Green: Q. and A.: on climate skepticism as a field of study

Andrew has j. Hoffman, Holcim Professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan, in the last year or so his tools as a social scientist apply to the cultural and social foundations of the backlash against change climate science researches spent.

He wrote the need for such work earlier this year for strategic organization, produces a magazine from Sage, a British academic publisher.

We interviewed him Institute by phone from his Office at the Massachusetts of technology, where as weggezaubert is. The following are excerpts, edited for brevity, we.

The debate on climate research involved very complex physical models and diluted areas of science. What role do you think have social scientists to play, given the complexity of the actual physical science?

Andrew j. Hoffman

We have to something, developed an idea, scientific consensus and think a second process by which social and political consensus is being developed by who. The first part is the domain of data and models, and physics. The second is very much a social and political process. And this brings a whole range of value-based in the foreground, worldview-based, cognitive and cultural dimensions that must be addressed.

Social scientists, beyond economists, have much to say about cognition, perceptions, values, social movements and political processes that are very important for the understanding that the public accepts the conclusions of the scientific body.

So if I say scientists hear "Speak the data for itself," I cringe. Data never speak. And data in General and in most cases are politically and socially inflected.

You have import for people's lives. To ignore, that is, ignore the social and cultural dimensions within which this science will take place.

Do you plan this, seen this dynamic?

(Laughs). I hesitate for a second because I have learned that make analogies can be difficult. But I believe that it is a process which, for example, the link between smoking and cancer for decades a scientific consensus was that this was a problem, then a social process begins, and it is accepted.

The interesting thing about climate change, I find, is that positioning on climate change remarkably predictable based on someone's political leanings. One-third of the Republicans and three-fourths of Democrats think that climate change is real. That is the political, ideological, and cultural dimensions of this debate to me.

It is interesting, because it was not the case. In 1997 the Kyoto Treaty with the development of regulations, which began economic and political interests, pages are drawn. We have reached the stage today that climate change has become part of the culture wars, which is same as health care, abortion, gun control and evolution.

Why is peer-review science rejected?

"The interesting thing about climate change, I find, is that positioning on climate change is remarkably predictable based on someone's political leanings."

-Andrew j. Hoffman

There are many, the peer-reviewed and mistrust scientists suspicion. So, the step can be one. I think many people will accept inconvenient scientific conclusion if it necessarily leads to results that they find offensive. People will hesitate to accept the concept of climate change, if that leads directly to ideas, which are contrary to the values, which hold dear.

What values?

Confidence now, you the scientific process? Trust scientists? For centuries the think and reason debate. I have just read, a book that I thought was forward-looking, anti "Intellectualism in American life," of this people have suspicion of intellectuals working on issues, which are opaque, which we change conclusions, which structure the way our society inaccessible,, the way we live our lives.

There is a certain helpless frustration people have: who are these cultural elites, this intellectual elites who can make these conclusions in the ivory tower of academia or other scientific institutions and tell me how my life to life?

And we can not omit, makes. There are certain are powerful interests that take the conclusions, that this will give those therefore will not accept the definition of the problem they, if they are not going to accept the solutions that follow it. I speak of certain industry sectors that lose carbon constrained world in one.

Also, if you're not on climate change solutions define and ask me to him to accept, you ask me, in fact accept a pretty dismal reality that I refuse to accept me. And many climate advocates fall into them, if they give this terrible, apocalyptic predictions of cities under water and ice ages and things like that. The people to their heels more difficult digging tends to be.

Some people regard this as just a movement for more Government more government bureaucracy. And I think particularly fear or the idea of World Government resist. Carbon dioxide is part of the economy of every country on Earth. This is a global cooperation challenge, as we have never before seen.

And so, if you think global cooperation a dangerous term, it makes you see the science as unacceptable?

It can partly to come down: trust the message and trust the Messenger? If I'm inclined to resist the notion of global cooperation - that is a nice way, what others can see as a world Government - and when the scientific, came the body, that conclusion is this entity, I'll be inclined less to believe. A message from someone, that they think shares their values and beliefs accepted people.

And environmentalists are not the kind of person to many people. It is part of the population who tried environmentalists as Socialists, control the lives of the people is.

There are many organizations that I don't think as elites: municipal water authorities, a Department of the army, which examines future risks. Are they potential messengers?

In our society today, I think people have more confidence in economic institutions as in scientific institutions. Scientists can talk until they are blue in the face of climate change.

Companies pay money to resolve this issue, then people will say: it must be true, because they throw their money way would not.

And so what I arrange that this a value - and culture-based debate is very much. And to ignore-never resolved, that what until I described have it and in which, a logic Division, where both sides about completely different things, different problems talk, demonization of others, only looking at things, which confirm their opinion. And we get nowhere.

View the original article here