What's Next?
Some recent scholarly research on the relevance of storytelling to the climate change debate gets aired out in a USA Today column by Dan Vergano, of which this is the thrust:
“Scientists, academics, and politicians on the left, do not do stories very well,” says Harvard political scientist Michael Jones, who earlier this year led a Policy Studies Journal report on the use and misuse of narrative in policymaking. “You have to tell a story, though, if you want people to retain information.”
I discussed the implications of Jones’ research in September, but they’re worth mentioning again, not just because Vergano quotes from another related post of mine, but because the issue of narrative has become a big part of the climate discussion of late. For example, last week we saw Gavin Schmidt and Judith Curry put forward dueling narratives.
What’s underlying a lot of this back and forth is discontent with a particular story narrative. It was interesting to see how this played out with the recent Scientific American profile of Curry. Here was an evenhanded piece exploring a controversy over some thorny issues related to climate change and it was still slammed by Joe Romm and Jim Naureckas at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). That prompted John Rennie, the former SciAm editor in chief to defend the merits of the story. In a follow-up post you can see Rennie’s frustration grow as he gets into it with FAIR’s Naureckas (over another story!) in the thread. My favorite comment, though, comes from another reader:
Welcome to the circular firing squad that is the progressive environmentalist movement. I’m as climate hawkish as they come and even I’m getting tired of this particular merry go round.
This echoes what I predicted last month:
Make no mistake: there will be a bloggy blood bath over who gets to shape this [climate] narrative. And it will be largely internecine, between liberal and climate-concerned bloggers.
Meanwhile, for obsessive climate watchers, here are some developing character-driven stories that bear watching:
Will Joe Romm remain the tip of the spear in the climate wars during this wilderness period, or will he be consumed by the dark forces and disappointment swirling all around him?
What happens to Tom Fuller, who appears equally consumed by the heart of darkness? Is he really leaving the climate wars? Or has he been dispatched on a secret mission to find Col Kurtz?
Then, there’s the Werewolf of London Georgia storyline, in which Judith Curry will continue her metamorphosis. Will she soon become all but unrecognizable to her former colleagues?
Obviously, there are many more characters to this epic drama that is now between acts. What are your cliffhangers for some of them? Will Anthony Watts fold up shop eventually and become a contestant on Dancing with the Stars? What about my favorite loony skeptic? What’s his next move? Didn’t somebody suggest he should get his own Reality show (was that Lucia)?
C’mon folks, give me some material to work with. Where’s this story going?
JC and her supporters weren’t any happier with the SciAm piece. She pulled her dogma line straight from it.
As far as shaping the narrative goes, since there is essentially no chance for carbon pricing legislation in the US, I think that the public narrative is probably going to be along the lines of Roger Pielke Jr and his iron law. Many climate hawks don’t like it but with no real chance for anything else, their fire will eventually be muted to some degree.
Pielke is now a celebrity, traveling the world doing conferences and panel discussions and newspaper interviews. He may well feel isolated from or abused by the scientific community, but he is the new celebrity elsewhere where the narrative is defined. He seems to be avoiding his past bad habit of making reckless accusations against other scientists, and his line _now_ is nowhere near as off-putting as Curry’s is.
I don’t say this because I agree with his policy prescriptions, but I think his angle is perfectly set for the mood and reality of the day. His opposition to Cuccinelli’s actions against Mann will mute opposition with many scientists who otherwise aren’t thrilled. Undoubtedly he will be called to testify in front of the House, and how he handles that will say a lot as to how much of the narrative he controls. If he can do so without overtly supporting Curry’s accusations of religious dogmatism, he may well cement his position.
Dean,
Yes, I know about the skeptic annoyance with the article but I suspect it was poisoned by the blog post by Lemonick.
At any rate, interesting take and perhaps you might be right if The Climate Fix gets some traction and is discussed and reviewed more widely.
Seeing as we are going to be forced to see the same criticisms leveled against Judith Curry, I feel it is important to highlight something she said yesterday:
Some very constructive dialogue on the previous two threads. The use of the word “heretic” in the Scientific American article just begged for the word “dogma” to be used. Given its range of connotations, it seems that dogma or even dogmatism doesn’t really convey what I am intending to for many people.
So lets try ideology and see how it works,
She used a word for a couple days. She then decided the connotations of that word were such they didn’t convey what she intended, and she is now trying a different word. Is this really what we want to focus on?
I don’t get what you mean by, is really this what we want to focus on?
What would that be, the phrasing or language of a post? Ideology? Can you be more specific?
“At any rate, interesting take and perhaps you might be right if The Climate Fix gets some traction and is discussed and reviewed more widely.”
Congressional testimony could seal it. With House newcomers claiming that God put stuff there for us to use/burn, and he wouldn’t have put it there if it could be harmful to us, the media will be looking for any even remotely sane voice that could be credible to that constituency. As long as he can offer testimony than doesn’t completely piss off the scientists who support the consensus, he will be anointed. The question is whether his general acceptance of AGW will poison him with conservatives. This is the thin line he needs to walk. But I think he is better placed to walk it than anybody else out there.
Did you know that ‘Hunt thine fervent loony cockscomb’ is an anagram of ‘The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley’?
Me neither.
#4, Keith Kloor, I was referring to things like this comment in Dean’s post, “If he can do so without overtly supporting Curry’s accusations of religious dogmatism.” Curry has made no “accusations of religious dogmatism,” but this sort of thing still gets repeated.
A number of people seem to be focusing on issues of word choice in her posts, rather than on any issues she raises. It seems like a strange thing to focus on.
Brandon – I would agree that people tend to focus on a few words that are the most inflammatory, missing the substance, but didn’t JC do the same thing regarding the word “heretic”?
People who want to enter a dialog in a contentious field need to very careful of their language.
#8, Dean, I don’t see how she did what you claim. Curry certainly paid a lot of attention to the word “heretic,” but she did so while trying to make a point. Focusing on a word by incorporating it into one’s argument is a far cry from focusing on a word while dismissing an argument.
I suppose you could say she ignored the substance of the article, but for the most part, she wasn’t talking about the article, so this hardly matters.
Dean noted (#8), that “People who want to enter a dialog in a contentious field need to very careful of their language.”
I hereby confer the coveted Best (but Least-Followed) Advice Award upon that sentence. The prize will be shared by those who advocate for the Pro-AGW Consensus, and those who dispute it.
#10, AMac, I agree that is good advice, but I don’t think it is that good of advice (I suspect there is better). I have participated in many discussion over contentious issues in which sloppy and/or unclear language was used. In my experience, how people react has little to do with the quality (or precision) of language used. If people are generous and willing to listen, usually sloppy language will be improved through the discussion.
On the other hand, if people are “ideological,” the clarity of language won’t matter to them. People are able to misinterpret and misrepresent any text, no matter how clear it is. Ultimately, the only people especially affected by the clarity of language are onlookers.
I think better advice for your award would be, “Always assume the best of those you are talking to.”
Perhaps it needs pointing out again that JC’s blog structure and purpose is more akin to Keith’s than RC. The head posts are not proclamations to be defended and protected through the comment thread but are perpetually subject to revision from the comment thread – comments which themselves sometimes may spawn their own head posts. More dialogue than diatribe.
An unfortunate but perhaps inevitable result of this format is that sometimes mini-pitbulls will latch on to things asserted for the purpose of invoking discussion (I think the use of the word “dogma” in response to the use of “heretic” qualifies here) and knowingly misrepresented.
Given JC’s stated intention, to enter into a rolling discourse with those on all sides, I don’t really see how people who are familiar enough with JC’s blog to quote from it can be concurrently unaware of its intended purpose. Exploiting the fluxing nature of JC’s blog posts may enable someone to appear to win a “point”, but let’s not pretend that it’s not akin to cheating at cards.
“What Next?”
Mann and Jones to fade quickly. Romm to evaporate soon. Pielke Jr. and Curry to gain the lion’s share of the attention but each will be replaced by kindred spirits in the next 10 years.
Political factions will shrink to nothing. Financial parties will move to support industrial initiatives. Left wing and anarchist organizations will adopt other causes. China, India, and Brazil will get stronger. USA and Europe will get weaker.
Climate in 21st Century will be cooler than 20th Century.
Also sprach Zarathustra!
Simon, Brandon,
I’m not really interested in debating Judith’s previous posts on this thread. We did that already. Too much parsing of language, anyway. That said, I think the criticism directed at her was about more than her use of the word “dogma.”
Can you guys follow Pasvaks and Dean’s lead and offer some prognostications instead?
The usual 250 or so climate bloggers, with some people changing but not the numbers, will go steadily into their own universe. Yet eerily, the arguments and ad homs will not change?! The world will move on to other “15 minutes of fame”.
We live in the iternet age. People care about shit for just long enough to have an opinion, then move on.
And the politicians are always 3-5 years behind. This new house will be investigating CGW at least 5 years to late, and is missing the real next big thing.
I honestly don’t see any rationale for House Repubs to take up the climate issue. It’s not like there’s any pending legislation or any other impetus. It would look so blatantly political and anyway, I have to say, I’m with some others who have noted that it might actually be a net plus for climate advocates to have the spotlight put on climate science. (I think this was said at Dot Earth.)
There is no great clamoring by the public to investigate anything related to climate science. It’s a tiny minority of zealots that think global warming is some kind of scam. But you know, everyone who wins the latest election seems to misread the returns as some sort of mandate. It’s ridiculous; as I read somewhere in the paper this morning, this mid-term political environment was so hostile that people would have voted their own mother out of office.
Here’s a prediction: the Repubs are going to so overplay their hand that they’ll remind Independents why they voted for the other guy in 2008.
In the Year 2000 (h/t Conan),
-oil prices continue to rise despite a slumping U.S. economy. North Americans continue to complain. Tax remains a 4 letter word.
-R&D-centric climate/energy policies, once thought of as the next best thing, fail to deliver a single republican senator. death taxes and impeachment hearings preclude any further climate/energy legislative proposals. much head scratching ensues.
-Climate policies continue to take root at state and municipal levels. WCI hires Rodney Dangerfield as their spokesman.
-Financing new coal plants in the U.S. remains difficult as the threat of litigation and/or regulations from the EPA scares away the banks, who prefer the more lucrative business of roboclosures.
-Tom Fuller reneges on his promise not bestow his unique brand of wisdom on the CaS crowd.
-Heading into his golden years, Steve McIntyre gives up his love hockeysticks and squash in favour of bocce and lawnbowling. Productivity in Canada and the U.S. immediately rises as millions of lurkers reluctantly go back to their day jobs.
{Here’s a prediction: the Repubs are going to so overplay their hand that they’ll remind Independents why they voted for the other guy in 2008.}
More then likely. People, like metranomes, seem to never find the middle.
I am a little more bullish regarding Obama’s prospects in 2012 than I was a month ago based on my current stock market outlook for the next two years compared to last month. Regarding policy, I’m perennially pessimistic because I agree with those who think that the best policy for global governments will be to enter into weak agreements and not adhere to them. But I find the AGW debate interesting (or entertaining) without bringing policy into the picture.
Having said that, I don’t agree with those who favor a better style of argument – as evidenced by JC herself, a simple title overwhelmed whatever was in the article (I agree with KK that Lemonick’s article was even-handed and the subsequent blog post was misguided) and resulted in 7 blog posts and counting and it is not always possible to anticipate the little item that will be blown up internet-style. Style may be important in influencing a minority of people on the fence in blog debates, but I reiterate that it is sufficent that climate scientists shoot for full transparency (availability of code and data) and not set any PR goals which are likely to be difficult to meet.
Keith (16)
I honestly don’t see any rationale for House Repubs to take up the climate issue. It’s not like there’s any pending legislation or any other impetus.
I hope you’re right, but I’d imagine EPA action could change this.
Gene, that might do it, but I still think these new guys would overplay.
RB, all you had to do was see Obama’s reax after the midterms to know he thinks the economy will rebound in time by 2012. He’s taking the long view on the mid-terms, and besides, you’d never get him to admit it, but I bet he’s happy to have a foil now.
People get lucky sometimes with their enemies. Such was the case with Bill Clinton.
KK,
My current opinion is that the economy will muddle along to show enough of a recovery for his re-election, but that’s as far as I’m willing to go. He has a good chance to co-opt the centre though because of the Tea Party.
If you had listened to him in 2009, he would have made you a lot of money too.
http://dealbreaker.com/2009/05/the-obama-portfolio-one-more-time-for-the-cheap-seats/
Can you guys follow Pasvaks and Dean’s lead and offer some prognostications instead?
It’s hard to see what to add to their predictions. Pielke is clearly the man of the moment. Judy Curry is (barring a sudden sharp temperature rise) the way of the future. I disagree with both of them (far too alarmist for my taste), but that doesn’t mean I can’t see the writing in the sand.
BTW, regarding Marlowe on coal in the US – I disagree and so does Buffett. That is probably why he bought BNSF.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/warren-buffetts-big-railroad-buy-raises-the-stakes-in-his-long/19222412/
I agree that Obama’s chances in 2012 are much better than many think now, mostly due to Tea Party overreach. But I don’t think that’s going to have a huge impact on climate policy. To whatever degree there was a chance for carbon pricing policy, it is past – for a long time. Love it or hate it, he and the Dems have passed more significant legislation in the last two years than anybody has probably since Johnson, and I don’t see any more of that. Win or lose, I think the next 2 or 6 years are mostly partisan wrangling and bickering, unless one party gets a large supermajority again, and I don’t see it.
One thing about wind and maybe solar. Here in the PNW, it makes for an interesting bipartisan coalition. Liberals in the west of OR and WA like the policy, while it brings new money and development to the struggling rural east of the two states. The main opposition is now coming from environmentalists, but most liberals in urban Seattle and Portland are not yet following them. A bill to streamline large wind farm planing process passed almost unanimously in the WA state leg last year. A rare point of agreement between east and west out here.
Fairy snuff, Keith 🙂
Keith Briffa will dice his tree-ring samples and carve rune symbols in them, eventually setting up a stall in Camden Market selling Tarot cards and hand-carved wooden ouija boards.
@RB,
I see your Buffet and raise you a DOE-NETL 🙂
#14, Keith Kloor, fair enough. For what it is worth, my point does go both ways. I didn’t intend to imply the only criticism of Judith Curry was her word choice. The problem was in a number of cases her word choice overshadowed the substance (both her’s, and that of those who disagreed with her).
As for prognostication, I wouldn’t care to guess about individuals. I don’t like “naming names,” nor do I follow people enough to guess. On a broader level, I suspect the United States will see years of infighting and policy stagnation. as the Democrats fail to provide any effective leadership. As Republicans gain power, we’ll see more small steps being taken toward the climate issue, such as funding for efficiency improvements and alternative energy.
The IPCC will largely continue as it has, failing to resolve any of the issues with it. The pressure caused by this will eventually lead to either a major reform of the IPCC, or it being discarded.
As the approach (seeking real communication) adopted by Judith Curry becomes more popular, some people will become more and more rabid. As their behavior and attitude degrade, they will largely become alienated, pushing more people toward the center. This will lead to a greater focus on the issues, causing positions to become more clear as the superfluous arguments get stripped away.
Pascvaks says: <i>”What Next?” Mann and Jones to fade quickly</i>
I am far, far more pessimistic. Here’s my prediction.
Mann has firmly hitched his horse under the progressive banner and is going to reap the results. The progressive true believer base will behave in predictable fashion. Many perfectly good strawmen will be consumed by the bonfire while the usual suspects will continue do defend the indefensible. Maybe they will find something new and creative to argue about such as spelling errors or font sizes. This way,t they don’t have to think about the series of lame and silly arguments they proposed before settling on “it doesn’t matter”. This demographic is not going anywhere and the sophists will continue to make their arguments.
As the Republicans take control of the house, the progressives will be matched by their intellectual equals in the form of some really lame conservative house members. M. Mann, having placed a large target on his chest by tying his work to “the progressive enemy” becomes a perfect foil for this set of idiots. Sensing subjectiveness of Mann’s results, they will attack. We can no doubt look forward to stupidities like the filing of actual charges over things like misuse of government funds for work done on propaganda sites on government time or perhaps a perjury charge or two if they can get him in under oath and have him repeat his statements about not grafting instrumentation to data. It’s wonderful theater for the conservative base, but in the long run very counter productive for the science. Look for pushes for heavy cuts in funding for these sources as well.
For the non-climate technical elite, little will change. They will continue to be convinced of the basic thermal properties of greenhouse gasses. They will continue to believe that climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1 to 3 and that the projected warming is somewhat over-predicted. They will continue to think that most of the risk assessment and economic predications are exactly as accurate as these folks historical record have always been. They will continue to be horrified by behavior that the progressives insist is “normal and uninteresting”, and they will continue to be utterly and completely irrelevant and small in number due to the size of the progressive/republican contingent.
PDA’s Prognostication:
Business as usual. Of the infinitesimal fraction of the total US population who cares either way about the issue, virtually no one will appreciably shift their position. Show trials and energy policies alike have no effect on the business-as-usual trajectory of emissions, with CO2 rising to 600 ppm by midcentury. Severe coastal floods displace 200 million and famine strikes half a billion more. 50% of species at risk of extinction. Nobody wants to hear “I told you so.” Climate scientists are endured uncomfortably at parties, like people with MRSA.
Any good narrative needs motivated actors. Once the debate turns to real or perceived motivations, then narrative-building has begun in earnest. Judith Curry is well on her way in this regard.
Personally, I don’t think climate anything is going to get much traction for several years at least, but I’m operating under the premise that the economy, in the US at least, does not significantly improve. I am expecting a “lost decade” similar to Japan’s, but worse thanks to our trade imbalance and nonexistent savings rate. As long as people are fearful for their economic futures, climate anything is going to take a back seat on the policy bus. The exception may be narratives pushing policies where we have our cake and eat it too – climate policy as economic stimulus and job creation.
Keith @ 16 “I honestly don’t see any rationale for House Repubs to take up the climate issue. … It’s a tiny minority of zealots that think global warming is some kind of scam. But you know, everyone who wins the latest election seems to misread the returns as some sort of mandate.”
It seems to me that this view is much too rational — given the prominence of the “there’s no proof of AGW” meme amongst the Tea Partiers credited with the R’s enthusiasm advantage, I don’t see how the R’s can possibly turn down the political theater of compelling prominent scientists to appear before Congress and be subjected to hostile questioning by the R’s. I also don’t see the R’s having the good sense and self control to avoid the pitfall of “believing their own press” and overplaying their hand, so that in the end they may well come off to independents as looking like poorly informed bullies. (But climate scientists had better lawyer-up — testifying under oath in a complicated and divisive area presents a real risk of making an inaccurate statement regarding an otherwise apparently tangential issue.)
Consider the following:
1. The IPCC is a “child” of the UNEP – a child who has been somewhat quiet of late, perhaps chastised by the implications of the IAC review.
2. As recently as 2007, the UNEP was an organization in search of a new, improved “vision” – according to a document from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)
3. During the one-day exercise which resulted in 2, above, participants noted a few matters of interest:
a) “the loss of biodiversity represents a threat in many ways as serious as that of our changing climate. Yet biodiversity is presented in a language incomprehensible to the layperson (much less the politician).What we need to know is not just what is happening to our biodiversity; we need to know how to do biodiversity conservation politically.” [emphasis added -hro]
b)”The fact that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is only occasionally associated with UNEP is a scandal and a tragedy. But UNEP must also learn to identify and properly support its more entrepreneurial initiatives (such as the UNEP Finance Initiative) and reform its mechanisms for working with nongovernment constituencies.” [emphasis added -hro]
c)”economics has great theory but lousy data while environment has great data but lousy theory. It is essential that the new UNEP narrative develop a robust theory to match its strong evidence of environmental degradation and its threat to prosperity, stability and equity.”
4. Although not noted by the MSM, as yet, the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX) is dying a quiet death – which suggests that radically reducing our carbon footprints may not be the be-all and end-all to save the planet, after all.
But fear not: the UNEP has another – and perhaps more favoured – child waiting in the wings. It comes with its very own “tipping points”, “ecological footprints” to worry about and “mechanisms” such as “biodiversity offsets or other schemes to mitigate and/or compensate…” Not to mention a “new testament” (TEEB) for the climate bible.
So here’s my prediction:
Move Over IPCC … here comes IPBES
Perhaps the AGU’s newly-minted climate rapid response team should set aside fighting skeptics and consider the implications to climate scientists of the possible ascendancy of “unprecedented biodiversity loss”.
There are some indications this battle of “sibling rivalry” may already be underway!
Sure, why not?
According to the wiki, Jim Naureckas has had a very nice career as a political science major in college and as investigative reporter and journalist, and has absolutely no experience in science.
Why is he writing that Scientific American is wrong to suggest there are worthy arguments against AGW?
How would Naureckas know?
If Gavin Schmidt made that claim, it would be one thing. But how can Naureckas make that claim?
If Gavin Schmidt expressed on RealClimate some opinion about Robin Givhan’s fashion beat, why would anyone entertain that opinion for more than a second?
In 2013, timed to precede the release of AR5, Blog Wars: The Climategate Story opens in theaters. Directed by David Fincher, starring Robert De Niro as Steve McIntyre and Robert Downey Jr as Michael Mann.
Jeez MT, ….just Jeez!