Joe Smith, Senior Lecturer in Environment at the OU, follows up on his 'climate sceptics to climate dyspeptics' post...

My post about ‘climate dyspeptics’ has won a bit of attention here and there from the ‘sceptic’ blogosphere. That’s what I hoped for. But it seems that for some readers I may not have laid out clearly enough that my suggestion that we use the term climate dyspeptic in place of climate sceptic was intended as a joke (admittedly a weak one), and part of my point was to push right over the end the idea of constructing clumsy binaries of ‘believers’ and ‘sceptics’. If you’ve arrived here for the first time there are a couple of other posts elsewhere on my blog on why I think climate change is a distinctive cultural and political problem. But here I just want to ask for an end to name-calling.

‘Warmists are either stupid or dishonest.’

‘Of course climate deniers are not merely stupid, ignorant… They are also dishonest, manipulative, and arrogant.’

These are two sample quotes picked out in a few seconds of Googling. It’s not good is it? Climate change science and policy has risen in prominence in parallel with social media, where distance and anonymity can erode the kind of good manners almost all of us manage to muster in real public places. Sociologists exploring racism or other kinds of discrimination talk of processes of ‘othering’ that make it possible for one group of people to dehumanise another.

Terms like climate sceptic, denier and contrarian have served to cluster anyone with some good questions about climate change science and policy into a discrete group. This has solidified into an identity. ‘We’re climate deniers you know’ said a professional couple to me during a good-natured and intelligent conversation in a bar. Neither were stupid or dishonest, and I don’t think they would have thought that of me, although we disagreed on some significant points. None of those disagreements were really about science – at root they were all about how we thought about economics, politics, risk and the future. I got the sense that they felt that their thoughts about these sides of the question were not just being ignored but being buried under the edifice of ‘climate science’.

'I’ve worked with researchers from quite a range of disciplines that contribute in one way or another to climate science research. It is hilarious to consider any of them stupid or professionally dishonest'

But isn’t it patently absurd to suggest that anyone is ‘against climate science’. Similarly it is odd to my mind that some social researchers and commentators talk of climate change science ‘beliefs’. Very few people have beliefs as such about numeracy or grammar, and climate science describes researchers’ attempts to make the best sense possible of a complex set of interactions. It is like saying you are against mathematics or English language: it's a nonsense to oppose an area of inquiry. But this research area has sketched out potential hazards that most involved in it suggest hold potentially great significance for society, policy and politics. That’s where things hot up, and the name calling starts.

I’ve worked with researchers from quite a range of disciplines that contribute in one way or another to climate science research. It is hilarious to consider any of them stupid or professionally dishonest. They’ve all chosen to work in academia when their skills set could have provided them with vastly greater salaries. They work (almost all remunerated at fixed pay scales) on questions that interest them. A small number have behaved defensively – even badly  – in the face of some very nasty treatment, much of it in the form of (often anonymous) ad hominems.

I suggest we should let the numerous and varied projects that add up to climate science ‘run in the background’ and ask them to keep coming out and telling us about the new things they’ve found now and again (the IPCC would do this a whole lot more effectively if they spent a good chunk more on communications. I hope the blogosphere will support them in that…). Digital and social media make it easier for that work to be more transparent in process, and indeed for more people who aren’t engaged in science professionally to comment and participate.

But the real action in terms of citizen and political debate should be around how we think about risk and the future. Everyone should feel free to express an opinion around what we should do about the difficult knowledge around climate change without being called one sort of name or another.

(PS: I’m assuming, hoping, the bit about beheading me was metaphoric?)

(PPS: Realise I’ve rather gone on about these themes recently but its now out of my system for a while I hope. I expect to post something about a new book I’ve co-edited in the next couple of weeks

For more posts from Joe Smith, see his Citizen Joe Smith blog.

Joe Smith, Senior Lecturer in Environment at the OU believes more people now doubt that climate change is caused by humans.  The term Climate sceptics’ applies to us all but he suggests that the phrase ‘Climate Dyspeptics’ would be better used because it describes not a position but a condition – rather than dividing into believers and deniers it suggests a feeling of discomfort about climate change instead.

Strange but true: the number of people who doubt that climate change is human-caused has, if anything, increased in the UK and US over a period when uncertainties in the science have been narrowing. However to think that this is all down to radical libertarian thinktanks like the Heartland Institute or energy industry lobbyists is a dangerous distraction. Attempts to spin climate change have been going on so long they have their own historians: Oreskes and Conway’s Merchants of Doubt shows the similarities – and links – between the tobacco and climate story. But this is of the ‘Pope is Catholic’ category of news. To think that lobby groups and think tanks are the reason that plenty of people are at best ambiguous about climate change is to fail to understand how many of us feel about relatively new and demanding ideas about humanity’s relationship with its environment.

Globescan, Eurobarometer or recent Yale/George Mason University studies show polling that offers fairly consistent accounts: somewhere between 15 and 35% of people are not convinced climate change is happening and/or don’t believe it is human caused depending on the framing of the question. These can be read as ‘glass more than half full’ results, but it is impossible to build robust international political support for mitigation and adaptation policies without engaging more people with a good sense of the best available scientific thinking on the topic. But the words that are used to describe the negative feelings that a substantial minority of the population have about climate change science and policy may be part of the problem. Terms like sceptic, denier and contrarian are not just inaccurate, but more to the point, create a stark and false binary of ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’.

One of the most widely used phrases is climate sceptic. But scepticism is a part and parcel of any good research and journalism. Indeed we need all the scepticism we can get from researchers, policy analysts and journalists if humanity is going to do a good job of responding to new knowledge about the world. So let’s just say we’re all climate sceptics now and leave that phrase alone.

'There are many climate dyspeptics who are fearful about or irritated by the way climate issues have been presented in the media and with some good cause'

I’m mostly serious in suggesting a new term: climate dyspepsia. An ugly term for sure, but it is useful because it describes not a position but a condition. Certainly this seems to capture the anti-science, crotchety and closed-minded attitude of some sour cherry-picking bloggers and pose-striking journalists. But it also suggests much more widespread feelings of discomfort. It summarises the state people are in when they find all the talk about climate change science, policy or politics difficult to digest. I come over climate dyspeptic myself fairly often – probably because I spend quite a large proportion of my life working on the topic.

There are many climate dyspeptics who are fearful about or irritated by the way climate issues have been presented in the media and with some good cause. The climate research and policy communities need to be more considerate about how people feel about new knowledge about climate change. They also need to be more willing to trust people’s capacity to cope with more open accounts of complex long-term problems. Often this will not be about doing things differently but about naming them differently. There are three things that could be presented in a new way.

First the science of climate change needs to be told as a broad and unfolding process rather than a fixed result. People have a good nose for authenticity and know that over-hasty phrases like ‘the science is finished’ misrepresent the work. And what work it is: climate science includes some of the most ambitious questions that humanity has ever set itself – why is it so rarely experienced as such?

'It is remarkable, but too rarely noted, that almost all of the extraordinarily broad range of policy, business and community responses to climate change carry other benefits'

Second the policy response needs to be framed not as the pursuit of a single final UN agreement that arises out of a great big finished fact, but rather explained as a long term collective risk management process. Everyone who drives a car understands the need for rules about car insurance; everyone in a country with a health system understands the principle of collective risk burden sharing. In fact we tend to do more than tolerate these responses to risk: we treasure them. Climate change policy is no more than an extension of these principles. It is an idea that almost everyone can get behind. Politicians need to inhabit climate policy and not palm off their job on researchers who have a different job to do. Elected politicians have the legitimacy and responsibility to make decisions about the most substantial risks facing their societies and need to step into these big shoes.

Thirdly it is remarkable, but too rarely noted, that almost all of the extraordinarily broad range of policy, business and community responses to climate change carry other benefits. This is the fact that will make the political task achievable. Some of the most compelling developments in design and engineering of our age are at least in part catalysed by knowledge of climate change. Furthermore they are delivering improvements in the quality of everyday life and the long-term profitability and sustainability of business. So here’s a cheering thought: the things that people are actually doing about climate change can overcome the sickly feelings that can be brought on by all the talk of it.

For a follow up post to this one, see here.

Find out more: 

• The Science behind climate change explained
• Environmental studies at the OU 

 

The OU’s award-winning project iSpot has received a £196,000 boost from the Garfield Weston Foundation so people can learn about and improve their local environment for biodiversity.

iSpot is a website aimed at helping anyone identify anything in nature. Once you've registered, you can add an observation to the website and suggest an identification yourself or see if anyone else can identify it for you.

Launched in 2008 with a five-year, £2 million grant from the Big Lottery Fund for England, iSpot has built a nationwide community of tens of thousands of people who are helping each other to observe and learn more about the natural world around them. There are currently over 17,000 registered users who have submitted more than 95,000 observations of about 5,500 species.

The next phase of the project will see several exciting new developments for users of iSpot, building on the foundations iSpot has established.
These include:

• Rapid-ID: a picture browser for beginners
• Mobile: iSpot in the hand and in the field
• Biodiversity Mentors: Outreach for the whole UK
• Personal: Customization for each user

The many eyes of the iSpot community have proved so keen, that hundreds of rarities have been recorded and two species new to Britain have been discovered.

iSpot’s award winning website has been designed to help remedy the gap in the general public’s identification skills. It is pioneering in its approach to supporting learning across the boundary between the informal and formal, using a combination of social networking, informal access to expertise and accredited learning opportunities. Anyone can upload a photograph of animals, plants, fungi or any living organisms they have seen. The photo is then displayed on the iSpot home page where other users can agree with the identification, attach a comment, or add a revised identification.

Find out more

• iSpot
• Support ISpot and find out about other Open University projects 
• The Garfield Weston Foundation

Dick Skellington looks at how to ensure your Valentine Day flowers are ethically sourced. 

It is will soon be St Valentine's Day and the UK retail cut-flower industry, worth over £2 billion a year, is rubbing its hands with glee as the British public purchases hundreds of thousands of bunches of traditional roses for its loved ones.

In the developed world, do we think about where these flowers come from and how ethically they are produced? Do we care about the welfare of the workers who produced them, and their ability to sustain a living wage? Do we consider the environmental costs as the heart of much flower cultivation?

As consumers' green concerns have come to the fore, the cut-flower industry has gone to great lengths to persuade us that cut flowers can have low carbon footprints. Much of the data has focused on the benefits of growing flowers in naturally hot countries and then flying them into the UK instead of growing them in cold countries in hothouses, which can be very energy-intensive. This has led to a preference for flowers from Africa, rather than from European hothouses. Campaigners have also highlighted the importance of social justice, and making it easier for African people to make a living.

The flower industry is dominated by only a few countries: 83 per cent of the world's cut flowers come from Holland, Colombia, Ecuador and Kenya, and 73 per cent of the cut-flower production is imported by the US, the UK, Germany, Holland and  France. It is important the developed world prioritises the carbon footprint of products from the developing world, and cut flowers are no exception. 

But the carbon footprint of cut flowers encompasses much more than their transportation from one country or region to another. To measure genuine carbon footprints the entire lifespan of the flower should be considered. This tells us much about the carbon released from fossil fuels involved in flower cultivation, their fertilisation processes, their refrigeration impacts and their transportation, as well as the methane released from binned flowers.  

Thinking about flower production in this way forces the consumer to ask important questions. Is it valid to use water for the mass production of inedible goods when this might be better used for producing food  crops? Should we waste water resources producing a luxury product that is soon disposed of by people living in better socio-economic conditions in another country?  This is particularly important given that most cut flowers are grown in developing countries where poverty is often endemic and where access to clean water can be problematic – especially if large corporations buy up land and its associated water rights.  

 

'It will never rain roses; when we want to have more roses we must plant more trees'
George Eliot

 

So this year when you go to the major supermarkets to buy your roses do think carefully.  Over 90 per cent of the flowers sold for Valentine's Day are imported, the majority from Colombia (for the US market) or Kenya (for the UK), and our major supermarkets all use these sources.  For the impoverished East African country of Kenya, rose production is big business. Most of the 10,000 tons of roses we will buy for Valentine's Day will come from there. 

The Kenyan floriculture industry is concentrated on the shores of Lake Naivasha – a complex and sensitive ecosystem which is polluted and which has suffered, in recent years, from a fall in its water level due to rose production. 

Until three years ago the industry  was growing steadily. However, a disputed election in 2007, was followed by violence and unrest which spread quickly to Naivasha.  According to the 2008 report, 'Lake Naivasha: Withering Under the Assault of International Flower Vendors,'  by Food & Water Watch and the Council of Canadians the flower industry is so important to the Kenyan Economy that in the face of such instability the army and police put most of their resources into guarding flower shipments instead of local people, so that the Valentine's Day delivery could reach European buyers in time. Since 2007 Kenyan roses have come at a cost of more than 100 deaths and the displacement of more than 300,000 people.  

Worse for the region, production has resulted in significant increases in miscarriages, birth defects and other health problems associated with toxic chemicals. 

In Kenya, some farmers have responded by taking a more proactive role and ensured their farms achieve Fairtrade status. This has enabled them to embark on a more sustainable production cycle, one which brings money back into the local workforce as well as subsidising local welfare and community improvements. 

The origin of roses is not always clear and cheap roses are often grown by companies which cut corners to avoid legislation, selling them by auction in Amsterdam so buyers think they come from Holland. Most of the leading supermarkets have smartened up their act in the last few years, asserting that all suppliers must conform to the Ethical Trading Initiative, and they do all they can to ensure the ethical credentials of their sources and suppliers.  

The best advice this St Valentine's Day is to purchase flowers with a certified Fairtrade logo clearly marked. That way you can be sure that the flower growers receive a premium to invest in their communities, or you could circumvent the ethical minefield and purchase seasonal British flowers. But do beware of mixed bouquets as the flowers in them can come from a range of sources, some of dubious ethical credentials.

Dick Skellington 6 February 2012

Cartoon by Gary Edwards

 

The OU has been awarded of $199,750 from Autism Speaks to conduct a two-year research project in Ethiopia. Led by Dr Rosa Hoekstra (Faculty of Science), a team of researchers from the OU and Ethiopia will collaborate in this initiative which intends to raise awareness around mental health issues and about autism in particular.

Beginning with a study of current levels of awareness, attitudes to mental health and service provision to adults and children with mental health problems in Ethiopia, the project will also conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of Ethiopia's community health worker (CHW) training in mental health issues. This training is based on new learning resources, written by Ethiopian health experts with support from the OU as part of the OU's HEAT (Health Education and Training) programme. Following evaluation, these learning resources will be revised and the new materials integrated into ongoing CHW training in Ethiopia.

Over 4,000 CHWs are expected to be on the programme in Ethiopia in 2012, with another 6,500 students joining during the term of the research project. Through the OU's networks with critical stakeholders such as AMREF, WHO, UNICEF, and Ministries of Health in other countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the materials have the potential to be disseminated and used widely.

The project is likely to have a significant impact on the lives of children with autism and raising autism awareness in one of the most underserved areas in the world, with effects continuing to last well beyond the life of the project.

The co-investigators on this project are Lesley-Anne Long (International Development Office), Dr Basiro Davey (Faculty of Science) and Drs Charlotte Hanlon, Yonas Baheretibeb and Abebaw Wassie from Addis Ababa University.

Find out more:

• Autism Speaks: details of the project
• Study with the OU SK124 'understanding the autism spectrum'
• OpenLearn: What is autism?
• OpenLearn: Dispel some myths around autism and talent
• Test your knowledge in the Autism quiz: busting the myths

   

The OU telephone campaign takes place several times a year to support OU students and projects. In the past 12 months the campaigns have raised over £85,000 and the OU has raised £2.4m in fundraising income in the last year.

With constant changes to the current economic climate and funding in higher education, fundraising income and money from philanthropy is becoming increasingly important for the University. The telephone campaign is a key part of supporting this.

But who is being called and why, what is it like being a caller and how do you motivate a team of callers throughout a campaign?

Platform caught up with Sophie Hoyle, Legacy & Fundraising Assistant in the Development office to find out more.

Who are you calling and why?
We call Open University alumni and current donors. The reason we fundraise is basically to help us in our mission to provide education to all – so by providing other forms of income for the University means that we can do so much more for students or projects that need our help.

How many calls have been made?
We’ve called over 6,000 people in the last year alone

That is a high number. Is it cold calling?
No, not at all. We write to people in advance to let them know about the telephone campaign and they can opt out at that stage from receiving a call. The response from many of the alumni we speak has been very positive, they enjoy getting the call from the OU. There are many who also share great stories with us about their studies or relationship with the university.

What is the money raised used for?
Access to Success Fund
The fund is a new initiative, set up to help us to provide financial support for those students who would not otherwise be able to study with us and who wish to take their first steps into higher education. In this first instance, we are helping to subsidise Openings modules. Openings are short access and taster modules designed as an introduction to study which can help build a students’ confidence and develop their study skills.

TESSA (Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa)
The TESSA programme aims to improve the availability and quality of primary education for children in Africa by bringing together teachers and teacher educators. Launched in 2005, it is a research and development programme creating Open Educational Resources to support school based teacher education and training.
The TESSA programme is now being used in at least 12 countries and has in the last month received global recognition in the form of a WISE aware (World Innovation Summit for Education). 

Disabled Students/Access Bus
The Open University’s dedicated Disabled Student Services team (DSS) offer support on all aspects of studying including specialist equipment, study resources, and assistive technology. The OU Access Bus is equipped with a wide range of assistive technology including specialist software and ergonomic hardware and furniture which students can try out. The bus is staffed by OU Access Centre staff who are on hand to offer expert advice and training. The rising costs of maintaining the current Access Bus have led to the decision to build its replacement and equip a new bus. 

Alongside the role of the donors a key part to the success of a telephone campaign are the calling team.

How do you motivate callers throughout the campaign?
Calling shifts are anywhere between 3 and 6 hours but there can be times when callers are struggling with not getting through to people or speaking to a lot of answer machines - so we organise games throughout the shifts where callers can take part and win prizes kindly donated by OU staff and local external companies. Many of our callers will also be working full or part-time, as well as studying and juggling childcare commitments, so it is vital that we recognise the dedication required and help reward their support. Providing prizes, vouchers and incentivising the calling team is a great way to motivate our callers, encouraging them to have fun at the same time as raising money to help more students.

We would like to thank the following companies for providing prizes for the campaigns in the last year:
Purely Banking, Hilton: Milton Keynes, Hi-Tech Flooring Ltd, Jaipur, MK DONS Sport and Education Trust, Ranstad Recruitment, Saks Hair & Beauty, SGL Resourcing Ltd, Tate Recruitment, Calcutta Basserie, DiscountVoucherSite.com.

What is it like being a caller?

Read the interview with caller Marie Coles.

 

 

Find out more:

• Become a caller
• Details of current OU projects 
• Give to the OU
   

 

What is a microbe and what have they ever done for us? From Black Death to Cholera, and Syphilis to Typhoid, microbes have been responsible for some of the world’s most devastating diseases. But they have also provided the human race with the technological advances of genetic engineering and nitrogen fixation, the vision of life on Mars, the life-saving properties of antibiotics and food preservation, along with the wonderful taste of beer.

Using expert commentary, animation and stylised visuals, these Seven Wonders of the Microbe World videos provide an engaging introduction to microbiology, by examining the impact microbes have had on humans through a historical perspective, from Egyptian times to the present day.

Find out more

• Seven Wonders of the Microbe World on iTunes
• Seven Wonders of the Microbe World - playlist on YouTube
• OpenLearn
   

Scientists believe they have found an explanation for how toads can apparently predict earthquakes.

Research led by the Open University's Dr Rachel Grant, and Dr Friedemann Freund of NASA, suggests that animals may sense chemical changes in groundwater when an earthquake is about to strike.

The research comes out of Dr Grant's observations in 2009, when she was studying breeding toads in the region outside the Italian city of L'Aquila as part of her OU PhD project. She noticed almost all the toads left the site several days  before a devastating earthquake struck on 6 April. 

“One day there were no toads,” she said. “I was actually very annoyed. I thought my research was all going down the drain. And the earthquake happened, and then they all started coming back the day after.”

When Dr Grant and OU amphibian specialist Professor Tim Halliday published a report in the Journal of Zoology they were contacted by scientists at the US space agency NASA who were studying chemical changes in rocks under extreme stress.   

This led to further research  published this month in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.

It says laboratory-based tests have now shown that the Earth's crust could have directly affected the chemistry of the water that the toads were living and breeding in.  

When rocks  are under very high levels of stress they release charged particles, starting a chemical chain of events which can lead to a build up of toxins in groundwater.

Charged particles in the air – known as ions – are known to cause headaches and nausea in humans.

The scientists say their theory needs testing, but they hope it will eventually contribute to more accurate forecasting of earthquakes.