Results of 2nd survey among participants
Total: 153
Europe: Germany 40%, Benelux 7%, Scandinavia 9%, Spain 3%, UK 4%, Other 16%
sum: 78%.
America. USA: 14%, other 3%
sum: 18%
Australia: 2%
Asia: China: 0, other 1%
Africa: 0
other: 0
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I'm a little surprised that rather sparsely populated Scandinavia has so many readers of this blog.
By the way, the 2008 and 2003 surveys are back in the wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The authors may want to see if they agree with the presentations?
Indeed, what a strange world that is. Not one single voice from Africa. World climate is at stake and debated, and there is no voice from Africa (and this is not only due to the fact that Klimazwiebel comes from Germany, it is a general fact).
Almost no voices from Asia. Asia is only present in the person of Mr. Pachauri, who is without a doubt the most negative figure in the whole klimazwiebel blog (besides Phil Jones). The bad guy comes from the orient? No surprise: this is a common trope in the literature of the occident. This 'Indian gentleman' who is corrupt, sexual permissive, a liar, who is a stealth advocate and so on is familiar from many movies and literature. Mr. Pachauri is the impersonation of an occidental fantasy, as if the world indeed were a Agatha Christie movie. By the way, it is the climate debate which reproduces this age old divide between the Orient and the Occident. Talk about climate is always talk about society and about belonging - not even pure and honest science can save you from this fact.
It reminds me of Mike Hulme, who recently wrote about climategate:
'The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.'
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/mike-hulme-on-climategate.html
I know, most of you are natural scientists and not familiar with the debate in the cultural sciences; but it is for maybe three or four decades now that we don't talk anymore about primitive cultures as opposed to the civilized cultures. To think that angloamerican culture is the result of an evolutionary process and the crown of civilization is somehow old-fashioned. Even more, it is simply racist and considered as a colonial attitude, and I guess, with good reason.
White men try to save the world - skeptics, honest brokers or alarmists, it doesn't matter, they like to discuss in their own exclusive club (with some manly shoulder clapping and some gambling, from time to time).
You think this is too much interpretation of an only random sample? Sure, it is. But it is a nice incentive for some self-reflection.
Werner,
as a physicist, I can only speculate about social sciences, but in my impression your conclusion go far too far and display more 'white over-confidence' than you might intend to. If Asians and Africans do not participate in the climate debate, there might be more nearby reasons than a cultural hegemony of white people.
Maybe there are not that many scientists in Africa and in Asia ex-Japan in general. Maybe the scientists that work in these countries are more attracted to solving nowadays problems as compared to environmental issues that may or may not cause problems in 100 years. Maybe they find it more promising to develop products that make their economies more competetive than to delve in academic discussions that produce no immediate benefit.
Ockham's razor should apply here as everywhere.
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)