to pay.
Not much engagement going on here, what is too difficult about the question:
what ratio of believers to sceptics do you consider provides overwhelming proof that you should believe in anthropogenic climate change and campaign for global economic suicide to solve the supposed problem of anthropogenic climate change?
There is massive world poverty, Alex, why do you and your ilk want to see it exacerbated? As the biofuels debacle has shown us, fighting the supposed problem of AGW is not a negative consequence free option, and, therefore, one ought to be pretty confident of the ground one stands on before condemning the world’s poorest to perpetual poverty. Given the complete absence of real world proof that AGW is a valid hypothesis and your inability to understand the issue one way or the other, why do you desire so much to display personal sanctimony at the expense of the world’s poorest people? It beats me.
Apologies for late reply, work and conferences have taken me away from blogging.
I’m really not interested in ratios of believers to sceptics. Because globally the number of ‘who cares anywayers?’ is much higher than both.
The capitalist system has pulled up many millions of people out of poverty. But not directly from the market, but through education and improvement of women’s rights and access to health. Much of this work continues to be carried out by NGO and international bodies.
I don’t want to exacerbate poverty. Climate change is already worsening the lives of the poorest, in for example, Bangladesh (see the recent film from Sacredmediacow.com) and will continue to affect the tropics in more devastating ways than our warm, temperate regions of the UK and middle Europe. Which is exactly why we do need to act.
The perspective I work from is one of using my energy and commitment to work with the little skill I have in the arena where I can make best effect. The science and ‘bean counting’ is also done by experts in their fields.
On Thursday I had dinner with Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. His work was not even about the science. It was about the counting. How much emissions? How much radiative forcing. I’m sorry, Doc, but you’re wildly wrong to say that there is an “absence of real world proof that AGW is a valid hypothesis”. The greenhouse effect is sophomore physics. The rise in CO2e is measured and validated. The measurable changes in radiative forcing and concatenated temperature changes are matters of record.
It is only because we have become so de-natured that we refuse to accept that winter in the UK is now 5-weeks shorter than it was 50 years ago, for example.
Sanctimony at the expense of the world’s poorest? Pot, kettle, black, Doc Bud.
A question for you. What have you done in your life so far to alleviate or fully abate the poverty you see around you and that you don’t see overseas? Are you the change, or are you obstructing that change?
With regard to the ratio of believers to sceptics, I was referring to scientists with the ability to decide one way or the other, and presumably on whose opinions you base your desire to change the world.
“The capitalist system has pulled up many millions of people out of poverty. But not directly from the market, but through education and improvement of women’s rights and access to health. Much of this work continues to be carried out by NGO and international bodies.”
Rubbish. The growth of the global economy directly lifts people out of poverty (just as its shrinking will put people back into poverty) improvements in education and women’s rights follow as a consequence.
“Climate change is already worsening the lives of the poorest, in for example, Bangladesh (see the recent film from Sacredmediacow.com) and will continue to affect the tropics in more devastating ways than our warm, temperate regions of the UK and middle Europe. Which is exactly why we do need to act.”
Climate change has and always will affect people, however, since we don’t cause it to any meaningful extent, we can’t control it. What we can do is have strong local and global economies that are able to mitigate and alleviate the effects of natural disasters. It is no coincidence that the consequences of natural disasters are far more severe in human terms in poor countries.
“The greenhouse effect is sophomore (?) physics. The rise in CO2e is measured and validated. The measurable changes in radiative forcing and concatenated temperature changes are matters of record.” Where are they matters of record? What I, and many others are looking for, is someone who can demonstrate, other than in computer models, how the small amount of human CO2 emissions (relative to natural ones) can be amplified to cause measurable global warming. I don’t think you or anyone else can do so because I don’t believe it has been done. Global temperatures correlate poorly with human CO2 emissions. Perhaps you could ask Kevin Anderson for an explanation.
Sanctimony at the expense of the world’s poorest? Pot, kettle, black, Doc Bud. Well, actually no. I’m not the one with the absolute certainty who wants to see actions taken that will hurt other people (I guess you’re thinking carbon trading, closing down coal mines, etc. won’t impact uni jobs). I came to global warming many years ago assuming it was true. I was amazed and not a little miffed to find that the emperor, in fact, has no clothes. I’m happy for people to do what they think is best, if they want to change their light bulbs, drive a Prius, sweat in summer and turn appliances off at the wall, so be it, as long as they leave me alone to do what I think is appropriate (which with regard to global warming is diddly squat).
Since you ask, and it is a topic I consider vulgar, I’m not entirely unhappy with the contribution I have personally made in my life to alleviate suffering or to improve the lot of other people. I can point to measurable improvements in workplace safety, directly saving lives, making my own modest contribution to ensuring businesses remain viable, employing people directly and ensuring that businesses of which I am a director put something back into the community. I’m very uncomfortable discussing charitable donations, suffice to say, my wife and I make them and our focus is always related to human suffering.
[...] (Originally posted on AlexLockwood.net) [...]