1. NMSU Teach-In – January 2008

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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)

8.  “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.”

9.  Human desire for comfort  Oil, gas, coal, “development” of “land” provide comfort if not luxury

10.  “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”

11.  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

12.  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

13.  “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)

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

15.  Our society likes concept of consensus  Parties with vested interests may produce and promote “cultivated uncertainty” (Banning)

16.  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

17. Professional journalists taught to present both or alternative sides of story Equal press to expert reports and skeptics

18.  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

19.  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)

20.  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

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

22.  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.