abashed April 10 update: maybe the difference between an activist and me is that activists have good social skills and can reach and persuade people...
On the April 3 NCFocus Crowdsourced journalism in Nevada County post, Russ Steele commented (in reference to Who's an activist?) "If you are not a activist, what is this post all about."
I've been chewing on the answer for several days now.
With the caveat that this could be a rationalization, here it is:
I think the reason Russ (and other activists) view this differently from me, is that activists classify behaviors/actions differently from me, because of differences in temperament and values.
People who are fighters classify actions based on outcomes: if I take an action that affects a contested outcome, then I'm a combatant.
Whereas to me the process is what's important - fix the process, and the outcome will take care of itself.
(and by temperament I'm a chronicler and researcher, not a fighter - yes I care about the outcome, but I'm not comfortable working directly on it, and to do so feels like a hack.)
So I classify by "do you work on fixing the process, or the outcome?"
To me process vs. outcome is like science vs. public relations (for insight on this, see Goofus and Gallant do science)
So to answer Russ's literal question, here's what the Inconvenient Truth project is about:
I believe that our elected officials should be aware of crucial problems facing our society, if they aren't already. There are two ways that this can come about: either our current elected officials become aware, or voters can be given the info they need to replace these officials with "aware" candidates, should they choose to do so.
The I.T. project covers both of these possibilities: it encourages public figures to see the film, and it publicizes who does and doesn't choose to see it, and their take-home impressions.
After that, it's up to the voters to decide whether this issue is important to them and decide accordingly.
It's as close to activism as I'm comfortable getting - a bit too close, actually, but this is more than a life-or-death issue.
I was hoping our elected officials would see the film, but I don't intend to push; I want to make it as easy as possible for them, but the choice is up to them. Likewise, if they choose to stonewall when asked about it, or if they wish to state that they don't think this info should be public knowledge, that's also their choice. My focus is on reporting the results.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Russ, which members of the Board of Supervisors share your views on global warming?
(sorry BTW about asking for your entire body of work on AGW; what I meant to ask for, was what you'd written in the early 1990s, vs 2000, vs now. Have your views changed over this time?)
and if you think you've got a better handle on climatology than the National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC climatologists, well, a biologist like me isn't going to be able to dissuade you.
Glad you got to see the film. Glad your planet isn't going to suffer, the way ours is.
Today's How to be a Global Warming Denier has a nice graph that puts the "1998 peak" surface temperature in context. And the article addresses some of your other points. Not all, I'm sure, and I'm also sure you won't find it convincing.
It might be interesting (for you) to look back over your writings from years past, to see if the evidence you used then to conclude that global warming was nonexistent/insignificant is still operative today.
gotta go. Enjoy your planet -
Anna
Hey Russ, can we have a good-faith exchange about the "1998 peak" piece of anti-GW evidence?
In your comment above, you said "Explain to me why the surface temperature stopped rising in 1998, yet CO2 continues to rise."
I'm curious about this piece of evidence.
My first Qs about it would be:
a) where you ran across it
b) whether you were using it to support your conviction that AGW isn't a big deal.
(that's how I understood it, in your comment; was that what you meant?)
c) whether you had confidence in its relevance to this point when you used it
and
d) whether you still see it as being support for your views, after viewing the graph (in the 'how to be a denier' article i linked).
Could you address these Qs in a good-faith exchange?
(by good faith i mean neither of us is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, and we're willing to admit error where/if it's called for - which in my case is all too often...)
thanks -
Anna
let me edit question b) to say:
b) whether you were using it ('1998 temp peak despite continuing CO2 increase') to support your conviction that CO2 hasn't been shown to be causing the temperature increase.
(that's how I (now, on reading with more care) understand it, in your comment; was that what you meant?)
Anna:
There is an important message in this story. Please read all the way to the end.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070412/cm_rcp/is_climatology_a_science
Russ, I started an answer to you on the Qs a-d but it's a slog and I'm not going to be able to finish it this a.m. Do me a favor though - if you've been reading about climate for years, try reading posts from RealClimate, the climatologists' blog. If you get away from industry-funded media, you'll find a whole different world.
(and yes i know this is a less than satisfying answer, and having asked the qs I owe you more of a response.)
------------------
(wrote this earlier; publishing it now:)
and, re the "real clear politics" link -
I took a look. The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation against Exxon - I love it. Wonder what their respective motivations are.
BTW, the NYTimes article referenced by the author (not a scientist) is a jaw-dropper by William Broad; it's addressed by RealClimate (the climatologists' blog) here.
It's intellectually dishonest, purporting to say there's no consensus and trotting out the same few denialists as evidence. Read AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) president-elect James McCarthy's response in the letters.
I'd emailed Calame in response to this one asking if they had a new "science editor" policy, he didn't respond.
Bet you a dollar that Broad won't provide a disclosure.
Russ, you also might want to read this on Bob Carter - it addresses a previous column of Carter's, but it doesn't sound like much has changed.
in general, the best way to get a handle on a climate related argument is to google for it on RealClimate -
e.g.
"bob carter" site:realclimate.org
OK Russ, if I can summarize your response to my Qs:
You found the "1998 was peak surface temp, but CO2's still rising, so CO2 can't be important to temperature increase" talking point in Bob Carter's Apr 2007 column (where he says "even the ground-based thermometer statistic records no warming since 1998").
(Carter was making this same argument last summer; it was addressed in Warming Stopped in 1998, in the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)
And you don't (yet) trust the data in this graph that shows the 1998 temp. in context.
Initially you didn't believe that global warming was occurring; now you're pretty sure that while global warming's happening, it's not that bad, and it's mostly changes in the sun that are causing it.
In general the PR-funded progression is:
* There is no global warming - so we shouldn't change anything we're doing
* It's happening but it's not us, and it's not serious- so we shouldn't change anything we're doing
* It's happening but it's mostly not us, and not serious- so we shouldn't change anything we're doing
* It's serious but there's nothing we can do about it- so we shouldn't change anything we're doing.
I trust peer-reviewed science, you trust public relations. IMO, if you find PR punditry credible, you will always conclude that we shouldn't change what we're doing.
So in the most important sense, your views on global warming have not changed.
(and I can assure you that I don't expect that I have the power to change them either.)
Let's agree to disagree on this, at least until you come to believe that listening to PR-speak gives poor epistemological results.
Anna:
I put my answer on the NC Media Watch.
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2007/04/no_significant_.html
When your friends cannot deal with Bob Carter's data, they attack Bob Carter. Focus on the data. Computer models are not data.
Post a Comment