Monday, August 29, 2016

#5 Dunlap, Jacques - History of Climate Science Denial, National Origins of Books

This is the fifth 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 global spread of the Conservative Think Tanks influence.

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 

Climate Cover-Up: A (Brief) Review
Michael Mann | October 20, 2009 

“Empathy and the Public Square”
Jim Hoggan  |  11:30 min YouTube talk

Lessons on Climate Change Denial - What I Learned from Writing "Climate Cover-Up”
James Hoggan  | 18 minute YouTube talk

Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning
Monbiot, 2007

Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
Dunlap & McCright, 2011

The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's views of Global Warming, 2001-2010
Dunlap & McCright | 2011

Climate Change Denial and Political Polarization 
Robert J. Antonio and Robert J. Brulle © 2011

Organized Climate Change Denial  
Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright | August 2011

The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society
Edited by John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, and David Schlosberg | August 2011

Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change
Tim Flannery, Reviewer | May 25, 2007

Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change

Wendy Frew, reviewer | May 16, 2007

#5 National Origins of Books

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)

National Origins of Books

The denial of climate change has also diffused geographically, as in the past several years vigorous denial campaigns have developed in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia (Hamilton, 2007; Hoggan, 2009; Monbiot, 2007), and—to a lesser degree—in a number of other nations (Dunlap & McCright, 2011)

This diffusion has been stimulated in part by the direct efforts of U.S.-based CTTs, which have sent representatives including contrarian scientists Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels to other nations to promote climate change denial and to network with other members of the denial community.6 These efforts have succeeded particularly well in nations that have a recent history of staunch conservative governments, influential CTTs, and a strong fossil fuels sector—as do Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, along with the United States.

The results of the successful geographical diffusion of climate change denial are apparent in Table 2 and the appendix. The latter shows that 19 of the denial books have been authored (or in one case edited) by individuals residing in the United Kingdom, followed by 7 from Canada and 6 from Australia. Other nations from which these English-only books have sprung include Denmark, France, and Sweden, with two each, and the Czech Republic, Germany, New Zealand, and the Netherlands, with one each.7 

The results in Table 2 portray the pattern of diffusion by decade. In the 1980s, 80% of the denial books originated in the United States, and the United Kingdom was the only other nation with a single volume (contributing 20% of the small total of five). 

In the 1990s, the United States contributed 63% of the denial books, followed by the United Kingdom with 21%, whereas the other nine nations contributed 16%. Since 2000, 60% of the denial books have come from the United States, 17% from the United Kingdom, and 24% from the remaining nine nations. 

That 4 of every 10 denial books since 2000 have been produced by authors or editors outside of the United States is evidence of the success of the U.S. conservative movement in helping diffuse denial internationally.

Climate Change Denial Books by Nation by Decade and for All Years.

The role of CTTs in diffusing climate change denial internationally is shown in Table 3. Here we see that (because of the recent growth of self-published denial books in the United States) 65% of all denial books in the United States have a link with a CTT, but the figure is much higher in the other nations. In fact, 79% of the books from the United Kingdom are connected to CTTs, and 87% of the books from the various other nations are connected to CTTs. 

Thus, the pattern of strong connections between climate change denial books coming out of other nations (the large majority of which were published since 2000) comes close to the earlier situation in the United States where all 4 of the denial books published in the 1980s are linked to CTTs, and 11 of 12 published in the 1990s have such a link, making 94% of the early (prior to 2000) U.S. books having a CTT connection. 

It is not surprising that all eight of the denial books with non-U.S. authors or editors published prior to 2000 are connected to a CTT.

Conservative Think Tank Connections of Climate Change Denial Books 
by Nation and for All Books.

Although there is considerable variation in the strength of the conservative movement across the nations being examined, especially in terms of support among the general public, as well as in the popularity and ease of putting out self-published books, it will nonetheless be interesting to see if the production of climate change denial books diffuses beyond CTTs in other nations to the degree that it has in the United States in the past decade.

Hoggan, 2009

Climate Cover-Up: A (Brief) Review
Michael Mann | October 20, 2009 

We often allude to the industry-funded attacks against climate change science, and the dubious cast of characters involved, here at RealClimate. In recent years, for example, we’ve commented on disinformation efforts by industry front groups such as the “Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Fraser Institute, and a personal favorite, The Heartland Institute, and by industry-friendly institutions such as the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and other media outlets that assist in the manufacture and distribution of climate change disinformation.

When it comes to the climate change disinformation campaign, we have chosen to focus on the intellectually bankrupt nature of the scientific arguments, rather than the political motivations and the sometimes intriguing money trail. We leave it to others, including organizations such as, the sleuths at DeSmogBlog, authors such as Ross Gelbspan (author of The Heat is On, and The Boiling Point), and edited works such as Rescuing Science from Politics to deal with such issues.

One problem with books on this topic is that they quickly grow out of date. Just over the past few years, there have been many significant events in the ‘climate wars’ as we have reported on this site. Fortunately, there is a book out now by our friends at DeSmogBlog (co-founder James Hoggan, and regular contributor Richard Littlemore) entitled Climate Cover Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming that discusses the details of the contrarian attacks on climate science up through the present, and in painstaking detail. They have done their research, and have fully documented their findings, summarized by the publisher thusly:

Talk of global warming is nearly inescapable these days — but there are some who believe the concept of climate change is an elaborate hoax. Despite the input of the world’s leading climate scientists, the urgings of politicians, and the outcry of many grassroots activists, many Americans continue to ignore the warning signs of severe climate shifts. How did this happen? Climate Cover-up seeks to answer this question, describing the pollsters and public faces who have crafted careful language to refute the findings of environmental scientists. Exploring the PR techniques, phony “think tanks,” and funding used to pervert scientific fact, this book serves as a wake-up call to those who still wish to deny the inconvenient truth.

“Empathy and the Public Square by Jim Hoggan"


James Hoggan: Lessons on Climate Change Denial - What I Learned from Writing "Climate Cover-Up”
Garrison Institute  |  18:13 min

Dunlap & McCright

We examine political polarization over climate change within the American public by analyzing data from 10 nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010. We find that liberals and Democrats are more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives and Republicans. Further, the effects of educational attainment and self-reported understanding on global warming beliefs and concern are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans. Last, significant ideological and partisan polarization has occurred on the issue of climate change over the past decade.

The Western experience of modernity—especially technological development, eco- nomic growth, material prosperity, urbanization, and democracy—has been built upon industrial capitalism, an economic system predicated on the accelerating extraction and consumption of fossil fuels for energy (Clark and York 2005). A major unintended consequence of the use of fossil fuels is anthropogenic global warming or climate change.1 Recognizing and responding to climate change, arguably the most challenging social problem of the modern era (Giddens 2009), thus poses a fundamental critique of continued modernization processes around the world (Antonio 2009).

Climate Change Denial and Political Polarization 

Robert J. Antonio and Robert J. Brulle 

The Sociological Quarterly 52 (2011) 195–202 
© 2011 Midwest Sociological Society 195
The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

(Global warming driven climate change) “It’s anti-American and anti-freedom.” (Rand Paul)

Newly elected Republican Senator Paul states succinctly the conservative view of U.S. cooperation with international efforts to stem global warming. Liberals view Paul and friends to be endangering efforts to save the planet. The partisan split, analyzed incisively by McCright and Dunlap, will likely intensify in the wake of the conservative midterm election victories and possible mobilization of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. As McCright and Dunlap note, the partisan split over global warming is entwined with a broader polarization that intensified since the late 1990s. We address facets of American political culture that feed this polarization and support McCright and Dunlap’s critique of “reflexive modernity” theories.

For more than a century, American political debates have ensued over two competing policy regimes, market liberalism, stressing unfettered capitalism, strong property rights, and a minimal social safety net, and social liberalism, favoring modest state intervention, redistribution, and welfare provision. 

By contrast to social democracy and socialism, American social liberalism has not challenged capitalist ownership or management in fundamental ways. Moreover, market liberalism has been well represented in both political parties, even though the Republican Party has been its primary carrier. Both regimes embrace liberal democratic rights (e.g., freedom of speech, assembly, religion), albeit with distinct twists, reflecting different ideologies as well as divergent political alliances and compromises (e.g., the Republican–Christian conservative pact). Each regime has dominated at different historical moments (e.g., compare the culture and policies of the Gilded Age with the Progressive Era or the Roaring Twenties and the New Deal). 

Hegemonic rule by one of the two regimes has tended to move overall political discourse in its direction and shape accordingly public beliefs about what is politically possible and what is not. Governing in the wake of the Johnsonian Great Society, for example, Republican “conservative” Richard Nixon, supported a minimum annual income, employed price controls, and presided over creation of the Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA). 

By contrast, in the aftermath of the Reagan Revolution, Democratic “liberal” Bill Clinton, supported welfare reform, cut the deficit, and presided over financial deregulation.2 However, assertions of power and consequent policy changes by hegemonic regimes have produced mounting polarization and opposition.

The split over global warming is part of a wider polarization over today’s version of market liberalism—neoliberalism.3 Neoliberalism emerged, in the 1970s, addressed to economic and political crises of the Great Society regime, was consolidated via the elections of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, and became hegemonic during the 1990s bull market and Clinton presidency. …

Organized Climate Change Denial  
Riley E. Dunlap and Aaron M. McCright

Edited by John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, and David Schlosberg

Print Publication Date: Aug 2011
Subject: Political Science, Public Policy, Public Administration
Online Publication Date: Jan 2012
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199566600.003.0010

Even as the consensus over the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) becomes stronger within the scientific community, this global environmental problem is increasingly contested in the political arena and wider society. The spread of debate and contention over ACC from the scientific to socio-political realms has been detrimental to climate science. This article provides an overview of organized climate change denial. 

Focusing primarily on the US, where denial first took root and remains most active, this article begins by describing the growth of conservative-based opposition to environmentalism and environmental science in general. It then explains why climate change became the central focus of this opposition, which quickly evolved into a coordinated and well-funded machine or ‘industry’. It also examines denialists' rationale for attacking the scientific underpinnings of climate change policy and the crucial strategy of ‘manufacturing uncertainty’ they employ.

Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change
Hamilton, 2007
Tim Flannery, Reviewer
May 25, 2007

Scorcher: the dirty politics of climate change
Wendy Frew, reviewer
May 16, 2007

… Hamilton, a long-term critic of the Federal Government, argues that it is partly Howard's heavy reliance on bureaucrats closely aligned to fossil fuel industries and his close personal relationships with coal, oil and aluminium smelting chief executives that has led him to protect them.

That protection, Hamilton says, has come at the expense of renewable industries, the gagging of government scientists, and confusion in the public mind about the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change.

"In the tight little world of greenhouse lobbying, the Prime Minister saw nothing improper in going to the country's biggest greenhouse polluters to ask them what the Government should do about greenhouse policy, without extending the same opportunity to other industries, not to mention environment groups and independent experts," he writes.
His criticism of the media's failure, until recently, to cover climate change seriously (and some media organisations' decision to support unfounded claims by climate change deniers) is well-founded. …

The Government's position has relied heavily on spin: ignore the scientific evidence proving climate change is real; deny economic modelling that shows it will cost more to ignore the problem than to tackle it; dismiss environmentalists as hysterical; and persuade people there is nothing to worry about. …


Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning

Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
Dunlap & McCright, 2011

We examine whether conservative white males are more likely than are other adults in the U.S. general public to endorse climate change denial. We draw theoretical and analytical guidance from the identity- protective cognition thesis explaining the white male effect and from recent political psychology scholarship documenting the heightened system-justification tendencies of political conservatives. We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five indicators of climate change denial. 

We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. 

Furthermore, the results of our multivariate logistic regression models reveal that the conservative white male effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender as well as the effects of nine control variables. We thus conclude that the unique views of conservative white males contribute significantly to the high level of climate change denial in the United States.

No comments: