DOCSLIB.ORG

Naomi Oreskes Is a Professor at Harvard Unive

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Naomi Oreskes Is a Professor at Harvard Unive The Oreskes/Supran Climate Spin Cycle Who Are Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran? Naomi Oreskes is a professor at Harvard University, and has long been involved in the broader activist campaign to prosecute oil companies for alleged climate fraud, particularly under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. She’s the author of Merchants of Doubt, a book published in 2010 that alleges the oil and gas industry sought to undermine and discredit the science of climate change. Oreskes was also responsible for helping Rick Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute (CAI) write articles intended for academic journals that would attribute GHGs and climate impacts to specific companies. Oreskes also sits on the board of CAI, which organized the now infamous 2012 La Jolla Conference with the Union of Concerned Scientists, where participants strategized how Congress, state attorneys general and private attorneys could link energy companies to the tobacco industry and prosecute them under state or federal law. The New York Times credits Oreskes with conceiving the conference. Geoffrey Supran is a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University, working alongside Naomi Oreskes. Supran is a leader in the fossil fuel divestment movement and helped organize a campaign to push the American Geophysical Union (AGU) to stop accepting funding from ExxonMobil. Supran has openly declared his anti-ExxonMobil bias, including his hope that someone “engineers Exxon out of business.” Supran, along with Oreskes, signed on to amicus briefs filed to advocate on behalf of the municipalities suing fossil fuel companies for climate change. Supran has also served as an “expert witness” for the Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights where he testified on his research into ExxonMobil’s climate science and speech, during which he omitted key facts about the expert criticism his work has received. In March 2019, Supran testified on that same research before the European Union Parliament. In April 2015, he penned an op-ed in The Guardian pushing for MIT and other universities to cut financial ties with fossil fuel companies. As a Ph.D. student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Supran sat on the school's climate advisory committee, which unsuccessfully called on the university to address alleged disinformation by fossil fuel companies about climate change. He proclaims that, during his time as a student at MIT, he "co-led" the fossil fuel divestment movement as a part of Fossil Free MIT, and organized a divestment sit-in lasting 116 days. Errors in the Oreskes/Supran ‘Climate Change Communications’ Report In 2017, Naomi Oreskes and Geoffrey Supran co-authored Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977-2014), a study that alleged ExxonMobil misled the public on climate change. The paper accused ExxonMobil of producing research that affirmed human contributions to climate change, but subsequently published newspaper advertorials in the New York Times that denied or sowed doubt around that same climate-related science. Oreskes and Supran announced their findings in a column in the New York Times, in which they claimed that "81 percent of [ExxonMobil's] climate change advertorials in one way or another expressed doubt." While Oreskes and Supran are more than willing to share the results of their study at every opportunity, they refuse to acknowledge the key flaws of their study: 1. Expert deemed study ‘unreliable, invalid, biased.’ Professor Kimberly Neuendorf, Ph.D., whose research Oreskes and Supran proclaimed to follow in their study, rebutted the authors’ conclusion based on “a variety of fundamental errors in their analysis.” Neuendorf wrote that Oreskes and Supran’s data analysis is “unreliable, invalid, biased, not generalizable, and not replicable,” adding that there was “no scientific support” for their findings. 2. Sourced ‘Data’ from Greenpeace. Oreskes and Supran obtained the documents for their study from a database maintained by the anti-fossil fuel group Greenpeace, instead of seeking out the original source material. Greenpeace has faced lawsuits from Resolute Forest Products and Energy Transfer Partners (operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline), alleging that the organization has engaged in “eco-terrorism, racketeering and other crimes.” Greenpeace was forced to admit that it engages in “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and “non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion.” The Oreskes/Supran study makes no mention of this. 3. Incomplete and Misrepresented Data. To draw their study’s main conclusions, Supran and Oreskes relied on an incomplete collection of advertorials, mischaracterized documents that acknowledged climate change as being an example of climate denial, and compared Exxon’s research with Mobil’s “advertorials” before the companies merged into ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil was formed in late 1999, 10 years after the earliest of the advertorials referenced in the Oreskes/Supran study was published. Remove the Mobil submissions, and the universe of applicable advertorials is reduced by 70 percent. Oreskes and Supran also omitted relevant ExxonMobil advertorials affirming the science of climate change that were actually included in the biased Greenpeace database. An EID review of the advertorials found that the Harvard researchers frequently graded statements acknowledging climate change as “doubt” and confused ExxonMobil’s opposition to specific climate policies with a rejection of climate science in general. For example, in a 2001 advertorial, ExxonMobil wrote about “the growing recognition that most governments cannot meet the politically chosen [Kyoto] targets without resorting to economy-wrecking measures.” Oreskes and Supran graded that statement as expressing doubt about man-made global warming, even though it makes no mention of climate science and was merely establishing a position on a proposed policy based on economic costs. 4. Bankrolled by Anti-Exxon Campaigners. The Oreskes/Supran report was partially funded by the Rockefeller Family Fund, which is funding a multi-year smear campaign against ExxonMobil. The Rockefeller Family Fund – along with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund – financed the work of InsideClimate News and the Columbia School of Journalism, both of whom produced stories in 2015 that helped spark the #ExxonKnew movement. Despite denials from both InsideClimate News and Columbia University that their donors had any input over their reporting, the Rockefeller Family Fund’s Lee Wasserman admitted to paying for the stories that attacked ExxonMobil. More Information • March 20, 2019: New Hearing, Old Tricks: #ExxonKnew Takes Debunked Testimony to Parliament • January 31, 2019: Last Ditch Effort? Sen. Whitehouse, #ExxonKnew Activists Try to Revive Failing Climate Litigation Campaign • September 27, 2018: Searching For ‘Data,’ Anti-Exxon Researcher Taps Blog That Bragged About Suppressing Climate Dissent • September 6, 2018: #ExxonKnew Activist Omits Key Facts in Testimony Before Human Rights Commission in the Philippines • March 6, 2018: Facing Allegations Of Bias, Anti-Exxon Researcher Lashes Out • March 1, 2018: Expert Finds ‘No Scientific Support’ For Study Claiming Exxon Misled The Public On Climate Change • September 6, 2017: Exposed: Harvard Study Omitted Evidence To Allege Exxonmobil ‘Misled’ Public On Climate • August 22, 2017: Activists Admit Climate Campaign is About Attacking Free Speech • June 24, 2016: Activists Admit at Friendly Forum They’ve Been Working With NY AG on Climate RICO Campaign for Over a Year .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong? Naomi Oreskes
    Changing Planet: Past, Present, Future Lecture 4 – Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong? Naomi Oreskes, PhD 1. Start of Lecture Four (0:16) [ANNOUNCER:] From the Howard Hughes Medical Institute...The 2012 Holiday Lectures on Science. This year's lectures: "Changing Planet: Past, Present, Future," will be given by Dr. Andrew Knoll, Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University; Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego; and Dr. Daniel Schrag, Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. The fourth lecture is titled: Climate Change: How Do We Know We're Not Wrong? And now, a brief video to introduce our lecturer Dr. Naomi Oreskes. 2. Profile of Dr. Naomi Oreskes (1:14) [DR. ORESKES:] One thing that's really important for all people to understand is that the whole notion of certainty is mistaken, and it's something that climate skeptics and deniers and the opponents of evolution really exploit. Many of us think that scientific knowledge is certain, so therefore if someone comes along and points out the uncertainties in a certain scientific body of knowledge, we think that undermines the science, we think that means that there's a problem in the science, and so part of my message is to say that that view of science is incorrect, that the reality of science is that it's always uncertain because if we're actually doing research, it means that we're asking questions, and if we're asking questions, then by definition we're asking questions about things we don't already know about, so uncertainty is part of the lifeblood of science, it's something we need to embrace and realize it's a good thing, not a bad thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Public Policy: What's Proof Got to Do With
    Environmental Science & Policy 7 (2004) 369–383 Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it? Naomi Oreskes Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0104, USA Abstract In recent years, it has become common for opponents of environmental action to argue that the scientific basis for purported harms is uncertain, unreliable, and fundamentally unproven. In response, many scientists believe that their job is to provide the “proof” that society needs. Both the complaint and the response are misguided. In all but the most trivial cases, science does not produce logically indisputable proofs about the natural world. At best it produces a robust consensus based on a process of inquiry that allows for continued scrutiny, re-examination, and revision. Within a scientific community, different individuals may weigh evidence differently and adhere to different standards of demonstration, and these differences are likely to be amplified when the results of inquiry have political, religious, or economic ramifications. In such cases, science can play a role by providing informed opinions about the possible consequences of our actions (or inactions), and by monitoring the effects of our choices. © 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environmental policy; Science policy; Scientific proof; Uncertainty; Values; Politics; Lomborg 1. Introduction centive for manipulation and misrepresentation of informa- tion. This is particularly true in the domain of environmental The heart of Bjørn Lomborg’s recent critique of envi- policy. ronmentalism is that many assertions of the environmen- Lomborg assures us that everyone is for the environment— tal movement are unproven and therefore provide no good just as everyone is for world peace and against hunger—but grounds for sensible public policy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Naomi Oreskes
    NAOMI ORESKES Department of History and Program in Science Studies University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0104 [email protected] 858-534-1996 (department) 858-534-4695 (direct) EDUCATION 1990 Ph.D. Graduate Special Program in Geological Research and History of Science Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 1981 B.Sc., First Class Honours: Mining Geology, The Royal School of Mines Imperial College, University of London, England. EMPLOYMENT 1998- Associate Professor, Department of History and Program in Science Studies University of California, San Diego Autumn, 2001 Visiting Associate Professor, Department of History of Science, Harvard University 1996-98 Associate Professor, History and Philosophy of Science Gallatin School of Individualized Study, New York University 1991-96 Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences and Adjunct Asst. Professor of History Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire. 1990-91 Visiting Asst. Professor of Earth Sciences and Visiting Asst. Professor of History Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 1984-89 Research Assistant, Geology Department, and Teaching Assistant, Depts. of Geology, Philosophy, and Applied Earth Sciences Stanford University. 1981-84 Geologist, Western Mining Corporation, Adelaide, Australia. MAJOR HONORS • American Philosophical Society Sabbatical Fellowship, 2001-2002. • National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award, 1994-1999. • National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship for University Teachers, 1993-94. • Society of Economic Geologists Lindgren Prize for outstanding work by a young scientist, 1993. • Ritter Memorial Fellowship in History of Marine Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 1994. • Listed, Who’s Who in American Science and Engineering, Who’s Who in the West. 1 OTHER HONORS AND AWARDS • FACULTY: History of Science Society, Women in Science Best Paper Prize, 2000; Forum for the History of Science in America, Best Paper Prize, 1997; Geological Society of America 29th International Geological Congress Travel Grant, Kyoto, Japan, 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the NINTH CIRCUIT ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ◆◆◆⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ COUNTY of SAN MATEO, No
    Case: 18-15499, 01/29/2019, ID: 11171856, DktEntry: 95, Page 1 of 51 Nos. 18-15499, 18-15502, 18-15503, 18-16376 United States Court Of Appeals FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ◆◆◆⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, No. 18-15499 Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-cv-4929-VC v. N.D. Cal., San Francisco CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Hon. Vince Chhabria Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, No. 18-15502 Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-cv-4934-VC v. N.D. Cal., San Francisco CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Hon. Vince Chhabria Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF MARIN, No. 18-15503 Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-cv-4935-VC v. N.D. Cal., San Francisco CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Hon. Vince Chhabria Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al., No. 18-16376 Plaintiff-Appellee, Nos. 18-cv-00450-VC; v. 18-cv-00458-VC; CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., 18-cv-00732-VC Defendants-Appellants N.D. Cal., San Francisco Hon. Vince Chhabria BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ROBERT BRULE, CENTER FOR CLIMATE INTEGRITY, JUSTIN FARRELL, BENJAMIN FRANTA, STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY, NAOMI ORESKES, and GEOFFREY SUPRAN IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE DANIEL P. MENSHER 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 ALISON S. GAFFNEY SEATTLE, WA 98101-3052 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. Tel: (206) 623-1900 Counsel for Amici Curiae Case: 18-15499, 01/29/2019, ID: 11171856, DktEntry: 95, Page 2 of 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................... 1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 I. DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTS ................................................. 3 A. Defendants had early knowledge that fossil fuel products were causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and that this increase could result in “catastrophic” consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading for Precarious Times
    SSS0010.1177/0306312717704313Social Studies of ScienceVardy 704313review-article2017 Review Essay Social Studies of Science 1 –9 Reading for precarious times © The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717704313DOI: 10.1177/0306312717704313 journals.sagepub.com/home/sss Mark Vardy Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA Keywords anthropocene, ethics of geophysical agency, practices of reading, the materiality of books Candis Callison, How Climate Change Comes to Matter: The Communal Life of Facts (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014). Ashley Dawson, Extinction: A Radical History (New York: OR Books, 2016). Dale Jamieson and Bonnie Nadzam, Love in the Anthropocene (New York: OR Books, 2015). Donna J Haraway, Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016). Elizabeth Marino, Fierce Climate, Sacred Ground: An Ethnography of Climate Change in Shishmaref Alaska (Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska Press, 2015). Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway, The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future (New York: Columbia University Press, 2014). The old chestnut, what books would you want to be stranded with on a desert island, was, until recently, a thought experiment. With the unspooling of the Holocene, it might become a practical consideration. Tactile materiality, essential to many studies in STS, is an important quality of books. Three of the books selected here are just slightly larger than a postcard. And stacked up, Extinction: A Radical History, Love in the Anthropocene, and The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future are not even three centimeters high.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by N
    THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION I OCT OBER 25, 2013 People Voice on Climate Change Moves to Harvard By JENNY ROGERS Ms. Oreskes, who is 54, earned change consensus, she says. "If a professor of en­ a Ph.D. in geQlogical research anything, I'm an advocate for un­ vironmental stud­ AOMI ORESKES never in­ and the history of science from derstanding why this issue is im­ ies, bioethics, and tended to become a spokes­ Stanford University in 1990. M­ portant." philosophy at New N person on climate change or ter starting out as a geologist, she To make decisions, she says, York University. science. Then she published an es­ quickly became interested in how policy makers should understand They are studying say in the journal Science in 2004, scientific consensus forms. She "where there's scientific consensus how scientists eval­ in which she laid out the broad found a niche in the history of sci­ and where there isn't." uate one another's scientific consensus that global cli­ ence, eventually specializing in A former colleague, Veerab­ work for large-scale mate change is occurring, and that cold-war-era and contemporary hadran Ramanathan, says Ms. assessments that it is affected by human activities. scientific work. Oreskes's departure was a loss for have influenced en­ Now the woman who brought Her 2004 analysis of climate­ San Diego. "She is one of the few vironmental-policy the world that message has moved change studies was cited in An who talk about contemporary sci­ decisions, such as from the University of California at Inconvenient Truth, a 2006 docu­ ence," says Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter of the Anthropocene Working Group
    Newsletter of the Anthropocene Working Group Volume 6:Report of activities 2014‐15 December 2015 International Union of Geological Sciences International Commission on Stratigraphy Subcommission on Quaternary Stratigraphy http://quaternary.stratigraphy.org/workinggroups/anthropocene/ Table of Contents CHAIRMAN’S COLUMN ..................................................................................................................... 2 INAUGURAL ANTHROPOCENE WORKING GROUP MEETING ......................................... 4 SECOND ANTHROPOCENE WORKING GROUP MEETING ................................................. 7 SELECTED PUBLICATIONS ............................................................................................................. 8 CONFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 11 MEDIA ................................................................................................................................................... 14 OTHER NEWS ..................................................................................................................................... 18 MEMBERSHIP TO DATE ................................................................................................................ 18 ANTHROPOCENE WORKING GROUP: PROGRAMME FOR 2016 ................................. 22 Newsletter edited by Colin Waters and Jan Zalasiewicz. Thanks to all colleagues who contributed to this Newsletter. Cover Illustration:
    [Show full text]
  • The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8150290 Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Article in Science · January 2005 DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618 · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 729 1,698 1 author: Naomi Oreskes Harvard University 112 PUBLICATIONS 8,245 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Anthropocene: 1) The Earth System Level View project Anthropocene 2) The Geology Level View project All content following this page was uploaded by Naomi Oreskes on 20 April 2015. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. 4 The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong? Naomi Oreskes In December 2004, Discover magazine ran an article on the top science stories of the year. One of these was climate change, and the story was the emergence of a scientific consensus over the reality of global warming. National Geographic similarly declared 2004 the year that global warming ‘‘got respect’’ (Roach 2004). Many scientists felt that respect was overdue: as early as 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had concluded that there was strong scientific evidence that human activities were affecting global climate. By 2007, the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report noted it is ‘‘extremely un- likely that the global climate changes of the past fifty years can be explained without invoking human activities’’ (Alley et al. 2007). Prominent scientists and major scientific organizations have all ratified the IPCC conclusion. Today, all but a tiny handful of climate scientists are convinced that earth’s climate is heating up and that human activities are a significant cause.
    [Show full text]
  • Rep Beyer Factcheck Project Bi
    Response to Congressional Hearing Naomi Oreskes Professor Departments of the History of Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences Harvard University 10 April 2017 Among climate scientists, “refutation fatigue” has set in. Over the past two decades, scientists have spent so much time and effort refuting the misperceptions, misrepresentations and in some cases outright lies that they scarcely have the energy to do so yet again.1 The persistence of climate change denial in the face of the efforts of the scientific community to explain both what we know and how we know it is a clear demonstration that this denial represents the willful rejection of the findings of modern science. It is, as I have argued elsewhere, implicatory denial.2 Representative Smith and his colleagues reject the reality of anthropogenic climate change because they dislike its implications for their economic interests (or those of their political allies), their ideology, and/or their world-view. They refuse to accept that we have a problem that needs to be fixed, so they reject the science that revealed the problem. Denial makes a poor basis for public policy. In the mid-century, denial of the Nazi threat played a key role in the policy of appeasement that emboldened Adolf Hitler. Denial also played a role in the neglect of intelligence information which, if heeded, could have enabled military officers to defend the Pacific Fleet against Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor. And denial played a major role in the long delay between when scientists demonstrated that tobacco use caused a variety of serious illnesses, including emphysema, heart disease, and lung cancer, and when Congress finally acted to protect the American people from a deadly but legal product.
    [Show full text]
  • The Professional Ethics of Witnessing Professionals
    The Professional Ethics of Witnessing Professionals Dennis F. Thompson Professionals have an ethical obligation to bear witness to climate change. They should report, warn, criticize, and lobby to bring attention to the existential threat that climate change poses. But they also have an obligation to respect the knowl- edge that is the basis of their authority to witness. Witnessing carries risks to this professional authority. Witnessing professionals should avoid letting bias distort their advocacy, simplifying their statements excessively, overplaying the consensus in the field, neglecting their own conflicts of interest, and claiming authority be- yond their areas of expertise. To witness ethically, the professional should advocate responsibly. hat you have to say needs to be heard. Are you willing to be a wit- “ ness?”1 Rafe Pomerance, director of Friends of the Earth, put the W question to James Hansen, a prominent physicist turned climate scientist whose research on global warming pointed to the dangers of rising sea levels and other environmental changes with potential for catastrophic harm to the planet. Hansen had earlier concluded that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to warming sooner than previously predicted. As a scientist working at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, he had tried to stay focused on his re- search and wrote mainly for his scientific colleagues. But then, recognizing that politicians, the public, and even many other scientists did not appreciate the seri- ousness of global warming, he accepted the challenge of the question that Pomer- ance put to him.2 He became a witnessing professional. His testimony to Congress in 1988 dramatically put global warming on the public agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Oreskes CV FEB 2020
    Naomi Oreskes Professor of the History of Science Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge MA [email protected] http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/oreskes.html Education B.Sc. (First Class Honours) 1981 Royal School of Mines, Imperial College Ph.D. 1990 Stanford University (Graduate Special Program: Geological Research and History of Science) EMPLOYMENT Current Professor of the History of Science, Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University. Columnist, Scientific American magazine, “The Observatory” 2005-2013 Professor, Department of History & Program in Science Studies Adjunct Professor of Geosciences (from 2007), University of California, San Diego 2008-2011 Provost, Sixth College, University of California, San Diego 2003-2006 Director, Science Studies Program, University of California, San Diego 1998- 2005 Associate Professor, Department of History & Program in Science Studies, UCSD 1996-1998 Associate Professor, History and Philosophy of Science Gallatin School of Individualized Study, New York University 1991-1996 Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences and Adjunct Asst. Professor of History, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 1990-1991 Visiting Asst. Professor of Earth Sciences and Visiting Asst. Professor of History Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 1984-1989 Research Assistant, Geology Department, and Teaching Assistant, Depts. of Geology, Philosophy, and Applied Earth Sciences Stanford University 1981-1984 Geologist, Western Mining
    [Show full text]
  • Dædalus Issue Is “Witnessing Climate Change
    Dædalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences Fall 2020 Witnessing Climate Change Nancy L. Rosenblum, guest editor with Robert Jay Lifton · Naomi Oreskes Robert H. Socolow · Dennis F. Thompson Michael B. Gerrard · Mark A. Mitchell Patrick L. Kinney · Rebecca Henderson David W. Titley · Elke U. Weber · Jessica F. Green Rafe Pomerance · Carolyn Kormann Scott Gabriel Knowles · Antonio Oposa Jr. Dædalus Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences “Witnessing Climate Change” Volume 149, Number 4; Fall 2020 Nancy L. Rosenblum, Guest Editor Phyllis S. Bendell, Managing Editor and Director of Publications Peter Walton, Associate Editor Heather M. Struntz, Assistant Editor Committee on Studies and Publications John Mark Hansen, Chair; Rosina Bierbaum, Johanna Drucker, Gerald Early, Carol Gluck, Linda Greenhouse, John Hildebrand, Philip Khoury, Arthur Kleinman, Sara Lawrence-Lightfoot, Alan I. Leshner, Rose McDermott, Michael S. McPherson, Frances McCall Rosenbluth, Scott D. Sagan, Nancy C. Andrews (ex officio), David W. Oxtoby (ex officio), Diane P. Wood (ex officio) Inside front cover: Unknown artist, The Dramatic Birth of a Giant Iceberg, originally printed in The Popular Science Educator, Volume 2, edited by Charles Ray (London: The Amalgamated Press, 1935). Contents 6 Introduction: Paths to Witnessing, Ethics of Speaking Out Nancy L. Rosenblum 25 On Becoming Witnessing Professionals Robert Jay Lifton 33 What Is the Social Responsibility of Climate Scientists? Naomi Oreskes 46 Witnessing for the Middle to Depolarize the Climate Change Conversation Robert H. Socolow 67 The Professional Ethics of Witnessing Professionals Dennis F. Thompson 79 An Environmental Lawyer’s Fraught Quest for Legal Tools to Hold Back the Seas Michael B.
    [Show full text]