THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN (Under the Direction of Edward Panetta) ABSTRACT The scientific consensus on climate change is not recognized by the public. This is due to many related factors, including the Bush administration’s science policy, the reporting of the controversy by the media, the public’s understanding of science as dissent, and the differing standards of argumentation in science and the public sphere. Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was produced in part as a response to the acceptance of climate dissent by the Bush administration and achieved a rupture of the public sphere by bringing the technical issue forward for public deliberation. The rupture has been sustained by dissenters through the use of argument strategies designed to foster controversy at the expense of deliberation. This makes it incumbent upon rhetorical scholars to theorize the closure of controversy and policymakers to recognize that science will not always have the answers. INDEX WORDS: Al Gore, Argument fields, Argumentation, An Inconvenient Truth, Climate change, Climategate, Controversy, Public sphere, Technical sphere THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN B.A., The University of Wyoming, 2008 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2010 William Mosley-Jensen All Rights Reserved THE CONTROVERSY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE by WILLIAM MOSLEY-JENSEN Major Professor: Edward Panetta Committee: Thomas Lessl Roger Stahl Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2010 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people that made this project possible through their unwavering support and love. First and foremost I would like to thank my wonderful wife, Mary for always being there with a smile when I needed it and also the occasional plate of cookies. Second, I would like to thank my parents, Steve and Michele Jensen, who have long provided me with unconditional support in all of my pursuits. Without them, nothing that I do now would be possible. In the pursuit of my education here at the University of Georgia I have been blessed to have wonderful instructors who have challenged and guided my thinking. I would like to thank Barb Biesecker, Roger Stahl, Thomas Lessl, Kelly Happe, and Jennifer Samp for all taking the time to listen to my ramblings in class and to help me better understand what this discipline is all about. I would also like to extend special gratitude to Roger Stahl and Thomas Lessl for agreeing to read and critique the work that I have produced. In the pursuit of this project one individual deserves special recognition. My advisor Dr. Edward Panetta has provided me with guidance and advice not only on this document, but also on a wide array of other issues and I would not be the scholar nor the individual that I am today were it not for his tireless support. Thank you all. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv CHAPTER 1 THE PUBLIC AND THE CONTROVERSY................................................................1 Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................................1 Area of Inquiry ..........................................................................................................5 Review of Source Material ........................................................................................9 Outline of Chapters .................................................................................................18 2 AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH AS RUPTURE IN THE CONTROVERSY .............28 The Terrain of the Rupture ......................................................................................28 Conditions for the Rupture ......................................................................................30 Navigating the Terrain .............................................................................................36 Dissenter Response ..................................................................................................40 3 SCIENTIFIC AND PUBLIC ARGUMENT IN THE CONTROVERSY ...................49 The Disjunction between Scientific Consensus and Public Perception ..................49 The Theory of Climate Change Dissent in the Public Sphere .................................53 The Practice of Climate Change Dissent in the Public Sphere ...............................57 Media and the Climate Change Controversy ..........................................................64 4 SCIENTIFIC NARRATIVE, DISSENT, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN ................70 The Importance of Demarcation for Science ..........................................................70 Galileo, Dissent, and Scientific Identity ..................................................................72 vi Intelligent Design and Climate Change Dissent ......................................................81 5 Rhetorical Scholars, Policymakers, and Future Research ...........................................89 Summation of Suggestions for Primary and Secondary Audiences ........................89 Suggestions for Rhetorical Scholars ........................................................................90 Suggestions for Policymakers and Scientists ..........................................................95 Directions for Future Research ................................................................................99 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................101 1 Chapter One: The Public and the Controversy I. Introduction to the Study With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drawdown of that nuclear threat, one issue represents an existential threat to human and non-human life. Drastic climate change could turn the Earth into a desolate lifeless planet1, and even conservative estimates predict that we are likely to see rising sea levels, weather unpredictability, and temperature increases around the globe.2 These effects of climate change are likely to decrease agricultural output, displace populations, and severely impact trade and economic growth around the world.3 Communicating the threat that climate change represents is complicated by the presence of an ongoing controversy over the status of the science of climate change, effectively preventing policymakers from moving forward on the issue. Despite the scientific nature of climate change, there are diverse views expressed by a wide array of individuals in the public sphere. Most notably, Al Gore‘s film An Inconvenient Truth explicitly attempts to persuade the public that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is human-induced. A number of celebrities have also brought their opinion about climate change to the public. In 2006 Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, Alanis Morrissette, and Leonardo DiCaprio all narrated videos that support action to stop climate change.4 Scarlett Johansson and David Attenborough have become involved by signing a letter drafted by Oxfam that urges the 1 Brandenburg and Paxson 1999 2 EPA 2009 3 Milbrath 1994 4 Vergano 2006 2 United Nations to take action on climate change.5 These celebrities are speaking out in the public sphere about what seems to be a scientific issue, a technical debate. The perceived necessities of the interventions into the public sphere on a settled technical debate are what this project concerns itself with. This project will progress through five chapters. This first chapter provides an explanation of the intended audiences for this study, its area of inquiry, scope and limits. Namely, the focus on the controversy over climate change science as it is currently presented to the American public. This chapter reviews the major source material including general controversy and argumentation theory and specific literature about the climate change controversy. The review includes an analysis and assessment of the general importance of each piece as it relates to the overall project. It also includes a detailed introduction of the next four chapters. There are two audiences that may find this project useful in their scholarly and political life. The primary audience are rhetorical theorists and critics who find that they have an interest in science policy controversies specifically, or argumentation and controversy theory more generally. For this audience this project can inform future research on the subject by locating common characteristics of scientific dissent and its public representation. By tracing the evolution of argument strategies that are commonly used in presenting scientific dissent to the public, this project provides a template for assessing future science policy controversies. The secondary audience consists of the rhetorical practitioners whose argumentation is the subject of this project. For public policy policymakers, commentators and scientists seeking to relate scientific information to the public this project provides a useful foundation for crafting effective messages. For these groups, understanding the effective presence of their 5 Gray 2008 3 argumentation and its interplay with other controversies should help them craft a more cohesive argument strategy. Chapter two