Is Hoffman’s Assessment Correct?

IS HOFFMAN’S ASSESSMENT CORRECT? 5

IsHoffman’s Assessment Correct?

AndrewHoffman is a renowned scholar dwelling mostly on environmentalissues. He has written various books and articles on the aspect ofclimate and environmental issues. The main focus for this paper willbe on Hoffman’s assessment on the climate science article. Thearticle was inspired by a meeting with a potential donor withinterests in environmental issues and business similar to Hoffman’sinterests. According to the donor, the science of the climate is amalicious deception. The assessment Hoffman had on climate sciencecontradicted that of the donor. This paper summarizes the article andmakes a conclusion on whether his claims are true, false or somewherein between.

AfterHoffman had a meeting with a potential donor, he was in a position tomake a conclusion that the donor did not have any interest whatsoeverin funding research on environment issues and business. Instead, hesaw him as a potential threat to the efforts in place to research onbusiness and environment issues (Woodward,2000.Thinking about the issues the donor talked about, Hoffman could seethat the issues resulted from a coherent and consistent world viewwhich differed greatly from his views. Hoffman studied about theirplaces of origin in a bid to understand why the views they hadclashed. Instead of the donor’s desire to challenge Hoffman’sresearch, he inspired a new research idea rhyming with his researchon social, institutional, and cultural change.

Itis evident that there exists scientific consensus on the issue ofclimate change. Hoffman attributes the fact to the availability oflarge scientific bodies and majority climatologists with variousresearch articles being in support of the assessment. Unfortunately,social consensus on climate does not exist. The belief of AmericanPublic on the science of climate change has suffered a largepercentage decline with most of the public remaining reserved on theissue. According to Hoffman, such a number shows that there is no inexistence a code of accepted social believes on climate change(Boatright, 2008). The large number of the Americans rejecting thescientific consensus and a good number not clearly understandingsciences, there is a concern on how people interpret and validate theopinions of the scientific community. Hoffman claims that this can bepossible through understanding social sciences.

Forthe understanding of how social consensus emerges on climate change,it is imperative to understand that the opinion of the people andscientific issues have a base on the ideological preferences, values,and personal experiences they hold which is greatly influenced bytheir referent groups and individual psychology (Copeland,&nbsp&ampTaylor,2013).The debate of climate change, similar to all environmental issues iscomparable to a debate over culture and ideologies. Climate changecan be said to have been caught up in the cultural wars. There is agreat danger posed by the partisan divide in a situation where thereare opposing sides debating on different cultural issues. Hoffman’sarticle dwells on the debate of the climate change through the socialsciences view because of the need there is to understand the socialand psychological issues.

Inthe analysis of complex scientific information, people becomerationally bounded. People apply filters which depict a reflection oftheir identity and belief systems. This in turn cements theconnection people have and strengthens self-definition. With time,the filters become stable and hard to change. From the culturalprocessing and understanding, it can be concluded that climate changeis not a pollution issue but is an existential challenge to themodern worldviews. Greenhouse gas is manmade and at the same timenatural and its emission results in an increase in the wealth of anation(Woodward, 2000).The realization of the greenhouse gas effect requires a change in theway of viewing the world and those within it.

Thereis an enormous challenge of the climate change. There is a need for achange in the way we view things including the beneficial ones. Thereis also a need for the change of our view within the ecosystem. Thechallenge remains to consider new forms of global ethics andgovernance to be able to address the issue of climate change. Thesituations demonstrate the extent cultural debate initiated byclimate change. Climate change thus challenges us to have a look atthe unexamined beliefs and worldviews (Hoffman, 2012). From thesummary of the article of the Hoffman’s climate change, his viewsare true.

References

Boatright,R.G. (2008). ExpressivePolitics: Issue Strategies of Congressional Challengers.Ohio: Ohio State University.

Copeland,&nbspB.R &amp Taylor,M.S. (2013). Is Free Trade Good for the Environment? An EmpiricalAssessment. Tradeand the Environment,215-274.

Woodward,S. (2000). StrategicConflict Analysis for Moldova.INTRAC for DFID.

Is Hoffman’s Assessment Correct?

IS HOFFMAN’S ASSESSMENT CORRECT? 5

IsHoffman’s Assessment Correct?

AndrewHoffman is a renowned scholar dwelling mostly on environmentalissues. He has written various books and articles on the aspect ofclimate and environmental issues. The main focus for this paper willbe on Hoffman’s assessment on the climate science article. Thearticle was inspired by a meeting with a potential donor withinterests in environmental issues and business similar to Hoffman’sinterests. According to the donor, the science of the climate is amalicious deception. The assessment Hoffman had on climate sciencecontradicted that of the donor. This paper summarizes the article andmakes a conclusion on whether his claims are true, false or somewherein between.

AfterHoffman had a meeting with a potential donor, he was in a position tomake a conclusion that the donor did not have any interest whatsoeverin funding research on environment issues and business. Instead, hesaw him as a potential threat to the efforts in place to research onbusiness and environment issues (Woodward,2000.Thinking about the issues the donor talked about, Hoffman could seethat the issues resulted from a coherent and consistent world viewwhich differed greatly from his views. Hoffman studied about theirplaces of origin in a bid to understand why the views they hadclashed. Instead of the donor’s desire to challenge Hoffman’sresearch, he inspired a new research idea rhyming with his researchon social, institutional, and cultural change.

Itis evident that there exists scientific consensus on the issue ofclimate change. Hoffman attributes the fact to the availability oflarge scientific bodies and majority climatologists with variousresearch articles being in support of the assessment. Unfortunately,social consensus on climate does not exist. The belief of AmericanPublic on the science of climate change has suffered a largepercentage decline with most of the public remaining reserved on theissue. According to Hoffman, such a number shows that there is no inexistence a code of accepted social believes on climate change(Boatright, 2008). The large number of the Americans rejecting thescientific consensus and a good number not clearly understandingsciences, there is a concern on how people interpret and validate theopinions of the scientific community. Hoffman claims that this can bepossible through understanding social sciences.

Forthe understanding of how social consensus emerges on climate change,it is imperative to understand that the opinion of the people andscientific issues have a base on the ideological preferences, values,and personal experiences they hold which is greatly influenced bytheir referent groups and individual psychology (Copeland,&nbsp&ampTaylor,2013).The debate of climate change, similar to all environmental issues iscomparable to a debate over culture and ideologies. Climate changecan be said to have been caught up in the cultural wars. There is agreat danger posed by the partisan divide in a situation where thereare opposing sides debating on different cultural issues. Hoffman’sarticle dwells on the debate of the climate change through the socialsciences view because of the need there is to understand the socialand psychological issues.

Inthe analysis of complex scientific information, people becomerationally bounded. People apply filters which depict a reflection oftheir identity and belief systems. This in turn cements theconnection people have and strengthens self-definition. With time,the filters become stable and hard to change. From the culturalprocessing and understanding, it can be concluded that climate changeis not a pollution issue but is an existential challenge to themodern worldviews. Greenhouse gas is manmade and at the same timenatural and its emission results in an increase in the wealth of anation(Woodward, 2000).The realization of the greenhouse gas effect requires a change in theway of viewing the world and those within it.

Thereis an enormous challenge of the climate change. There is a need for achange in the way we view things including the beneficial ones. Thereis also a need for the change of our view within the ecosystem. Thechallenge remains to consider new forms of global ethics andgovernance to be able to address the issue of climate change. Thesituations demonstrate the extent cultural debate initiated byclimate change. Climate change thus challenges us to have a look atthe unexamined beliefs and worldviews (Hoffman, 2012). From thesummary of the article of the Hoffman’s climate change, his viewsare true.

References

Boatright,R.G. (2008). ExpressivePolitics: Issue Strategies of Congressional Challengers.Ohio: Ohio State University.

Copeland,&nbspB.R &amp Taylor,M.S. (2013). Is Free Trade Good for the Environment? An EmpiricalAssessment. Tradeand the Environment,215-274.

Woodward,S. (2000). StrategicConflict Analysis for Moldova.INTRAC for DFID.