Let's look back at the Poster Presentations, link a couple together in some interesting ways and use some of the terms / concepts from our work to do it. We're calling this a '2 X 2' project: TWO posters, TWO concepts or terms, and as interestingly dense a linking as you can get.
I'm currently focused on the spatially-opposed 'Addictions' and 'Prisons' projects from Thursday--really intimately related in being so filled with ideology that the science is totally eclipsed and colonized. I heard Puritanism / esceticism everywhere—as we reject, fear and punish our pleasure-seeking bodies. Saw bunches of 'black boxes' sealed up because we really seem to want to impose ideology regardless of the facts. 'Crime is genetic. 'Crime is immoral and willful.' 'Crime is sinful.' 'Drunks are selfish.' 'Addicts are sick.' Yikes!, there's a field day here—theory and material.
Go for it. Make sure that we all find ourselves clearer on our common topics and ideas, and seeing things in the Poster Projects that we may have missed after we read your posts.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
My Bad, I can't add the hyperlink for some reason
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/04/dna-day-is-this-sunday-have-you-had-your-genetic-work-up-done/
DNA Day
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Slate article on vaccine-autism link
http://www.slate.com/id/2243424/
Slate Magazine
recycled
True Believers
Why there's no dispelling the myth that vaccines cause autism.
By Arthur Allen
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010, at 1:56 PM ET
On Tuesday, the medical journal the Lancet retracted a 1998 paper that linked the MMR vaccine to autism. The controversial paper was challenged and debunked by the scientific community, but it nevertheless sparked a panic among many parents. In 2007, Arthur Allen explained why scientists are unlikely to convince the parents of autistic children that vaccines are not to blame. The original article is reprinted below.
At the recent 12-day hearing into theories that vaccines cause autism, the link between the disorder and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine came across as shaky at best. As for the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal, which was used in other vaccines, witnesses showed that in all known cases of actual mercury poisoning (none of which caused autism), the dose was hundreds or thousands of times higher than what kids got during the 1990s. Powerful population studies showed no link to either MMR or thimerosal-containing shots.
None of that moves Mary Wildman, 47, whose son's case is before the court and who drove from her home near Pittsburgh to watch the hearing, which ended this week. "I know what happened to my son after he got his MMR shot," she told me. "I have no doubt. There's no way they'll convince me that all these kids were not damaged by vaccines."
It is difficult to challenge a mother's knowledge of her own child. And also to fight off the staying power of the vaccines-cause-autism theory and other such notions that verge on the irrational.
People who study irrational beliefs have a variety of ways of explaining why we cling to them. In rational choice theory, what appear to be crazy choices are actually rational, in that they maximize an individual's benefit—or at least make him or her feel good.
Blaming vaccines can promise benefits. Victory in a lawsuit is an obvious one, especially for middle-class parents struggling to care for and educate their unruly and unresponsive kids. Another apparent benefit is the notion, espoused by a network of alternative-medical practitioners and supplement pushers, that if vaccines are the cause, the damage can be repaired, the child made whole. In the homes of autistic children it is not unusual to find cabinets filled with 40 different vitamins and supplements, along with casein-free, gluten-free foods, antibiotics, and other drugs and potions. Each is designed to fix an aspect of the "damage" that vaccines or other "toxins" caused.
"Hope is a powerful drug," says Jim Laidler, a Portland scientist and father of two autistic boys who jumped ship from the vaccine conspiracy a few years ago. In reality, autism has no cure, nor even a clearly defined cause. Science takes its time and often provides no definitive answers. That isn't medicine that's easy to swallow.
Another explanation for the refusal to face facts is what cognitive scientists call confirmation bias. Years ago, when writing an article for the Washington Post Magazine about the Tailwind affair, a screwy piece of journalism about a nonexistent attack on American POWs with sarin gas, I concluded that the story's CNN producers had become wedded to the thesis after interviewing a few unreliable sources. After that, they unconsciously discounted any facts that interfered with their juicy story. They weren't lying—except, perhaps, to themselves. They had brain blindness—confirmation bias.
The same might be said of crusading journalists like David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, a book that seemed to corroborate the beliefs of hundreds of parents of autistic children, and UPI reporters Dan Olmsted and Mark Benjamin (the latter now with Salon).
Systems of belief such as religion and even scientific paradigms can lock their adherents into confirmation biases. And then tidbits of fact or gossip appear over the Internet to shore them up. There's a point of no return beyond which it's very hard to change one's views about an important subject.
Then, too, the material in discussion is highly technical and specialized, and most parents aren't truly able to determine which conclusions are reasonable. So they go with their gut, or the zeitgeist message that it makes more sense to trust the "little guy"—the maverick scientist, the alt-med practitioner—than established medicine and public health. "History tells us that a lot of ground-breaking discoveries are made by mavericks who don't follow the mainstream," says Laidler. "What is often left out is that most of the mavericks are just plain wrong. They laughed at Galileo and Edison, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown and Don Knotts."
And to be sure, there was some basis for suspecting vaccines several years ago, before definitive studies had discounted a link. When the first vaccine theory was proposed in 1998, it appeared in the prestigious British medical journal Lancet and was published by an established London gastroenterologist, Andrew Wakefield. Two years later at a congressional hearing, Wakefield and an Irish pathologist and molecular biologist, John O'Leary, announced they had found measles viral RNA in the guts of autistic kids with severe bowel problems.
The air of respectability fell away over the years as we learned that Wakefield had serious conflicts of interest (including a 1997 patent application on a measles vaccine to replace the potentially soon-to-be-avoided MMR shot) and that a subsequent publication on measles RNA was probably an artifact of false positives, a common problem in polymerase chain-reaction technology.
The thimerosal theory emerged in a different context. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, concerned about cumulative mercury exposures in young children, asked manufacturers in 1999 to phase out thimerosal-containing vaccines. In other countries, such as Denmark and Canada, thimerosal was removed because of new vaccine combinations that either didn't require thimerosal or would be damaged by it. Nowhere was thimerosal removed because of evidence of harm.
But the first CDC study of children's exposures to thimerosal-containing vaccines was difficult to interpret. And anti-mercury activists jumped on the transcript of a 2000 meeting at which the study was scrutinized to argue that something improper was going on. The transcript shows no such thing. But the activists unleashed a public-relations campaign alleging a government and "big pharma" coverup.
That, in turn, proved to be eye candy for environmental groups already enraged by the Bush administration's enlistment of former industry officials in the squashing of environmental regulations. Anti-pollution lawyer Robert F. Kennedy zealously jumped on the thimerosal bandwagon in an "expose" published in Salon and Rolling Stone.
No surprise there. What editor or writer doesn't want to "reveal" that drugmakers and the government conspired to poison a generation of innocent kids. (Kirby's book won a 2005 Investigative Reporters and Editors award.) Where's the passion in the story that some public-health bureaucrats quietly moved to blunt a danger that turned out to be nonexistent?
In the pre-Internet days, the parents of an autistic child living in a small city might have found a handful of other parents in their predicament. Now, they instantly find thousands online. The denominator—healthy children—has disappeared. This is a good thing if you're looking for answers. But the answers may not be good ones. Joined together on the Internet, these actors create a climate of opinion that functions as an echo chamber for conspiracy dittoheads. Even the women's division of the Methodist Church has gotten in on the act, presumably on the grounds that it is fighting for social justice by decrying mercury poisoning, although there was no mercury poisoning, and social justice would be better met by promoting confidence in vaccines.
Kennedy, who wrote blithely in the Huffington Post during the trial that "overwhelming science" had confirmed the link, continues to believe it. So does Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., whose circuslike hearing room aired many such claims. Neither cites any solid studies, because they do not exist.
If and when the vaccine court rules against Michelle Cedillo, the 12-year-old autistic girl at the center of these first hearings, it won't change their minds. Long ago, the famous Dr. David Livingstone interviewed a rain doctor in Botswana. When Livingstone accused the rain doctor of being irrational or a cheat, the rain doctor replied, "Well, then there is a pair of us." If it rains, I take the credit, he said, and if your patient gets better, you take the credit. In neither case do we lose faith in our professions. You see, the rain doctor said, "what we believe is always more important than what actually happens.
Slate Magazine
recycled
True Believers
Why there's no dispelling the myth that vaccines cause autism.
By Arthur Allen
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 2, 2010, at 1:56 PM ET
On Tuesday, the medical journal the Lancet retracted a 1998 paper that linked the MMR vaccine to autism. The controversial paper was challenged and debunked by the scientific community, but it nevertheless sparked a panic among many parents. In 2007, Arthur Allen explained why scientists are unlikely to convince the parents of autistic children that vaccines are not to blame. The original article is reprinted below.
At the recent 12-day hearing into theories that vaccines cause autism, the link between the disorder and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine came across as shaky at best. As for the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal, which was used in other vaccines, witnesses showed that in all known cases of actual mercury poisoning (none of which caused autism), the dose was hundreds or thousands of times higher than what kids got during the 1990s. Powerful population studies showed no link to either MMR or thimerosal-containing shots.
None of that moves Mary Wildman, 47, whose son's case is before the court and who drove from her home near Pittsburgh to watch the hearing, which ended this week. "I know what happened to my son after he got his MMR shot," she told me. "I have no doubt. There's no way they'll convince me that all these kids were not damaged by vaccines."
It is difficult to challenge a mother's knowledge of her own child. And also to fight off the staying power of the vaccines-cause-autism theory and other such notions that verge on the irrational.
People who study irrational beliefs have a variety of ways of explaining why we cling to them. In rational choice theory, what appear to be crazy choices are actually rational, in that they maximize an individual's benefit—or at least make him or her feel good.
Blaming vaccines can promise benefits. Victory in a lawsuit is an obvious one, especially for middle-class parents struggling to care for and educate their unruly and unresponsive kids. Another apparent benefit is the notion, espoused by a network of alternative-medical practitioners and supplement pushers, that if vaccines are the cause, the damage can be repaired, the child made whole. In the homes of autistic children it is not unusual to find cabinets filled with 40 different vitamins and supplements, along with casein-free, gluten-free foods, antibiotics, and other drugs and potions. Each is designed to fix an aspect of the "damage" that vaccines or other "toxins" caused.
"Hope is a powerful drug," says Jim Laidler, a Portland scientist and father of two autistic boys who jumped ship from the vaccine conspiracy a few years ago. In reality, autism has no cure, nor even a clearly defined cause. Science takes its time and often provides no definitive answers. That isn't medicine that's easy to swallow.
Another explanation for the refusal to face facts is what cognitive scientists call confirmation bias. Years ago, when writing an article for the Washington Post Magazine about the Tailwind affair, a screwy piece of journalism about a nonexistent attack on American POWs with sarin gas, I concluded that the story's CNN producers had become wedded to the thesis after interviewing a few unreliable sources. After that, they unconsciously discounted any facts that interfered with their juicy story. They weren't lying—except, perhaps, to themselves. They had brain blindness—confirmation bias.
The same might be said of crusading journalists like David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, a book that seemed to corroborate the beliefs of hundreds of parents of autistic children, and UPI reporters Dan Olmsted and Mark Benjamin (the latter now with Salon).
Systems of belief such as religion and even scientific paradigms can lock their adherents into confirmation biases. And then tidbits of fact or gossip appear over the Internet to shore them up. There's a point of no return beyond which it's very hard to change one's views about an important subject.
Then, too, the material in discussion is highly technical and specialized, and most parents aren't truly able to determine which conclusions are reasonable. So they go with their gut, or the zeitgeist message that it makes more sense to trust the "little guy"—the maverick scientist, the alt-med practitioner—than established medicine and public health. "History tells us that a lot of ground-breaking discoveries are made by mavericks who don't follow the mainstream," says Laidler. "What is often left out is that most of the mavericks are just plain wrong. They laughed at Galileo and Edison, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown and Don Knotts."
And to be sure, there was some basis for suspecting vaccines several years ago, before definitive studies had discounted a link. When the first vaccine theory was proposed in 1998, it appeared in the prestigious British medical journal Lancet and was published by an established London gastroenterologist, Andrew Wakefield. Two years later at a congressional hearing, Wakefield and an Irish pathologist and molecular biologist, John O'Leary, announced they had found measles viral RNA in the guts of autistic kids with severe bowel problems.
The air of respectability fell away over the years as we learned that Wakefield had serious conflicts of interest (including a 1997 patent application on a measles vaccine to replace the potentially soon-to-be-avoided MMR shot) and that a subsequent publication on measles RNA was probably an artifact of false positives, a common problem in polymerase chain-reaction technology.
The thimerosal theory emerged in a different context. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, concerned about cumulative mercury exposures in young children, asked manufacturers in 1999 to phase out thimerosal-containing vaccines. In other countries, such as Denmark and Canada, thimerosal was removed because of new vaccine combinations that either didn't require thimerosal or would be damaged by it. Nowhere was thimerosal removed because of evidence of harm.
But the first CDC study of children's exposures to thimerosal-containing vaccines was difficult to interpret. And anti-mercury activists jumped on the transcript of a 2000 meeting at which the study was scrutinized to argue that something improper was going on. The transcript shows no such thing. But the activists unleashed a public-relations campaign alleging a government and "big pharma" coverup.
That, in turn, proved to be eye candy for environmental groups already enraged by the Bush administration's enlistment of former industry officials in the squashing of environmental regulations. Anti-pollution lawyer Robert F. Kennedy zealously jumped on the thimerosal bandwagon in an "expose" published in Salon and Rolling Stone.
No surprise there. What editor or writer doesn't want to "reveal" that drugmakers and the government conspired to poison a generation of innocent kids. (Kirby's book won a 2005 Investigative Reporters and Editors award.) Where's the passion in the story that some public-health bureaucrats quietly moved to blunt a danger that turned out to be nonexistent?
In the pre-Internet days, the parents of an autistic child living in a small city might have found a handful of other parents in their predicament. Now, they instantly find thousands online. The denominator—healthy children—has disappeared. This is a good thing if you're looking for answers. But the answers may not be good ones. Joined together on the Internet, these actors create a climate of opinion that functions as an echo chamber for conspiracy dittoheads. Even the women's division of the Methodist Church has gotten in on the act, presumably on the grounds that it is fighting for social justice by decrying mercury poisoning, although there was no mercury poisoning, and social justice would be better met by promoting confidence in vaccines.
Kennedy, who wrote blithely in the Huffington Post during the trial that "overwhelming science" had confirmed the link, continues to believe it. So does Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., whose circuslike hearing room aired many such claims. Neither cites any solid studies, because they do not exist.
If and when the vaccine court rules against Michelle Cedillo, the 12-year-old autistic girl at the center of these first hearings, it won't change their minds. Long ago, the famous Dr. David Livingstone interviewed a rain doctor in Botswana. When Livingstone accused the rain doctor of being irrational or a cheat, the rain doctor replied, "Well, then there is a pair of us." If it rains, I take the credit, he said, and if your patient gets better, you take the credit. In neither case do we lose faith in our professions. You see, the rain doctor said, "what we believe is always more important than what actually happens.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Food, Inc. on Channel 2, Wednesday, April 21, 8 PM
Twin Cities Public Television, Channel 2, will present Food, Inc. on Wednesday, April 21, at 8 PM, as part of the documentary series POV (Point of View). This controversial film is a homage to Michael Pollan's perspective of the American food industry.
Synopsis
In Food, Inc., filmmaker Robert Kenner lifts the veil on our nation's food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that's been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government's regulatory agencies, USDA and FDA. Our nation's food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, the safety of workers and our own environment. We have bigger-breasted chickens, the perfect pork chop, insecticide-resistant soybean seeds, even tomatoes that won't go bad, but we also have new strains of E. coli — the harmful bacteria that causes illness for an estimated 73,000 Americans annually. We are riddled with widespread obesity, particularly among children, and an epidemic level of diabetes among adults.
Featuring interviews with such experts as Eric Schlosser ("Fast Food Nation"), Michael Pollan ("The Omnivore's Dilemma") along with forward thinking social entrepreneurs like Stonyfield Farms' Gary Hirschberg and Polyface Farms' Joel Salatin, Food, Inc.reveals surprising — and often shocking truths — about what we eat, how it's produced, who we have become as a nation and where we are going from here.
Monday, April 12, 2010
NASA and climate change
I chose to examine the section of NASA’s website on what they label as global climate change. As with others that have been posted so far, the URL provides an immediate opportunity for reaction: climate.nasa.gov. Whether or not one has preconceived ideas about whether or not government entities would be a reliable source of information on climate change will certainly impact perceptions of the information presented. Either way, they certainly do their best to establish themselves as a legitimate source and authority. The angle they choose to take in doing so is to present a large volume of facts and data—sometimes in the form of graphs and diagrams, other times as statistics accompanied by numerous citations. There are videos, pictures, maps—certainly no shortage of evidence to support their side of the argument, carefully presented in short clips and statements that are accessible to a casual website viewer. There is, however, a sense of focused urgency about the site: the home page, for example, has a banner tracking earth’s “vital signs,” such as sea level, global temperature, and CO2 levels, as if the earth were a hospital patient whose heartbeat was being monitored. In this way the site anthropomorphizes the earth, putting it in a state of emergency, and is better able to engage our fears and emotions as well.
The goal overall seems to be to establish NASA as a rational, unbiased presenter of straight facts. They even state under their “Solutions” page that: “It is not NASA's role to develop solutions or public policies related to global climate change. Instead, the agency's mission is to provide the scientific data needed to understand climate change and to evaluate the impact of efforts to control it.” Their stake in the issue, however, becomes clearer as they discuss their role in climate science. They have a huge amount of government backing and funding and, and it seems that they must maintain themselves as the most reliable and up-to-date source of climate change information in order to justify the amount of money they receive. According to a chart on their own website, NASA receives almost 60% of federal investments in climate change science. This alone is revealing as to how much influence politics is going to have on their information since the government is putting a huge stock into their research.
Ice Age shouldn't have had a sequel anyway
Depending on one's perspective of "rich", I found another blog, aptly named "An Honest Climate Debate", concerned with (you guessed it!) a so-called "honest" climate debate.
I'm gonna go Glenn Beck on anybody foolish enough to read my post and simply assert that there is no such thing as an honest climate debate. Global Warming is a vast hybrid - so vast that there's always something at stake with Global Warming.
Given that, I don't believe that it is possible anymore to remain purely scientific concerning global warming, if it ever was at all. Why? GW is now a definitive boundary in American domestic politics. It is a cornerstone of an ideology among many. So much so that it, like many other aspects of ideology, can necessarily reproduce our conceptions of reality in a way that doesn't seem obvious. Everyone's drinking a different flavor of the same kool-aid.
Anyway - the blog post (http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/global-warming-may-prevent-approaching-ice-age/) I found was a re-posting of a news article that that references a scientific claim that our pollution will stave off the next probable ice age in a couple thousand years. They're quick to point out that this isn't an argument attempting to prove that the release of C02 into the atmosphere is a good thing - however, I've already seen this argument get re-appropriated for the exact opposite.
During the fall semester, I coach debate for a local high school. The topics can range from a number of different areas, but global warming often rears its ugly head. A number of times, teams in response to arguments that global warming is bad, will say the exact opposite, that global warming is good - one of the reasons being that it will prevent the next coming ice age.
My point is that information goes through a number of processes that construct, amplify, dampen, and misconstrue the true essence of the information. But even beyond that, the way in which ideology shapes our realities also shapes our reception to these arguments. Clearly my ideology affects the way in which I judge and resolve high school global warming debates at the end of the round. Impartiality is a myth, but it doesn't mean that a partisan belief has to birth a schism.
Does anyone really think that we'll be around for the next ice age even if it was to happen?
I'm gonna go Glenn Beck on anybody foolish enough to read my post and simply assert that there is no such thing as an honest climate debate. Global Warming is a vast hybrid - so vast that there's always something at stake with Global Warming.
Given that, I don't believe that it is possible anymore to remain purely scientific concerning global warming, if it ever was at all. Why? GW is now a definitive boundary in American domestic politics. It is a cornerstone of an ideology among many. So much so that it, like many other aspects of ideology, can necessarily reproduce our conceptions of reality in a way that doesn't seem obvious. Everyone's drinking a different flavor of the same kool-aid.
Anyway - the blog post (http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/global-warming-may-prevent-approaching-ice-age/) I found was a re-posting of a news article that that references a scientific claim that our pollution will stave off the next probable ice age in a couple thousand years. They're quick to point out that this isn't an argument attempting to prove that the release of C02 into the atmosphere is a good thing - however, I've already seen this argument get re-appropriated for the exact opposite.
During the fall semester, I coach debate for a local high school. The topics can range from a number of different areas, but global warming often rears its ugly head. A number of times, teams in response to arguments that global warming is bad, will say the exact opposite, that global warming is good - one of the reasons being that it will prevent the next coming ice age.
My point is that information goes through a number of processes that construct, amplify, dampen, and misconstrue the true essence of the information. But even beyond that, the way in which ideology shapes our realities also shapes our reception to these arguments. Clearly my ideology affects the way in which I judge and resolve high school global warming debates at the end of the round. Impartiality is a myth, but it doesn't mean that a partisan belief has to birth a schism.
Does anyone really think that we'll be around for the next ice age even if it was to happen?
Celebrities in a new kind of movie
I stumbled across a warming-in-pop-culture gem while prowling through websites on a simple “global warming” google search. The “title” of the link was just “global warming” so I was surprised when I got the site loaded and a video started playing, narrated by non other than Leonardo DeCaprio (I recognized his voice from Titanic and confirmed with the url). The video was pretty long for an intro to a website and filled with plenty of arguments, so I’m going to focus on just that instead of attempting to tackle the whole website.
Argument number one is made simply by the name attached to the site. From the very beginning of the video (or viewing the url or actually visiting the website), it’s pretty apparent that Leo is behind it. So, we get a celebrity endorsement of global warming. All the glamour, power, wealth, general coolness that we link with celebrities is then linked to the issue of climate change. Now, caring about the climate is not only “conscientious” but “cool” and “glamourous”.
The video starts off with a series of beautiful photographs of the earth and Leo’s narration. As he describes the earth, the “key words” flash on the screen–the planet is “ours” and “one of a kind”, etc. Leo is, essentially, making an advertisement for the planet. He tells us it belongs to us while showing us how beautiful it is, that there’s nothing that can replace it. Planet→product.
Suddenly, menacing music starts. Leo starts to describe our “oil addiction” and how it’s destroying the planet. Images change from lovely pictures of the earth to hoards of people, smokestacks, and oil drops. I noticed a couple things here. First, the music let’s us know how we’re supposed to feel about the issue. Even if someone knew literally nothing about global warming, they know now it’s BAD. Second, the language Leo uses is meant to simultaneously draw the viewer in and repulse them. His description of the process of events that lead to our current oil dependence is told almost like a story. There is no presentation of data or citations of facts. This (clever) tactic is used to appeal to the people who are interested in learning about Leonardo Decaprio. NOTE. I do NOT mean to suggest that people can’t be interested in pop culture and also be interested in science, or that people interested in pop culture are dumb, or anything like that (clearly, I am one of those people). What I do mean is that when someone goes to a website for Leonardo Decaprio, they are generally not looking for scientific information, but narratives about people’s lives. So, Leo gives us a narrative. END OF NOTE. The words that flash on the screen are “addiction” “consumption” “sewer” (among others)–words meant to disgust us and provoke fear. In the same way Crichton describes villans in his novel (meaning environmentalists) and the evil events they are planning, Leo uses powerful language to hook the viewer. This happens really intensely later, when he talks about the affects of global warming. “Freak weather” and “giant ice chunks” and other terrifying Day After Tomorrow-esque descriptions of the state of the world in 20 years. Clearly, Crichton and Leo both understand the value of scare-tactics.
After talking about oil for a bit (how it’s formed, why we use a lot of it), he gets to the issue of global warming–and barely says anything! He talks plenty about the consequences, but says maybe one sentence on the link between oil use and global warming. He does not even touch on how we know it’s occurring (apart from stating “many scientists agree” or something like that–more on that below), any of the science, or even why oil use would cause global warming. I think this is a wise choice by Leo and company. They try to (1) keep people’s interest, (2) avoid discussing something they probably are less than experts in (but then, what is an expert? See below), but most importantly (3) paint global warming as an incontrovertible fact. Not discussing the internal links between our practices and the climate crisis sends the message that there is no need, because it’s just fact. This is reinforced later, when Leo mentions skeptics (not their theories, just the fact that they exist, so as to not immerse himself in science) and says “don’t be fooled!” (the phrase also flashes on the screen). You’re a complete idiot if you don’t believe in warming! Listen to the movie star everyone, not the skeptics!
The video then launches into what YOU can do about the issue. I think this is where the issue of authority gets most thoroughly explored. Leo tells us all politicians are “dangerously resistant to change” (word flash) and won’t do anything about climate change because they have profited so much from the oil industry. The use of the word “dangerously” sure makes me not want to trust politicians. Leo ties consumption (identified as a problem in the oil sequence) to politics, which lets the viewer make the connection of all the scary stuff we saw before to politics. This strips politicians of their authority pretty effectively. Who then, are we to trust? After going on for a while about the alternative energy posabilities, Leo tells us to “think for ourselves” and “get educated”. So, read a lot and then form our own conclusions? Read who? Can’t trust politicians, can’t trust the skeptics, science is too complicated…hmmmm. This theme of “think for yourself” is one that is encountered in Crichton’s novel and in the presentation of global warming in class the other day, and it seems like a difficult one to tackle. Leo seems to believe that we can somehow think independently of the culture, that there is some kind of objective fact and we just need to learn enough of the other objective facts floating around to find it. Haha, there is no such thing! I talked a lot about this in my other blog post about Crichton and don’t really wanna go into it again (this is way too long…) but I think it’s funny how people keep suggesting education and reading more and sorting through the BS to find truth as solutions to the problems with the way we receive information about warming information. Clearly, everyone can draw conclusions, but the idea that we can make our “own” conclusions seems a little backward, especially when the way we get to them is education (be it school or reading newspapers or watching Leo videos over and over).
Anyway, interesting stuff on many levels. Post video, we know the planet is our possession (and really really pretty), politicians can’t be trusted, warming is caused by selfish humans using oil (and that is 100% fact agreed on by anyone worth anything), and that people need to think for themselves. The whole thing reminded me a little of the scene in the film Zoolander when Derek is being brainwashed by Mugatu and Katinka. Obviously, the messages are a little different (murder of the Malaysian prime minister for trying to put an end to child labor vs stopping global warming) but I think the tactics are similar (contrasts between “good scenes” and “bad scenes”, use of images, spin on information). Just to note, I am a fan of stopping global warming and not a fan of murder.
Finally, here is the link to the Leo movie, which I am craftily putting at the end so you will watch it after reading my post and then be influenced by what I’ve written before you’ve even viewed the clip (sound familiar anyone?). Aaaand sorry again this is so long.
Argument number one is made simply by the name attached to the site. From the very beginning of the video (or viewing the url or actually visiting the website), it’s pretty apparent that Leo is behind it. So, we get a celebrity endorsement of global warming. All the glamour, power, wealth, general coolness that we link with celebrities is then linked to the issue of climate change. Now, caring about the climate is not only “conscientious” but “cool” and “glamourous”.
The video starts off with a series of beautiful photographs of the earth and Leo’s narration. As he describes the earth, the “key words” flash on the screen–the planet is “ours” and “one of a kind”, etc. Leo is, essentially, making an advertisement for the planet. He tells us it belongs to us while showing us how beautiful it is, that there’s nothing that can replace it. Planet→product.
Suddenly, menacing music starts. Leo starts to describe our “oil addiction” and how it’s destroying the planet. Images change from lovely pictures of the earth to hoards of people, smokestacks, and oil drops. I noticed a couple things here. First, the music let’s us know how we’re supposed to feel about the issue. Even if someone knew literally nothing about global warming, they know now it’s BAD. Second, the language Leo uses is meant to simultaneously draw the viewer in and repulse them. His description of the process of events that lead to our current oil dependence is told almost like a story. There is no presentation of data or citations of facts. This (clever) tactic is used to appeal to the people who are interested in learning about Leonardo Decaprio. NOTE. I do NOT mean to suggest that people can’t be interested in pop culture and also be interested in science, or that people interested in pop culture are dumb, or anything like that (clearly, I am one of those people). What I do mean is that when someone goes to a website for Leonardo Decaprio, they are generally not looking for scientific information, but narratives about people’s lives. So, Leo gives us a narrative. END OF NOTE. The words that flash on the screen are “addiction” “consumption” “sewer” (among others)–words meant to disgust us and provoke fear. In the same way Crichton describes villans in his novel (meaning environmentalists) and the evil events they are planning, Leo uses powerful language to hook the viewer. This happens really intensely later, when he talks about the affects of global warming. “Freak weather” and “giant ice chunks” and other terrifying Day After Tomorrow-esque descriptions of the state of the world in 20 years. Clearly, Crichton and Leo both understand the value of scare-tactics.
After talking about oil for a bit (how it’s formed, why we use a lot of it), he gets to the issue of global warming–and barely says anything! He talks plenty about the consequences, but says maybe one sentence on the link between oil use and global warming. He does not even touch on how we know it’s occurring (apart from stating “many scientists agree” or something like that–more on that below), any of the science, or even why oil use would cause global warming. I think this is a wise choice by Leo and company. They try to (1) keep people’s interest, (2) avoid discussing something they probably are less than experts in (but then, what is an expert? See below), but most importantly (3) paint global warming as an incontrovertible fact. Not discussing the internal links between our practices and the climate crisis sends the message that there is no need, because it’s just fact. This is reinforced later, when Leo mentions skeptics (not their theories, just the fact that they exist, so as to not immerse himself in science) and says “don’t be fooled!” (the phrase also flashes on the screen). You’re a complete idiot if you don’t believe in warming! Listen to the movie star everyone, not the skeptics!
The video then launches into what YOU can do about the issue. I think this is where the issue of authority gets most thoroughly explored. Leo tells us all politicians are “dangerously resistant to change” (word flash) and won’t do anything about climate change because they have profited so much from the oil industry. The use of the word “dangerously” sure makes me not want to trust politicians. Leo ties consumption (identified as a problem in the oil sequence) to politics, which lets the viewer make the connection of all the scary stuff we saw before to politics. This strips politicians of their authority pretty effectively. Who then, are we to trust? After going on for a while about the alternative energy posabilities, Leo tells us to “think for ourselves” and “get educated”. So, read a lot and then form our own conclusions? Read who? Can’t trust politicians, can’t trust the skeptics, science is too complicated…hmmmm. This theme of “think for yourself” is one that is encountered in Crichton’s novel and in the presentation of global warming in class the other day, and it seems like a difficult one to tackle. Leo seems to believe that we can somehow think independently of the culture, that there is some kind of objective fact and we just need to learn enough of the other objective facts floating around to find it. Haha, there is no such thing! I talked a lot about this in my other blog post about Crichton and don’t really wanna go into it again (this is way too long…) but I think it’s funny how people keep suggesting education and reading more and sorting through the BS to find truth as solutions to the problems with the way we receive information about warming information. Clearly, everyone can draw conclusions, but the idea that we can make our “own” conclusions seems a little backward, especially when the way we get to them is education (be it school or reading newspapers or watching Leo videos over and over).
Anyway, interesting stuff on many levels. Post video, we know the planet is our possession (and really really pretty), politicians can’t be trusted, warming is caused by selfish humans using oil (and that is 100% fact agreed on by anyone worth anything), and that people need to think for themselves. The whole thing reminded me a little of the scene in the film Zoolander when Derek is being brainwashed by Mugatu and Katinka. Obviously, the messages are a little different (murder of the Malaysian prime minister for trying to put an end to child labor vs stopping global warming) but I think the tactics are similar (contrasts between “good scenes” and “bad scenes”, use of images, spin on information). Just to note, I am a fan of stopping global warming and not a fan of murder.
Finally, here is the link to the Leo movie, which I am craftily putting at the end so you will watch it after reading my post and then be influenced by what I’ve written before you’ve even viewed the clip (sound familiar anyone?). Aaaand sorry again this is so long.
Glaciers
I looked on worldview of global warming.com and I decided to focus on the glaciers, because I have spent a lot of time in Glacier National Park in Montana. I frequent the National Geographic site almost every day and their estimate of the glaciers disappearing in Glacier is 2030.
My mom told me the other day that it is now projected at 2015 or 2020, but she also told me in December 2009 that "the recession is over." Simply because she heard some turkey say it on the radio. So when she brings up this global warming/climate change stuff I have to go to the sites to get the perspective of the writers and scientists.
The pictures on this site are shocking because they are real.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
Before An Inconvenient Truth, a buddy of mine went with his dad to hear Al Gore speak in St. Paul. He came to my house going on and on about the future of the planet and to be honest I didn't take him seriously because I didn't believe the MPLS/St. Paul would have to be evacuated when the ice caps melt.
I know Global Warming is real, but I think that there is so much hype around it that people, scientists or not, make the ice caps melting seem like it is coming faster than it is. This ideology they push for agency to create a global consensus that their needs to be carbon reduction pacts by countries such as the US, China, etc.
I believe the hype is a good thing because it raises awareness through out the world. Many people, not all, are thinking about their carbon footprint. Isn't that the type of world we want to see our children grow up in? A world united in a common cause to save the planet for our grandchildren and so on?
I met and interviewed Will Steger in January and I trust him. He has the most experience at the North Pole. He said the main mission for the rest of his career was to focus on climate change to improve the future of our planet. I subscribe to his belief that so many things need to be done to save our planet.
I know that we have to take this problem our planet faces seriously. We do have to push for a better future.
My mom told me the other day that it is now projected at 2015 or 2020, but she also told me in December 2009 that "the recession is over." Simply because she heard some turkey say it on the radio. So when she brings up this global warming/climate change stuff I have to go to the sites to get the perspective of the writers and scientists.
The pictures on this site are shocking because they are real.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
Before An Inconvenient Truth, a buddy of mine went with his dad to hear Al Gore speak in St. Paul. He came to my house going on and on about the future of the planet and to be honest I didn't take him seriously because I didn't believe the MPLS/St. Paul would have to be evacuated when the ice caps melt.
I know Global Warming is real, but I think that there is so much hype around it that people, scientists or not, make the ice caps melting seem like it is coming faster than it is. This ideology they push for agency to create a global consensus that their needs to be carbon reduction pacts by countries such as the US, China, etc.
I believe the hype is a good thing because it raises awareness through out the world. Many people, not all, are thinking about their carbon footprint. Isn't that the type of world we want to see our children grow up in? A world united in a common cause to save the planet for our grandchildren and so on?
I met and interviewed Will Steger in January and I trust him. He has the most experience at the North Pole. He said the main mission for the rest of his career was to focus on climate change to improve the future of our planet. I subscribe to his belief that so many things need to be done to save our planet.
I know that we have to take this problem our planet faces seriously. We do have to push for a better future.
consensus
The Great Global Warming Swindle is a DVD, but its website can be viewed here. The main page begins with a note on how the DVD will be available soon "... despite the strenuous efforts of those who support the theory of global warming to prevent its release". This wording makes it clear that the DVD is controversial enough that global warming supporters would go out of their way to prevent it from reaching the public.
The website has a few tabs on specific subjects, such as the sun and its role in climate change. With regards to this, the authors of the website call it "curious" that mainstream scientists would not consider the role of the sun in relation to climate, and they go on to explain that they are clearly related, since summer is warmer than winter and so on. Their point is simple: we, normal everyday people, notice the obvious things that mainstream scientists overlook. Each tabbed subject is much the same, followed by a long list of more detailed links that will explain the ideas more thoroughly.
On the page titled "Apocalypse Then", the authors point out that scientists have long foreseen terrible apocalyptic events, assuming that we would all start dying off in the 1970's, which has obviously not come to pass. By comparing those hysterical ideas to our ideas of global warming, the authors suggest that we are being unrealistic.
One of the more interesting pages is the one on "consensus", and how orthodox views often lead to fear mongering amongst scientists (an example being mad cow disease). The website makes it clear that even though 'top scientists' have arrived at a consensus, we don't know who these people are, and there are intelligent scientists who dare to disagree.
The website as a whole appears to speak to the "common" person, the one who doesn't necessarily know much about science but would still be concerned about scientific issues. One of the goals of the website appears to be to make scientists look like silly and reactionary people who don't understand common sense.
a historical approach
The website: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm uses a historical approach to define the events that lead the vast majority of scientists to understand that indeed humans can greatly affect both their local and global environments. It begins with an anecdotal story in which Tyndall hypothesizes about the global ice ages by observation of the landscape. They then go on to concede that the data available at the time was insufficient but the physics suggested that some process had to be occurring in order for the known physics to match observation. It then shows that Tyndall calculates the heat trapping capacity of water vapor and CO2. While working on their theories they come across more and more evidence of how burning coal could lead to a rise in temperature. It is noted that these were always footnotes or speculations in working with the basic science of CO2 infrared absorption. It goes on to show that as technology progresses we then are able to use spectrographic data, but due to the lack of precision of the instruments, they were not able to concretely demonstrate a specific trend. It wasn't until a dynamic layered model of the upper atmosphere was envisioned that scientists could relate all the observations into a theory. It goes on to mention that by the 1930's one naval researcher had developed a decent theory, but was so obscure that his work was not widely read. It goes on to talk about the lack of evidence for global warming at the time until the second world war and the the advent of computers to be able to calculate the intricate effects of the H2O/CO2 layering that work together to create the greenhouse effect. At this time researchers used radiometric analysis to determine that the carbon in the atmosphere was indeed the fossil fuels that were being emitted by human industry. Until the 70's researchers were not as interdisciplinary and so were missing key components of the puzzle. With more crossover between disciplines and the Vostok ice-core samples they clearly showed an increase and that there is a lag time between introduction of CO2 and heat increase. And by 2005 the evidence was unmistakable that humans do indeed impact global climate.
This argument is very well laid out and the hyperlinks leading to more information are well suited for anyone trying to understand more about this.
Through the historical argument they show many of the stumbling blocks that scientists faced as they came to understand this phenomena, also how scientists work together and build upon ideas from their predecessors while also removing faulty ones. This shows that science is a dynamic process that changes as new information becomes available, either through new ideas/ hypotheses or by technological advancement that allows more detailed observations.
Now that science has revealed a potential problem it is up to human society to act.
I doubt that if scientists observed a large asteroid headed for earth, that there would be much denial about it or lack of political will to do something about it. But because of the complexity of the chemistry, physics and biology that are involved in understanding this issue, it makes people weary of accepting the facts, and it makes it easier to politicize this issue.
This argument is very well laid out and the hyperlinks leading to more information are well suited for anyone trying to understand more about this.
Through the historical argument they show many of the stumbling blocks that scientists faced as they came to understand this phenomena, also how scientists work together and build upon ideas from their predecessors while also removing faulty ones. This shows that science is a dynamic process that changes as new information becomes available, either through new ideas/ hypotheses or by technological advancement that allows more detailed observations.
Now that science has revealed a potential problem it is up to human society to act.
I doubt that if scientists observed a large asteroid headed for earth, that there would be much denial about it or lack of political will to do something about it. But because of the complexity of the chemistry, physics and biology that are involved in understanding this issue, it makes people weary of accepting the facts, and it makes it easier to politicize this issue.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
WE MATTER!
http://kids-vs-global-warming.com/Home.html
This is a website for an organization created by and for youth to become informed and active in all this climate change hoo-ha!
I find this site INCREDIBLY interesting. It creates this whole point of view, with statements and phrases in bold, italics, caps, underlined that youth REALLY have the ability to make a difference. Not that they don't. But this is one of my things that drives me crazy, intellectually. People painting a picture of them doing something, without actually DOING anything.
"This blog uses no paper, therefore, saves trees.
It also doesn’t use fossil fuels, doesn’t waste water, and depletes no natural resources.
It might use a bit of Energy used to power the computer you’re reading this on, but that’s beside the point.
Thanks for reading it!
-Alec"
Although its creator acknowledges "It might use a bit of energy.." but then concludes but that's beside the point. Because really, it is. The important thing here is not ACTUALLY organizing the opportunities for youth to participate in the fight against/dissemination of information about climate change. It is to create a discourse that defines them as important, capable actors. They ARE doing something by putting up posters at school.
There's even an iMatter app for the iPhone. This blog is using technology to create a world in which participation in these websites/apps/organization is actually doing something to save the environment, thus excusing one, filling one's quota, for actual action.
This is a website for an organization created by and for youth to become informed and active in all this climate change hoo-ha!
I find this site INCREDIBLY interesting. It creates this whole point of view, with statements and phrases in bold, italics, caps, underlined that youth REALLY have the ability to make a difference. Not that they don't. But this is one of my things that drives me crazy, intellectually. People painting a picture of them doing something, without actually DOING anything.
"This blog uses no paper, therefore, saves trees.
It also doesn’t use fossil fuels, doesn’t waste water, and depletes no natural resources.
It might use a bit of Energy used to power the computer you’re reading this on, but that’s beside the point.
Thanks for reading it!
-Alec"
Although its creator acknowledges "It might use a bit of energy.." but then concludes but that's beside the point. Because really, it is. The important thing here is not ACTUALLY organizing the opportunities for youth to participate in the fight against/dissemination of information about climate change. It is to create a discourse that defines them as important, capable actors. They ARE doing something by putting up posters at school.
There's even an iMatter app for the iPhone. This blog is using technology to create a world in which participation in these websites/apps/organization is actually doing something to save the environment, thus excusing one, filling one's quota, for actual action.
a sucker born every minute
I'll admit -- I'm just as gullible as the next kid. Someone tells me, "Hey, you know gullible isn't in the dictionary?" You best believe I'm going to look. But often people are sure of their inability to be so duped. There are tests for this, just like there are for dyslexia or IQs; http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/test2.html
To most, gullibility is an aspect of comedy that the jokster relies upon with little serious intention. And yet it may be just plain gullibility, after all, that so often is relied upon when swaying public opinion on very important topics. And depending on your sense of humor, it can be anywhere between deeply disturbing to gut busting funny. One of the links Robin sent us is a simple sum of American gullibility. A kid in his high school science fair project renamed water as: dihydrogen monoxide. Duh, peeps, 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen is water! yet this kid, without much persuading, pushed the majority of his pollsters into total elimination of this "chemical". All he had to do was list the side-effects or reasons, which include:
1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients
This just goes to show how easy it is to pull the veil over anyone's head. You call into question something's danger, when in fact it is life in general that is simply dangerous. It also shows how easy it is to instill fear into what is really so natural. By surmising the implications of the most common compound on Earth and the ability of one to create a rally against it is iconic of the way most public rhetoric works. The human propensity to accept ideas at face value--no matter how illogical--is the fertile soil in which pseudoscience grows.
As we teeter the line between jumping off the paranoid scale and acting like prototypical blondes (I'm allowed to make this one, please), we must have faith in our own education and ability at discerning what is BS and what is not. It is the 'grain of salt' argument, and it can be applied directly to the topic of global warming. We must take everything Michael Crichton says with a grain of salt. While his experiment with the topic isn't as simple or funny as the kid's in the science fair, they both exemplify to varying degree's how the obvious can so easily be distorted into its opposite.
To most, gullibility is an aspect of comedy that the jokster relies upon with little serious intention. And yet it may be just plain gullibility, after all, that so often is relied upon when swaying public opinion on very important topics. And depending on your sense of humor, it can be anywhere between deeply disturbing to gut busting funny. One of the links Robin sent us is a simple sum of American gullibility. A kid in his high school science fair project renamed water as: dihydrogen monoxide. Duh, peeps, 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen is water! yet this kid, without much persuading, pushed the majority of his pollsters into total elimination of this "chemical". All he had to do was list the side-effects or reasons, which include:
1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting
2. it is a major component in acid rain
3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
4. accidental inhalation can kill you
5. it contributes to erosion
6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients
This just goes to show how easy it is to pull the veil over anyone's head. You call into question something's danger, when in fact it is life in general that is simply dangerous. It also shows how easy it is to instill fear into what is really so natural. By surmising the implications of the most common compound on Earth and the ability of one to create a rally against it is iconic of the way most public rhetoric works. The human propensity to accept ideas at face value--no matter how illogical--is the fertile soil in which pseudoscience grows.
As we teeter the line between jumping off the paranoid scale and acting like prototypical blondes (I'm allowed to make this one, please), we must have faith in our own education and ability at discerning what is BS and what is not. It is the 'grain of salt' argument, and it can be applied directly to the topic of global warming. We must take everything Michael Crichton says with a grain of salt. While his experiment with the topic isn't as simple or funny as the kid's in the science fair, they both exemplify to varying degree's how the obvious can so easily be distorted into its opposite.
work of the public
Like the recent movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science. I will discuss a selection of the global warming-related issues that are raised in between the car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do. The champion of Crichton’s scientific view is a MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who clearly runs intellectual rings around other characters. The issues are raised as conversations and Q and A sessions between him (and other ‘good guys’) and two characters; an actor (not a very clever chap) and a lawyer (a previously duped innocent), neither of whom know much about the science.
This blurb is from the website http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/. The writer makes an argument about Crichton’s book comparing it to a movie. Many people are familiar with the story line of The Day After Tomorrow, and know that it is pretty unrealistic. Comparing the book to this movie delegitimizes Crichton’s work, declaring that it is “selective and occasionally mistaken about the basic science.” The writer claims that the characters do not know much about the science indicating that it is all false. Throughout the article, the writer takes Crichton’s science claims and explains why they are wrong or misleading, presenting “correct” information to back him up. This is the work of the public. They react to the work, legitimizing or delegitimizing it. Without people to back up or refute other’s work, people would never know what to believe or learn or study etc. This is a reference made to Latour’s diagram that shows no matter what, all parts of the society affect science.
This blurb is from the website http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/. The writer makes an argument about Crichton’s book comparing it to a movie. Many people are familiar with the story line of The Day After Tomorrow, and know that it is pretty unrealistic. Comparing the book to this movie delegitimizes Crichton’s work, declaring that it is “selective and occasionally mistaken about the basic science.” The writer claims that the characters do not know much about the science indicating that it is all false. Throughout the article, the writer takes Crichton’s science claims and explains why they are wrong or misleading, presenting “correct” information to back him up. This is the work of the public. They react to the work, legitimizing or delegitimizing it. Without people to back up or refute other’s work, people would never know what to believe or learn or study etc. This is a reference made to Latour’s diagram that shows no matter what, all parts of the society affect science.
How can you fight the invinsible???
The website I researched into was called fightglobalwarming.com. I am really not sure how legitimate this website was however. This is an environmental defense fund. The science behind this website was extremely watered down. I didn't see any authoritive science figures linked to the research or facts in which this website provided. I would argue that global warming is occurring though and I liked how this website provided information in a very simple and straight forward way that would allow any type of audience to understand the main ideas behind global warming.
It tried to instill fear within its audience by listing "dangers" as one of the side columns that you could choose from. Under this topic, the ideas of pollution trapping heat into the earths surface, and a dangerous spiral of the arctic, or "air conditioner" of the world not existing anymore because of all of the ice melting and the oceans as "global conveyer belt", not being able to circulate the worlds water around.
As far as progress this website tried to give people ideas of what they could try to do to literally fight global warming. These are the things the websited listed: use less energy in your own home, be more efficient when driving cars, and to neutralize the rest of your life.
I would not recommend this website for making a strong, intellectual arguement on the occurence of global warming this would not be the website to present to someone new, but I do believe it would be good for younger those who aren't very well informed on the topic.
It tried to instill fear within its audience by listing "dangers" as one of the side columns that you could choose from. Under this topic, the ideas of pollution trapping heat into the earths surface, and a dangerous spiral of the arctic, or "air conditioner" of the world not existing anymore because of all of the ice melting and the oceans as "global conveyer belt", not being able to circulate the worlds water around.
As far as progress this website tried to give people ideas of what they could try to do to literally fight global warming. These are the things the websited listed: use less energy in your own home, be more efficient when driving cars, and to neutralize the rest of your life.
I would not recommend this website for making a strong, intellectual arguement on the occurence of global warming this would not be the website to present to someone new, but I do believe it would be good for younger those who aren't very well informed on the topic.
Audience is Crucial
Crichton’s State of Confusion website depicts the ways in which Crichton addresses real science matters, but is selective and sometimes mistaken when it comes to the basic science behind these issues. He bends the reasoning by selecting only the evidence that supports what he believes to be accurate, disregarding the reality that could potentially disprove his theories.
As we were discussing in class, Crichton is fully aware of the overall intelligence base of the audience he speaks to when it comes to understanding as well as interpreting the scientific knowledge, and quite frankly, there is an extremely small percentage of the population who have any background on the types of science he presents. He takes advantage of this by manipulating the general audience in a number of ways. First, he is well aware that a lot of people aren’t all chemistry or biology majors who are going to immediately be able to pin-point his exact errors or be familiar with the other side of the science he chose to leave out.
Crichton writes, “Higher temperature means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds.” Critics presume he meant to argue that if temperature is higher, relative humidity is then lower, creating fewer clouds. Another example can be found when he states that croplands are warmer than forested lands. In actuality, Crichton confuses this matter with the urban heating issue, because the croplands are actually cooler, since they reflect solar radiation. This website delves into other matters, further showcasing how he has come to persuade a large number of the general public simply due to their lack of expertise on the subject matter. As a student in the School of Nursing, and an avid science lover, I wouldn’t have even recognized these errors, so how is anyone going to? However, knowing that they do exist, it’s hard to sift through the fact, fiction, and confusion.
Point in case, this type of subject takes a lot of time and tedious researching to get down to the real facts, not just those given in this book. Many readers aren’t going to give a second thought to the information, but instead take it for what it is just because they aren’t properly educated on the reality of the matter.
As we were discussing in class, Crichton is fully aware of the overall intelligence base of the audience he speaks to when it comes to understanding as well as interpreting the scientific knowledge, and quite frankly, there is an extremely small percentage of the population who have any background on the types of science he presents. He takes advantage of this by manipulating the general audience in a number of ways. First, he is well aware that a lot of people aren’t all chemistry or biology majors who are going to immediately be able to pin-point his exact errors or be familiar with the other side of the science he chose to leave out.
Crichton writes, “Higher temperature means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds.” Critics presume he meant to argue that if temperature is higher, relative humidity is then lower, creating fewer clouds. Another example can be found when he states that croplands are warmer than forested lands. In actuality, Crichton confuses this matter with the urban heating issue, because the croplands are actually cooler, since they reflect solar radiation. This website delves into other matters, further showcasing how he has come to persuade a large number of the general public simply due to their lack of expertise on the subject matter. As a student in the School of Nursing, and an avid science lover, I wouldn’t have even recognized these errors, so how is anyone going to? However, knowing that they do exist, it’s hard to sift through the fact, fiction, and confusion.
Point in case, this type of subject takes a lot of time and tedious researching to get down to the real facts, not just those given in this book. Many readers aren’t going to give a second thought to the information, but instead take it for what it is just because they aren’t properly educated on the reality of the matter.
Because the "Concerned Scientists" Say So
Well, global warming must be a legitimate threat because "the union of concerned scientists" has declared it so.
Obviously the previous statement was saturated with sarcasm but nevertheless at work is a devious marketing scheme in line with Michael Crichton's method of evoking the public's fear in regards to the "global warming crisis/emergency/catastrophe" ( you fill in the blank) The website is http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/ at at work is a series of different marketing ploys to seduce the viewer into ACTing against global warming, and as every good post-industrial thinker knows, donating is without a doubt the best way to act against a cause.
Firstly, the design of the website it self is appealing, starting with its domain name ".org" immediately implies knowledge and authority, legitimizing from the get-go. Next, the mature tan colored banner, emblazoned with the seal of the "union of concerned scientists" is stretched across the top of the site. Which is another form of legitimation by declaring oneself a scientist is it assumed that they are an expert in their field, despite the fact that there are no concrete qualifications to becoming one. Below that a series of single word tabs, each a soothing shade of blue, the first of which is "donate" There are also links along the left-hand side "scientific integrity" "global warming" and "global warming 101" The tone of the website, indicated by the syntax deployed, the color scheme, the various links and sources all work to legitimate the source. Because people will give money to a legitimate cause backed by a legitimate source.
To investigate further I clicked on the "scientific integrity" tab (top of the left-hand column) and was meet by this mission statement
Political interference in federal government science is weakening our nation's ability to respond to the complex challenges we face. Because policy makers depend on impartial research to make informed decisions, we are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for reforms that will enable our leaders to fully protect our health, safety, and environment
The concerned scientists make a very big effort to distance themselves from the government, claiming that while the government's science is bad while their is legitimate because it is not corrupted by the money-focused government. There are also a series of links provided with "further information" again reinforcing that their stance is the right one.
Despite presenting themselves as a legitimate source worthy of your financial support, very little scientific facts are presented as evidence, there are no graphs, or charts, or statistics. Instead they offer a variety of links to other websites, which they declare to be credible and focus instead on presentation. I think this is the most fascinating part of the whole scheme, like Crichton the biggest part of the message is the package it is wrapped in. For Crichton this message is wrapped in a novel, in sexy female heroines capable of handling guns and juggling suitors, skeezy lawyers who manipulate the world to serve their own agenda, glamourous hollywood stars clueless and beautiful with their lattes and airplanes. For the Concerned Scientists the message is packaged in soothing mature mauve and grey-blue, with elegant font and simplistic wording (enough so that the most ignorant of ignorants can discover how to give money) To get the world to hear your message you must not present the facts, because those can be corrupted, instead you must wrap it in the right colored bow
Politics and Global Warming
As I was searching the web for an interesting article, I came across an article that was published today in the science section of the New York Times. This article can be found here:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
I definitely suggest taking a look at it. What I found interesting right off the bat is that the picture to go along with the article was that of a polar bear traversing the melting ice caps. I think it is kind of ironic how we saw this in the background report also. Not only was Al Gore grabbing our emotions, but this writer for the New York Times also feels that this picture can do that too!
As for the meat of the article, there was not a specific piece of data that this writer mentioned. Rather, he stated trends that supported the idea of global warming such as the overall increase in temperatures etc and the increase in greenhouse gases. From this he diverged into the politics of the whole situation and this is what I found to be most interesting.
To start off, recall that the Kyoto Protocol (1997) was basically an agreement between several nations that put binding restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. (This document the U.S. did not sign) Basically, nothing has happened with this until now, in 2009 country leaders' started to get their shit together and figured out that we need to do something. One of the main things on the g.w. agenda now is the cap and trade system for businesses which helps businesses who meet/exceed expectations and punishes those who don't. However, this won't go into effect until it passes in the congress, which could take a really long time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that leaders are so caught up on the political aspects of g.w. and don't seem to have a timeline to get bills into congress. The politics are taking so long that this problem could go on for years and years before anything gets done in Washington that can severely impact the g.w. trend. We have all of these big wigs trying to make decisions that 1) aren't getting made, and 2) don't make sense. I think that in order to solve/slow this problem, perhaps a scientist who knows what exactly is going on might be able to help more than world leaders arguing about making their country profitable at the same time.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
I definitely suggest taking a look at it. What I found interesting right off the bat is that the picture to go along with the article was that of a polar bear traversing the melting ice caps. I think it is kind of ironic how we saw this in the background report also. Not only was Al Gore grabbing our emotions, but this writer for the New York Times also feels that this picture can do that too!
As for the meat of the article, there was not a specific piece of data that this writer mentioned. Rather, he stated trends that supported the idea of global warming such as the overall increase in temperatures etc and the increase in greenhouse gases. From this he diverged into the politics of the whole situation and this is what I found to be most interesting.
To start off, recall that the Kyoto Protocol (1997) was basically an agreement between several nations that put binding restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. (This document the U.S. did not sign) Basically, nothing has happened with this until now, in 2009 country leaders' started to get their shit together and figured out that we need to do something. One of the main things on the g.w. agenda now is the cap and trade system for businesses which helps businesses who meet/exceed expectations and punishes those who don't. However, this won't go into effect until it passes in the congress, which could take a really long time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that leaders are so caught up on the political aspects of g.w. and don't seem to have a timeline to get bills into congress. The politics are taking so long that this problem could go on for years and years before anything gets done in Washington that can severely impact the g.w. trend. We have all of these big wigs trying to make decisions that 1) aren't getting made, and 2) don't make sense. I think that in order to solve/slow this problem, perhaps a scientist who knows what exactly is going on might be able to help more than world leaders arguing about making their country profitable at the same time.
All aboard the "climate ark"
The first thing I saw when I clicked on the link to climateark.org was a picture of a rusty exhaust pipe on a truck with the caption "Climate Destruction >Take Action!" juxtaposed with a photo of a polar bear on melting ice with "Protect Climate >Donate Here!" typed across it. This is a fair representative of Climate Ark's entire website.
The website is designed to be a starting point for those who want to learn more about global warming. As such, there are links to other websites with more information about climate change, organized into convenient categories. On the right are the newest headlines. Along the bottom are sub-divisions, listing causes, info on renewable energy, science and research. Almost anything you could think of relating to the issue. Each link will bring you to a page of new links to websites citing studies, legislation, ect. At first glance, it may seem like a jumbled mess, but when you really analyze it, the depth of thought that went into designing the page becomes apparent.
Climateark.org is the sort of website that anyone with even a slight interest in climate change can loose themselves in. It's a lot like the Mall of America, or any other shopping center. You may go to buy just one thing, and can easily end up spending an entire afternoon there. The site presents viewers with so many options that it can be difficult to just learn about one thing and be done with it. You can find just about anything you ever wanted to learn about global warming. (Except, of course, arguments against it.)
Climate Ark also makes their website very accessible for the general reader. With a cartoon at the bottom of the home page, a banner very clearly contrasting photos of forests on fire and people pumping gas with green trees and snow-capped mountains, and the very simplistic language used when summarizing news articles or other websites, you don't need any background in science to understand the point they are trying to get across; climate change is bad, and if you want to learn more about it this is the site you want. At the same time, the website rejects the common stereotype that those who are knowledgeable about climate change are elitist and will only talk over your head if you're not already in the loop.
Overall, Climate Ark's website appeals to the everyman. It appeals to our desire to have everything we want (in this case, information) to be in one convenient place and making that information understandable to anyone who comes across it, whether or not they know even the basics of the carbon cycle or meteorology. Heck, they even have a kids section. They are trying to reach the undecided middle-ground, and do so in a very seductive manner not often found on most pro-global warming reform websites that prefer to only present their facts, but that the anti-reform groups have been reaching out to for years.
The website is designed to be a starting point for those who want to learn more about global warming. As such, there are links to other websites with more information about climate change, organized into convenient categories. On the right are the newest headlines. Along the bottom are sub-divisions, listing causes, info on renewable energy, science and research. Almost anything you could think of relating to the issue. Each link will bring you to a page of new links to websites citing studies, legislation, ect. At first glance, it may seem like a jumbled mess, but when you really analyze it, the depth of thought that went into designing the page becomes apparent.
Climateark.org is the sort of website that anyone with even a slight interest in climate change can loose themselves in. It's a lot like the Mall of America, or any other shopping center. You may go to buy just one thing, and can easily end up spending an entire afternoon there. The site presents viewers with so many options that it can be difficult to just learn about one thing and be done with it. You can find just about anything you ever wanted to learn about global warming. (Except, of course, arguments against it.)
Climate Ark also makes their website very accessible for the general reader. With a cartoon at the bottom of the home page, a banner very clearly contrasting photos of forests on fire and people pumping gas with green trees and snow-capped mountains, and the very simplistic language used when summarizing news articles or other websites, you don't need any background in science to understand the point they are trying to get across; climate change is bad, and if you want to learn more about it this is the site you want. At the same time, the website rejects the common stereotype that those who are knowledgeable about climate change are elitist and will only talk over your head if you're not already in the loop.
Overall, Climate Ark's website appeals to the everyman. It appeals to our desire to have everything we want (in this case, information) to be in one convenient place and making that information understandable to anyone who comes across it, whether or not they know even the basics of the carbon cycle or meteorology. Heck, they even have a kids section. They are trying to reach the undecided middle-ground, and do so in a very seductive manner not often found on most pro-global warming reform websites that prefer to only present their facts, but that the anti-reform groups have been reaching out to for years.
It’s all marketing
Whether the objective is to sell a product or disseminate an idea, the target is to own the market. And in order to own the market you must do some careful marketing. Even websites about global warming have strategically designed pages to aid in the formation of an idea. Take the Union of Concerned Citizens page titled, “Crichton Thriller State of Fear” for example. There are many carefully executed dimensions that help spread support for global warming.
The first and most blatantly obvious ploy is the use of “.org” in the web address. The .org domain is most commonly used by nonprofit and philanthropic organizations and has a certain level of credibility associated with it. In fact, the Public Interest Registry, which operates and maintains the .org domain, claims .org is "considered by people around the world to be the domain of trust." However, the truth is that anyone can register for a .org domain. Nonetheless, the learned perceptions of authority and trustworthiness make .org a proper fit for a group trying to legitimize its claims about global warming.
Next, the professional web design further propagates the perception of a trustworthy and expert site for advice. The page’s qualities of attractiveness and effortless navigation ensure that visitors will be retained and come back again. The first step to building an idea to get people to read it and this website is conscientiously designed to appeal to the consumer’s eyes.
Finally, the idea is shaped by making it personally relevant to the users. In the last two FAQs listed on the page the words “we” and “our” are used extensively to extend the concept to each individual. By making the argument personally relevant people automatically become engaged because for anybody, the most important person in the world is him/herself.
Overall, the Concerned Citizen’s webpage forms a strong argument based on visual consumer behavior cue. While the page does have well cited sources and information, I think the best tools it uses to construct the idea of global warming are pre-conceived beliefs and common associations.
The first and most blatantly obvious ploy is the use of “.org” in the web address. The .org domain is most commonly used by nonprofit and philanthropic organizations and has a certain level of credibility associated with it. In fact, the Public Interest Registry, which operates and maintains the .org domain, claims .org is "considered by people around the world to be the domain of trust." However, the truth is that anyone can register for a .org domain. Nonetheless, the learned perceptions of authority and trustworthiness make .org a proper fit for a group trying to legitimize its claims about global warming.
Next, the professional web design further propagates the perception of a trustworthy and expert site for advice. The page’s qualities of attractiveness and effortless navigation ensure that visitors will be retained and come back again. The first step to building an idea to get people to read it and this website is conscientiously designed to appeal to the consumer’s eyes.
Finally, the idea is shaped by making it personally relevant to the users. In the last two FAQs listed on the page the words “we” and “our” are used extensively to extend the concept to each individual. By making the argument personally relevant people automatically become engaged because for anybody, the most important person in the world is him/herself.
Overall, the Concerned Citizen’s webpage forms a strong argument based on visual consumer behavior cue. While the page does have well cited sources and information, I think the best tools it uses to construct the idea of global warming are pre-conceived beliefs and common associations.
Climate Change for Kids!
I chose the EPA's climate change for kids site. I thought it would be interesting to see how the government presents this "debate" to the younger generation:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/change.html
In "State of Fear" Crichton presents the reader with, to use the term very liberally, science. He claims that he has no agenda but instead just wants to inform the reader of the hard facts behind climate change/global warming. What I found interesting when the viewing the EPA's climate change site for kids was that the "science" used was very similar in wording to Crichton's, which is to say that it was simple, straight to the point and exciting! Of course I'm being a little bit simplistic here, but the point is that neither of the two are actually written for scientists, but instead a less educated and fundamentally simpler crowd.
Like we've been talking about this entire class, the science cannot escape the politics. The fact that much of the evidence of climate changed can be viewed as ambiguous makes it easy to hijack and use to promote a politics. In this case simple illustrations of a surfer cresting a large wave is used to show rising sea levels. See, isn't learning about global warming fun! Along with illustrations there are interactive games and quizzes. These are obviously designed to not only inform children but also to be used as resources for teachers. Here we can see that by using all of these tools to inform the idea and science behind global warming will begin to spread. By making these resources available and easy to use, it makes it that much easier for our youth to understand global warming and begin making easy simple changes. Like: "turn off your tv when you're done" or "Make sure all the lights are off when you leave". These messages have been around for awhile, but now they've been attached to the idea of global warming.
What Would Jesus Drive?—a Hummer
Since neither State of Fear nor our class examined the role of religious ideology in shaping the global warming controversy, I chose a website that presented the topic as a religious argument. The article is “Christians and Climate Change” by James Sherk. (http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/wwjd.html.) The author is a member of The Evangel Society of Thought, which is associated with Hillsdale College—an Illinois-based school that promotes free-market economics.
Sherk argues that temperature records and human CO2 emissions data do not support the global warming theory. Like Michael Crichton, the author cherry picks data and references that seem to validate that conclusion. For example, Sherk states that Mann’s (1998) “hockey stick” graph, which shows little temperature change from 1400 to 1900 and a marked temperature increase during the 20th century, was based on “poor data and erroneous calculations.” He then presents a “corrected version” that shows higher temperatures prior to the 1500s (see enclosed graph) and, therefore, puts into question that warming is a result of recent human activities. However, Sherk cites no credible evidence that the so-called corrected version is based on good data and correct calculations. In addition, many of the references cited by Sherk are from free-market, conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute and Heartland Institute—hardly organizations known for unbiased policies. Sherk also states that the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal, which was signed by 4000 scientists including 70 Nobel Prize laureates, lends strong support to the proposition that science “provides no reason to limit the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.” In fact, the Heidelberg Appeal only advocates against pseudo-scientific arguments and use of false or irrelevant data. The document makes no reference to global warming or climate change. (For the complete Heidelberg Appeal text, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal.)
Sherk reassures his readers that Christians have no reason to worry about how their selection of transportation will effect the climate. They can drive whatever they wish. And the author boldly answers the pretentious question: “What would Jesus drive?” Sherk’s answer: “Whatever he chose, the exaggerated hype surrounding the global warming theory would not concern him.”
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Blog Posting #8 (Due Sunday 4/11, 11:59 P.M.): Michael Crichton ('global warming') on the Web--the public rhetoric and 'semantic contagion' of science
On the table in this part of our work is how 'minds' get formed and changed. How ideas get legs. How beliefs can go viral. How common sense becomes so common. Robin will argue ('Beyond...reason') that it's seldom a matter of facts alone.
In a sense, State of Fear is a massive 'intervention'--one that made Dr. Crichton a good deal of money, but more importantly: got him invited to the White House and to testify to Congress, and which probably changed more minds than any more familiarly scientific discovery could. Bruno Latour details how much work Pasteur had to go through to get us to 'believe in germs (ferments).' South Park has made us all knowing cynics.
Visit one of the global-warming websites we posted (or another you found, if you wish). Find a complex rich 'argument' about global warming--for, against, whatever. Show us how it works to construct a view of science, atmospheric science, authority, scientists, politicians, the world, the polis, industry, progress, fear, human agency--whatever. You pick the site, the argument (remember that arguments are typically more than words; when the idea comes out of Cartman's mouth, it's a different argument from if it came from Al Gore), the issue. Work it for us. Show us how the world of ideas gets formed.
In a sense, State of Fear is a massive 'intervention'--one that made Dr. Crichton a good deal of money, but more importantly: got him invited to the White House and to testify to Congress, and which probably changed more minds than any more familiarly scientific discovery could. Bruno Latour details how much work Pasteur had to go through to get us to 'believe in germs (ferments).' South Park has made us all knowing cynics.
Visit one of the global-warming websites we posted (or another you found, if you wish). Find a complex rich 'argument' about global warming--for, against, whatever. Show us how it works to construct a view of science, atmospheric science, authority, scientists, politicians, the world, the polis, industry, progress, fear, human agency--whatever. You pick the site, the argument (remember that arguments are typically more than words; when the idea comes out of Cartman's mouth, it's a different argument from if it came from Al Gore), the issue. Work it for us. Show us how the world of ideas gets formed.
Friday, April 9, 2010
TV Meteorologists Skeptical of Global Warming
A George Mason University poll found that 63% of TV meteorologists believe global warming is caused mostly by natural causes; 23% believe global warming is a scam. Check out Science Friday, April 9, 1-2 PM, on KNOW-FM (91.1).
http://sciencefriday.com/
Friday, April 9th, 2010
Weathercasters and Climate Change
Recently, George Mason University surveyed over 500 broadcast TV members of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association, looking to discover their views about global warming. While 87% of the weathercasters said they had discussed global warming, 63% of those surveyed said that reported global warming is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment. 25% indicated it isn’t happening at all. And 23% said they agreed with the statement "global warming is a scam." In this segment, live from Norman, Oklahoma, we'll talk about TV weathercasters and climate change. What's their role in communicating the science to the public?
Guests
Greg Carbin Warning Coordination Meteorologist NOAA Storm Prediction Center Norman, Oklahoma
Edward Maibach Director, Center for Climate Change Communication George Mason University Fairfax, Virginia
Hank Jenkins-Smith Professor, Political Science Director, Center for Risk and Crisis Management University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma
Related Links
- Center for Climate Change Communication survey report (pdf)
- AMS statement on climate change
- National Weather Association: climate change
Segment produced by:Christopher Intagliata
Monday, April 5, 2010
Change in beliefs?
I am extremely intrigued from what I've read from the book so far. I've actually been surprised at how interested I am in reading into it farther. I Crichton offers a handful of information that makes you question your own beliefs in global warming but still offers his stance in the novel.
The passage I chose from the back matter- Author's message,page 718.
"I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences." -Crichton
I believe this passage nails how people are in general right on the head. Especially in matters of politics which to me this book is involved. But I do find it interesting how we could question the Author himself, it makes me think what are his biases in writing this book? His rationalizations? His self-interests?
The passage I chose from the text- page 62.
"Like it or not, we're in the middle of a war- a global war of information versus disinformation." I found this to be an interesting take on being informed. It makes me think... we all have our stands on global warming as a whole... but based off of what truth? The arguement which took place in Iceland in this novel made me wonder, how many scientists are shut up, paid off or threatened for releasing information that could possibly hurt corporations, individuals and advertising with big bucks? It's a war of truth and wealth as I look at it, and maybe money can't buy love but I do believe it can buy power, and if it's the power over a war they want, it's most likely the power in the war they will get.
The paradigm I would like to embelish on is one that is so recently but now strongly (in ways I didn't think I would believe) the idea of global warming as a conspiracy. I've taken an oceanology class and learned all about global warming and it's possible effects which I never thought could be altered from my mind because it was fact. But now I wonder again, what really is the truth? Who is exposing all of it and who is concealing all of it?
Finally I would like to discuss the tone of the book. In my reading so far the tone I get is a sense of urgency. I feel the Crichton is trying to make the reader feel the urgency of the issue of every aspect of global warming (whichever truths you may come to believe). I believe there is also a strong urgency in the characters in the book. From murders to secret, hasty meetings it seems to me that everyone has their own agenda in which they feel is most important to express accurately and quickly.
The passage I chose from the back matter- Author's message,page 718.
"I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of self-interest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences." -Crichton
I believe this passage nails how people are in general right on the head. Especially in matters of politics which to me this book is involved. But I do find it interesting how we could question the Author himself, it makes me think what are his biases in writing this book? His rationalizations? His self-interests?
The passage I chose from the text- page 62.
"Like it or not, we're in the middle of a war- a global war of information versus disinformation." I found this to be an interesting take on being informed. It makes me think... we all have our stands on global warming as a whole... but based off of what truth? The arguement which took place in Iceland in this novel made me wonder, how many scientists are shut up, paid off or threatened for releasing information that could possibly hurt corporations, individuals and advertising with big bucks? It's a war of truth and wealth as I look at it, and maybe money can't buy love but I do believe it can buy power, and if it's the power over a war they want, it's most likely the power in the war they will get.
The paradigm I would like to embelish on is one that is so recently but now strongly (in ways I didn't think I would believe) the idea of global warming as a conspiracy. I've taken an oceanology class and learned all about global warming and it's possible effects which I never thought could be altered from my mind because it was fact. But now I wonder again, what really is the truth? Who is exposing all of it and who is concealing all of it?
Finally I would like to discuss the tone of the book. In my reading so far the tone I get is a sense of urgency. I feel the Crichton is trying to make the reader feel the urgency of the issue of every aspect of global warming (whichever truths you may come to believe). I believe there is also a strong urgency in the characters in the book. From murders to secret, hasty meetings it seems to me that everyone has their own agenda in which they feel is most important to express accurately and quickly.
Language can shift the paradigm
I would just like to point out the significance of the wording used to describe this international phenomenon. Some people call it "global warming" while others call it "climate change." The two phrases can easily demonstrate which side of the argument you stand on and it is a complete marketing ploy. Global warming alludes to a devastating crisis in which the average temperature is increasing, the ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, etc. etc. While climate change is a much more passive term which implies that the world's weather is changing, whether it be for better or for worse.
If you want a real life example of this propaganda look no further than political figures. Frank Luntz is a political consultant and after significant research he advised the Republican party to begin using the term "climate change" because it was believed to sound less severe. And if you think about, what did you most often hear Bush say? How about Al Gore?... (Granted both parties now use both terms, they did originally have a much more intense political agenda.) Language is a funny thing...
(To read more about Frank Luntz and his research see an interview he did with PBS for a show called "The Persuaders": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html. He specifically talks about how language can shift a paradigm.)
If you want a real life example of this propaganda look no further than political figures. Frank Luntz is a political consultant and after significant research he advised the Republican party to begin using the term "climate change" because it was believed to sound less severe. And if you think about, what did you most often hear Bush say? How about Al Gore?... (Granted both parties now use both terms, they did originally have a much more intense political agenda.) Language is a funny thing...
(To read more about Frank Luntz and his research see an interview he did with PBS for a show called "The Persuaders": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html. He specifically talks about how language can shift a paradigm.)
Mark's Favorite Climate Change Cartoon
This cartoon, from Mark's post, adds a touch of civility to our State of Fear discourse.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
this bloated book
Michael Crichton's State of Fear is, to me, disappointing. As an avid reader of all sorts of books, I wouldn't really continue this if it weren't assigned. Which happens a lot in college, but I can always fall back on the point, "at least I learned something". And yeah, I'm learning something in this silly book. Clearly we're not reading it for the action-thriller aspect, because yikes. But where can you go from the Andromeda Strain? State of Fear is very teach-y. The book is so long because he interjects his action with hoards of his research. But can we really believe him when he is going against the scientific establishment? Definitely we must admit that consensus isn't what science is about. But it is what politics is about. It seems like Crichton looked at the issue of global warming and decided to take the side of the few. And really, why do it unless you have a political ax to grind? ANyway, the why isn't so intriguing as how. How do you create a best-seller out of a bunky opinion? Somehow he took the same data that climate scientists use, and form the opposite opinion? This is where his charts and graphs come in as awesome seeing devices. He speaks of satellites taking measures of sea levels that are better than the on-land tools. His footnotes almost sparkle with brilliant evidence. And this definitely works on some people, but I'm not so sure i'm convinced.
I took a really awesome geography class once and we talked a lot about global warming. One thing I remember is what global warming is exactly. And it is right in the name. Global warming refers to the global mean surface temperature. Obviously the earth heats and cools in stages, and not in a uniform way. But that gets overlooked, and as Jennifer tries to declare, "And its effect is presumably the same every where in the world. That's why it's called global warming" (475). Crichton uses a lot of temperature data from specific locations. He tries to show that warming isn't happening everywhere. Yes, that's totally true. As you get more centralized on a specific point, local weather has a greater effect on the surface temp. But that's why it is so important to take a large scale area average temperature, which will show a clear warming trend. For Crichton to pick out specific cites of cooling doesn't really matter.
In his first appendix he strangely pulls together global warming with the 19th century eugenics movement. He calls dangerous the "intermixing of science and politics" as a "bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest" (731). First, to connect the science behind global warming and eugenics is a cheap one. Second, this dude's book is full of politics and clearly he is blind to it.
I took a really awesome geography class once and we talked a lot about global warming. One thing I remember is what global warming is exactly. And it is right in the name. Global warming refers to the global mean surface temperature. Obviously the earth heats and cools in stages, and not in a uniform way. But that gets overlooked, and as Jennifer tries to declare, "And its effect is presumably the same every where in the world. That's why it's called global warming" (475). Crichton uses a lot of temperature data from specific locations. He tries to show that warming isn't happening everywhere. Yes, that's totally true. As you get more centralized on a specific point, local weather has a greater effect on the surface temp. But that's why it is so important to take a large scale area average temperature, which will show a clear warming trend. For Crichton to pick out specific cites of cooling doesn't really matter.
In his first appendix he strangely pulls together global warming with the 19th century eugenics movement. He calls dangerous the "intermixing of science and politics" as a "bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest" (731). First, to connect the science behind global warming and eugenics is a cheap one. Second, this dude's book is full of politics and clearly he is blind to it.
the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself
So far from what I’ve read, I feel that Crichton has good intentions when he is writing, but I’m not a fan of his writing style. I think that to try and relay information about such a huge topic is too hard to do in a story-type book. The “education” readings are very lengthy, and hard to get through. If someone were to start reading this book thinking it was a fictional story, which it is, they would probably become turned away by the science overload unless they were really interested by the topic. Just as the cover says it is “edge of your seat story-telling,” but the edge of a seat can get uncomfortable if a lot of time is spent there. Now I am also not familiar with Crichton, this is my first time reading his work, so this could very well be the writing style that has gotten his name so known, but from what I’ve read, I’m not completely attached. This could very well change as I progress into the book.
From reading some reviews of State of Fear, it is apparent that not all of Crichton’s sources are legitimate. Some of the scientific claims he makes about global warming are false, and can be proven false. Not to say I don’t give him a lot of credit for the research he has done on the subject, but this topic is hugely being discussed all over, and it is assumed that people educated on this subject will read his book. Many people will probably critique it, so I feel he should make sure his shit is legit. But maybe his point in this was to say that not one person knows all of the facts 100% about any one subject, which is exactly why global warming is such a debated topic. People can make claims or try and find truths, but they may be wrong in doing so.
There are many charts, graphs, hybrids, and other “seeing devices” used in his book. These tools remap people’s thoughts by structuring their mind to believe what they are seeing. Words can be refuted, but as soon as something is put in a graph, map, diagram, etc, it is harder to ignore or object what is being displayed. They give people a way to make sense out of something, or find a new meaning in something, or find a way to relate everything to math and science. Using maps and graphs help legitimate Crichton’s work.
“The other men had each taken one of his wrists, and they were pulling his arms, wide, spread-eagling him on the bed. They were getting ready to do something to him. He felt terrified and vulnerable. He moaned, and somebody hit him on the back of the head. ‘Quiet!’” This is a passage on page 14 of the book. Crichton wastes no time getting to the suspenseful parts in the book, engaging the reader right away. This is a smart move on his part, because it would be hard to put something down at a part like this. This passage, along with many others, is strategically written, as to keep the reader alert even during some of the boring, education parts.
From reading some reviews of State of Fear, it is apparent that not all of Crichton’s sources are legitimate. Some of the scientific claims he makes about global warming are false, and can be proven false. Not to say I don’t give him a lot of credit for the research he has done on the subject, but this topic is hugely being discussed all over, and it is assumed that people educated on this subject will read his book. Many people will probably critique it, so I feel he should make sure his shit is legit. But maybe his point in this was to say that not one person knows all of the facts 100% about any one subject, which is exactly why global warming is such a debated topic. People can make claims or try and find truths, but they may be wrong in doing so.
There are many charts, graphs, hybrids, and other “seeing devices” used in his book. These tools remap people’s thoughts by structuring their mind to believe what they are seeing. Words can be refuted, but as soon as something is put in a graph, map, diagram, etc, it is harder to ignore or object what is being displayed. They give people a way to make sense out of something, or find a new meaning in something, or find a way to relate everything to math and science. Using maps and graphs help legitimate Crichton’s work.
“The other men had each taken one of his wrists, and they were pulling his arms, wide, spread-eagling him on the bed. They were getting ready to do something to him. He felt terrified and vulnerable. He moaned, and somebody hit him on the back of the head. ‘Quiet!’” This is a passage on page 14 of the book. Crichton wastes no time getting to the suspenseful parts in the book, engaging the reader right away. This is a smart move on his part, because it would be hard to put something down at a part like this. This passage, along with many others, is strategically written, as to keep the reader alert even during some of the boring, education parts.
I dislike Crichton
I too was stuck by the “everyone has an agenda. Except me” bit at the end. And by “stuck by” I mean “really annoyed with”. Of course you have an agenda, you fuck!! What makes you think you’re work is not infused with the same cultural, political, scientific discourse that everyone else’s everything is shaped by? His entire fucking book is about how what we assume to be “natural facts” “proven with data” are actually influenced by politics and money and the media, and how nothing is so simple as it’s presented, devoid of it’s background. Asserting he has no agenda kind of seems to be asserting that his thoughts, work of fiction etc are paradigm free. Every graph he chose and plot twist and even the words he used were used for a reason (whether he knows it or not). It’s like advertising–even if we can’t explain it, we can still put together a video or image and know that it’s appealing. If you stop to analyze each little component you get a rich cultural history for each and start to understand why we are programmed to think it is appealing. Crichton’s presentation of the story is the same way–even if he doesn’t understand what influences his choice of words, graphs, characters etc (and therefore assumes it is “random), our culture does–thousands of paradigms. Actually, now that I think about it, saying “Everyone except me” makes no sense because it is at the end of his huge blurb of his own thoughts on the issue, that correspond to Morton’s conclusion (it seems) at the end of the book. So it seems that Crichton’s story was used to convince us of (emotionally hook us onto) his message at the end of the book. My passage of the novel actually corresponds to this thought–on page 114, Jennifer and Evans are discussing the data that is to be presented in court in the Vanutu lawsuit. Crichton writes (Jennifer speaking), “Newspapers and television are susceptible to carefully orchestrated media campaigns. Lawsuits are not”. I feel like this is a direct contradiction to Crichton “everyone except me” bit (and his “footnotes are real” bit too…). By that I do not mean that I think this book or all the data cited was a mass media campaign. I do however, think that the broader point Jennifer is making is that everything is influenced in some way, be it the media or whatever. I really don’t understand how Crichton can assert that what he presents at the back of the book is neutral and objective–neither such things exist, nothing is without a paradigm. What an idiot.
I think Crichton’s choice of including graphs in the book also kind of exemplify this. He chooses to include “seeing devices” as a way to convince the reader of the legitimacy of his argument. And it works–as I looked at the “redone” versions of the graphs, I found myself questioning what I have accepted for years as “natural facts”. It seems like the inclusion of the graphs in the book (as opposed to just describing them or something) is an example of subconsciously choosing something to make an argument. Presenting a plot with a seeing device makes the plot seem more convincing, which in turn strengthens his argument at the end.
Another thing I really dislike about this book is the language he uses. Not just the super objectifying descriptions of literally every female character, or the horrible “seductive” dialogue between the female characters and the male characters, but the tone the language creates. Crichton criticizes climate scientists for the state of emergency they have put us in (both within the book and his bit at the end), but uses the exact same device in the book to make us more susceptible to his message at the end. The entire idea of writing a thriller about the issue of global warming and how it may be a hoax is to plant the idea in our head and put us into an emotional state so that at the end of the novel, we are more than ready to listen to his message. The tense tone of the book, the fast-moving plot filled with murder and other disasters (scary cannibals, scary arctic, scary people in trucks, chases, etc) is designed to freak us out so that at the end of the book we listen to “the voice of reason”.
This is way too long and pretty unorganized…I apologize, I just really don’t like this guy.
I think Crichton’s choice of including graphs in the book also kind of exemplify this. He chooses to include “seeing devices” as a way to convince the reader of the legitimacy of his argument. And it works–as I looked at the “redone” versions of the graphs, I found myself questioning what I have accepted for years as “natural facts”. It seems like the inclusion of the graphs in the book (as opposed to just describing them or something) is an example of subconsciously choosing something to make an argument. Presenting a plot with a seeing device makes the plot seem more convincing, which in turn strengthens his argument at the end.
Another thing I really dislike about this book is the language he uses. Not just the super objectifying descriptions of literally every female character, or the horrible “seductive” dialogue between the female characters and the male characters, but the tone the language creates. Crichton criticizes climate scientists for the state of emergency they have put us in (both within the book and his bit at the end), but uses the exact same device in the book to make us more susceptible to his message at the end. The entire idea of writing a thriller about the issue of global warming and how it may be a hoax is to plant the idea in our head and put us into an emotional state so that at the end of the novel, we are more than ready to listen to his message. The tense tone of the book, the fast-moving plot filled with murder and other disasters (scary cannibals, scary arctic, scary people in trucks, chases, etc) is designed to freak us out so that at the end of the book we listen to “the voice of reason”.
This is way too long and pretty unorganized…I apologize, I just really don’t like this guy.
everyone has an opinion
But when reading novels one must remember the difference between facts and opinion. This book is great for the study of legitimation. Crichton uses the graphs, figures and footnotes of climate scientists and big words both to look like he's done some real research and present the book as a factual analysis rather than the fiction that it is. He also tries to de-legitimate environmental activists by creating their characters to be arrogant or have personality flaws. One might call the novel an analogy but I call it a strawman. It doesn't take much to twist excepts and statistics to sway the general public to be either in favor or against any particular issue. This goes back the the increasing trend of the democratization of science, which is troubling to me as I know how hard it is to keep opinions and facts separate. As humans even scientists have their pet theories but they should also have the training and courage to give up a theory when confronted with overwhelming evidence against it, and I would say most of them do. Crichton reminds me of creationists who have an agenda in mind (their faith in the bible) and then go looking for facts to back up their preconceived notions rather than observing and making non-contradictory informed inferences.
my favorite climate change comic:
http://brandonferguson.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/091207usatC.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
my favorite climate change comic:
http://brandonferguson.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/091207usatC.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jpg
Crichton's Cartisian Paradigm
Lucky for me over this upcoming weekend i venture out into the unknown world of missouri, having to endure a 2 hour plane flight and hopefully finishing this novel. For i believe (as a previous entry mentioned) Michael Crichton's State of Fear makes for delightful plane-reading. Its language easy, the plot engaging, and the subject matter dramatic.
Despite my fondness for Crichton as a cure to aviation boredom, his work is slightly more difficult to address from a scholastic standpoint. I think that his previous work, such as the referenced jarassic park, legitimizes him as an author, however i think that in State of Fear he seeks to expand this range of legitimation to something more, an advocate for the humanity, the informed concerned citizen. As already discussed within the blog, he says in the final bullet point of his author's message he says "everyone has an agenda except me" (p 721) Obviously this is not entirely true as a main objective of his book is to sell copies making a profit for Harper Collins his publisher. Additionally, he makes another comment (one that struck me) and the end of his first appendix saying, "and that is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest." (731) As any good science studies scholar knows it is impossible to separate science from politics, politics dictates both the science being studied and the way it is interpreted.
Politics is a experienced within a specific paradigm, that it helps to reinforce, additionally various seeing devices are deployed at work within the paradigm. Michael Crichton takes full advantage of these seeing devices in the forms of graphs and charts, both Cartisian in nature, thus in-line with the world's current paradigm, or way of viewing the world. Pages 107-112 contain graphs depicting the earth's global temperatures, without existence of the Cartisian paradigm these graphs would be incomprehensible. The graphs are also accompanied by dialog indirectly indicating what the graphs are about, and their significance. This diction (lit word, meaning word choice and region) is significant because Crichton uses stages his characters as experts who are explaining this information, thus the reader views it as scientific and therefore based in fact. Furthermore, Crichton legitimizes himself and the graphs by providing references to their origin. I believe that Crichton as an author certainly works under an agenda, whether he is willing to acknowledge it or not, he also uses seeing devices, at work within a Cartisian paradigm to legitimize himself and his story.
Fact Vs. Fiction
I find it very confusing and somewhat frustrating trying to read a fictitious book with so many real theories and scientific research studies incorporated within it. It’s unusual to find a piece of literature closely mimicking a novel in structure like this, but still having a lot of truth built into it. He states in his bibliography where he is finding the issues in which he chooses to manipulate throughout the text in whatever way he can, in hopes of proving his point and allowing readers to form their own ideas based on what is presented. Knowing that the scientific journal articles have been translated to assist as references, I feel like Crichton has puzzled me more than I initially had been before reading, because now I’m not sure what has been validated and what has been constructed.
“Juries aren’t comfortable reading graphs. And all this talk about tenths of a degree Celsius goes right over their heads. It’s technical detail; it’s the quibbles of experts; and it’s incredibly boring for normal people” (118). This particular passage makes a good point that really promotes whether or not an individual chooses to support global warming. When he or she is well-versed in science and capable of understanding data records and crazy scientific terms, it may be easier to be swayed to believe global warming exists. On the contrary, if a person is absolutely unfamiliar with these nitty-gritty aspects, a more visual and concrete representation is going to be necessary for these “normal people” who have no idea where to begin grasping the complexity of the data. I feel this is something that needs to be kept in mind, because it’s a lot of time automatically assumed everyone is able to comprehend these procedures.
In regards to science studies, Crichton mentions the fact that every scientist has an idea of how the experiment is going to turn out, or an expectation, therefore often leading to unconscious scientific biases. This idea essentially contradicts all the previous arguments for global warming by saying that it’s almost impossible to determine anything when data is being constantly adjusted as well as small errors due to deviations in equipment. Judgment is concluded to be the end indicator of all records. At this point, I’m unsure of what I conceive to be justifiable.
My thoughts on the literary aspect of the novel is that it is painfully simple. The characters aren’t too multi-faceted and I almost have to laugh at the all too commonplace, cheesy conversations and events among the characters such as: “I was wondering if your schedule was really tight, or whether there was time for you and me to have lunch.” / “Oh,” Evans said, without missing a beat, “my schedule isn’t that tight.” / “Good,” she said (122). *Barf*
“Juries aren’t comfortable reading graphs. And all this talk about tenths of a degree Celsius goes right over their heads. It’s technical detail; it’s the quibbles of experts; and it’s incredibly boring for normal people” (118). This particular passage makes a good point that really promotes whether or not an individual chooses to support global warming. When he or she is well-versed in science and capable of understanding data records and crazy scientific terms, it may be easier to be swayed to believe global warming exists. On the contrary, if a person is absolutely unfamiliar with these nitty-gritty aspects, a more visual and concrete representation is going to be necessary for these “normal people” who have no idea where to begin grasping the complexity of the data. I feel this is something that needs to be kept in mind, because it’s a lot of time automatically assumed everyone is able to comprehend these procedures.
In regards to science studies, Crichton mentions the fact that every scientist has an idea of how the experiment is going to turn out, or an expectation, therefore often leading to unconscious scientific biases. This idea essentially contradicts all the previous arguments for global warming by saying that it’s almost impossible to determine anything when data is being constantly adjusted as well as small errors due to deviations in equipment. Judgment is concluded to be the end indicator of all records. At this point, I’m unsure of what I conceive to be justifiable.
My thoughts on the literary aspect of the novel is that it is painfully simple. The characters aren’t too multi-faceted and I almost have to laugh at the all too commonplace, cheesy conversations and events among the characters such as: “I was wondering if your schedule was really tight, or whether there was time for you and me to have lunch.” / “Oh,” Evans said, without missing a beat, “my schedule isn’t that tight.” / “Good,” she said (122). *Barf*
State of Crichton
Having been a big fan of Crichton’s Jurassic Park, I thought that I would be receiving this novel very well. In
I think the cover of State of
In the first few pages, Crichton asks through a character, “Qu’est-ce que tu penses”, French for “What do you think?”. This is a question I have been asking myself throughout the entirety of my time reading – and one that should be constantly asked until the end. My fear is that in the same way that I have been interpolated into the cultural phenomena of Global Warming, others may find themselves on the other side of the fence.
Maybe I’m just selfish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)