November 11, 2008

Professor Who Organized Climate-Change Project Plans Another Teach-In

Raleigh, N.C. — Focus the Nation, the nationwide project in January that highlighted issues in climate change, was among the largest teach-ins ever organized, with about 1,900 colleges and other groups participating.

Now, Eban S. Goodstein, a professor of economics at Oregon’s Lewis and Clark College who organized the project, wants to hold another teach-in that rivals the size of Focus the Nation. But this time the program will concentrate on the policies on climate change that will come out of President-elect Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office. The project is called the National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions.

“The motivating force here is that presidents who get stuff done get it done in the first 100 days,” Mr. Goodstein said between sessions here at the national conference of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. “This is a time for young people to engage with political leaders in Washington and basically spend a day learning, and take that learning to decision makers.”

Here at the conference, Mr. Goodstein is asking sustainability directors to return to their campuses and recruit faculty members to participate in the teach-in, which will take place on February 5. More than 300 colleges have signed up so far.

The teach-in will include Webcasts featuring eco-luminaries like David W. Orr, a professor of environmental studies at Oberlin College, and L. Hunter Lovins, a professor at the Presidio School of Management. Mr. Goodstein is also working with the office of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives, to set up virtual video chats between students and members of Congress.

The latest science on climate change says that unless people reduce emissions in the next few years, the effects of climate change will be much more dire, Mr. Goodstein said. With Democrats in control of Congress and the White House, he and others see an opportunity to shape greenhouse-gas policies.

“Americans get that global warming is big and bad and real, but very few people understand the very short time frame we have for action — except for educators,” he said. “There are people on every campus that understand this and are eager to get involved.” —Scott Carlson

Comments

1. Temperatures in the world have not risen in 10 years. In the U.S. temperatures for 2008 year-to-date have been BELOW average. What am I missing?

   — JM    Nov 11, 03:19 PM    #

2. The envirnonmentalist movement really does not seem to have much science, logic or evidence on its side – and thus its activists have to rely instead on Hollywood stars and inflammatroy prognostications to scare people into accepting their leftist nostrums.

   — Publius    Nov 11, 03:23 PM    #

3. That’s right! The bastions of truth, transparency, and public welfare over profit have always been found within the ranks of energy companies and developers. All those Nobel Laureates who accept the scientific evidence for global climate change are just looking for roles in Hollywood!

   — Slanto    Nov 11, 03:42 PM    #

4. At this point, anyone still speaking as JM and Pulius do above simply has to be considered a probable plant – two of the many doubting Thomas’ used, and well-paid, by Exxon, Shell, the coal industry and the like simply to try to keep raising doubts, just exactly Chapter One from the Tobacco industry’s playbook, from whom they took their lessons for this attempted exercise in mass public deception. Not one doubt of which is worth the electrons it takes to respond to it, since all of them are simple-minded and long since very well addressed. By real science, rather than by hide-bound politics and vested economic self-interests, using such idiot statements as found above, as if global warming is actually a “leftist” phenomenon, not a climatological one.

   — DDVA    Nov 11, 04:08 PM    #

5. If belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster equated to celebrity status and easy grant money, academia and the scientific community would be having a teach-in for Meatball Warming.

   — Prof Smith    Nov 11, 04:10 PM    #

6. Prof Smith is obviously a plant on the payroll of big pasta and the marinara industry.

   — HT    Nov 11, 04:12 PM    #

7. Please note:I am currently at the conference (Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Education) noted in the article and I’m a professing environmental educator. Having said that I am also a dean and I understand the absolute need for professional disagreement and discourse. Nonetheless, when the only data presented to me is one data point from an anonymous source versus large compilations for data from many sources and from well respected scientists I have no trouble knowing to whom I pay attention. So the question I have for the detractors is this – If you are wrong what kind of a world will you be leaving your grandchildren/grandnephews and grandnieces/ grandstudents? Can you imagine being wrong? I can and I can live with the consequences — A sustainable economy, society, ecology, etc. This is not about the present — it is about the future. Maybe the term ‘teach in’ scares folks but if we can’t have “teach in’s” on critical subjects then it seems to me we really don’t believe in free speech. Teach in’s are voluntary activities — unlike the classes of some professors.

   — Paul Rowland    Nov 11, 05:06 PM    #

8. Thanks to Prof. Rowland for a thoughtful answer. Unfortunately whenever there is a topic such as this or evolution many of the responses have no data, are jokes or silly remarks. It’s really too bad as the discussions were interesting at one time. I believe certain topics are being intentionally targated by some groups and not all respondents are connected to higher education.

   — Mary    Nov 11, 06:08 PM    #

9. I agree that professionals must be free to respectfully disagree and must be free to publish their disagreement. Why, then, are there so many horror stories of academics who, subsequent to public disagreement with the commonly held position (human induced global climate change, Darwinism, or whatever) have been dismissed as fools with no chance to secure grants for their research? Must we already agree with the status quo before we can get funding to investigate it?

   — Just wondering...    Nov 11, 06:23 PM    #

10. Several points:

    A) The environment is not a leftist issue and it is not a right-wing issue: it is a human issue—one that, it turns out, a certain population is willing to deal with according to the expertise of many educated individuals with the training to make the judgments they do. I think that the attempt to dismiss the the work of rigorous scientific research by describing it as “leftist” is intellectually slimy, intellectually lazy, intellectual vacuous, and intellectually arrogant.

    2. While the first two respondents certainly have a right to their own opinion it does not appear that they have earned the respect that one may give to those that take seriously the importance of engaging in open constructive dialogue. They need to offer evidence and good reasoning of their own for their opinion to even be worthy of attention. We don’t get any reasons fro the first two: just labels and irrelevant statements! (Even my still-maturing teenage daughter is beyond such silliness.)

    3. Some of us seem to think that using a string of words like “doesn’t have much logic or science” is enough to actually prove that a particular view doesn’t have much science or logic. What if I said “the first two respondents don’t exist?” Does this statement entail that the first two respondents really don’t exist. No.

    — SC    Nov 11, 09:36 PM    #

11. Global warming is real and the data supporting it is available to those willing to read and understand the research literature. Too bad both sides use misinformation and emotion to promote their biases when we need to come up with plans for energy security without destroying the habitability of the planet. Hopefully the pragmatic problem solvers will prevail over the emotional fringes.

    — Mr M    Nov 11, 09:54 PM    #

12. Earth-friendly cars are good for the economy. Had the current administration not so strenuously fought against anything that looked like real mileage standards, he could have saved the US auto industry from itself. Green jobs will be good for the economy. Go with it, conservatives! As has already been said, you really have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

    — Kathy    Nov 12, 06:55 AM    #

13. What we need on this issue (as so many others) is more light and less heat. And less name-calling, fewer cheap shots, and a willingness to try to tease the truth out of a very complex, technical, detailed subject, rather than settle for scoring rhetorical points. I haven’t noticed much of a tendency in that direction on either side of the issue.

    Regardless of what is done, it’s going to have serious effects. I get the impression that most minds are made up at this point, one way or the other. I hope this teach-in concentrates on studying the issues rather than indoctrinating all concerned with one point of view. But I’m not counting on it.

    Bottom line: we never outgrow our need for humility.

    — Dan    Nov 12, 08:31 AM    #

14. Scientists in this area refer to “Climate Change” rather than the popular term “Global Warming”. The distinction scientists make is an important one.

    The earth is a complex system. The data show and predict that there will be no uniform impact across all parts of the earth, but there will be changes.

    As things now stand, some parts of the earth are warmer, drier, colder, wetter. However, no matter what the current local climate is, plants and animals have evolved to fill that niche. That evolution occurred over millions of years.

    The relatively rapid (although not instant) changes the data predict will not allow time for evolutionary changes and for changes in practices. This will lead to a crisis for human beings everywhere.

    One place where we now see warming is the oceans which are affecting the polar icecap.

    By the way, the myth that scientists a few decades predicted global cooling is a myth. Scientific American recently ran a story that explored the origins of this myth.

    — Ellen Dannin    Nov 12, 08:58 AM    #

15. It is ironic that proponents of the global warming theory claim critics of the theory can offer no data (see #8 and #10), when the critics can point to the only data which allegedly matters – global mean temperature (as #1 did) – and it is the proponents of the global warming theory that must use insults and smear against those who rationally question their beliefs on the basis of this data.

    We have entered a very frightening time for our society. We have come full circle. If you dare to question the orthodoxy you will be threatened, smeared, insulted, publicly humiliated. Science is not advanced by these tactics.

    — TRB    Nov 12, 09:50 AM    #

16. I’m not a climatologist, and I’m not an evolutionary biologist; I’m a mechanical engineer. So I’m no expert on climate change and its effects. That being said, isn’t it true that relatively drastic climate change occurs regularly, and has occurred as recently as a few hundred years ago? Isn’t it true that my Viking ancestors on Greenland died out due to the “Little Ice Age”? What is the difference between that “relatively rapid” climate change and what we are experiencing today?

    I do not question the fact of climate change, but I do question whether or not it is human induced. There are reputable people – scientists – who believe variations of sun activity are more to blame than is the carbon dioxide that is a byproduct of industry and internal combustion engines.

    I just want an honest and frank discussion that allows all sides the freedom to thoroughly question and explore the issue – without bias. There are many examples of breakthroughs by scientists who did not agree with the commonly held position of the time. Einstein comes to mind.

    It is unfortunate that this has become a political issue. Politics is, by its nature, very biased. As long as politicians and social scientists are involved I will be skeptical of any “expert” position on this matter. That is why I, for one, question the value of a National Teach-In on Global Warming Issues. Especially since it is being organized by an economics professor.

    — Just wondering...    Nov 12, 10:47 AM    #

17. I thought it might be time to offer a comment from headquarters. I am the east coast outreach coordinator for the National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions. Professionally, I am a linguist and an educator, and have taken time off from my teaching career to participate in what I see as a worthwhile effort to increase consciousness about climate change issues, and yes, to encourage as many changes as possible in our national energy policies, because I understand the connections between our personal and collective habits and the other issues that face us, economically and politically.

    For the record, in response to #16 – Dr. Goodstein is the co-director of the group that is responsible for the teach-in, but isn’t actually an organizer; the suggestion that he is somehow benefiting from this due to his position as an economist is off track. He is motivated by personal experiences in connection with nature, and by a love for humanity – as am I.

    Since no one has offered any data, I would like to recommend a pdf that comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch). This is a summary that is offered for English-speaking policy makers. There are versions available in Arabic, Chinese, French, Spanish, and Russian, if those languages are more accessible to you: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.

    It is unfortunate that Americans’ senses of empowerment and engagement with their own collectivity has suffered to such an extent that the word “political” has become pejorative. To refer to #16 again – which said, “it is unfortunate that this has become a political issue.” I would suggest that, rather than the misfortune lying in the issue, the truly unfortunate thing is that few of us recognize that we are all already political – apathy is a political stance, actions are political statements; every time you make a purchase, drive a car or take the bus, pay a bill, decide to turn off a light to save power, hire one person over another, watch a TV program, keep silent during a conversation, make a point, dress according to one set of expectations or another: these are all political actions, in the sense that they are part of our identities as citizens – from “polites,” or “polis,” meaning “city” – and part of the many ways in which we interact and engage as societal beings. What could be more important than recognizing those issues that affect us all, and acting accordingly? Perhaps many things could be resolved in our lives if we all tried a little harder to behave responsibly, and – in this sense – politically.

    I agree that this is hardly the forum to “debate” the reality of human-induced climate change. The science exists, the results are published, and people are free to read them or not read them as suits their existing convictions. What I would like to offer as a final thought is – regardless of your stance on the issue – what do we have to lose from moving away from a fossil fuel-based economy? At the very least, we’re going to run out of oil one of these days. At the very least, we engage in military actions in order to protect oil resources. At the very least, our economy is failing, and we need a boost in our job market, as well as our reputation as a world leader in innovative technologies. By shifting our attention to clean energy resources like solar and wind power, we can take care of many of these issues at once. By investing in alternative energy technology and rewiring our power grid, we can create new jobs, new industries, and reduce pollution all at once. Can we all agree that pollution exists? Can we agree that it is something we’d rather live without?

    In an age when information is both readily available and difficult to trust, it is hard sometimes to see through the static to the clear picture. There is no creepy agenda behind this project: we are an office of four hard-working, dedicated women and a handful of motivated interns spending our days trying to encourage our nation to have a conversation. We really believe we can all benefit, no matter what our beliefs. We would like you to participate. Please check out the website, and if you have any questions, contact us directly. Our information is located here: http://nationalteachin.org/contact.php.

    — Lara Messersmith-Glavin    Nov 12, 01:06 PM    #

18. since we are supposed to be scholars.. how about some bibliography here.. most helpful of course for those who still think climate change is somehow a political issue!

    How we deal with it might be political but certainly not the reality of man made change itself.

    Global Warming
    The Complete Briefing
    Cambridge University Press
    3rd Edition
    John Houghton

    — Steven Leibo    Nov 12, 01:52 PM    #

19. I’m willing to bet that not one participant in the teach-in will have read what Freeman Dyson has to say on the subject, much less Bjorn Lomborg.

    As pointed out above, “global warming” is not synonymous with “climate change”; neither is synonymous with “anthropogenic global warming.” From a geological perspective, glaciers have been moving up and down the continents like window shades for a long time now. They’ll continue to do so, regardless of our puny activities.

    I’m not a climatologist, a linguist, an engineer, or any kind of scientist. But I emphatically do not agree that the importance of the issue means that we must do something, no matter what and no matter how much it costs, as quickly as possible, and anyone who says differently must be in favor of turning the earth into an uninhabitable wasteland. Frankly, the logic seems to me eerily similar to “it’s a really heinous crime, therefore the accused is guilty.”

    — Dan    Nov 12, 02:20 PM    #

20. Re #1 – 2008 is the 10th warmest year globally – how does that make it below average?

    Re#16 – The sun as the cause of current warming doesn’t make much sense. First, the magnitude of change in the sun’s intensity could not cause as much warming as has been observed. Second, equatorial regions should have warmed the most with a warmer sun while, in fact, higher latitudes have warmed more; and third, the stratosphere would also warm under a brighter sun, when, in fact, it has cooled since the greenhouse gases are trapping more heat in the lower atmosphere.

    Re #19. Freeman Dyson is a great scientist, but has never published a scientific paper on climate change. Bjorn Lomborg – no comment. Our puny activities will actually prevent another ice age. The small changes in the earth’s energy balance that caused ice ages over thousands of years are actually “puny” relative to the imbalance that humans have caused.

    I think the teach-in is a great idea and applaud the efforts to date.

    — Jeff    Nov 12, 03:27 PM    #

21. Oh, please. Never mind the “no comment” about Bjorn Lomborg; or perhaps I should say no comment in turn.

    But really: “The sun as the cause of current warming doesn’t make much sense”?! Really. The energy the earth receives annually dwarfs the total amount of energy locked up (or released from) all known reserves of coal, oil, gas, and so forth. “. . . the magnitude of change in the sun’s intensity could not cause as much warming as has been observed” is simply not so. The sun is a star, three-quarters of a million miles in diameter, about 93 million miles away, and its energy is what we’ve got, period, counting those forms of stored energy in the ground. If it were to go out, so to speak, like a lightbulb, eight minutes and twenty seconds later we’d be dead, and there’s not a conference on earth that could do a thing about it.

    Have you heard about the fluctuations in temperature on Mars and Saturn? Think the sun might have something to do with that? Or should we add anthropogenic extraterrestrial warming to our guilt trip?

    The human race has a number of problems, some more severe than others, but convincing ourselves and others that the sky is falling will do less than nothing to help. Dyson, imo, is right: AGW is a religion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and faith is not the tool to help us with climate change or anything else.

    — Dan    Nov 12, 04:06 PM    #

22. If anyone is curious, Dr. Goodstein wrote a review of Lomborg, which you can read here: http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/08/29/cool_it/print.html.

    — Lara Messersmith-Glavin    Nov 12, 05:06 PM    #

Previous: Cal State Graduate Student Is Released From Prison in Iran
Next: What College Presidents Think About Costs, Access, and Quality