Comment bien s’informer sur le changement climatique ? Et que penser des immenses efforts que font les climato-sceptiques pour nous convaincre que le changement climatique n’est qu’une grosse illusion ?
Voici une série de liens très riches, très informatifs sur la question, c’est un synthèse d’une des innombrables discussions passionnantes qui nourrissent la liste de « géographes critiques » (ou "criters pour les intimes...)
Owain Jones, de l’université de l’école d’art et de sciences sociales de Northumbria a eu quelques discussions avec des climato-septiques qui l’ont beaucoup troublé... Il n’est pas du tout familier avec le sujet, mais très intéressé et cherche à consulter les documents, les informations appropriés qui lui permettraient de lui donner une idée plus précise, d’affiner sa connaissance en la matière :
Chris Gibson, professeur de géographie humaine à l’université de Wollongong en Australie recommande :
The Critical Decade: Climate science, risks and responseshttp://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-critical-decade
John Finn, de l’université de Newport (Etats-Unis) poursuit :
Check this good book, Global Weirdness
one of the NY Times environmental reporters was recently on Fresh Air for a very accessible 20-minute interview where he discusses climate change, but also the false equivalency bias the is so prevalent in the news media’s reporting on climate change:
Ilan Kelman, chercheur au Centre international de recherche climatique et environnementale (Cicero) à Oslo en Norvège propose ce site :
Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Joe Smith, de l’Open university explique dans un long développement :
The headline conclusion from my own work on this topic is that many of the 20-40% of the population of e.g. the US and UK who are not concerned about or not convinced by climate science findings are not driven by their assessment of the science. Rather they are positioned by prior ideological commitments (libertarianism of left or more usually right).
Many have been made suspicious by what they see as short term ’tactics’ of a climate change lobby. Personally I think that some serious mistakes have been made in the ways in which climate research and policy have been presented and in some areas practiced, and feel that more plural and dynamic accounts of that work are needed.
Below are links to a couple of blog posts that explore this question. I continue to feel that The most terrifying video you’ll ever see 2’
is a great resource for people who feel they are being log rolled on the science (also a nice example of what educators can do with the youtube medium). Funny and clever, and a robust argument a few years on from its production. Many millions of viewers on the basis of a well thought out argument but essentially free and (very) amateur production.
is a good resource created by climate scientists. The hard nut contrarians mock it as campaigning. but the writers are I think all working climate scientists. Mostly US researchers I think.
is more journalistic but rooted in the latest research. They make a point of fact checking key media reports. A European mostly UK bias.
Global stories but out of the UK. Another source recently created by a group of very experienced environment/science journalists is
For more culturally informed understandings and explorations of climate change, you can hear a body of podcasts and download a book (track 11) on the subject here:
My posts around climate/contrarianism/knowledge politics include:
argues for new approaches to public engagement and debate
explores the libertarian ideological foundations of many climate contrarians
Six elements of the new politics...
Nicholas James (Open university) répond directement à Joe Smith (Open university) :
... However It’s an amalgam of politicians [in a global context], who seem intent on denying, ignoring or in the case of UK’s Education Minister Michael Gove forcing a removal of climate change and sustainable development from the National Curriculum.
It is also a coming together but not quite ’epistemic community’ of many hundreds of scientists from sub-disciplines in the form of the IPCC trying
a) to predict and
b) to sythesise many complex findings from a wide array of sub-disciplines.
It’s not easy. The IPCC has no authority and yet its integrity is regularly questioned. Within its discourse is the view that climate change [and its causes] are natural and anthropogenic in origin. This is compelling and makes sense [scientifically?] but it too easy for decision-makers to confuse and abuse the notion of ’uncertainty’. It is intrinsic to science, it is deeply part of climate systems but it should not really be confused with doubt!
Et Joe Smith à Nicholas James :
About IPCC, politics and uncertainty: I want to argue that the IPCC should always and now be understood as a long running review process that offers a risk assessment, and the policy/politics is about risk management. For sure its a messy boundary. Mike Hulme’s Why Do We Disagree About Climate Change is a good resource on that issue, but the assessment/management distinction helps I think. Many of the contrarian commentators are focused on the science, but are really motivated by the implications of the politics. I’d agree wholeheartedly that the implied suggestion from Nick that the assessment has been rather well run (though not always well communicated), while the risk management side feels like very early days.
About getting rid of climate issues in UK govt curriculum, it is proving difficult to find out whether this is politically motivated (most assume it is and I conclude that Gove is explicitly ’’playing to imagined prejudices of a Tory right that recalls a globe half draped in the Union Jack.’). The only balancing point I have come across is Guardian journalist Leo Hickman’s argument about age appropriate learning. Former UK Govt. Climate Change Ambassador John Ashton’s reply to this is that in his experience young people seem to cope with the difficult knowledge around climate change rather better than adults. My own take on this is that, among other things, climate change is a good topic to explore why interdisciplinary perspectives are an important part of life, and geography is a good place to explore all this.
I’m aware that this list doesn’t tend to run long threads, so I’ll stay out of this one now, but anyone interested in this is welcome to get in touch.
Au tour d’Herman Douglas, géographe au Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian à Washington :
One of the best and most entertaining presentations on the science of climate change I have heard is by Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences and Associate of the Earth and Environmental Systems Institute at The Pennsylvania State University.
I first heard him present it here at the Smithsonian last fall, at the 40th anniversary of the launching of “Limits to Growth,” where members of the Club of Rome (Dennis Meadows, Lester Brown, Jørgen Randers and others) reviewed their predictions of 40 years ago.
Alley presents a great deal of science and argues that there are eight pieces of evidence that climate change is human-induced, and that to invoke merely one of them leaves you open to criticism; but collectively they refute all arguments to the contrary.
The program and main website for the Club of Rome meeting is here:
Richard Alley’s webcast presentation is here:
And his powerpoint is here:
He says he sometimes subtitles his course:
“How to get rich AND save the planet or else.”
#climat #changement-climatique #géographie-critique #géographie #climato-sceptiques