Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Sc
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2015 8:42 pm
Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science: A Brief History of Attacks on Climate Science, Climate Scientists and the IPCC
by Greenpeace International
March 24, 2010
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
Dealing in Doubt:The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science
A Brief History of Attacks on Climate Science, Climate Scientists and the IPCC
____________________________________________________
Introduction
This report describes 20 years of organised attacks on climate science, scientists and the IPCC. It sets out some of the key moments in this campaign of denial started by the fossil fuel industry, and traces them to their sources.
The tobacco industry’s misinformation and PR campaign against regulation reached a peak just as laws controlling it were about to be introduced. Similarly, the campaign against climate science has intensified as global action on climate change has become more likely. This time, though, there is a difference. In recent years the corporate PR campaign has gone viral, spawning a denial movement that is distributed, decentralised and largely immune to reasoned response.
For example, prominent UK sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton [3] is not known to be funded by big business. He is not a scientist, yet, as a key denier, his challenges to climate science have made him the darling of the industry-funded, US based conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute. He has challenged Al Gore to debates, turned up at climate negotiations in Bali, Poznan and Copenhagen, and more recently, conducted a paid speaking tour of Australia. There are many more like him who repeat the denier message for no other reason than because they believe it.
The hysteria that greeted the release of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit showed the depth of this movement and the willingness of the media to facilitate it, despite its lack of evidence or scientific support. The last peak in the climate denial campaign was in 1997 following the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). At the time it was accompanied by none of the populist venom that emerged in late 2009, perhaps because the internet was still in its infancy.
Still, the majority of the conservative front groups or conservative think tanks running campaigns against climate science continue to receive funding from big oil and energy interests – not just ExxonMobil, but a raft of other companies and foundations whose profits are driven by the products that cause global warming.
Meanwhile the world keeps on warming
But none of the climate denial has changed the harsh reality that climate change is happening and it is caused by humans. As US scientists put it in an open letter on March 10:
The IPCC scientific assessment is a rigorous and robust process, probably the biggest ever organised scientific endeavour, with thousands of scientists in many different research institutes around the world, backed up with masses of data. It is also a human endeavour and therefore not perfect.
Greenpeace has, and continues to have, confidence in the IPCC. There is no more reliable guide to the world’s climate science than the IPCC reports.
Glossary/definition of terms
apologist: one who speaks or writes in defence of someone or something http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist
deny (ver): refuse to admit the truth or existence of. In this context a denier is a person that refuses to accept the overwhelming scientific basis of climate change. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/deny?view=uk
free market (noun): an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privatelyowned businesses. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/freemarket?view=uk
front group http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_groups is an organisation that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. According to Sourcewatch: ‘The front group is perhaps the most easily recognised use of the third party technique… The Global Climate Coalition didn't hide the fact that its funding came from oil and coal companies, but nevertheless its name alone is sufficiently misleading that it can reasonably be considered a front group.’
sceptic (noun): a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sceptic?view=uk
right wing (noun): the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rightwing?view=uk
think tank (noun): a body of experts providing advice and ideas on specific political or economic problems. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/thinktank?view=uk
Table of Contents
• Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science: A Brief History of Attacks on Climate Science, Climate Scientists and the IPCC
• Part 1: A brief history of denial: Despite ever stronger evidence of climate change and the threat it poses, the IPCC has been attacked at every turn.
• The early 1990s – the network of denial is created: As the climate crisis becomes a policy issue, spokespeople are recruited to attack the science.
• 1990 – the IPCC’s First Assessment Report: The IPCC is certain that GHG emissions will lead to warming; the fossil fuel industry starts selling doubt.
• 1995 – the Second Assessment Report (SAR): The release of this report sees the beginning of attacks on IPCC processes and individual climate scientists.
• The mid 90s – a new front ‘down under’: From 1997 onwards a concerted effort is made to create a climate denial movement in Australia
• 1998 – the American Petroleum Institute’s Communications Plan: A leaked memo spells out the objectives and tactics of the denial campaign.
• 2001 – the Third Assessment Report (TAR): The third assessment draws more attacks, with tacit backing from the new Bush White House
• 2007 – the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): Sceptics offer $10,000 for scientists who would be willing to criticise the IPCC.
• 2009-10 – no scandal behind these gates: Hysteria takes hold in parts of the media, and climate denial goes viral.
• 20 years on – the global denial industry: Today climate denial has taken deep root in a number of English speaking countries.
• Part 2 : How the campaign of doubt operates: A detailed look at the tactics of the climate denial movement
• Bad science and hockey sticks: Attempts to attack climate science using poor science
• Fake science and polar bears: How one journal found itself misrepresenting
• Fake scientific conferences: The denial campaign provides its spokespeople with manufactured conferences.
• Fake scientific support: Several petitions purporting to support the denier campaign turned out to have problems.
• Personal attacks: Ben Santer was the first IPCC scientist to face a sustained campaign to destroy his credibility.
• Political influence and the Bush White House: Following the election of George W Bush the denial campaign had an ally in the White House.
• Political influence and the Republican Party: The Republican Party have become, and remain, willing advocates for the denier campaign.
• Conclusion
• Resources
by Greenpeace International
March 24, 2010
NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Dealing in Doubt:The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science
A Brief History of Attacks on Climate Science, Climate Scientists and the IPCC
____________________________________________________
‘Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' [linking smoking with disease] that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy...’
-- Tobacco company Brown and Williamson internal document, 1969 [1]
‘Scepticism is not believing what someone tells you, investigating all the information before coming to a conclusion. Scepticism is a good thing. Global warming scepticism is not that. It’s the complete opposite of that. It’s coming to a preconceived conclusion and cherrypicking the information that backs up your opinion. Global warming scepticism isn’t scepticism at all.’
- John Cook of Skepticalscience.com [2]
Introduction
This report describes 20 years of organised attacks on climate science, scientists and the IPCC. It sets out some of the key moments in this campaign of denial started by the fossil fuel industry, and traces them to their sources.
The tobacco industry’s misinformation and PR campaign against regulation reached a peak just as laws controlling it were about to be introduced. Similarly, the campaign against climate science has intensified as global action on climate change has become more likely. This time, though, there is a difference. In recent years the corporate PR campaign has gone viral, spawning a denial movement that is distributed, decentralised and largely immune to reasoned response.
For example, prominent UK sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton [3] is not known to be funded by big business. He is not a scientist, yet, as a key denier, his challenges to climate science have made him the darling of the industry-funded, US based conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute. He has challenged Al Gore to debates, turned up at climate negotiations in Bali, Poznan and Copenhagen, and more recently, conducted a paid speaking tour of Australia. There are many more like him who repeat the denier message for no other reason than because they believe it.
The hysteria that greeted the release of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit showed the depth of this movement and the willingness of the media to facilitate it, despite its lack of evidence or scientific support. The last peak in the climate denial campaign was in 1997 following the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). At the time it was accompanied by none of the populist venom that emerged in late 2009, perhaps because the internet was still in its infancy.
Still, the majority of the conservative front groups or conservative think tanks running campaigns against climate science continue to receive funding from big oil and energy interests – not just ExxonMobil, but a raft of other companies and foundations whose profits are driven by the products that cause global warming.
‘The side that has been issuing these attacks are extremely well-funded, well-organised. They have had an attack infrastructure of this sort for decades, developed it during the tobacco wars, they honed it further … in further efforts to attack science that industry or other sceptical interests find inconvenient. So they have a very well honed, well-funded organised machine that they are bringing to bear in their attack now against climate science.
It’s literally like a marine in battle against a cub scout when it comes to the scientists defending themselves… We’re not PR experts like they are, we’re not lawyers and lobbyists like they are. We’re scientists, trained to do science.’
- Climate scientist Michael Mann: February 2010 [4]
Meanwhile the world keeps on warming
But none of the climate denial has changed the harsh reality that climate change is happening and it is caused by humans. As US scientists put it in an open letter on March 10:
‘It is essential to emphasise that none of these [climategate] interventions alter the key finding from the AR4 that human beings are very likely changing the climate, with far-reaching impacts in the long run.’ [5]
The IPCC scientific assessment is a rigorous and robust process, probably the biggest ever organised scientific endeavour, with thousands of scientists in many different research institutes around the world, backed up with masses of data. It is also a human endeavour and therefore not perfect.
Greenpeace has, and continues to have, confidence in the IPCC. There is no more reliable guide to the world’s climate science than the IPCC reports.
Glossary/definition of terms
apologist: one who speaks or writes in defence of someone or something http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologist
deny (ver): refuse to admit the truth or existence of. In this context a denier is a person that refuses to accept the overwhelming scientific basis of climate change. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/deny?view=uk
free market (noun): an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privatelyowned businesses. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/freemarket?view=uk
front group http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_groups is an organisation that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. According to Sourcewatch: ‘The front group is perhaps the most easily recognised use of the third party technique… The Global Climate Coalition didn't hide the fact that its funding came from oil and coal companies, but nevertheless its name alone is sufficiently misleading that it can reasonably be considered a front group.’
sceptic (noun): a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sceptic?view=uk
right wing (noun): the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rightwing?view=uk
think tank (noun): a body of experts providing advice and ideas on specific political or economic problems. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/thinktank?view=uk
Table of Contents
• Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science: A Brief History of Attacks on Climate Science, Climate Scientists and the IPCC
• Part 1: A brief history of denial: Despite ever stronger evidence of climate change and the threat it poses, the IPCC has been attacked at every turn.
• The early 1990s – the network of denial is created: As the climate crisis becomes a policy issue, spokespeople are recruited to attack the science.
• 1990 – the IPCC’s First Assessment Report: The IPCC is certain that GHG emissions will lead to warming; the fossil fuel industry starts selling doubt.
• 1995 – the Second Assessment Report (SAR): The release of this report sees the beginning of attacks on IPCC processes and individual climate scientists.
• The mid 90s – a new front ‘down under’: From 1997 onwards a concerted effort is made to create a climate denial movement in Australia
• 1998 – the American Petroleum Institute’s Communications Plan: A leaked memo spells out the objectives and tactics of the denial campaign.
• 2001 – the Third Assessment Report (TAR): The third assessment draws more attacks, with tacit backing from the new Bush White House
• 2007 – the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): Sceptics offer $10,000 for scientists who would be willing to criticise the IPCC.
• 2009-10 – no scandal behind these gates: Hysteria takes hold in parts of the media, and climate denial goes viral.
• 20 years on – the global denial industry: Today climate denial has taken deep root in a number of English speaking countries.
• Part 2 : How the campaign of doubt operates: A detailed look at the tactics of the climate denial movement
• Bad science and hockey sticks: Attempts to attack climate science using poor science
• Fake science and polar bears: How one journal found itself misrepresenting
• Fake scientific conferences: The denial campaign provides its spokespeople with manufactured conferences.
• Fake scientific support: Several petitions purporting to support the denier campaign turned out to have problems.
• Personal attacks: Ben Santer was the first IPCC scientist to face a sustained campaign to destroy his credibility.
• Political influence and the Bush White House: Following the election of George W Bush the denial campaign had an ally in the White House.
• Political influence and the Republican Party: The Republican Party have become, and remain, willing advocates for the denier campaign.
• Conclusion
• Resources