Gep-Ed is terrific!
This Gore Lawsuit illustrates what I describe as the divergence of
epistemologies: the procedural/scientific one, accepting evidence from
repeatable observations or methods which are supportable in some way,
versus the epistemology of accepting evidence based on compatibility with
beliefs. The latter is not only fundamentalist/literalist religion-like
practice, but includes (for example, from our community radio this
morning) the acceptance of some claims about damage to the government
which supported the speaker's position with disdain for other claims also
from government, with "I've never trusted government statistics..."
The ends justify the means for a very large proportion of the public
discourse, flailing away with the second epistemology. Beyond the
echo chamber,it is finally solipsism -- but it serves terribly well to
mobilize resentment, in the phrase of Chip Berlet.
Although a huge subject not much amenable for the list form, I wonder if
one of the professional societies has a focus or conference on combatting
the problem of this second epistemology?
John D. Wiener, J.D., Ph.D.
Program on Environment and Society
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309-0468
ph: 303-492-6746
On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Howard S Schiffman wrote:
An idea resonating in the conservative echo-chamber along with discussion of
Obama's birth certificate.
Howard S. Schiffman, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D.
Visiting Associate Professor of Environmental Conservation Education
New York University
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development
Department of Teaching and Learning
34 Stuyvesant Street, Suite 501
New York, NY 10003
[email protected]
1-212-992-9365 (phone)
1-212-995-3778 (fax)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Knox, John H." <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2011 3:21 pm
Subject: RE: [gep-ed] Gore Lawsuit
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Three years ago, in March 2008, at a meeting of the denialist
International Conference on Climate Change, John Coleman, the founder
of
the Weather Channel, said that Al Gore should be sued for fraud. (He
also blasted the current Weather Channel for believing in climate
change.)
--"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman
said. "Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal
challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and
their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and
all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both
sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman
said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from
carbon dioxide' would win the case."--
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html
He said that he would be joined by 30,000 scientists, apparently
referring to the signatories of the long-discredited "Oregon" petition,
the vast, vast majority of whom aren't climate scientists.
Unsurprisingly, this story was taken seriously by Fox News, but not by
real news organizations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
Also unsurprisingly, Coleman has never filed suit -- at least not that
I'm aware.
Cheers,
John
John H. Knox
Professor of Law
Wake Forest University
1834 Wake Forest Road
Winston-Salem, NC 27109
(336) 758-7439
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Dallas Blaney
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 2:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [gep-ed] Gore Lawsuit
Good morning,
I just gave a presentation about global climate change in my
introductory course and one of the students asked me to account for what
he said is a lawsuit against Al Gore by 30,000 climate scientists and
The Weather Channel. I had not heard of any such lawsuit and am having
trouble finding legitimate information about it. Can someone point me
to
a legitimate source on this issue so I can give my student(s) solid
answer?
Thank you,
Dallas Blaney
Colorado State University
