A Different Perspective on Climate Change by Kim Hubble
I think before discussing the role of mediators “saving the planet” we need to explore whether or not the participants buy in to just such a notion. Is it possible for man to save the planet, and if so, from what? What are we trying to save the planet from? If it is the list, or even a portion of the list, that Cloke identifies on Pages 21 and 22 of Conflict Revolution then it could be argued that, collectively, we would be working ourselves out of jobs. I find this to be an Utopian approach to very complex issues, not necessarily problems or conflicts. The role of a mediator is to facilitate dialogue between parties and from this perspective, then yes, mediators can be an asset in measures designed to enhance our plant. In order to assist in negotiating a settlement of any one of the broad issues identified by Dr. Cloke, then I would have to actively practice the mantra: “I care, but not that much” which is a very difficult position to take on such serious and life altering issues. As a person of faith, and one who believes in the existence of a higher being than mankind, I find the argument that man can either destroy or save the planet fundamentally flawed. So to start with what I perceive as a fundamentally flawed view point of us saving the planet, I would have a difficult time providing a fair and impartial perspective from which to negotiate. Even Cloke acknowledges that the idea of mediators solving such issues sounds “…simplistic and idealistic“, and I completely agree with that statement (Cloke, 22).
With that as a background, I take issue with a few points in our readings from Dr. Cloke’s power-point presentation as well as Chapter 1 of Conflict Revolution. Let’s first consider the shear complexity and depth of the issues facing the world today. The author speaks of global medical issues such as pandemics, the proliferation of influenza and it’s various incarnations into more and more virulent strains, AIDS, terrorism, and environmental issues. All of these issues are most often viewed through the powerful political spectrum, and the insertion of politics into any issue makes an objective view point and understanding virtually impossible. Any person of learning or any person who follows a news cycle will have had their thinking on these issues shaped in some way, for better or for worse, by a political angle. For me, there is a difference in using power to educate and using power as coercion, which is what I often see happening when these global issues are discussed.
In Bernard Mayer’s book, Staying With Conflict: A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Disputes, he talks about coercive vs. utilitarian approaches and provides the reader with the example of environmentalists vs. the energy industry. His conclusion is that we are better off adopting a normative approach to disputes which incorporates a “power with” doctrine rather than “power over” tactics (Mayer, 2008). It is obvious that a lot of research and thought went into the preparation of the power-point; the efforts of the author are phenomenal. However, as one slide projects, much of the content is based on predictions; they are scientific in nature, theories, and are not concrete. Are we to accept the ideas and data presented without questioning the underlying interests? Are we to tell the farmers, who make their living on crops that they cannot fertilize them? The power-point concludes with more rhetoric about how mediators can save the planet. One of the suggestions is that the problems are going to increase with (if nothing is done about) population and technology growth. I think the opposite. I think we can educate future citizens about the dangers of misusing valuable natural resources and I think we can use technology to reach those populations in distant lands so that we achieve global education. We can’t place blame on any one country or culture and I felt that the introduction and Chapter 1 of Conflict Revolution tried to give the perception that these social problems were the fault of the United States.
When any nation is in need whether it be from a natural disaster, a humanitarian crisis, or a regime that threatens global peace and stability the United States has been there to offer support, foreign aid and relief efforts because the United States has the blessing of being the most prosperous nation in the modern world. With that blessing has come the ability to provide assistance globally. Yet while we can provide assistance globally, the ability to end poverty and suffering in our own local communities eludes us. Therefore, I believe the role of the mediator begins in the local community and through fostering an understanding of needs in our communities, this can be a foundation for the expansion of understanding these larger social issues.
Bibliography
Cloke, Ken. Conflict Revolution. 2010.
Mayer, Bernard. Staying With Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
With that as a background, I take issue with a few points in our readings from Dr. Cloke’s power-point presentation as well as Chapter 1 of Conflict Revolution. Let’s first consider the shear complexity and depth of the issues facing the world today. The author speaks of global medical issues such as pandemics, the proliferation of influenza and it’s various incarnations into more and more virulent strains, AIDS, terrorism, and environmental issues. All of these issues are most often viewed through the powerful political spectrum, and the insertion of politics into any issue makes an objective view point and understanding virtually impossible. Any person of learning or any person who follows a news cycle will have had their thinking on these issues shaped in some way, for better or for worse, by a political angle. For me, there is a difference in using power to educate and using power as coercion, which is what I often see happening when these global issues are discussed.
In Bernard Mayer’s book, Staying With Conflict: A Strategic Approach to Ongoing Disputes, he talks about coercive vs. utilitarian approaches and provides the reader with the example of environmentalists vs. the energy industry. His conclusion is that we are better off adopting a normative approach to disputes which incorporates a “power with” doctrine rather than “power over” tactics (Mayer, 2008). It is obvious that a lot of research and thought went into the preparation of the power-point; the efforts of the author are phenomenal. However, as one slide projects, much of the content is based on predictions; they are scientific in nature, theories, and are not concrete. Are we to accept the ideas and data presented without questioning the underlying interests? Are we to tell the farmers, who make their living on crops that they cannot fertilize them? The power-point concludes with more rhetoric about how mediators can save the planet. One of the suggestions is that the problems are going to increase with (if nothing is done about) population and technology growth. I think the opposite. I think we can educate future citizens about the dangers of misusing valuable natural resources and I think we can use technology to reach those populations in distant lands so that we achieve global education. We can’t place blame on any one country or culture and I felt that the introduction and Chapter 1 of Conflict Revolution tried to give the perception that these social problems were the fault of the United States.
When any nation is in need whether it be from a natural disaster, a humanitarian crisis, or a regime that threatens global peace and stability the United States has been there to offer support, foreign aid and relief efforts because the United States has the blessing of being the most prosperous nation in the modern world. With that blessing has come the ability to provide assistance globally. Yet while we can provide assistance globally, the ability to end poverty and suffering in our own local communities eludes us. Therefore, I believe the role of the mediator begins in the local community and through fostering an understanding of needs in our communities, this can be a foundation for the expansion of understanding these larger social issues.
Bibliography
Cloke, Ken. Conflict Revolution. 2010.
Mayer, Bernard. Staying With Conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jeff Thompson on
-
Kim,
You bring up some interesting comments, which of course brings up questions and comments from me!
As a person of faith, and one who believes in the existence of a higher being than mankind, I find the argument that man can either destroy or save the planet fundamentally flawed. So to start with what I perceive as a fundamentally flawed view point of us saving the planet, I would have a difficult time providing a fair and impartial perspective from which to negotiate. Even Cloke acknowledges that the idea of mediators solving such issues sounds “…simplistic and idealistic“, and I completely agree with that statement (Cloke, 22).
As a mediator, in any situation, I think we have to put aside our preferences- in this case religious affliation- to be effective. Do you still think you can mediate effectively for this topic between parties that do not share your same beliefs?
For me, there is a difference in using power to educate and using power as coercion, which is what I often see happening when these global issues are discussed.
If you were to step in as a mediator, where does your opinions come in? Will it shape the way you guide the parties? Also, based on the prior sentence to the is italicized comment, I think as a mediator asking a probing/open-ended question like where/how did you get that information from could help give you a greater understanding of the person.
His (Mayer) conclusion is that we are better off adopting a normative approach to disputes which incorporates a “power with” doctrine rather than “power over” tactics
This is where it gets interesting. What happens when one party states nothing needs to be done?
Again, we need to look at what our role is in the situation. If we are mediators, putting aside our beliefs and preferences I think is crucial for us to be effective. We can not completely forget our feelings, but being mindful of them, and acknowledging if they 'creep' in during a session will help generate greater acceptance of us as the mediator, build rapport and hopefully get the parties to see the situation from not only just their lens.
-
Permalink Reply by Norris Ham on
-
Kim,
Thanks for your post. I have a couple of thoughts and also a couple of questions for you. I'll start with the thoughts:
1) Your comments concerning our willingness to provide assistance globally and our inability to take care of our own problems at home struck a chord with me. And of course, you know how I think so I'll throw a few "out of the box" thoughts your way. Our human ability to empathize with people in suffering is certainly a powerful trait to have. And yet, I would argue that by eliminating suffering we may in fact disrupt the hierarchical fabric of society. To do so would be Utopian, and in many aspects, a righteous act on the part of the "haves". But history has proven that Utopian societies simply do not work. The human being, while empathetic to the strife of others, is self-serving. Power does corrupt. And no matter how hard we try, it is because we are humans that we cannot end suffering. It is not our humanity that can bridge the gap, but rather, it is our humanity that is the gap. And, as a fellow person of faith, I think that you and I both understand the rationale behind this.
2) Staying with the same idea you presented (assisting globally and locally), Ken Cloke discusses chaos theory in his new book, Conflict Revolution. In chapter one of his book, he states that, "We now know, as a result of the scientific study of chaos and complexity, that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can trigger a tornado in Texas" (Cloke 2010, 25). This quote follows a brief discussion on exponential change. Cloke writes, "It is likely, where change is exponential, that we will have a similar warning time (in reference to his discussion on bacteria filling a bottle and not knowing that there will be no room in the bottle because the bacteria will only fill half the bottle before they double once again and fill the whole bottle) to cope with environmental disaster" (Cloke 2010, 25). But doesn't the same theory apply to our ability to negate the impending crisis? Yes, we could be on the brink of disaster, but we could also be on the brink for a remedy. I add to this discussion Kurzweil's thoughts on technology and exponential change. In his Law of Accelerating Returns (we learned about this in Rainey's class), Kurzweil suggests that, while the human race will only undergo 100 years of change and development in the 21st century, technology will go through 20,000 years of change and development when compared to the rapid rate of change that is occurring now. The truth of the matter may be that the inevitable conflicts, as hypothesized by some, which can be attributed to climate change, which may affect the human race in the next 100, 500, or 1,000 years, may be avoided altogether by the exponential growth of human technology.
and now for the questions......
1) Taking the last point about exponential growth in technology into consideration, if this is truly an answer to the impending conflicts attributable to climate change, is there still a role for conflict engagement specialists in climate change? My answer is yes. By creating opportunities for constructive dialogue to take place between different sectors of the scientific community, we can encourage collaboration between environmental scientists and mechanical engineers. We can encourage dialogue between environmental activists and nuclear physicists, two groups that would normally never communicate but may find unity in the shared interest in the challenge of finding a solution for climate change. It is in creating opportunities for dialogue to occur that we, as conflict specialists, have a role. Your thoughts?
2) On the same level, your post presented two "parties" in the climate change conflict: religion and science. Are there opportunities to "bridge the gap" between these two parties? Is this our role in the conflict?
Thanks for the post Kim,
Norris Ham
-
Permalink Reply by Eileen Barker on
-
Kim,
I'm glad you are questioning the "save the planet" concept. I think Ken means it tongue and cheek, but still, you bring out some important points.
I personally struggle with the paradox of believing in a higher power, having the humility to realize my relative powerlessness, and also feeling a moral obligation to do everything that is in my power to address suffering.
I find this intriguing:
"I think we can educate future citizens about the dangers of misusing valuable natural resources and I think we can use technology to reach those populations in distant lands so that we achieve global education."
I invite you and others to expand on this. Just as our problems have never been of this magnitude, neither has our ability to address them! How would you use technology to educate and help resolve conflict?
Last, I remind you and others our groundrules include NOT slipping into debate over climate change science, who is to blame, or solutions.
-
-
Norris, Brilliant!
-
Permalink Reply by Kim Hubble on
-
First, thank you for reading and responding to my post. I hope that I can answer your questions and enlighten our discussion.
I agree that mediators have to put aside their preferences but this does not always make them effective or more effective. Effectiveness to me comes from the inherent ability to develop dialogue and communication between the parties so that the underlying issues are brought out. Every single one of us has an opinion or belief on the topic with which we will be faced, we are human. One of my take-away's from the mediation residency was learning that mediators too have boundaries and comfort zones and that it is OK to excuse oneself from a mediation where you don't feel you can perform objectively or effectively. For me personally, I would not have a problem mediating a conflict involving religious differences, but what I was trying to express in my post was that because I don't believe humans have the ability to save or destroy the planet, the notion of mediators "saving the planet" is fundamentally flawed in my world view.
With respect to your second concern/question(s) my opinions as a mediator are strictly that, my opinions. I would caution against expressing them in some types of mediation. I am a firm believer that a mediator's role is to facilitate dialogue between the parties and when that is done properly then the parties will guide themselves for the most part. Certainly, mediators should ask open-ended questions. But, as I wrote in a response post to Allison, are these global issues properly suited for the mediation process where the forum is private and confidential?
Which brings me to your last concern of what if one party states nothing needs to be done? Mediation is a voluntary process and if a party chooses not to participate then that is their prerogative. This validates my concern(s) that the magnitude of these global issues is such that we should not expect full participation from all countries or cultures.
I think much of the confusion on my part at least, is semantics; the interchanging and connecting of terms such as "save the planet" versus enhance our world or mediation of global issues versus facilitate conversations about global issues.
Respectfully,
Kim
Jeff Thompson said:Kim,
You bring up some interesting comments, which of course brings up questions and comments from me!
As a person of faith, and one who believes in the existence of a higher being than mankind, I find the argument that man can either destroy or save the planet fundamentally flawed. So to start with what I perceive as a fundamentally flawed view point of us saving the planet, I would have a difficult time providing a fair and impartial perspective from which to negotiate. Even Cloke acknowledges that the idea of mediators solving such issues sounds “…simplistic and idealistic“, and I completely agree with that statement (Cloke, 22).
As a mediator, in any situation, I think we have to put aside our preferences- in this case religious affliation- to be effective. Do you still think you can mediate effectively for this topic between parties that do not share your same beliefs?
For me, there is a difference in using power to educate and using power as coercion, which is what I often see happening when these global issues are discussed.
If you were to step in as a mediator, where does your opinions come in? Will it shape the way you guide the parties? Also, based on the prior sentence to the is italicized comment, I think as a mediator asking a probing/open-ended question like where/how did you get that information from could help give you a greater understanding of the person.
His (Mayer) conclusion is that we are better off adopting a normative approach to disputes which incorporates a “power with” doctrine rather than “power over” tactics
This is where it gets interesting. What happens when one party states nothing needs to be done?
Again, we need to look at what our role is in the situation. If we are mediators, putting aside our beliefs and preferences I think is crucial for us to be effective. We can not completely forget our feelings, but being mindful of them, and acknowledging if they 'creep' in during a session will help generate greater acceptance of us as the mediator, build rapport and hopefully get the parties to see the situation from not only just their lens.
-
-
Thank you for your response and your "out of the box" thoughts to coincide with my "out of the box" thoughts! As for your questions near the end, I agree that there is opportunity for conflict resolution specialists, not just mediators, but I also challenge us to go further than those scientific professionals which you list; science is a huge field and such discussions should also include the health-care profession, meteorology, geographers, thanatology, and others not just limited to the viewpoints of a select few like environmentalists.
Norris Ham said:Kim,
Thanks for your post. I have a couple of thoughts and also a couple of questions for you. I'll start with the thoughts:
1) Your comments concerning our willingness to provide assistance globally and our inability to take care of our own problems at home struck a chord with me. And of course, you know how I think so I'll throw a few "out of the box" thoughts your way. Our human ability to empathize with people in suffering is certainly a powerful trait to have. And yet, I would argue that by eliminating suffering we may in fact disrupt the hierarchical fabric of society. To do so would be Utopian, and in many aspects, a righteous act on the part of the "haves". But history has proven that Utopian societies simply do not work. The human being, while empathetic to the strife of others, is self-serving. Power does corrupt. And no matter how hard we try, it is because we are humans that we cannot end suffering. It is not our humanity that can bridge the gap, but rather, it is our humanity that is the gap. And, as a fellow person of faith, I think that you and I both understand the rationale behind this.
2) Staying with the same idea you presented (assisting globally and locally), Ken Cloke discusses chaos theory in his new book, Conflict Revolution. In chapter one of his book, he states that, "We now know, as a result of the scientific study of chaos and complexity, that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Brazil can trigger a tornado in Texas" (Cloke 2010, 25). This quote follows a brief discussion on exponential change. Cloke writes, "It is likely, where change is exponential, that we will have a similar warning time (in reference to his discussion on bacteria filling a bottle and not knowing that there will be no room in the bottle because the bacteria will only fill half the bottle before they double once again and fill the whole bottle) to cope with environmental disaster" (Cloke 2010, 25). But doesn't the same theory apply to our ability to negate the impending crisis? Yes, we could be on the brink of disaster, but we could also be on the brink for a remedy. I add to this discussion Kurzweil's thoughts on technology and exponential change. In his Law of Accelerating Returns (we learned about this in Rainey's class), Kurzweil suggests that, while the human race will only undergo 100 years of change and development in the 21st century, technology will go through 20,000 years of change and development when compared to the rapid rate of change that is occurring now. The truth of the matter may be that the inevitable conflicts, as hypothesized by some, which can be attributed to climate change, which may affect the human race in the next 100, 500, or 1,000 years, may be avoided altogether by the exponential growth of human technology.
and now for the questions......
1) Taking the last point about exponential growth in technology into consideration, if this is truly an answer to the impending conflicts attributable to climate change, is there still a role for conflict engagement specialists in climate change? My answer is yes. By creating opportunities for constructive dialogue to take place between different sectors of the scientific community, we can encourage collaboration between environmental scientists and mechanical engineers. We can encourage dialogue between environmental activists and nuclear physicists, two groups that would normally never communicate but may find unity in the shared interest in the challenge of finding a solution for climate change. It is in creating opportunities for dialogue to occur that we, as conflict specialists, have a role. Your thoughts?
2) On the same level, your post presented two "parties" in the climate change conflict: religion and science. Are there opportunities to "bridge the gap" between these two parties? Is this our role in the conflict?
Thanks for the post Kim,
Norris Ham
-
-
Kim Hubble said:Kim Hubble said:Thank you for reading and responding to my post. I just want to say that when I wrote it I knew it would be provocative because of my different world view on society(ies) and conflict. I was really trying to be mindful of our ground-rules even though I feel the material as it was presented was positional. I do think that we have an obligation to take care of and maintain our world so I hope no one is thinking that I am anti-recycle or anything like that. But along with that belief is the belief that we are also obligated to take care of our fellow man and when I hear and see communities within my own region that cannot agree over feeding the homeless, or refurbishing a hotel for a small casino which will bring hundreds of jobs to an economically depressed community the global issues quickly leave my radar.
Hence my position that, in order to even begin to tackle these large social issues we need to begin in our own neighborhood. Jeremy's post also talks about this same concept I encourage everyone to read it.
With respect to my initial idea of using technology to reach the faraway lands for global education, the top 10 astronomical breakthroughs have occurred in the 20th Century. Part of those accomplishments were the use of high-powered telescopes used to date the universe as well as lenses used to study planetary surfaces as well as star structure (Hughes, David W. & de Grijs, Richard, 2007). I suggest using our space technology for a continued yet more aggressive approach to studying some of these global issues so that scientists can better pinpoint causes of, applicable deterioration of, or positive changes in the earth's surface so that we can properly educate, not just educate, the people of the world.
Thanks for reading!
Kim
Hughes, David W. & de Grijs, Richard. "The Top Ten Astronomical 'Breakthroughs' of the 20th Century" CAP Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2007
Eileen Barker said:Kim,
I'm glad you are questioning the "save the planet" concept. I think Ken means it tongue and cheek, but still, you bring out some important points.
I personally struggle with the paradox of believing in a higher power, having the humility to realize my relative powerlessness, and also feeling a moral obligation to do everything that is in my power to address suffering.
I find this intriguing:
"I think we can educate future citizens about the dangers of misusing valuable natural resources and I think we can use technology to reach those populations in distant lands so that we achieve global education."
I invite you and others to expand on this. Just as our problems have never been of this magnitude, neither has our ability to address them! How would you use technology to educate and help resolve conflict?
Last, I remind you and others our groundrules include NOT slipping into debate over climate change science, who is to blame, or solutions.
-
Permalink Reply by WILLELLA K. SCOGGIN on
-
I agree with you that we can educate individuals about the dangers of misusing valuable natural resources; however, I cannot see how that conflicts with Dr. Cloke’s view on the issue of Climate Change. I believe we as mediators can influence through mediation on issues of virulent strains of influenza, AIDS, terrorism, and the insertion of government on these issues. You are right that these issues are more often than no viewed through the political spectrum, but that does not stop us from using a normative approach to attempt to resolve the issues at hand. These are large issues that we as citizens of the world need to adopt some sort of doctrine to use power to address the issues.
Kim Hubble said:Kim Hubble said:Kim Hubble said:Thank you for reading and responding to my post. I just want to say that when I wrote it I knew it would be provocative because of my different world view on society(ies) and conflict. I was really trying to be mindful of our ground-rules even though I feel the material as it was presented was positional. I do think that we have an obligation to take care of and maintain our world so I hope no one is thinking that I am anti-recycle or anything like that. But along with that belief is the belief that we are also obligated to take care of our fellow man and when I hear and see communities within my own region that cannot agree over feeding the homeless, or refurbishing a hotel for a small casino which will bring hundreds of jobs to an economically depressed community the global issues quickly leave my radar.
Hence my position that, in order to even begin to tackle these large social issues we need to begin in our own neighborhood. Jeremy's post also talks about this same concept I encourage everyone to read it.
With respect to my initial idea of using technology to reach the faraway lands for global education, the top 10 astronomical breakthroughs have occurred in the 20th Century. Part of those accomplishments were the use of high-powered telescopes used to date the universe as well as lenses used to study planetary surfaces as well as star structure (Hughes, David W. & de Grijs, Richard, 2007). I suggest using our space technology for a continued yet more aggressive approach to studying some of these global issues so that scientists can better pinpoint causes of, applicable deterioration of, or positive changes in the earth's surface so that we can properly educate, not just educate, the people of the world.
Thanks for reading!
Kim
Hughes, David W. & de Grijs, Richard. "The Top Ten Astronomical 'Breakthroughs' of the 20th Century" CAP Vol. 1, No. 1, October 2007
Eileen Barker said:Kim,
I'm glad you are questioning the "save the planet" concept. I think Ken means it tongue and cheek, but still, you bring out some important points.
I personally struggle with the paradox of believing in a higher power, having the humility to realize my relative powerlessness, and also feeling a moral obligation to do everything that is in my power to address suffering.
I find this intriguing:
"I think we can educate future citizens about the dangers of misusing valuable natural resources and I think we can use technology to reach those populations in distant lands so that we achieve global education."
I invite you and others to expand on this. Just as our problems have never been of this magnitude, neither has our ability to address them! How would you use technology to educate and help resolve conflict?
Last, I remind you and others our groundrules include NOT slipping into debate over climate change science, who is to blame, or solutions.
-
-
I agree with you that we can educate individuals about the dangers of misusing valuable natural resources; however, I cannot see how that conflicts with Dr. Cloke’s view on the issue of Climate Change. I believe we as mediators can influence through mediation on issues of virulent strains of influenza, AIDS, terrorism, and the insertion of government on these issues. You are right that these issues are more often than no viewed through the political spectrum, but that does not stop us from using a normative approach to attempt to resolve the issues at hand. These are large issues that we as citizens of the world need to adopt some sort of doctrine to use power to address the issues.
-
Permalink Reply by Milton Hammerly on
-
Hi Kim,
Aside from the other issues you raised about "saving the planet" I think there may at times be some overtones of "enlightenment" associated with this type of activity. Without getting into specifics of climate change I think an interesting aspect of the conflict is the "enlightened" trying to change the behavior of the "unenlightened." Nobody likes being the unenlightened one (I'm thinking of my teenager right now). If experience and enlightment can be shared with the attitude of "a fellow beggar sharing where I've found some bread" it may be easier to receive.
There is clearly a role for mediation in climate change disputes but I believe that teaching/spreading mediation skills far and wide is even more important.
Lao Tzu - "Give a Man a Fish, Feed Him For a Day. Teach a Man to Fish, Feed Him For a Lifetime"
The Werner Institute corollary: "Mediate for parties, peace for a day. Teach parties to mediate, peace for a lifetime."
Good mediators, just like good physicians should strive to work themselves out of jobs. Fortunately for mediators and physicians and unfortunately for humanity that is very unlikely to ever happen.
The dire climate change projections factor in explosive growth in less developed countries and the probability that they will repeat the same mistakes already made by more developed countries. We have no moral power to tell the less developed countries, "You're not allowed to make the same mistakes we made," particularly if we haven't put our own house in order.
I agree with you completely that we should be looking to fix problems and not fix blame.
"The future is already here. It's just unevenly distributed." William Gibson
Future problems and solutions are already here. They're just unevenly distributed. While the exponential growth in knowledge will undoubtedly lead to new discoveries and technologies that may reduce negative environmental impacts we shouldn't put all of our hopes in these and delay doing what is already working today. As you've pointed out, a push for global education must be a part of the solution.
Regards,
Milt
“Experience is the name every one gives to their mistakes.” Oscar Wilde
“Learn from the mistakes of others-you can never live long enough to make them all yourself.” John Luther
-
Permalink Reply by Morgan Rogers on
-
I agree with your sentiment related to the PowerPoint, in recent years there has been some scandal related to the data that these organizations produce. One example of this has been a series of emals leaked between top ranking officials at NASA and other organizations. As seen in a Newsweek article "Those involved allegedly include: James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Michael Mann, famous for Mann's "Hockey Stick"; Gavin Schmidt, NASA climate modeler, and; Stephen Schneider, Stanford professor and Al Gore confidant."
The article goes on to show how a series of personal emails between the parties include information related to falsifying documents. Stating:
"This e-mail lacking a header allegedly from Jones discussed exactly how to manipulate temperature data being sent to climate realist Steven McIntyre as part of one of his Freedom of Information Act requests:
Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them."
So anyway there is a lot of controversy surrounding the debate in general. But each time I think about the debate I am reminded that we are not being asked to make these decisions. What they are asking us to do is to facilitate the communication between these two contentious sides in an effort to get them talking. The main issue that we as practitioners are going to run into is whether or not we have the ability to put our personal beliefs aside and work towards helping these people discuss their issues. If these groups are willing to invest their trust in us to facilitate dialog then we owe it to them try and put our own beliefs aside, as we do in all cases, and work towards helping them problem solve.
Part of me thinks that this issue is so contentious that no matter how hard we try we are always going to struggle with blocking our own personal beliefs. If this is the case I cannot help but think that perhaps we should combine our mediation tools with these beliefs and play more of an advocate role. With our fabulous communication tools in tact combined with our “moral” power we might have the ability to make some headway in the debate. As Mayer states “when individuals are advocating what they believe to be a worthy cause, such as the rights of an oppressed group, that belief also helps them be steadfast and energetic in their advocacy” (Mayer 2000, 57). True to Mayer we might be able to be steadfast and energetic in our advocacy of communication and conflict resolution if we believe it to be a worthy cause!
About
@ADRHub Tweets
ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University
© 2024 Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.
Powered by
