This is the sixth installment of Dunlap, Jacques' (2013) study of the history of our dysfunctional public climate science education dialogue. They focused on the influence of "conservative think tanks (CTTs) on the output of "skeptical" book publications. This section deals with the academic credentials, or lack thereof, of authors and editors of contrarian books.
Here are facts about why out and out lying has been allowed to became the mainstay of the Republican climate science contrarian PR strategy. Facts that it would be good for younger activists to be aware of. Given that the study has a CCA License I've decided to Repost the complete text in a few installments. I thank Riley Dunlap and Peter Jacques for the opportunity to Repost their impressive work.
I follow with excerpts and related links to a number of eye-opening articles
No apology is owed Dr. S. Fred Singer, and none will be forthcoming
By James Hoggan
________________________________________________
Research.greenpeace
________________________________________________
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana Nuccitelli
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Patrick Michaels hackery through history
________________________________________________
Merchants of Doubt Film Debuts,
Textbook Denial Attack Campaign Led By Fred Singer Ensues
________________________________________________
By James Hoggan
________________________________________________
Interactive Map to Explore Financial and Corporate Connections
ExxonSecrets.org
________________________________________________
Those ‘Secret’ Documents Outing ExxonMobil Were Actually Publicly Available
Chris White
________________________________________________
The Secret Donors Behind the Center for American Progress and Other Think Tanks
________________________________________________
{Who Pays for Think Tanks?, Rick Carp} Fair.org
________________________________________________
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
________________________________________________
How Conservative Philanthropies and Think Tanks Transform US Policy
By Sally Covington
________________________________________________
Report: Think tanks tied to Kochs
By Tal Kopan
________________________________________________
Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
________________________________________________
Heritage Foundation
________________________________________________
32000 Scientists (say global warming is a scam)
Surveilling the Scientists
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - That 1500 Year Thing
greenman3610 YouTube videos
________________________________________________
SkepticalScience on Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels
DeSmogBlog on Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels
SourceWatch on Fred Singer
RationalWiki on Patrick Michaels
#6 Academic Credentials of Authors and Editors
_________________________________________________
The American Behavioral Scientist
Climate Change Denial Books and
Conservative Think Tanks
Exploring the Connection
Copyright © 2013 SAGE PublicationsThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Am Behav Sci. 2013 Jun; 57(6): 699–731.
Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs)
Academic Credentials of Authors and Editors
Interests promoting environmental skepticism have long employed individuals with academic degrees in science—likely to be accepted as “experts” by the public, media, and policy makers—to attack scientific evidence suggesting the need for environmental regulations (Jacques et al., 2008; Michaels, 2008; Oreskes & Conway, 2010).
In their efforts to manufacture uncertainty over climate science, both the fossil fuels industry (especially early on) and Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs) have enlisted the support of a small number of contrarian scientists to critique and attack both climate science and climate scientists.
Although the contrarians portray themselves as a minority of truth seekers battling the large “climate establishment,” some of them have worked directly for the incredibly wealthy fossil fuels industry (including “front groups” it has set up, like the GCC) or well-funded CTTs. Patrick Michaels and Fred Singer are particularly notable in this regard (Hoggan, 2009; Powell, 2011).
One of the key features of the debate over climate change and especially the credibility of climate science is the asymmetry between the scientific credentials of mainstream climate scientists and their critics in the denial community, including the small number of contrarian scientists who critique and often attack mainstream climate science and scientists (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010).
A handful of contrarians have degrees in disciplines relevant to climate science, but others have PhDs in less germane natural science fields (e.g., soil science) that nonetheless—at least in the eyes of nonscientists—provide them with scientific credentials (Hoggan, 2009; Powell, 2011).
Because the use of apparent scientific expertise by those promoting climate change denial has played a vital role in the attacks on climate science (McCright & Dunlap, 2000, 2003; Powell, 2011), we examined the academic credentials of the authors or editors of the 108 denial books. Our aim is to provide a good sense of the contribution of contrarian scientists (who produce a wide range of material, from op-eds to policy briefs to an occasional journal article) to the denial volumes, as well as the backgrounds of the nonscientists who are also producing them.
We coded each author or editor in terms of his or her highest academic degree and the field in which it was obtained. For present purposes we have separated the authors or editors into three categories:
- those with PhDs in natural science (regardless of the field, thus including chemistry, geology, soil science, etc., as well as those more directly related to climate science),
- those with other PhDs or equivalent degrees,8 often in social science, and
- those with less than a doctorate.
Of the of 106 individuals who have authored or coauthored or edited or coedited one or more of the 108 denial books, 32 have a natural science PhD, 24 have a PhD in other fields, and 50 do not have doctorates.
We next assigned a code to each volume based on the highest or most relevant degree of any coauthor or coeditor. Thus, for example, Man-Made Global Warming by Hans Labohm, Simon Rozendaal, and Dick Thoenes (of the Netherlands) is coded as a 1 because Thoenes has a doctorate in chemical engineering.
The results reported in Table 4 reveal that even with our “relaxed” coding scheme, whereby any natural science PhD degree held by any coauthor or coeditor is treated as indicating (at least potentially) relevant scientific expertise, only 39% of the total 108 denial volumes are authored or edited by individuals with scientific credentials as normally defined in academic circles.9 Another 19% of the books are produced by individuals with other doctorates, primarily in economics, politics, and law, and the remaining 42% by individuals without a doctorate.
Climate Change Denial Books by Academic Degrees of Authors or Editors by Decade and for All Years.
When it comes to putting out books, the denial community clearly relies on a wide range of contributors well beyond the small number of contrarian (natural) scientists in its ranks.
Again, however, we can observe some degree of diffusion over time, as individuals with natural science doctorates were involved in producing 80% of the small number of books coming out in the 1980s (4 of 5) and 53% (10 of 19) in the 1990s, but only 33% (28 of 84) since 2000.
Thus, the campaign to deny the significance of AGW relied heavily on contrarian scientists early on, to give it scientific credibility, but over time climate change denial has spread sufficiently throughout the conservative community that individuals without any scientific expertise now produce denial volumes.
Finally, just as we earlier noted variation in the degree to which denial books are linked to CTTs across nations, we also find national variation in the reliance on contrarian scientists. Table 5 shows that natural scientists are involved with nearly half (48%) of the denial volumes coming from the United States. In stark contrast, only 2 of the 19 denial books or just 11% coming out of the United Kingdom have natural scientists as authors or editors, whereas 35% of the denial books from the remaining nine countries are produced (or coproduced) by natural scientists.
These patterns partially reflect temporal trends, since the natural scientists are most heavily involved in the denial books published before 2000, and the preponderance of non-U.S. books have come out since then.
Climate Change Denial Books by Author or Editor Degrees by Nation and for All Books.
What these patterns suggest is that early on a small number of contrarian scientists, primarily located in the United States, played a critical role in planting and legitimating climate change denial within conservative circles.
Highly influential scientists such as physicists Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, and Robert Nierenberg of the Marshall Institute (Lahsen, 2008; Oreskes & Conway, 2010) and omnipresent Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels (Hoggan, 2009; Powell, 2011) worked diligently to criticize climate science and scientists and received a good deal of visibility (McCright & Dunlap, 2003).
As denial evolved over time and spread throughout a larger segment of American society (particularly among conservatives) as well as to other nations, the seeds sown by the contrarians have germinated and a wide range of individuals without backgrounds in natural science and thus relevant credentials for evaluating climate science feel free to write books denying AGW—and often publish them on their own!
Of course, the diffusion has been facilitated by powerful actors, first by the fossil fuels industry and then by the conservative movement, primarily via the latter’s influential think tanks.
The strong connection between contrarian scientists and CTTs is reflected in one additional finding. Of the 32 individuals with natural science PhDs in our study, 25 or 78% are connected to at least one CTT.
In contrast, of the 50 individuals without a PhD, only 25 or 50% have a CTT connection, reflecting the fact that these people are often laypersons who are likely to self-publish their books. The strongest connection exists for the 24 individuals with nonscience PhDs, as 21 or 88% of them have links to one or more CTTs, where degrees in economics (8 individuals), politics (4 individuals), and law (3 individuals) confer plausible policy expertise.
============================================
Here’s an example of their PR strategy at work here
Imbue non-experts and dilettantes with unquestioned authority.
Strip real experts (That is people who put in the hours and do the job.) of their hard earned intellectual and moral authority with contrived and ruthlessly vicious character assassination and slanderous PR affronts.
Check out this pathetic lot that eoconservatives are happy to accept as authority opinions, all the while dismissing true authorities with paranoid and angry self-certainty:
32000 Scientists (say global warming is a scam)
greenman3610 | Uploaded on Jan 9, 2010
32,000 leading scientists signed a petition against global warming? Is that really true?Well, no....But to get to the bottom of this crock , we'll have to go back in history, and meet someone who really was, at one time, a leading scientist.
This Oregon Petition farce is still being bandied about as though it were science rather than fraud.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Fred Singer, the God-father of 'Science by Slander' and Master of Science by 'Rhetorical Slight of Hand'.
He’s made a handsome living playing the traitor to our younger generations who where dependent on our good stewardship of this fantastic planet we inherited and that we are now handing down a frazzled mess, with worse on the horizon.
He’s done as much as anyone to pave the way for misrepresenting science, using personal malice as a debate strategy, and effectively destroying constructive respectful public debate, all for personal gain.
One of the true criminals of this tragic-comedy that I’ve witnessed unfolding over this past half century.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
No apology is owed Dr. S. Fred Singer, and none will be forthcoming
By James Hoggan • Wednesday, June 28, 2006
On Sunday, June 18, the DeSmogBlog received an email from Dr. S. Fred Singer, in which he says, “Yr (sic) June 16 blog contains the false statement that I sold my services to tobacco lobbyists.”
Dr. Singer goes on to “demand a full retraction and apology from the blog,” and he asks that we publish the following statement: “Dr. Singer and SEPP (Science & Environmental Policy Project) have no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past. As a matter of policy, SEPP does not solicit funds or other kinds of support from any industry or from government, but relies on tax-deductible donations from foundations and individuals in many countries.
Further, Dr. Singer serves on the Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), an organization that has a strong anti-smoking position.”
We have no comment on the ACSH, but Dr. Singer’s main point – that he has “no connection whatsoever with the tobacco industry, now or in the past” – strains credulity.
________________________________________________
Through the years, Dr. Singer has expressed some creative and entertaining contrary ... Dr. S. Fred Singer,. Professor of ..... I' in order to make money. {The Wall ...
________________________________________________
Patrick Michaels
Posts regarding specific aspects of Michaels claims and games.
Patrick Michaels: Serial Deleter of Inconvenient Data
Dana Nuccitelli | January 17, 2012
Tim Lambert on June 5, 2006
________________________________________________
Patrick Michaels hackery through history
By David Roberts on May 30, 2006
As you may recall, on FOX’s Hannity & Colmes, the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels plucked a quote from my Gore interview and grossly misinterpreted it to mean that Gore was exaggerating the evidence for global warming.I called him out on it here, but for some reason the bell never rang that this was the very same Patrick Michaels involved in a legendary piece of hackery.
Paul Krugman reminds us of the sordid tale in his column:
But soon after Dr. Hansen’s 1988 testimony, energy companies began a campaign to create doubt about global warming, in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence. And in the late 1990’s, climate skeptics began a smear campaign against Dr. Hansen himself.
Leading the charge was Patrick Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia who has received substantial financial support from the energy industry. In Senate testimony, and then in numerous presentations, Dr. Michaels claimed that the actual pace of global warming was falling far short of Dr. Hansen’s predictions.
As evidence, he presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually taken place.
In fact, the chart Dr. Michaels showed was a fraud — that is, it wasn’t what Dr. Hansen actually predicted. The original paper showed a range of possibilities, and the actual rise in temperature has fallen squarely in the middle of that range.
So how did Dr. Michaels make it seem as if Dr. Hansen’s prediction was wildly off? Why, he erased all the lower curves, leaving only the curve that the original paper described as being "on the high side of reality."
A piece of zombie misinformation like this never dies as long as there are people to whom it is useful. Inhofe has cited it. It plays a prominent role in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear. It’s only a matter of time before Jonah Goldberg scoops it up for one of his Greatest Zombie Hits columns.
It’s amazing how much damage a small group of people can do if they have money and access to media.
In other news, Al Gore has been compared to Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler since his movie was released.
_______________________________________
________________________________________________
Merchants of Doubt Film Debuts, Textbook Denial Attack Campaign Led By Fred Singer Ensues
By Kevin Grandia • Tuesday, March 10, 2015
________________________________________________
Exxonsecrets
By James Hoggan • Friday, March 26, 2010
________________________________________________
Interactive Map to Explore Financial and Corporate Connections
Dozens of organizations are funded by ExxonMobil and its foundations that work to spread climate denial. Click the links for further details about each organization's funding and activities.
________________________________________________
Those ‘Secret’ Documents Outing ExxonMobil Were Actually Publicly Available
Chris White | 06/14/2016
________________________________________________
The Secret Donors Behind the Center for American Progress and Other Think Tanks
By Ken Silverstein | MAY 22, 2013
Washington institutions esteemed for their independent scholarship don’t disclose donations from corporations and foreign governments.
{Who Pays for Think Tanks?, Rick Carp} | July 1, 2013
________________________________________________
Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
Suzanne Goldenberg, February 14, 2013
Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network
________________________________________________
How Conservative Philanthropies and Think Tanks Transform US Policy
By Sally Covington |
Proclaiming their movement a war of ideas, conservatives began to mobilize resources for battle in the 1960s. They built new institutional bastions; recruited, trained, and equipped their intellectual warriors; forged new weapons as cable television, the Internet, and other communications technologies evolved; and threw their resources into policy and political battles. By 1984, moderate Republican John Saloma warned of a "major new presence in American politics." If left unchecked, he accurately predicted, "the new conservative labyrinth" would pull the nation's political center sharply to the right. …
________________________________________________
Report: Think tanks tied to Kochs
By Tal Kopan | 11/13/13
The study, by the liberal Center for Media and Democracy, is aimed at the State Policy Network, which describes itself as “dedicated solely to improving the practical effectiveness of independent, nonprofit, market-oriented, state-focused think tanks,” which are operating in all 50 states. The tax-exempt group seeks to “enable these organizations to better educate local citizens, policy makers and opinion leaders about market-oriented alternatives to state and local policy challenges.”But that’s not the full story, according to the Center for Media and Democracy, which bills itself as a nonprofit watchdog group. …
________________________________________________
Heritage Foundation
The best-known and most influential right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation owes much of its success to savvy marketing and PR and the generous donations of right-wing benefactors, foundations and wealthy corporations. The foundation boasts about its influence on Capitol Hill yet insists that it does not “lobby."
________________________________________________
Eight Pseudoscientific Climate Claims Debunked by Real Scientists
by Joshua Holland | May 16, 2014
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
1. No, the Earth Hasn’t Stopped Warming Since 1998 (or 1996 or 1997)
2. No, the IPCC Makes Projections, Not Predictions
3. Yes, the Temperature Readings Are Reliable
4. Yes, There Is a Scientific Consensus
5. It’s Not the Sun’s Fault
6. Doubling Down With “Global Cooling”
7. Yes, It’s Been Warm Before
8. No, Antarctic Ice Isn’t Increasing
And 168 more…
These are only some of the most common pseudoscientific climate arguments. The Skeptical Science website provides easy-to-understand scientific rebuttals to these and 168 others.
______________________________________________
Surveilling the Scientists
greenman3610 | Published on Apr 21, 2016
Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Lamar Smith is accusing scientists of falsifying key evidence of a warming planet, even as global temperatures spike to frightening new highs.
______________________________________________
Climate Denial Crock of the Week - That 1500 Year Thing
greenman3610 | Uploaded on Feb 22, 2009
Climate Deniers S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery make their living by confusing and obfuscating the science of climate change. Their latest book, "Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 Years", is a compendium of vintage as well as cutting edge climate crocks. Let's find out who they are and how they are bamboozling their audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment