I got a call the other day from some producers I very much admire. They wanted to talk about a series next year on global warming and I thought, why does this subject make me instantly tired? Global warming is important, yes; controversial, certainly; complicated (OK by me); but somehow, even broaching this subject makes me feel like someone's put heavy stones in my head. Why is that?As an anthropologist, I think this is a very good starting point. To bring some new aspects into the either worn out or else highly specialized (and thus mostly exclusive) global warming debate , Kwulrich suggests to have a look at the emotional side of the debate. He ends up in realizing that it's not the arguments, but the negativity of skeptics that bothers him:
When they write in to NPR, they cite study after study; a recent paper by Dan Kahan and colleagues at Yale Law School found the more scientifically literate and numerate you are, the less likely you are to see climate change as a serious threat. So this isn't about a lack of science knowledge or that there aren't scientific questions to wonder about. It's not that the skeptics don't have an argument, it's how they argue. It's the anger. That's what puzzles me.To find out more about what he identifies as a negative vibe, he quotes from another blog, run by Ursula Goodenough, a biology professor from St. Louis. She asked her readers: "If you are a global warming skeptic, what makes you so angry?", or, "What motivates a denier?" She tried to systematize the answers and delivers what is, in my opinion, quite an interesting categorization (see blow). In the last part of the article, the famous novelist Jonathan Frantzen is quoted, who fell in love with birds (and then became an environmentalist).
What motivates the skeptic's anger? First of all, there is distrust in the alarmist scientists' credibility, expressed here by an exemplary comment:
For thirty years I was told the world was going to end and it didn't. All these scary predictions were based on computer models not actual data and they never came true. And the solution always seemed to involve some bicycle riding elitist regulating my life and taking my money. You guys blew it.Ursula Goodenough received 859 answers. Here her summary:
[INERTIA]:The default setting of the American people is inertia. We tend not to favor things that require a change in our habits, let alone gluttonous creature comforts.Of course, to have this categorization standing alone is very dangerous. At least, skepticism is based on scientific, rational arguments, too, as mentioned above. But we should accept this for a moment, because we talk about the emotional side. So let's follow Kwulrich's story:
[NOW-ness ]: There was a 10-minute lecture by Dr. Gilbert of Harvard that explains this pretty well. He states that humans have evolved to react quickly to events that are Intentional, Immoral, Imminent, and Instantaneous. Global warming has none of these properties, whereas Terrorism has all of them. Hence we fear Terrorism but not Global Warming.
[ME-ness]: It's something called "inferred justification." ... Essentially people approach things with pre-determined beliefs and then seek out facts to validate their own views and ignore facts that don't support their views. ... This is why the respondents respond with tons of links. They don't care what the facts are, they just want their belief system validated.
[I HATE THAT GUY]: There's no one motivator, I don't think. For some it's politics — "If the liberals/hippies/Democrats are saying it's true, I must assert that it's false!" — and for others, in America at least, I suspect it's related to our deep (and deeply annoying) cultural bias against the very idea of expertise.
[WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL?]: For my dad it was not accepting the idea that human beings, when faced with cataclysmic change, would be harmed by that change instead of adapting to it.
[I SMELL A PLOT ... ]: Many deniers I speak with really believe climate change is a conspiracy among Eurocrats and America Haters worldwide to "bring us down to their level."
In the (happy) end, Jonathan Frantzen tells why he first turned into a moderate skeptic (or simply being bored by the question of global warming), and how it came that he suddenly decided to become an environmentalist:
I made a conscious decision to stop worrying about the environment. There was nothing meaningful that I personally could do to save the planet, and I wanted to get on with devoting myself to the things I loved. I still tried to keep my carbon footprint small, but that was as far as I could go. . .. BUT then a funny thing happened to me. It's a long story, but basically I fell in love with birds. Whenever I looked at a bird, any bird, even a pigeon or a robin, I could feel my heart overflow with love. ...And now, not merely liking nature but loving a specific and vital part of it, I had no choice but to start worrying about the environment again. ... Now those threatened forests and wetlands and oceans weren't just pretty scenes for me to enjoy. They were the home of animals I loved.And falling in love with birds, roses and other living things, anger disappears:
Which is what love will do to a person. Because the fundamental fact about all of us is that we're alive for a while but will die before long. This fact is the real root cause of all our anger and pain and despair. And you can either run from this fact or, by way of love, you can embrace it.For some, there might be an unnerving tone of moral superiority in this arguments, as if only environmentalists would know what love means. But this is not the point, I guess. It's the anger.
When you stay in your room and rage or sneer or shrug your shoulders, as I did for many years, the world and its problems are impossibly daunting. But when you go out and put yourself in real relation to real people, or even just real animals, there's a very real danger that you might love some of them.
And who knows what might happen to you then?
20 comments:
A lot of skeptics have love for nature and the environment, but the alarmists have claimed it as being only theirs. The Environmental movement have embraced alarmists and cast the blessing upon them of being supporters of the Environment, thus skeptics can't be.
Many Environmentalists haven't been involved in farming, killed a chicken, managed manure, scheduled crop rotation and acreage, planted and built erosion control methods, moved to be near the workplace, walked through hip-deep snow, nor camped days from "civilization". But Environmentalists are happy to make Government guess at how to care for the land, misspend everyone's money, and anoint heroes who haven't proven themselves nor their works.
For that matter, those who trusted The Experts may well feel betrayed when they look at what has been going on.
There are many reasons for anger, even from those who also have love. Or particularly from those with love for the land, who see it being wasted in order to protect it.
Gosh, anger? What's to be angry about? Alarmists want to impose drastric restrictions on the lives, liberty, and property of billions of people. What's the problem with that?
Can you provide a like to Goodenough's report, as I cannot find it on her blog.
@#3
Maybe this one helps:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/06/03/136884396/taking-stock-of-climate-change-skeptics
Dear skeptics, you may have realized, too, that there is a pretty mean double-bind trick played out in the argumentation of Goodenough and Frantzen: once you object their arguments, you show anger, which in turn proves their theory right. Pretty mean, indeed.
I looked up the original Frantzen article, which you find here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/opinion/29franzen.html?pagewanted=all
So what is this LOVE all about? It is, according to Frantzen, the opposite of technology. Technology means iphone or Blackberry, means "like" buttons, means narcissism and endless self-reflection.
Opposed to that is real love, which not only means "like" but also "hate", deep emotion. Where to find real love? Birds, for example, out there. Real people. Nature:
"Suddenly there’s a real choice to be made, not a fake consumer choice between a BlackBerry and an iPhone, but a question: Do I love this person? And, for the other person, does this person love me?"
To fully understand this opposition, we have to take a closer look at Frantzen's hate for technology:
"Let me toss out the idea that, as our markets discover and respond to what consumers most want, our technology has become extremely adept at creating products that correspond to our fantasy ideal of an erotic relationship, in which the beloved object asks for nothing and gives everything, instantly, and makes us feel all powerful, and doesn’t throw terrible scenes when it’s replaced by an even sexier object and is consigned to a drawer."
And he goes on:
To speak more generally, the ultimate goal of technology, the telos of techne, is to replace a natural world that’s indifferent to our wishes — a world of hurricanes and hardships and breakable hearts, a world of resistance — with a world so responsive to our wishes as to be, effectively, a mere extension of the self."
I think this is a pretty reactionary attitude. Frantzen plays the age-old nature-culture divide, as if there were an untouched nature out there that determines how we have to live; a nature that punishes us when we don't obey to its rules etc. Nature determinism and its bed-fellow, hate of technology, are going here hand in hand. Sounds like the dark side of Heidegger.
I whole-heartedly disagree with this reactionary hi-jacking of LOVE!
Technology is not opposite to nature. I indeed "dis-like" the whole notion of this separation nature - culture, technological - natural, inside - outside and so on. Instead, I think that humans are space creating beings, who shape and create the environment they inhabit. Humans do not stand naked opposed to nature; instead, we use technology to keep our surroundings livable and breathable. Technology is us! (and not against us). The answer to global warming is not less technology, but more and better technology.
As a conclusion, I agree with Frantzen that we indeed need a relation ship to the world we inhabit which is more than only an instrumental one. Accepted. But I completely disagree with the assumption that technology stands between us and the world. Quite the contrary, if we want to be responsible inhabitants of the world, we should make responsible use of technology.
To put this into the context of this post: When we discuss skeptics' anger, it's only fair to put environmentalists' concept of love on test.
Interesting is Frenzen's use of this bird loving in his last novel Freedom. While he is able to show all the limitations of this attitude in his main character this is all lost when he speaks as citizen Frenzen. In the novel I got the impression that his main character was a bit sentimental about birds and that the author could see this, too. Reading what he has to say via comment leaves me disappointed.
If I were a very old german citizen and if I had worked in a concentration camp (long ago) and if I would still admit that I liked my work very much, I would be treated by the average citizen the same way that climate skeptics (deniers) are treated by the average alarmist climate scientist and/or activist.
From the very moment that you admit that you are skeptical about one core belief of climate science, many scientists and activists treat you as if you were a nazi, a loony or a criminal.
Maybe that this only happens on the internet, but this is where many people try to broaden their horizon and where many lay men are offended by just a few idiots.
I think that climate activists are much more filled with hate than most skeptics. There is no reason to believe that skeptics are no environmentalists.
Some of this endless fight and polarization is just silly. Who draws the line between us? Not the skeptics!
Best regards
Yeph
"there might be an unnerving tone of moral superiority in this arguments"
Gee, d'yuh think?
Next, an academic study asking "why are atheists so angry when religious folk say they will burn in Hell for not following the Good Book."
@John #8
Oh yes, why are SOME atheists so angry? Good question. Maybe because deep inside they are afraid that it might be true...Otherwise they would just laugh.
@ yeph #7 Your concentration camp comparison is completely made up. That's simply nonsense, I guess. You are almost begging to be called a Nazi. That doesn't make sense to me.
So what's going on, John and yeph? Your arguments don't support any idea or explanation; instead, they simply remind me of the initial question by Kwulrich (see my post above):
"It's not that the skeptics don't have an argument, it's how they argue. It's the anger. That's what puzzles me."
@Yeph #7: Your example is disgusting. You/somebody should delete it.
@John #8:
This is a very good question: Why are atheists so angry about religious topics? There have been several talk shows the last weeks due to the visit of the pope. Atheists got extremely emotional and angry about religious topics - although they're not physically touched by it.
The similarity to angry sceptics became obvious - they got angry because the religion/church/climate policy tries to limit their freedom (egoism) with rules as well as economically and morally.
While real limitations are partly true or intented in case of climate policy/protection, atheists are only touched morally.
Err..... Well exactly how do YOU feel when you are told what to think, that you are a nobody unless you think that way. And then, you find out that much of what is being rammed down your throat is lies, and exaggeration (thanks Al Gore and Stephen Schneider for making that clear)?
Especially when those ramming their arguments down your throat act as if they are the sole guardians of received "wisdom" and refuse to engage, debate the facts, but instead engage in emotional ad hominems and call us "deniers".
the last comment #11 is in some way funny... the anonymous is calling names, every little piece of his/her post is an personal insult. But, at the end, he/she thinks he or she is the victim.
Little story of the same kind: in Germany, a Prof Lüddecke (a skeptical activist) put another Prof, Prof Rahmstorf, into the Nazi corner. A year later or so, Stefan Rahmstorf had a presentation showing a slide with the disgusting insults by Lüddecke and saying: Nazi comparisons seem to be necessary.
Now the punchline: a friend (Dr. Kanno or so) of Lübbecke made notes, and the "think tank" EIKE, Kanno, and Lüddecke claimed that Prof Rahmstorf used Lüddeckes quote about Rahmstorf (!) to insult Lüddecke as a Nazi! EIKE, Lüddecke, and Kanno had to retract their lie, but did not apologize. Crazy story, but true, like post #11.
Think tanks... I think a lot of the confusion and the name calling come from this source. These extreme free market advocates and their media partner use a really strong language, in particular in the US. Everything is fascist, socialist, or communist, or some combinations like eco-fascist environmentalists-commies. So, in the light of this ideology, every try to limit CO2 emissions has to be a communist plot like the New Deal, health insurance, or the fluoridation of the drinking water to spoil our precious bodily fluids (from Kubricks Dr Strangelove).
A bit of history: here is a nice article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html
and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Fisher
So, most of the think tanks, as well as, the climate critics can be traced to single sources. Of course, now there are other people who are independent. But, if you look at posts of skeptics, the links point almost every time to this think tanks, skeptics are almost every time somehow connected to these think tanks, and almost all critical climate books are connected to economically right wing publisher or think tanks.
To the end: that does not free scientists and normal media to exaggerate climate change.
Environmentalists get angry too. Why doesn't that require explanation? Why not ask, "What motivates an alarmist?" I suggest because the person asking the questions about "deniers" already has an answer to those questions in their own feelings which they feel are obvious and so require no explanation. The exercise above is little more than asking, "Why do they think differently to me?" There is superior smugness to be found on both sides of the debate; this is merely an example.
Werner, as usual an interesting and thought-provoking post and as usual I am reading it while I really should be doing something entirely different. So just a few thoughts......possibly not entirely coherent ones :o):
It would appear to me that there are several distinctions to be made here, not only the obvious one between "denier" and "sceptic" but also why people are sceptics? Is it because they are curious (think Pyrrho et al) or because they are mistrusting or something entirely different? What is their starting point so to speak? To continue the comparison with religion already touched upon in the thread I would say that while they all have something in common (not believing in God) there is a big difference between being an atheist, agnostic or antitheist and that the same could probably, at least to some extent, possibly be applied here?
The "ME-ness" referred to reminds me of a Bertrand Russell quote that I recently posted on another blog: "What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way."
I reckon Frantzen has gotten himself a bit of a muddle, it doesn't really make sense to me that he rejects loving all of humanity but then embrace loving all birds....and he also lost me on the technology bit but I think he has some valid points about love, rejection and the world of liking. Ultimately our longing for love is in many ways an attempt to escape loneliness and whereas being with somebody that you like can be nice enough my argument would be that it doesn't make you less lonely or to put it in another way: Lise Noergaard (who wrote "Matador") said that when she met her (second) husband they started a "life conversation" in which there could be breaks, but never silence. I don't think that would apply to somebody that you like rather than love.
I think Franzen got a point with empathy in that logically if you are in possession of empathy then it would extent to more than the loved one, albeit probably not "bottomless" but otherwise the "linking" from one kind of love to the other seems to me a bit forced. Is he saying that he had no empathy in college because he hadn't experienced true love but then suddenly, without further ado, found both by watching birds? Surely one would hope/assume that another sort of "bird" has been involved in teaching him about love/empathy at some point? :o) However, read kindly, all Franzen is really saying, I think, is: engage in the world and if you engage, then you care. However, I really don't see any reason why you can't be a "sceptic" with regard to response to climate change and an environmentalist. Why would they be mutually exclusive?
@rich #12 and Hannah #13
Of course, Rich, environmentalists' anger deserves explanation, too. Even more so as they claim to be the guardians of 'love of nature'. Of course, a skeptic can be an environmentalist. It's the emotions driving the discussion, not 'reason'. That's why 'reasonable' arguments don't help much.
Overall, the problem of "emotions" is completely unresolved. If emotions are facts, as the artist Olafur Eliasson stated, we are still an-alphabets in dealing with emotions in climate debate. While science claims to be free of emotions, climate discussion is far from that. Politicians, for example, take emotions as facts; scientists, on the other hand, try to avoid emotions, of course. But in public debate, at the interface of science and politics, emotions come back, as the unconscious of the scientific process. On both sides, and easily to be stereotyped (the angry skeptic, the messianic alarmist).
In the end, both sides are like an old couple in the process of divorce, unable to deal with all those hurt feelings. Nobody wants to listen to them anymore. That's what Kwulrich from the NPR maybe was talking about. He only blamed the skeptics; I agree, he could have blamed both sides. But the problem remains.
“Both sides are like an old couple in the process of divorce, unable to deal with all those hurt feelings. Nobody wants to listen to them anymore.” Very apt :o)
"What motivates the skeptic's anger? First of all, there is distrust in the alarmist scientists' credibility, expressed here by an exemplary comment:(...)"
Well Werner, didn't you listen? This anger is not about distrusting scientific credibility, it's about knowing just too well what the proposed solution will look like.
"I am far more and more honestly concerned than you are - therefore I serve a nobler cause and own a superior morality than you do. Because you are guilty of such inferior morality you have to obey my rules and pay both for myself and my noble cause."
You really wonder why the anger?
@wflamme #16
Oh, I did listen, wflamme! Maybe there are indeed some environmentalists who think they are morally better. But what about you, wflamme? Just read again what you make your imaginary environmentalist say:
"...and pay both for myself and my noble cause".
It's pretty cheap, isn't it? As cheap as "all skeptics are paid by the oil industry". I think most people are really tired of this kind of discussion. You just involuntarily confirm that anger is a problem and does contribute NOTHING to a sustainable discussion. Or does the term "sustainable" make you angry, too?
Well Werner, the first thing you should ask yourself that if both side's arguments were indeed so interchangable, stereotype and 'cheap', then why did you promptly attribute this statement to an environmentalist? I actually didn't suggest it - after all it might as well stem from a sceptic in anger, thinking he is the more concerned one and serves the nobler cause.
You recognized and attributed this statement immediately ... and correctly. Because sceptics generally don't hold that kind of attitude - environmentalists do. No 'maybe', no 'some'. Face it.
The oil industry offers products of value and warranty that make my car run, heat my home and grease my bike - just to name a few. What is the valuable product environmentalists have to sell? Ever-partial relief from imposed guilt and concern is their cash cow and you better not ask for any kind of warranty. Who would buy such a thing if it were not that the imposer of guilt is of undisputable authority and professionality? That's why they are not aiming at being dubious spare time concerned amateurs but at being undisputed full time concerned authorities ... and they demand being paid their full time as even priests demand it for their full-time selflessness.
So of what use is your nit-picking and accusation when we all know where the money must come from and where it must finally go at least in part - directly or indirectly? Such facts aren't affected by whether in my imaginary quote I chose to call a spade a spade or not.
Please consider that the mechanism I described is designed to work independently from whether the cause is indeed noble and concern is justified or not. Actually this mechanism is so rotten, so prone to permanent abuse and so injust and disgusting that I will stay a 'denier' as long as enviromentalists won't abstain from this ever popular strategy of moral blackmailing.
So when conservationists asked for support to save some rare amphibian species from the fungus I considered them. But when opponents of the proposed Mainz hard coal plant approached me for support because after all it was me and my lifestile that caused nuisance and gloom I simply told them that my money was gained by an electrified industrial process they thus couldn't approve of and that I didn't want to stain their hands with any of such dirty money.
That's what sprang into my mind when I read the last words of the commenter: "You guys blew it."
You go on and state that I "just involuntarily confirm that anger is a problem". I didn't. Instead I've tried to explain that anger is a _reaction_, usually in face of pretensions or the use of force against or in disregard of one's will. A rather obvious explanation for an angry reaction that you still refuse to consider.
Speculating about your motives it's probably because you involuntarily confirmed that you know quite well what side is the pretentious one and that the sceptic's anger might actually be justified. But this probably isn't the kind of conclusion you like to reach because some inconvenient commitment might be involved.
As for the "sustainable discussion" and whether the the term "sustainable" in that makes me angry: It does not. Terms don't make me angry, intentions sometimes do. You desperately wish to switch to a sustainable discussion about this particular statement of mine?
@wflamme #18
Thanks for your long answer. Admittedly, I can't follow the logic of all of your arguments, but I get the idea. I think you agree; there is not much to discuss about.
Post a Comment (pop-up window,non-moderated)