On Global Warming and Rhetoric

NMSU Teach-In – January 2008

In “Emperor Has No Clothes,” citizens praise a naked emperor for amazing, new attire

In “Little Boy Who Cried Wolf,” citizens tire of responding to crises that don’t exist

For more than a century, scientists have told us of connections between pollutants & emissions, industry, & our environment

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Today, we have another story, a story of global warming

Story told uniformly by scientists around the world long time

U.S. overall skeptical as those viewing the emperor or hearing wolf

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Why are we skeptical?

More to do with rhetorical issues than scientific ones?

Creation & presentation of science--and public reception to science--shaped by stories we hear and tell

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Rhetoric – effective use of language & persuasion/dissuasion, as field of study focuses on audience, purpose, context

Science is rhetorical – constructing knowledge, attempting to persuade us of knowledge

Scientific arguments constructed/shaped by what is said, how it is said, what is not said, to whom, in what context, and with what motivations

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Our country roughly accounts for ◦ 4% of world population◦ 25% of carbon dioxide emissions

Our country, largest contributor to such emissions, not signing on to Kyoto efforts to reduce such emissions

Rhetoric can speak to this situation – offering analysis and call for action

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Focus today on work of several rhetoricians and philosophers to explain some reasons we are where we are in this story

Rhetoricians and scientists “engaged in the process of persuasion in all of their professional and intellectual activities” (Gross)

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

“Mercury from China, dust from Africa, smog from Mexico — all of it drifts freely across U.S. borders and contaminates the air millions of Americans breathe, according to recent research from Harvard University, the University of Washington and many other institutions where scientists are studying air pollution. There are no boundaries in the sky to stop such pollution, no Border Patrol agents to capture it.”

USA Today - 3/13/2005

Human desire for comfort

Oil, gas, coal, “development” of “land” provide comfort if not luxury

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

“Emperor” and “Wolf” stories instruct us not to trust

More likely to trust “science,” but only science that could give us Truth with Capital “T,” with no uncertainties

Science, though, is rhetorical, uncertain, “self-correcting”

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

We want science to convey Truth

Discomfort with concept of science as rhetorical

Rhetorical analysis looks at how science transforms into science policy and also how science itself is created

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Democracy invites all to table, to discussion, to forum

But peer reviewed publications different from published results from think-tanks, especially those that may be affiliated with sponsors with vested interests

Most don’t know distinction between peer-reviewed or non-peer-reviewed publications

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

“What counts as a fact depends not on science, but on the trust the public bestows on science; what counts as a Fact’s significance is not the significance science bestows, but the significance the public bestows on scientific knowledge” (Gross)

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

“Our access to the facts is mediated by experts” (Gross) and by who “counts” as experts

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Our society likes concept of consensus

Parties with vested interests may produce and promote “cultivated uncertainty” (Banning)

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Our society likes majority rule

Experts and lay people as equals in exploration of concept such as global warming can place expert voices far in margin

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Professional journalists taught to present both or alternative sides of story

Equal press to expert reports and skeptics

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

We are taught to think critically, to question

With what journalist Elizabeth Kolbert reports as the “basic physics . . . [that] have been understood for more than a century,” we still question

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

Government/business/media can point finger at individual and our individual guilt

Rhetorical devices – metonymy & synecdoche – involve using a part to represent whole

Automobile accidents ◦ Cultural consensus is that individual driver is to

blame◦ Even more, the Drunk Driver (part for whole

argument)◦ No fingers then need to point to “automobile

industry, distillers, brewers, bar and liquor store owners, government” (Gross)

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

There is consensus Naomi Oreskes in Science

◦ Tested 928 abstracts published in refereed scientific journals from ‘93 to ’03

◦ None of the papers disagreed with consensus

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

As Jonathan Wolff states,

“In practice, what matters is not proof but good reasons for action, based on the assessment of all available evidence.”

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell

We have the evidence. Let’s tell new stories so we aren’t left with Oreskes’ question: “There is scientific consensus? Why don’t we know that or believe it?”

Current stories haven’t worked.

Will take all of us - rhetoricians, journalists, scientists, activists - take into account what may be more likely to work.

Let’s make new stories.

Stories We Hear, Stories We Tell