Ir al artículo 1: Tabaco y clima, destrucción masiva
Ir al artículo 2: ‘Petition project’ ¿30.000 científicos contra Al Gore?
Ir al artículo 3: Cómo se sustituye a un presidente del IPCC
- Naomí Oreskes – Presentación: The Denial of Global Warming – University of California, San Diego – 13/03/2008 – Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California – http://www.aip.org/history/powerpoints/GlobalWarming_Oreskes.ppt
“Argue whether facts were facts: “Reposition global warming as theory not fact”; “Just a theory…” - Bob Burton and Sheldon Rampton (1997) – Thinking Globally, Acting Vocally: The International Conspiracy to Overheat the Earth – PR Watch – 4th quarter 1997 – http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q4/warming.html
“In 1991, a U.S. corporate coalition including the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electrical Institute created a PR front group called the «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) and launched a $500,000 advertising and public relations blitz as the first salvo.” - Ross Gelbspan – ‘Vampire Memo’ Details New Propaganda Blitz by Energy Companies – http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=6021&method=full
“According to the memo, environmentalists’ efforts to combat global warming would realize the environmentalists’ «dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equitably … The campaign is basically the resurrection of a similar campaign launched by the Western Fuels (coal) Association in the early 1990s.» - Ross Gelbspan – Snowed – Mother Jones, May/June 2005 Issue – http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2005/05/snowed
“But the most effective campaigns have been more subtly coercive. … Western Fuels … declared in its annual report that it was enlisting several scientists who were skeptical about climate change … as spokesmen. The coal industry paid these and a handful of other skeptics some $1 million.” - Derek Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous (2001) – Junking Science to Promote Tobacco – Tobacco, Lawyers, And Public Health – American Journal of Public Health 91:1745-1748 – November 2001 – – Peer reviewed
“… the scope and depth of the tobacco companies’ ability to recruit scientists from the ranks of the most prestigious academic institutions. Tobacco companies sought to create doubt where scientific consensus existed. To do so, they enlisted scientists in their cause. This way, the industry voice would be heard but the industry would not be directly involved, as tobacco industry funding often remained undisclosed in publications and participation in public forums.” - American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Coalition_for_Clean_Coal_Electricity
“In 2006, under the name «Center for Energy and Economic Development,» ACCCE reported spending $3,033,072 on executive and other employee salaries and benefits. ACCCE reported spending $938,070 on lobbying, an additional $15,700 on «issue advocacy,» and $751,359 on «regulatory monitoring.” - Kevin Grandia – Ad firm touts its «clean coal» persuasion work – Desmogblog 01/06/2009 – http://desmogblog.com/ad-firm-touts-its-clean-coal-persuasion-work
“R&R Advertising has a second case study up on their website discussing the development of ACCCE’s $400,000 website CleanCoalUSA.org. …R&R does not directly attribute the website to ACCCE, but instead to an advocacy group called the Coal-Based Generation Stakeholders … an organization made up of a diverse group of investor owned utilities, rural electric co-ops, public power companies, coal producers and coal-hauling railroads.” - Donald Gutstein – The Global Warming Denial Lobby – The Tyee (Canada) 2/05/2006 – http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/
“APCO’s assignment for Imperial Oil was to bring together a roster of climate change skeptics to reveal Kyoto’s «science and technology fatal flaws … APCO organized The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was originally funded by the Philip Morris Company, to attack epidemiological studies which implicated environmental tobacco smoke in slightly increased rates of lung cancer in non-smokers.” - Defending Hot Air: TASSC Takes On Global Warming – PR Watch 3rd quarter, 1997 – http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q3/tassc.html
“The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition is an industry-funded PR front group run by the APCO public relations firm which works to hang the label of «junk science» on environmentalists. TASSC is using a thousand-dollar «Global Warming Sweepstakes» to generate letters to President Clinton on the issue of global warming.” - Jane Fritsch – Sometimes, Lobbyists Strive to Keep Public in the Dark – The New York Times 19/03/1996 – http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/19/us/sometimes-lobbyists-strive-to-keep-public-in-the-dark.html
“… the importance of keeping the public in the dark about who the clients really are. Mr. Cohen [Apco Associates] is a specialist in «grass-roots» lobbying, a Washington term for a technique often used to camouflage an unpopular or unsympathetic client. Typically the client, often a large business, hires a Washington firm to organize a coalition of small businesses, non-profit groups and individuals across the nation. The coalition draws public sympathy for the legislation sought by the original client, who recedes into the background.” - The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition – Tobacco Documents Online – http://tobaccodocuments.org/profiles/people/tassc.html
“Run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm which worked to hang the label of «junk science» on environmentalists. Created in 1993, TASSC began as a front for Philip Morris which was attempting to discredit ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) research … It advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr George Carlo.” - The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition
“The TASSC is a now-defunct, industry-funded PR front group run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm. It worked to hang the label of «junk science» on environmentalists. Created in 1993, TASSC began as a front for Philip Morris.” - Elisa K. Ong and Stanton A. Glantz (2001) – Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms – American Journal of Public Health 91:1749-1757 – November 2001 – Peer reviewed
“The tobacco industry has attacked ‘junk science’ to discredit the evidence that second-hand smoke—among other environmental toxins—causes disease. Philip Morris used public relations firms and lawyers to develop a “sound science” program in the United States and Europe that involved recruiting other industries and issues to obscure the tobacco industry’s role. The European “sound science” plans included a version of “good epidemiological practices” that would make it impossible to conclude that second-hand smoke—and thus other environmental toxins— caused diseases.” - Derek Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous (2001) – Junking Science to Promote Tobacco – Tobacco, Lawyers and Public Health – American Journal of Public Health 91:1745-1748– November 2001 – Peer reviewed
“For tobacco control research, the challenges are not over, but they have changed. No longer will tobacco companies dispute the scientific evidence that active smoking of traditional cigarettes causes harm. However, they continue to deny the scientific evidence about the harm caused by exposure to second-hand smoke and continue to suggest ventilation as an alternative to smoking bans in public places.” - European Science and Environment Forum – Sourcewatch, 20/02/2009 – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
“The ESEF was linked, via shared staff … to the Institute of Economic Affairs … The IEA itself has links to the Adam Smith Institute and FOREST, the UK smoker’s rights organisation” - European Science and Environment Forum – Sourcewatch, 20/02/2009 – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=European_Science_and_Environment_Forum
“Roger Bate, a long-time employee of the the IEA (Director of the Environmental Unit), headed the group [6] and through all of these individual and institutional channels, ESEF was effectively linked into the growing international science-denial network which railed against claims of climate-warming, ozone-depletion, passive-smoking, and other environmental and health activism.” - European Science and Environment Forum – http://reference.findtarget.com/search/European%20Science%20and%20Environment%20Forum/
“Now defunct, called itself ‘an independent, non-profit-making alliance of scientists whose aim is to ensure that scientific debates are properly aired, and that decisions which are taken, and action that is proposed, are founded on sound scientific principles.’ Typically this manifested itself in questioning the science upon which environmental safety regulations are based.” - Derek Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous (2001) – Junking Science to Promote Tobacco – Tobacco, Lawyers and Public Health – American Journal of Public Health 91:1745-1748– November 2001 – Peer reviewed
“Dr. Fred Singer was involved with the’ International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris’ plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz.» - Elisa K. Ong, Stanton A. Glantz (2001) – Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms – American Journal of Public Health, Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Health (Peer Reviewed) 91:1749-1757 – http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/pdf/9.6-Ong%26Glantz-JunkScience.pdf – Peer reviewed
“Patrick Michaels began its ‘sound science’ program in 1993 to stimulate criticism of the 1992 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report which identified second-hand smoke as a Group A human carcinogen.” - Patrick J. Michaels – Give industry a bigger science rol – Roanoke Times 29/12/1992 – http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pmc52c00/pdf?search=%22patrick%20j%20michaels%22
“If anyone truly believes that these agencies do not have political agendaa, they need look no further than «public choice» economic theory. They exist to perpetuate themselves, and to expand their territory and their political influence. Government agencies behave just like people” - Ross Gelbspan – Big Coal’s Funding of Skeptics (1998) – The Heat is Online – http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4462&Method=Full
“Dr. Pat Michaels had acknowledged in an e-mail correspondence that he had received about $16,000 in industry funding. In fact, it turned out that he had received more than 10 times that amount from industry sources — funding he had never publicly disclosed. In addition to funding both his publications, Western Fuels also provided a $63,000 grant for Michaels’ research. Another $49,000 came from the German Coal Mining Association. A smaller grant of $15,000 came from the Edison Electric Institute. Michaels also listed a grant of $40,000 from the western mining company, Cyprus Minerals. For much of the 1990s, Cyprus Minerals was the largest single funder of the anti-environmental Wise Use Movement in the western part of the U.S.” - Willie Soon and Robert Ferguson – Eat more fish! – The Wall Street Journal 15/08/2005 – http://ff.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=351
“Perhaps the most repeated refrain driving the mercury alarmism campaign is that ‘630,000 American babies are born each year’ with elevated concentrations of mercury in their blood, with the potential for «permanent brain damage and learning disabilities.» These infants are said to be «poisoned» at birth because their mothers consumed fish containing microtraces of mercury.” - Antonio Regalado – Debating Global Warming. Global Warming Skeptics Are Facing Storm Clouds – The Wall Street Journal 31/07/2003
“The paper has been widely promoted by Washington think tanks and cited by the White House in revisions made to a recent Environmental Protection Agency report. At the same time, it has drawn stinging rebukes from other climate scientists. This week, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over the journal’s handling of the review process that approved the study; among them is Hans von Storch, the journal’s recently appointed editor in chief. «It was flawed and it shouldn’t have been published,» he said.” - Carta de Margery Kraus, presidente y CEO de APCO Associates a Vic Han, director de comunicación de Philip Morris 23/09/1993 – Bates 2024233677 – http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu:8080/d/q/a/dqa35e00/Sdqa35e00.pdf
“I am pleased to present you with an outline of APCO Associates Inc.’s (APCO) proposed activities on behalf of Philip Morris, USA for 1994. This proposal outlines (i) our work with The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) ; (ii) the development of a media relations strategy and (iii) APCO’s role in assisting Philip Morris and its Regional Directors in targeted states … APCO will conduct an on-going program of outreach to credible scientists and academicians to enlist their support and participation with TASSC and its related issues ., In this regard, APCO will identify and recruit targeted individuals by matching scientists and academicians to key TASSC issues. The scientists and academicians will be encouraged to participate in TASSC media activities” - Draft Q and A for PM USA and TASCC – Bates 2065556600 – http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwi82c00/pdf + Handwritten Comments by Philip Morris – 2072636029/6033 – http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rok42a00 “Unavailable: Privileged Content (Code: 1B)”
“»Isn’t it true that Philip Morris created TASSC to act as a front group for it? A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many national, regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative organisations. PM has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various groups and corporations across the country … We are not in a position to suggest that TASSC examine any issue; it’s an independent organization and will no doubt proceed as best they determine” - Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders – Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – December 1993 – 525 pp. – http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793
- George Monbiot – The denial industry – The Guardian, 19/09/2006 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
“In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris’s chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: «Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report … Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans.» - Chris Mooney (2005) – The Republican War on Science – Basic Books, Cambridge (USA) – ISBN: 13 978-0-465-04675 – 342 pp.
“’Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report and to get the EPA to establish an standard for risk assessment for all products’, wrote Ellen Merlo, a Phillip Morris vice president, in a February 17, 1993, memo to Phillip Morris USA president William Campbell. She added that Philip Morris had hired the PR firm APCO Associates ‘to form local coalitions to help us educate … about the dangers of ‘junk science’” - George Monbiot – The denial industry – The Guardian, 19/09/2006 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2
“To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She had attached the advice it had given her. APCO warned that: «No matter how strong the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always credible or appropriate messengers. - Tim Holmes – Fuelling Controversy – Zmag 03/02/2006 – http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4494
“Despite all [his] activity, the tobacco industry’s plan was not to try and win the scientific argument, something they were well aware they were in no position to do. What they could do, appropriately enough, was create a smokescreen: a manufactured controversy fostering enough doubt in the public mind that a P.R. disaster could be averted – or at least forestalled. «Doubt is our product,» one tobacco company executive wrote in 1969.” - Chris Mooney (2005) – The Republican War on Science – Basic Books, Cambridge (USA) – ISBN: 13 978-0-465-04675 – 342 pp.“Big Tobacco pumped considerable resources into sowing public doubts about scientific studies showing risks from active smoking. The technique, which has been dubbed ‘manufacturing uncertainty’, finds perhaps its best articulation in this oft-quoted passage from a circa 1969 Brown & Williamson document: ‘Doubt is our product, since it’s the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”
- Tim Holmes – Fuelling Controversy – Zmag 03/02/2006 –http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/4494
“By 1988, tobacco company Philip Morris was, according to one internal document, ‘spending vast sums of money’ to fund scientists prepared to question the dangers of second-hand smoke and «keep the controversy alive»; research would be «’filtered’ by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity», and scientists vetted so that «obvious «anti-smokers» or those with «unsuitable backgrounds» are filtered out.» During the 1980s, the budget of the TIRC rose to $10 million a year.” - Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s Draft GEP Resolution for a “Sound Science” Coalition – http://www.pmdocs.com
“The executive committee recommends … 15. Rigorous scientific objectivity should be the standard when reporting on epidemiological results. Defects in study design, conduct and analysis should be frankly admitted. It is helpful for abstracts accurately to reflect any study deficiencies. Advocacy and objectivity rarely comfortably coexist.” - Victor Zapanta – NAACP-Forgery Group, Bonner & Associates, Has a Decades-Long History of Astroturf Tactics – Think Progress 31/07/2009 – http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/bonner-forgery/
“Bonner & Associates has a long history of shady tactics and big business corporate associations: Show Me the Money (1994); Defrauding the U.S. Government (1986); Fighting the Smoking Ban on Behalf of Philip Morris (1994); Killing Health Care Reforms on Behalf of PhRMA (2002) … Late Update Protesters with the international progressive group Avaaz demonstrated (semi-naked) outside Bonner’s D.C. office this afternoon.” - Zachary Roth – Former Employee: Bonner «Just Got Caught This Time» – TPMMuckraker 31/07/2009 – http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/former_employee_bonner_just_got_caught_this_time.php
“Jack Bonner said the letter had been sent by a «temporary employee» who has since been fired, and blamed the problem on that one «bad employee.» But a former Bonner and Associates employee who spoke to TPMmuckraker significantly complicated that picture, portraying Bonner and Associates as a place where ethical missteps were far from rare. «They just got caught this time,» he said.” - Index of Non-Profit Organizations Receiving Corporate Funding – Center For Indoor Air Research – http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/center_for_indoor_air_research.html
“The Justice Department also stated that CIAR ‘was not only used for litigation and public relations, but it was (sp) also funded research designed not to find answers to health questions, but solely to attack legislative initiatives related to ETS exposure. Lawyers specifically engineered and constructed scientific studies to get results that would be useful for public relations, litigation, and legislative battles, as opposed to results that would assist the scientific community in further understanding the health effects of ETS exposure.’” - Eco-terrorism – Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise – http://www.cdfe.org/center-projects/eco-terrorism/
“FBI definition of terrorism is «The unlawful use of force or violence, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. Eco-terrorism is defined by the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Section as «the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.»” - Nature, Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Journal of Biological Chemistry and New England Journal of Medicine are the online journals most frequently read by scientific and medical professionals – Encyclopedia.com – 01/03/2006
- A Conversation with Dr. Frederick Seitz – Georges C. Mashall Institute, 3/09/1997 – http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=21
“Dr. Seitz is former President of the National Academy of Sciences, past President of the American Physical Society, President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and Chairman of the Board of the George C. Marshall Institute.” - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – Crimes against Nature. How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy – HarperCollins Publishers, 2004 – ISBN 0-06-074687-4
“There is growing evidence that dramatic climate change may occur suddenly, a development that has even gotten the Pentagon’s attention. (ref) A report commissioned by Andrew Marshall, the father of Star Wars and the military’s gray-beard expert on future strategic threats, describes the human disasters that would occur if the climate shifted abruptly in a decade or two, as happened some 12,000 years ago.” - Union of Concerned Scientists (2007) – Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air. How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science – January 2007 – http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
“Another organization used to launder information is the George C. Marshall Institute. During the 1990s, the Marshall Institute had been known primarily for its work advocating a “Star Wars” missile defense program. However, it soon became an important home for industry-financed “climate contrarians,” thanks in part to Exxon-Mobil’s financial backing. Since 1998, Exxon-Mobil has paid $630,000 primarily to underwrite the Marshall Institute’s climate change effort.” - Myanna Lahsen (2008) – Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘trio’ supporting the backlash against global warming – Global Environmental Change 18:204–219 – Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Epaciais (INPE), Sao José dos Campos, Brazil
“The trio has launched many of their activities related to climate change through the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative Washington, DC-based think tank they cofounded in 1984 to influence public opinion and policy. The Marshall Institute is part of the anti-environmental backlash and the broader conservative network financed by political elites in reaction to the move to the left pushed by protest politics in the 1960s and ‘70s.” - Jerome C. Glenn and Theodore J. Gordon – The Millennium Project: 2006 State of the Future – American Council for the United Nations University, Washington – ISBN: 0-9722051-5-2 – 143 pp.
“2020 Global Energy Scenarios some governments and the nuclear industries saw it as a long-term competitor for providing baseload electricity without CO2 emissions and tried to co-opt environmentalists to oppose it. Ground solar and other alternative renewable energy players saw it as competition for R&D funds and associated it with Star Wars fantasy high tech.” - RJR’s Suppot of Biomedical Research International Advisory Board November, 1979 – Tobacco Documents – http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness/29154.html?pattern=frederick[a-z]*\W%2Bseitz[a-z]*&#p7
“There are abundant reasons for R-J-R to place a priority on research, particularly on smoking and health research. One is that our sense of integrity dictates that we respond directly to a fundamental attack on our business. Another is that if we can refute the criticisms against cigarettes, we may remove government’s excuse for imposing heavy taxes on the product. … A third reason is that there are a large number of crucial questions that need scientific answers in the area of smoking and health … In evaluating and monitoring the special projects that we fund — particularly the sole-sponsorship programs — R.J. Reynolds Industries has secured the services of a permanent consultant — Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of Rockefeller.” - To: Jim Botticelli FROM: Thomas Borelli – DATE: March 1, 1994 – SUBJECT: February Activity Report – Tobbacco Issues – http://www.tobaccodocuments.com Bates 2046585282
“Initiated a strategy to publicize and communicate the results of a Marshall Institute report that challenges the scientific basis of various environmental regulations. The report was written by Dr. Frederick Seitz who is a world renowned scientist. Dr. Seitz is President Emeritus of Rockefeller University and past President of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to his criticisms of the global warming and ozone depletion issues, Dr. Seitz also addressed the ETS issue. With respect to ETS, Dr. Seitz concluded that ‘… there is no good scientific evidence that moderate passive inhalation of tobacco smoke is truly dangerous under normal circumstances». The report will be used to challenge the EPA’s report on ETS in domestic and international markets.” - Elisa K. Ong and Stanton A. Glantz (2001) – Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms – American Journal of Public Health 91:1749-1757 – November 2001 – Peer reviewed
“The tobacco industry has attacked ‘junk science’ to discredit the evidence that second-hand smoke—among other environmental toxins—causes disease. Philip Morris used public relations firms and lawyers to develop a “sound science” program in the United States and Europe that involved recruiting other industries and issues to obscure the tobacco industry’s role. The European “sound science” plans included a version of “good epidemiological practices” that would make it impossible to conclude that second-hand smoke—and thus other environmental toxins— caused diseases.” - Science & Environmental Policy Project – Wikipedia – 17/07/2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_&_Environmental_Policy_Project
“The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is an Arlington, Virginia, United States-based advocacy group founded in 1990 by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer. The group disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke. The chair of SEPP’s board of directors was (until his death, March 2, 2008) Rockefeller University president emeritus Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences (ref). Of SEPP’s board of directors and advisers, three are also on the board of the George C. Marshall Institute. Five of the nine science advisors listed on its web site … are deceased. “ - Sovereignty – Citado en: Being a skeptic: a lifetime commitment – Science and politics of global climate change 22/08/2006 – http://sciencepoliticsclimatechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/being-skeptic-lifetime-commitment_22.html
“Is Dr. Baliunas a lone ‘contrarian’? Hardly. Any list of ozone depletion theory ‘contrarians’ is today likely to number hundreds of scientists world-wide with substantial credentials and credibility. Among them find: Dr. S. Fred Singer, Senior Fellow with the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Dr. Thomas Gold of Cornell University, Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, Dr. Marcel Nicolet, world famous atmospheric scientist, Dr. Haroun Tazieff, whose Tazieff Resolution calls for a retraction of the Montreal Protocol, Dr. William Happer of Princeton, and Dr. Frederick Seitz, past head of the National Academy of Science.” - Leipzig Declaration – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipzig_Declaration – The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change – http://web.archive.org/web/19981206090752/http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html “We cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference — lacking credible support from the underlying science — to be ill-advised and premature. “
- The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) – http://web.archive.org/web/19980112135500/www.tassc.org/about.html
“… advocating the use of sound science in public policy decision making. Too often, public policy decisions that are based on inadequate science impose enormous economic costs and other hardships on consumers, businesses and government. Furthermore, these decisions may fail to protect the public’s health and safety.” Advisory Board: Mickey Edwards (Chairman), Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government – Dr. Frederick Seitz, President Emeritus, The Rockefeller University – Others. - Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, And Zachary W. Robinson – Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – January 1988 – Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine; George C. Marshall Institute – http://web.archive.org/web/20070713215304/http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
“World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of »greenhouse gases,» chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause »global warming» severe increases in Earth’s atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.” - Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson – Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth – 04/12/1997
“So we needn’t worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn’t worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects. But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto.” - Frederick Seitz – Research Review of Global Warming Evidence – Past President, National Academy of Sciences, USA; President Emeritus, Rockefeller University – http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm
“The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries. It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice. We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.” - Petition Project – 31,486 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs – http://www.petitionproject.org/
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto … There is no convincing scientific evidence … moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence…” - Statement by The Council of The National Academy Of Sciences Regarding Global Change Petition – 20/04/1998 – Peer-reviewed – http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
“The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal … even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.” - Tobacco Douments on line – Carta interna de Alexander Holtzman a Bill Murray (Philip Morris) – 31/08/1989 – http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html
“Bill told me that Dr. Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice” - John Tierney – Global-Warming Skeptics Convene in N.Y. – Tierney Lab, The New York Times 3/03/2008 – http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/global-warming-skeptics-convene-in-ny/?scp=12&sq=John%20Tierney&st=cse
“It comes with an introduction from Frederick Seitz, a physicist and past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. Dr. Seitz’s introduction concludes that “we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.” - Kevin Mcbride – Frederick Seitz – Natural Selections – March 2009 – http://selections.rockefeller.edu/cms/science-and-society/frederick-seitz.html
“However, in the following years, his work was controversial, where he stood accused of selling out science to tobacco and oil interests … The petition, signed by 31,000 self-described scientists, brought a stinging rebuke from the NAS for its seemingly NAS origin, its deception, and position. Subsequent analysis by Scientific American found few of the signatories were climatologists or even scientists, and of those who were, many misunderstood the petition’s actual position. Nonetheless, the petition is the crown jewel of skeptics often quoted by the Bush administration and the press.” - Myanna Lahsen (2005) – Technocracy, Democracy, and U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations – Science, Technology, & Human Values 30:137-169 – doi: 10.1177/0162243904270710 – Winter 2005 – University of Colorado – http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1892-2005.50.pdf – Peer-reviewed
“The prestigious sounding institution with which they were affiliated—the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine—was elsewhere revealed to be a one-room operation located on a farm on a rural road in the forested foothills of the Siskiyou Mountains. It consisted only of Arthur B. Robinson, a chemist with a Ph.D. in chemistry from the California Institute of Technology, and his 21-year-old son, who has no advanced degree (Hill 1998).” - Arthur Robinson – College Preparation. Good study habits prepare a student for college – The Robinson Self-Teaching Curriculum – http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p1014.htm
“Remember, however, that American schools have degraded severely. The first two years of college today are approximately equivalent to the last two years of high school in earlier times before socialism destroyed American education.” - Cresson H. Kearny – Nuclear War Survival Skills. Updated and Expanded. 1987 Edition – Original Edition Published September, 1979 by Oak Ridge National Laboratory- http://www.oism.org/nwss/
- Arthur B. Robinson – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_B._Robinson – 21/12/2009
“An American Spectator article concerning Dr. Robinson’s unique history.[7] includes discussion of his association with Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling (Chemistry, 1954 and Peace, 1962), who referred to Robinson as «my principal and most valued collaborator.» However, Robinson’s research revealed «highly embarrassing» results proving conclusively that Pauling’s data on vitamin C was false. According to the article: A sharp divergence of political opinion between the two men also became apparent. A few years after he won the Nobel Peace Prize, Pauling also won the Lenin Peace Prize. He told Robinson that he was more proud of the Soviet than the Norwegian award. For his part, in the spring of 1978 Robinson had given a speech at the Cato Institute, then in San Francisco, deploring the government funding of science as harmful to the independence that is essential to scientific inquiry (ref).” - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine – http://www.oism.org
“Faculty: Martin D. Kamen, R. Bruce Merrifield, Fred Westall, Carl Boehme, Jane Orient, Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson” - Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons – 24/12/2009
“The executive director is Jane Orient, a member of the non-profit Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. AAPS publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The organization, its members, and the journal have all been the subjects of much criticism from mainstream medical sources.” - The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) – http://www.aapsonline.org/
“Non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country. Since 1943, AAPS has been dedicated to the highest ethical standards of the Oath of Hippocrates and to preserving the sanctity of the patient-physician relationship and the practice of private medicine.” - New Power in AMA.; Milford Owen Rouse – The New York Times 30/06/1966 – http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0714F73F55117B93C2AA178DD85F428685F9
- John Birch Society – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society – 24/12/2009
“The society states that it is anti-totalitarian, particularly anti-socialist and anti-communist, and leans libertarian. It seeks to limit the powers of government and defends what it sees as the original intention of the U.S. Constitution, based on its perception of Judeo-Christian principles. It opposes collectivism, including wealth redistribution, economic interventionism, socialism, communism, and fascism. In a 1983 edition of Crossfire, Congressman Larry McDonald (D-Georgia), then its newly appointed chairman, characterized the society as belonging to the Old Right rather than the New Right.” - Arthur B. Robinson and Jane M. Orient (PhD’s) – The New ‘Process’ of ‘Science’ – Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 13:105-106 – Winter 2008 - http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/robinson.pdf
“A peculiar and dangerous virus is currently infecting American public discourse. This virus pathologically transforms our language, so that our conversations with one another become garbled, confused, and ultimately meaningless. This has serious implications for science, as well as American life in general … In the present case, in which UN apparatchiks have proclaimed that human activity is catastrophically warming the planet, the human cost of error is so great that many other scientists have become motivated to individually examine the evidence.” - Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon – Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12:79-90 – Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
“A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly in creased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future in creases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” - Union of Concerned Scientists (2007) – Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air. How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science – January 2007 – http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
“By the late 1990s, the scientific evidence on global warming was so strong that it became difficult to find scientists who disputed the reality of human-caused climate change. But ExxonMobil and its public relations partners persevered. The case of scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas is illustrative.” - Union of Concerned Scientists (2007) – Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air. How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science – January 2007 – http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf “Over the past several years, for example, Baliunas has been formally affiliated with no fewer than nine organizations receiving funding from Exxon-Mobil. Among her other affiliations, she is now a board member and senior scientist at the Marshall Institute, a scientific advisor to the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy, an advisory board member of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and a contributing scientist to the online forum Tech Central Station, all of which are underwritten by ExxonMobil.87 (For more, see Appendix B, Table 2.) “
- Myanna Lahsen (2008) – Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘trio’ supporting the backlash against global warming – Global Environmental Change 18:204–219 – Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Epaciais (INPE), Sao José dos Campos, Brazil– Peer-reviewed
“As of February 2003, the George C. Marshall Institute’s website featured a staff of five, including one scientist, Willie Soon. Willie Soon, ‘‘Senior Scientist’’ with the Marshall Institute, is a physicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory. He collaborates extensively with Sallie Baliunas, another physicist climate contrarian affiliated with the conservative movement (ref) and the Marshall Institute. Baliunas serves as a member of the institute’s Board of Directors.” - Frederick Seitz and Robert Jastrow – Do people cause global warming? – Environment & Climate News, 1/12/2001 – http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/812/Do_people_cause_global_warming.html
“We find the scientific evidence clearly indicates the global warming in the last 100 years is likely not due mostly to human activities.” - Exxon Secrets 2006: Exxon contributions to Global Warming Backlash Front Groups – June 2006. Valores obtenidos a partir de los informes anuales de Exxon – ExxonMobil, contrastados por la Union of Concerned Scientists
- William O’Keefe: CEO (GMI); President, Solutions Consulting, Inc., George C. Marshall Institute – http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=83
“William O’Keefe, Chief Executive Officer of the Marshall Institute, is President of Solutions Consulting, Inc. He has also served as Senior Vice President of Jellinek, Schwartz and Conolly, Inc., Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the American Petroleum Institute and Chief Administrative Officer of the Center for Naval Analyses. Mr. O’Keefe has held positions on the Board of Directors of the Kennedy Institute, the U.S. Energy Association and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is Chairman Emeritus of the Global Climate Coalition.” - Clark Miller and Paul N. Edwards, eds. – Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance – Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001 Paul N. Edwards and Stephen H. Schneider – Chapter 7: Self-Governance and Peer Review in Science-for-Policy: The Case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report
“The Global Climate Coalition (an energy industry lobby group) and a number of “contrarian” scientists immediately launched a major, organized attack designed to discredit the report’s conclusions, especially those relating to the crucial question of whether human activities are responsible for changes in the world’s climate.” - Andrew C. Revkin – Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate – The New York Times, 23/04/2009 – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1
“A document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the [Global Climate Coalition] worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.” - Global Climate Coalition (GCC), AIAM Technical Committee – Primer on Climate Change Science. Final Draft – 18/01/1996, Internal Note – http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/nytint/docs/…/original.pdf
“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied … A large, short term change in climate consistent with model predictions could be taken as proof of a human component of climate change … Alternative hypotheses do not address what would happen if atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise at projected rates.” - Union of Concerned Scientists (2007) – Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air. How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science – January 2007 – http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
“In the years that followed, ExxonMobil executed the strategy as planned underwriting a wide array of front organizations to publish in-house articles by select scientists and other like-minded individuals to raise objections about legitimate climate science research that has withstood rigorous peer review and has been replicated in multiple independent peer-reviewed studies—in other words, to attack research findings that were well established in the scientific community. The network ExxonMobil created masqueraded as a credible scientific alternative, but it publicized discredited studies and cherry-picked information to present misleading conclusions.” - Maxwell T. Boykoff (2008) – Media and scientific communication: a case of climate change – [From: Liverman, D. G. E., Pereira, C. P. G. &Marker, B. (eds).- Communicating Environmental – Geoscience. Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 305:11–18 DOI: 10.1144/SP305.3 – The Geological Society of London] – Peer-reviewed
“The other part of the answer was that a number of the names listed on the petition were not actually scientists, and some were not even real people. The list included people such as Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls, listed as ‘Dr. Gerri Halliwell’ as well as characters from the popular US television show MASH.” - Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey – Real Climate 10/10/2007 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
“A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a ‘new’ article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 ‘Oregon Petition’.” - Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey – Real Climate 10/10/2007 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
“Just to get you started, all versions of the paper make a mistake in the dating of Keigwin’s Sargasso Sea record by 50 years (Figure 2 in early versions, Figure 1 now) since they do not notice that the published dates are in ‘years BP’ (Before Present) which is conventionally dated from 1950, not 2000. And that’s even without getting into the question of why this is the only paleo-record they highlight, or on what logical basis they put the ‘2006′ value on.” - Joseph E. Armstrong – The Wall Street Journal Blurs the Lines between Science, Opinion, & Politics on Global Warming – Rational Examination Association of Lincoln Land – Professor of Botany at Illinois State University – http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/global-warming.html
“I couldn’t find the names of anyone I knew. Five ISU faculty out of thirty in biological sciences at ISU received the same reprint and petition request; the other four simply discarded it. We can wonder how many of 25,000 petition signers subjected this manuscript to skeptical scrutiny; our guess is that they either were predisposed to agree, or were persuaded by what they took to be a legitimate scientific article. I certainly would not have looked up every citation, examined the data, arguments, and conclusions in detail if not used as a class lesson. A non-critical reading of the manuscript would leave me with no option but to think that I harbored an irrational belief that human activities are affecting Earth’s climate … - Petition Project – Qualifications of Signers – http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php
“The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,714 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.” - Skepticism About Skeptics – Scientific American 23/08/2006 – http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
“Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers; a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.” - Kevin Grandia – The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda – The Huffington Post 22/07/2009 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html – Managing editor, www.energyboom.com
“To say that the oft-touted «30,000 Global Warming Petition» project stinks would be an understatement … I thought it would be timely to once-again breakdown this flawed piece of global warming denier propaganda … Atmospheric Science (113), Climatology (39), Meteorology (341), Astronomy (59), Astrophysics (26). So only 0.1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping 0.5%.“ - Letter American Enterprise Institute to Dr. Steven Schroeder – 05/07/2006
“If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10.000 … We intent to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of FAR [IPCC Fourth Assessment Reposrt] and our assessment in the spring or summer 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.” - Ian Sample – Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study – The Guardian 2/02/2007 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
“Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.” - Steven F. Hayward & Kenneth P. Green – Scenes from the Climate Inquisition. The chilling effect of the global warming consensus – The Weekly Standard 19/92/2007 – http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/275tmktp.asp
“It has never been true that we ignore mainstream science; and anyone who reads AEI publications closely can see that we are not «skeptics» about warming. It is possible to accept the general consensus about the existence of global warming while having valid questions about the extent of warming, the consequences of warming, and the appropriate responses. In particular, one can remain a policy skeptic, which is where we are today, along with nearly all economists.” - Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman – You Tube 05/97/2008 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
- Lee Fang – Right-Wing Billionaire David Koch Funding SwiftBoat Campaign Against Global Warming Science – Thin Progress 07/12/2009 – http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/07/koch-swiftboat-science/
“David Koch’s Koch Industries derives much of its profit from its oil refineries, one of the major emitters of carbon dioxide, and from its George-Pacific timber subsidiary, one of the largest contributors to the loss of carbon-sink capacity. So while it’s clear Koch’s bottom line is in conflict with addressing the world’s climate crisis, it should also be clear that he is no champion of science — no matter how many halls he buys at the Smithsonian.” - Curtis Moore – Rethinking the Think Tanks. How industry-funded «experts» twist the environmental debate – Toxic Trade News, Basel Action Network – October 2002 – Sierra Magazine – http://www.ban.org/ban_news/2002/0210_rethinking_the.html
“»You know us better than you think,» boast the ads of Koch Industries, a conglomerate owned by reclusive billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. And it’s true: Most of us have unknowingly wolfed a burger ground from Koch beef, ridden on tires made from Koch’s Trevira polyester, or escaped the rain beneath a roof covered with Koch asphalt. But there’s a darker side to the boast.” - Smithsonian Accused of Altering Exhibit. Smithsonian Toned Down Climate Exhibit to Avoid Political Attacks – The Associated Press 21/05/2007 – http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6423&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Smithsonian%20Toned%20Down%20Climate%20Exhibit%20to%20Avoid%20Political%20Attacks&Cache=False
“This is not the first time the Smithsonian has been accused of taking politics into consideration.” - Analysis by Michael MacCracken of the paper “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide” by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon
- Agnotology – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology –
“Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor, a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology … More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.” - Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear – President-Elect Barack Obama, November 19, 2008 – With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true – http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html
“We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now.1,2 After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events.3 The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.4 Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.” - Ferran P. Vilar – Negacionismo en La Vanguardia (1ª parte) – Usted no se lo cree 27/10/2009 – https://ustednoselocree.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/negacionismo-en-la-vanguardia-1/
“A la vista de la extenuante cantidad de falsedades e incoherencias del artículo parece razonable detener aquí la exposición en curso y acceder a otros planos de análisis. No sin antes declarar que el lector interesado encontrará sin duda nuevos motivos de estupor si lo prosigue por su cuenta. Algunos de ellos quedarán, sin embargo, incluidos en lo que sigue.” - David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer (2007) – A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions – International Journal of Climatology DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651 – Accepted 11/10/2007
“Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.” - Anastasios Tsonis and Kyle Swanson –
Statement – www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/gt_statement.pdf
“Since approximately 2000 global temperature has leveled off and maybe is decreasing. In our analysis we found that these fluctuations in global temperature trend are part of the natural variability of the climate system. They may be superimposed on the OGTT but they represent intrinsic variability and when they are positive (negative) they accentuate (offset) the background global warming. We clearly state this in the paper and in the conclusions. Thus, our work does not dispute global (greenhouse) warming.” - With all due respect… – Real Climate 24/03/2009 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/03/with-all-due-respect/
“But most amusing are the footnotes that they use to bolster their case. There are four: the brand new Swanson and Tsonis (GRL, 2009), Brohan et al (JGR, 2006) (which is there to provide a link to the HadCRU temperature data), Pielke et al (BAMS, 2005), and the oftderided Douglass et al (IJoC, 2008). Of these papers, not one has the evidence to support the statements attributed to them in the main text.” - Ferran P. Vilar – Negacionismo en La Vanguardia (2ª parte): Libro de estilo negacionista – Usted no se lo cree 19/01/2010 – https://ustednoselocree.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/negacionismo-vanguardia-2/
- Bert Bolin (2007) – The History of Science and Politics of Climate Change. The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change – Cambridge University Press – ISBN: 978-0-521-88082-4 – 277 pp.
- Bert Bolin (2007) – The History of Science and Politics of Climate Change. The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change – Cambridge University Press – ISBN: 978-0-521-88082-4 – 277 pp. – pp. 103, 270
“Soon thereafter five leading, sceptical scientists wrote a letter to the Undersecretary of the US State Department, T. Wirth, expressing their disappointment in the press release issued from the Maastricht meeting (ref). They even accused the chairman of Working Group II, Watson, of not defending the interests of the USA, which is a strange accusations to make of a scientific analysis, even in the case of a summary written for policy makers … Dr H. Linden, Illinois Institute of Technology, executive advisor, Gas Research Institute, Professor W. A. Nierenberg, former director of Scripps Institute of Oceanography, Dr F. Seitz, former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, Professor S. F. Singer, University of Virginia, and Dr C. Starr, founding president, Electric Power Research Institute.” - Myanna Lahsen (2008) – Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘trio’ supporting the backlash against global warming – Global Environmental Change 18:204–219 – Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Epaciais (INPE), Sao José dos Campos, Brazil
“Like the trio [Jastrow, Seitz, Nieremberg], however, [Harper] has a background in nuclear physics, worked on the hydrogen bomb, and is actively involved in advisory activities related to defense science and a member of JASON … This would typically signal that his political beliefs also harmonize with a conservative political agenda, an additional factor likely to have encouraged his choice to join the backlash. Another prominent example outside of the Marshall Institute is S. Fred Singer.” - Myanna Lahsen (2008) – Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘trio’ supporting the backlash against global warming – Global Environmental Change 18:204–219 – Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Epaciais (INPE), Sao José dos Campos, Brazil
“An IPCC leader—a physicist himself—echoed the above statement: [There is a group of physicists among the contrarians [who] feel that they are experts [on the climate issue]. There is a long-standing tradition in the physics community that holds that physicists can solve any problem just by thinking about it. There is a group in the US called JASON … These physicists meet down in Southern California, and they were convinced that they could solve any problem … They were convinced they could solve the acid rain problem intellectually. They didn’t care about models and clouds and other detail. They thought they could do it from first principles of physics. And there is some of that left over.” - Bert Bolin (2007) – The History of Science and Politics of Climate Change. The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change – Cambridge University Press – ISBN: 978-0-521-88082-4 – 277 pp. – pp. 145
“Since I had been very careful during my chairmanship not to accept any directives from the Swedish Government in pursuing my role as chairman, I was anxious to secure a similar status for the new chairman. I proposed therefore that such an assurance be given by the US Government for the time during which Watson served as the chairman of the IPCC. I considered this to be essential, because of the necessity for developing countries in particular to feel that a partnership between the scientists of the world is necessary in order for an organisation to gain respect as an independent scientific body. This was agreed at the twelfth session of the IPCC.” - Andrew C. Revkin – Dispute Arises over a Push to Change Climate Panel – The New York Times 02/04/2002 – http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/02/world/dispute-arises-over-a-push-to-change-climate-panel.html
“One of those letters was sent last month by Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone, an atmospheric scientist who is chancellor of the University of California, Irvine, and chairman of a National Academy of Sciences panel that assessed the international panel’s climate analyses last year at the behest of the White House. In an e-mail message sent to the State Department, Dr. Cicerone urged the administration not to withdraw its support for Dr. Watson and, if it did, at least to replace him with another atmospheric scientist … Campaigners at private environmental groups yesterday attacked the efforts to replace Dr. Watson … Some climate panel scientists said that other countries were planning to push for Dr. Watson to remain, and that it might be possible to craft a compromise in which the two scientists served as co-chairmen.” - Bert Bolin (2007) – The History of Science and Politics of Climate Change. The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change – Cambridge University Press – ISBN: 978-0-521-88082-4 – 277 pp. – p. 186
“Watson, having been elected during the presidency of Bill Clinton and personally very engaged in the climate change issue, had presumably been found too independent by the new US Administration. The proposal that Dr Pachauri should take over was a clever move. He was well known and in many regards was a most competent representative from a developing country, while Watson’s quick and straightforward approach to people sometimes made the representatives of these countries uneasy. However, Watson was nominated by the Portuguese and British delegations (in itself an unusual move).” - They can bend me, but they can’t break me (Interview with Dr R K Pachauri) – Hindustan Times 02/02/2010 – http://www.teriin.org/int_rkp.php
“You might remember that in Copenhagen one country [Saudi Arabia] issued a statement that oil-exporting countries should be compensated for any loss of revenue because we would be moving to renewable sources of energy. So, there is no mention of the cost that this trend has been imposing on rest of the world. The growing consumption of fossil fuels is imposing impacts on some of the poorest countries of the world. Don’t they deserve compensation? This is all part of a concerted effort, and I don’t want to extend it (the debate) any further. I am convinced that the truth will prevail, and some of us will stick with the truth.” - Robert T. Watson (2000) – Presentation at the Sixth Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – 13/11/2000 – http://web.archive.org/web/20070604193752/http://www.ipcc.ch/press/sp-cop6.htm
“The question is not whether climate will change in response to human activities, but rather how much (magnitude), how fast (the rate of change) and where (regional patterns). It is also clear that climate change will, in many parts of the world, adversely affect socio-economic sectors, including water resources, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and human settlements, ecological systems (particularly forests and coral reefs), and human health (particularly diseases spread by insects), with developing countries being the most vulnerable. The good news is, however, that the majority of experts believe that significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions are technically feasible due to an extensive array of technologies and policy measures in the energy supply, energy demand and agricultural and forestry sectors.” - Ross Gelbspan – An excerpt from Boiling Point – Grist 21/07/2004 – http://www.grist.org/article/gelbspan-boiling/
“The memo cited a quote from Robert Watson, chair of the IPCC: «The United States is way off meeting its targets. A country like China has done more … to move forward in economic development while remaining environmentally sensitive.» - Tim Dickinson – The Secret Campaign of President Bush’s Administration To Deny Global Warming – Rolling Stone 20/06/2007 – http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming
“The CEQ became Cheney’s shadow EPA, with industry calling the shots. To head up the council, Cheney installed James Connaughton, a former lobbyist for industrial polluters, who once worked to help General Electric and ARCO skirt responsibility for their Superfund waste sites.” - Facsimile to John Howard (Committee of Environmental Quality) from Randy Randol (ExxonMobil – Washington Office) – http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf
“A.G. (Randy) Randoll III, Ph.D. – Senior Environmental Advisor” - Facsimile to John Howard (Committee of Environmental Quality) from Randy Randol (ExxonMobil – Washington Office) – pág.2 – http://www.nrdc.org/media/docs/020403.pdf
“Issue: Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the United States?” - They can bend me, but they can’t break me (Interview with Dr R K Pachauri) – Hindustan Times 02/02/2010 – http://www.teriin.org/int_rkp.php
“The point is that I have had a relationship with all these organisations for decades now. When I became chairperson of the IPCC I was on the board of Indian Oil. The Europeans, in particular, had asked, ‘how do you explain the fact that you on are on the board of the Indian Oil Corporation?’ I said, ‘how do you travel to work, do you use fossil fuel at all?’ They said, ‘yes, of course.’ If I can use a fossil fuel company to move in the right direction, why shouldn’t I use that as an opportunity? I will tell you that at the very first (Indian Oil) board meeting with me as a member, I said, ‘you need to transform from an oil company to an energy company. Get into renewable in a big way.’” - Eduardo Ferreyra – Rajendra Pachauri, ¿agente de Exxon? – Mitos y Fraudes 28/01/2010 – http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen11/pachauri_exxon.html
“Sería esta una de las razones por las que Exxon y otras compañías petroleras no invertían las fabulosas sumas para financiar investigaciones que desmintieran al calentamiento global. Ya tenían a su hombre dirigiendo al cuerpo supuestamente encargado de demostrar la culpabilidad del petróleo en el calentamiento, un verdadero “savoteur” que ha sabido cumplir con su misión de manera acabada.” - They can bend me, but they can’t break me (Interview with Dr R K Pachauri) – Hindustan Times 02/02/2010 – http://www.teriin.org/int_rkp.php
“How old are you? I am 69. How long do you sleep? Normally, I get 2 hours of sleep, sometimes. Not every night. I am very comfortable if I get six hours of sleep. The rest of that is working time. I work Saturday, Sundays, Holidays. I never had a holiday. I mean, I don’t feel any need for it. My adrenaline is running all the time.” - IPCC, 2007 – Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York – http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf
“Thermal expansion is projected to contribute more than half of the average rise, but land ice will lose mass increasingly rapidly as the century progresses. An important uncertainty relates to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow, as has been observed in recent years. This would add to the amount of sea level rise, but quantitative projections of how much it would add cannot be made with confidence, owing to limited understanding of the relevant processes.” - Fred Smith, Myron Ebell – Joint Letter to President Bush On The EPA’s Climate Action Report – 07/06/2002 – http://cei.org/gencon/027,03051.cfm
“In our view, Climate Action Report 2002 undermines your position on the Kyoto Protocol and damages efforts in the Congress to advance your energy policies and to oppose environmental policies that would implement Kyoto-style controls on energy use. We do not believe that these negative effects will go away merely by ignoring the report. We therefore urge you to withdraw Climate Action Report 2002 immediately and to direct that it be re-written on the basis of sound science and without relying on discredited products of the previous administration.” - Fred Smith, Myron Ebell et al – Joint Letter to President Bush On The EPA’s Climate Action Report – 07/06/2002 – http://cei.org/gencon/027,03051.cfm
“As production and release of this report demonstrates, pursuing your global warming and energy policies effectively will not be possible as long as key members of your administration do not fully support your policies. We therefore also urge you to dismiss or re-assign all administration employees who are not pursuing your agenda, just as you have done in several similar instances. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. We stand ready to work with you and your administration on pro-consumer, pro-taxpayer policies.” - David McKnight – The climate change smokescreen – The Sidney Morning Herald 02/08/2008 – http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/the-climate-change-smokescreen/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2 “In Australia, the main body trying to undermine the science of global warming is the Lavoisier Group. It maintains a website with links to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (more than $2 million from Exxon), the Science and Environmental Policy Project ($20,000) and the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide (at least $100,000). The Competitive Enterprise Institute returns the compliment to Lavoisier in its publication, which praised the group for its work in defeating the Kyoto protocol. Lavoisier, it said, «provides the principal intellectual and organisational opposition in Australia to Kyoto». Its sources of funding are not public. The Lavoisier group is certainly influential in the Federal Opposition. During the Howard years, a senior figure in the group told Guy Pearse, author of High & Dry, a study of climate policy in Australia, there was «an understanding in cabinet that all the science is crap».”
- Fred Smith, Myron Ebell et al – Joint Letter to President Bush On The EPA’s Climate Action Report – 07/06/2002 – http://cei.org/gencon/027,03051.cfm
“Paul Beckner (Citizens for a Sound Economy); Frances B. Smith (Consumer Alert); Kenneth Green (Reason Foundation); David Rothbard (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow); Karen Kerrigan (Small Business Survival Committee); Thomas A. Schatz (Citizens Against Government Waste); Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform); Tom DeWeese (American Policy Center); Steve Hayward (Pacific Research Institute); George C. Landrith (Frontiers of Freedom); Patrick Michaels (Cato Institute); S. Fred Singer (Science & Environmental Policy Project); Lori Waters (Eagle Forum); Morton C. Blackwell (Conservative Leadership PAC); Paul Driessen (Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise); Paul M. Weyrich (Free Congress Foundation); John Berthoud (National Taxpayers Union); David A. Keene (American Conservative Union); Eric Licht (Coalitions for America); Lewis K. Uhler (National Tax Limitation Committee); C. Preston Noell, III (Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.); Ron Pearson (Council for America); Gary L. Bauer (American Values); Robert A. Schadler (Center for First Principles); Jefferey S. Taylor (Free Republic Network); Richard Lessner (American Renewal); Michael Hardiman (American Land Rights Association); Kevin L. Kearns (U. S. Business and Industry Council); William J. Murray (Government Is Not God); Benjamin C. Works (Sirius); F. Patricia Callahan (American Association of Small Property Owners) - Ferran P. Vilar – La élite científica militar y el primer ‘consenso’ científico sobre cambio climático – Usted no se lo Cree 07/01/2010- https://ustednoselocree.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/primer-consenso/
“Su misión es realizar informes y ofrecer consejo al Departamento de Defensa del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, al Pentágono, a la CIA y a la National Security Agency (ref) (NSA, bien conocida por los sufridos lectores de Dan Brown), así como directamente a los presidentes de los Estados Unidos, si bien esta última misión se canaliza a través de un organismo más ‘oficial’ denominado President Scientific Advisor Committee (PSAC), todavía más selecto y, presumiblemente, más influyente.” - Ross Gelbspan – An excerpt from Boiling Point – Grist 21/07/2004 – http://www.grist.org/article/gelbspan-boiling/
“ExxonMobil recommended that the Bush administration remove Watson, along with two officials instrumental in producing the U.S. National Assessment on Climate Change … The Bush administration did scuttle Watson’s reappointment. But … it decided not to back such vocal contrarians as Christy and Lindzen.”
Ir al artículo 1: Tabaco y clima, destrucción masiva
Ir al artículo 2: ‘Petition project’ ¿30.000 científicos contra Al Gore?
Ir al artículo 3: Cómo se sustituye a un presidente del IPCC
Comenta cuando quieras