Usted no se lo cree

Texto de referencia

1. George Monbiot – Robot Wars – The Guardian, 23/02/2011 –http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
   “After I last wrote about online astroturfing, in December, I was contacted by a whistleblower. He was part of a commercial team employed to infest internet forums and comment threads on behalf of corporate clients, promoting their causes and arguing with anyone who opposed them. Like the other members of the team, he posed as a disinterested member of the public. Or, to be more accurate, as a crowd of disinterested members of the public: he used 70 personas, both to avoid detection and to create the impression that there was widespread support for his pro-corporate arguments. I’ll reveal more about what he told me when I’ve finished the investigation I’m working on.”
2. Jonathan Haidt (2000) – The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment – Psychological Review 108:814-834 – University of Virginia – http://www.motherjones.com/files/emotional_dog_and_rational_tail.pdf
   “The Motivated Reasoning Problem: The Reasoning Process Is More like a Lawyer Defending a Client than a Judge or Scientist Seeking Truth.”
3. Matthew B. Crawford (2009) – The Case for Working With Your Hands – The New York Times, 21/05/2009 – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html
   “As it happened, in the spring I landed a job as executive director of a policy organization in Washington. This felt like a coup. But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn’t fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.”
4. Damian Thompson (2008) – Counterknowledge. How we surrender to conspiracy theories, quack medicine, bogus science and fake history – Atlantic Books
   “These counterknowledge entrepreneurs may or may not believe their own claims, but the successful ones all have an instinctive understanding of how social epidemics work. They are not just salesman: they are what Malcom Gladwell calls ‘connectors’, people with special gift for bringing the world together … Counterknowledge becomes an industry in the broadest sense of the word; it affects not only people’s finances but also their personal lives.”
5. Robert J. Brulle (2014) – Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations – Climatic Change 122:681-694 doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 – Drexel University – http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay – Climatic Change.ashx
   “To determine the amount and sources of income for the CCCM organizations, IRS data were extracted from both the National Center for Charitable Statistics and the Foundation Center for the period 2003 to 2010. Out of the 118 CCCM organizations identified (see above), IRS data were available for only 91. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations. This process provided a workable data set and enabled an examination of the financial income of the 91 CCCM organizations [ref].”
6. Wiki – Atlas Economic Research Foundation – Sourcewatch – Visitado: 18/04/2009 – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Atlas_Economic_Research_
   “The mission of Atlas, according to John Blundell (president from 1987 to 1990), «is to litter the world with free-market think-tanks.”
7. David Miller and William Dinan (2008) – A Century of Spin. How Public Relations Became the Cutting Edge of Corporate Power – Pluto Books London – – ISBN: 978-0-7453-2689-4 – 232 Págs.
   “Anthony Fisher, who had set up the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in 1955 went on to create the Atlas Economic Research Fundation in 1981 in order to, in the words of John Blundell of the Foundation, ‘litter the world with free-market think tanks. By 1991 Atlas claimed to have had a role in funding or advising 78 think tanks and to be on good relations with another 88. Since then the think tank explosion has not diminished … Ralph Harris: ‘I now express our remaining war aim as being to deprive (misrepresentative) democracy of its unmerited halo’.”
8. Philip Mirovski (2008) – The Rise of the Dedicated Natural Science Think Tank – The Social Science Research Council – University of Notre Dame – http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/images/crm/new_publication_3/%7Beee91c8f-ac35-de11-afac-001cc477ec70%7D.pdf
   “Mimicking a standard refrain among academics that “more research is needed,” the consultants had picked up some tips from the neoliberals that one could build an entire ‘counter-science’, even if it was little more than a Potemkin village, and that it might even be more effective in frustrating litigation and regulation than merely throwing lawyers at the problem … The key tenets were to promote otherwise isolated scientific spokespersons (from gold plated universities, if possible) who would take the industry side in the debate, manufacture uncertainty about the existing scientific literature, launder information through seemingly neutral third party fronts, and wherever possible recast the debate by moving it away from aspects of the science which it would seem otherwise impossible to challenge.”
9. Amelia Sharman (2014) – Mapping the climate sceptical blogosphere – Global Environmental Change doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.003 – Department of Geography and Environment, and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science – http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Papers/120-29/Mapping-the-climate-sceptical-blogosphere.pdf
   “A network of 171 individual blogs is identified, with three blogs in particular found to be the most central: Climate Audit, JoNova and Watts Up With That. These blogs predominantly focus on the scientific element of the climate debate, providing either a direct scientifically-based challenge to mainstream climate science, or a critique of the conduct of the climate science system. This overt scientific framing, as opposed to explicitly highlighting differences in values, politics, or ideological worldview, appears to be an important contributory factor in the positioning of the most central blogs. It is suggested that these central blogs are key protagonists in a process of attempted expert knowledge de-legitimisation and contestation, acting not only as translators between scientific research and lay audiences, but, in their reinterpretation of existing climate science knowledge claims, are acting themselves as alternative public sites of expertise for a climate sceptical audience.”
10. Peter J. Jacques et al (2008) – The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism – Environmental Politics 17:349:385 doi:10.1080/09644010802055576 – Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida; Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University – http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers/71776/The_Organization_of_Denial_Conservative_Think_Tanks_and_Environmental_Scepticism  – 3 authors
    “Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books … 92 % are linked to conservative think tanks … 90 % of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.”
11. Henry Farrell and Daniel W. Drezner (2008) – The power and politics of blogs – Public Choice 134:15-30 doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9198-1 – Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago; Assistant Professor of Political Science, George Washington University – http://www.danieldrezner.com/research/blogpaperfinal.pdf
    “The rise of bloggers raises the vexing question of why blogs have any influence at all, given their relatively low readership and lack of central organization. We argue that to answer this question we need to focus on two key factors-the unequal distribution of readers across weblogs, and the relatively high readership of blogs among journalists and other political elites. The unequal distribution of readership, combined with internal norms and linking practices allows interesting news and opinions to rise to the «top» of the blogosphere, and thus to the attention of elite actors, whose understanding of politics may be changed by frames adopted from the blogosphere.”
12. Amelia Sharman (2014) – Mapping the climate sceptical blogosphere – Global Environmental Change doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.003 – Department of Geography and Environment, and Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science – http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publications/WorkingPapers/Papers/120-29/Mapping-the-climate-sceptical-blogosphere.pdf
    “This is significant as blogs are an increasingly common source of scientific source material for mainstream media (Brumfiel, 2009) and the climate sceptical arguments emphasised in these central blogs likely receive a disproportionately larger audience than is warranted when compared with the knowledge claims made by the majority of mainstream climate science (Boykoff, 2013). ”
13. Maxwell T. Boykof (2013) – Public Enemy No. 1? Understanding Media Representations of Outlier Views on Climate Change – American Behavioral Scientist 57:796–817 doi:10.1177/0002764213476846 – Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Environmental Studies and Geography, University of Colorado – http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2013.05.pdf
    “Outlier voices—particularly those views often dubbed climate “skeptics,” “denialists,” or “contrarians”—have gained prominence and traction in mass media over time through a mix of internal workings such as journalistic norms, institutional values and practices, and external political economic, cultural, and social factors. In this context, the article explores how and why these actors—through varied interventions and actions—garner disproportionate visibility in the public arena via mass media. It also examines how media content producers grapple with ways to represent claims makers, as well as their claims, so that they clarify rather than confuse these critical issues. To the extent that mass media misrepresent and/or gratuitously cover these outlier views, they contribute to ongoing illusory, misleading, and counterproductive debates within the public and policy communities, and poorly serve the collective public. Furthermore, working through mass media outlets, these outlier interventions demonstrate themselves to be (at times deliberately) detrimental to efforts seeking to enlarge rather than constrict the spectrum of possibility for varied forms of climate action.”
14. David Michaels (2008) – Doubt Is Their Product – Oxford University Press – American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award
    “Skewed studies produced for the most mercenary of purposes are now accepted as part of the game … Conduct that was once considered unacceptable and that should be considered unacceptable is no longer stigmatized or even acknowledged as being corrupt.” (p. 55)
15. Rusi Jaspal et al (2013) – Contesting Science by Appealing to Its Norms: Readers Discuss Climate Science in the Daily Mail – Science Communication doi:10.1177/1075547012459274 – 3 authors
    “This study examines the rhetorical aspects of social contestation of climate change in reader comments published in the Daily Mail, subsequent to climategate. The following themes are reported: (1) denigration of climate scientists to contest hegemonic representations, (2) delegitimization of pro–climate change individuals by disassociation from science, and (3) outright denial: rejecting hegemonic social representations of climate change. The study outlines the discursive strategies employed in order to construct social representations of climate change, to contest alternative representations, and to convince others of the validity of these representations. It examines how social representations of science are formed, maintained, and disseminated.”
16. Ferran P. Vilar (2010) – Perfil de los negacionistas climáticos: 2. Roy Spencer, el rockero creacionista – Usted no se lo Cree, 12/12/2010 –https://ustednoselocree.com/2010/12/12/perfil-de-los-negacionistas-climaticos-2-roy-spencer-el-rockero-creacionista/
    “Puesto que, tras la inundación que llevó a Noé a construir un arca, Dios dijo que nunca más habría inundaciones, y así quedó escrito en los libros sagrados, es imposible que la temperatura vaya a aumentar lo suficiente como para hacer crecer el nivel del mar fundiendo las masas de hielo del planeta, o que una mayor temperatura llegue a provocar una acumulación atmosférica de vapor de agua tal que las tormentas sean más torrenciales y los ríos desborden. Dado que, para ellos, el árbitro de la realidad no es el método científico sino la letra de la Biblia, si algo la contradice no hay otra posibilidad de que ese algo esté un error que hay que detectar, además de dar por supuesto que quien lo ha enunciado es un soldado del Anticristo. Por lo menos la primera afirmación puede darse por verdadera. Fue recordada por Marvin Olavsky en 1992 en su obra Decir la Verdad: Cómo revitalizar el periodismo cristiano.»
17. John Cook (2011) – UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 – Overconfidence – Skeptical Science, 27/12/2011 – http://www.skepticalscience.com/uah-misrepresentation-anniversary-part1.html
    “Dessler is referring to the complex nature of constructing a global temperature series from the satellite observations. The microwave sounding units (MSU) aboard the satellites don’t actually measure air temperature, but rather the intensity of microwave radiation given off by oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, and the intensity of this radiation is a proxy for air temperature. Given that the radiation reaches the satellite sensors having travelled through a warming lower atmosphere and cooling stratosphere, that bias exists between the various sensors, issues with orbital decay, and a host of other obstacles, there’s a lot of careful and painstaking analysis required, and much that can go wrong.”
18. Joseph Romm – Should you believe anything John Christy and Roy Spencer say? – Climate Progress, 22/05/2008 – http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-or-roy-spencer-say/
    “First off, they were wrong — dead wrong — for a very long time, which created one of the most enduring denier myths, that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did. Amazingly (or not), the “serial errors in the data analysis” all pushed the (mis)analysis in the same, wrong direction. Coincidence? You decide. But I find it hilarious that the deniers and delayers still quote Christy/Spencer/UAH analysis lovingly, but to this day dismiss the “hockey stick” and anything Michael Mann writes, when his analysis was in fact vindicated by the august National Academy of Sciences in 2006 (see New Scientist’s “Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong“). In their solo careers, Spencer and Christy are still pros at bad analysis. RealClimate utterly skewers Spencer’s recent dis-analysis — misanalysis doesn’t seem a strong enough word for what he has done (see RC’s “How to cook a graph in three easy lessons“). RC calls it “shameless cookery.” If you like semi-technical discussions, then I strongly recommend the post. I would add in passing with no editorial comment that the Spencer disanalysis was posted on the website of one Roger Pielke, Sr.”
19. Ray Pierrehumbert – How to cook a graph in three easy lessons – Real Climate, 21/05/2008 – The University of Chicago – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
    “Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.”
20. Clive Hamilton (2010) – Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial – Australian Bradcasting Corporation – 22/02/2010 – Australian National University – http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/abc_denialism_series_complete.pdf
    “All threats have to be taken seriously, and at times warrant calling in the police. The police are able to trace anonymous emails to their sources and take action against those who send them. The police are now advising those who received abusive and threatening emails to resist the immediate urge to delete them and keep them in a separate folder for future reference.”
21. Douglas Fischer (2010) – Cyber Bullying Intensifies as Climate Data Questioned – Scientific American, 01/03/2010 – The Daily Climate – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-cyber-bullying
    “To Schmidt and other researchers purging their inboxes daily of such correspondence, the barrage is simply part of the job of being a climate scientist. But others see the messages as threats and intimidation—cyber-bullying meant to shut down debate and cow scientists into limiting their participation in the public discourse. «I get a lot of hate mail,» said Schmidt, a climate modeler at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies who also runs RealClimate.org, a website devoted to debunking myths and errors about climate change. «I get a lot of praise mail, but pretty much every time I have a quote in a mainstream publication I’ll get a string of emails from various people accusing me of various misdemeanors and fantasizing about my life in prison.» Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has a 19-page document of «extremely foul, nasty, abusive» e-mails he’s received just since November. Australian author and academic Clive Hamilton noted that many of the country’s most distinguished climate scientists are increasingly the target of e-mail attacks aimed at driving them from the public debate. «The purpose of this new form of cyber-bullying seems clear; it is to upset and intimidate the targets, making them reluctant to participate further in the climate change debate,» Hamilton wrote in a column published last week by Sydney’s ABC News. «While the internet is often held up as the instrument of free speech, it is often used for the opposite purpose, to drive people out of the public debate.».”
22. James Lawrence Powell (2011) – The Inquisition of Climate Science – Columbia University Press – National Science Board
    “The investigation began on November 24, 2009, and the panel reported out on February 3, 2010, finding that there exists ‘no credible evidence …’ that Michael Mann [… text resolution] On June 4, 2010 an investigative committee of the university concluded unanimously that ‘there is no substance …’ On March 31, 2010, the report of another investigation of the Climategate e-mails appeared, this one from the Science and Technology Committee of England’s House of Commons, convened because … The repor spoke plainly: ‘Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community …’ … Another panel, established by the University of East Anglia in consultation with the Royal Society, reported out on April 12, 2010 [ref]. The chair was Lord Oxburgh, former … and former chairman of Shell … concluded that it ‘saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice … In early July 2010, another panel convened by the University of East Anglia and chaired by Sir Muir Russell issued its 160-page report [ref] … reported that … ‘The rigour and integrity [of the CRU scientists] are not in doubt … In September 2010 another report appeared, this one `presented by the British government in response to the March report from the House of Commons … concluded that, ‘The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. His actions were in line with common pactice…’ …[ref].” (p. 164-166)
23. Paul D. Thacker – How the Wall Street Journal and Rep. Barton celebrated a global-warming skeptic – Environmental Science & Technology, 31/08/2005 – http://www.realclimate.org/docs/thacker/wsj.pdf
    “A number of reports have noted strong ties between climate skeptics and oil company, ExxonMobil. In his biography and in news coverage, McIntyre is reported to be a former director of several small public mineral exploration companies. But in 2003, the annual report of CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, listed McIntyre as a “strategic advisor”. While investigating this story, ES&T contacted CGX Energy and asked to speak with Stephen McIntyre. A secretary responded that she did not think that he worked in the building but that contact information could be left and McIntyre would call back. McIntyre admits to ES&T that he” “occasionally consults” for the company, but he says he is not funded by industry. “I’ve earned some money,” he says, “and I can indulge an eccentric hobby.”
24. IPCC AR5 WG III
25. Stephen H. Schneider (2009) – Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate – National Geographic Books – Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University – ISBN: 9781426205408 – 303 Págs.
    “However, the Wall Street Journal editor omitted that sentence in the [Santer et al’s] letter as published on June 25 [1996]. More tellingly, the editor also deleted the next sentences: ‘Scientists examine all items of evidence before drawing conclusions. They generally avoid making pronouncements outside their areas of expertise. Seitz has failed on both counts, and his conclusions are incorrect.  The editor also deleted all 40 of the distinguished scientists’ names and affiliations who had co-signed the letter, including mine.”
26. Daniel Bedford (2011) – Agnotology as a Teaching Tool: Learning Climate Science by Studying Misinformation – Journal of Geography 109:159-165 doi:10.1080/00221341.2010.498121 – Geography Department, Weber State University
    “The goal of incorporating agnotology as a teaching tool in the classroom is to study how and why there is ignorance about well-established facts about global warming, such as why public opinion sees disagreement among scientists when little or none exists. This can be approached through the explicit study of influential works of agnogenesis, including op-ed articles by syndicated columnists, and the best-selling novel State of Fear, by Michael Crichton (2004), which includes many of the more commonly encountered arguments from the wider agnogenesis literature. ”
27. Ferran P. Vilar (2009) – Negacionismo en La Vanguardia (1ª parte) – Usted no se lo Cree, 27/10/2009 – https://ustednoselocree.com/2009/10/27/negacionismo-en-la-vanguardia-1/
    “Es pues necesario preguntarse cómo alguien puede publicar un artículo en GRL, con todos los atributos de veracidad y exactitud por lo menos a priori, y simultáneamente haya conseguido colar una chapuza tan monumental en un grupo editor catalán.”
28. Lawrence Torcello (2014) – Is Organised Climate Science Denial Criminally Negligent? – The Conversation, 15/03/2014 – Rochester Institute of Technology – http://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111
    “If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism.”
29. Greg Laden – Are the climate science deniers criminals? – Greg Laden’s Blog, 16/03/2014 – http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/03/16/are-the-climate-science-deniers-criminals/
    “But in saying that, unfortunately, I can only be referring to “criminal act” as a metaphor, or perhaps as wishful thinking. There actually isn’t a law against ruining the planet and ending civilization as we know it, against taking part in the death and misery of countless humans, against carrying out acts of such utterly despicable selfishness and general terror that you will be placed among the ranks of the genocidal once all is said and done, if you get your way. Nope. That’s totally legal. Or is it? Or, at least, should it be? … ”
30. Amel Ahmed – Prominent scientist suing climate change deniers for libel – Aljazzera America, 26/01/2014 – http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/26/judge-allows-climatescientisttomoveforwardwithdefamationcase.html
    “Mann sued the parties for defamation in 2012, after the CEI published and National Review republished statements accusing Mann of academic fraud and comparing him to convicted child molester and former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, as the CEI’s Rand Simberg put it, “except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.”… The CEI and National Review immediately filed an appeal and were supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief.”
31. Sara Diamond (1995) – Roads to Dominion: Right-Wing Movements and Political Power in the United States – Guilford Press, New York -ISBN-13: 978-0898628647 – 445 Págs.
    “William F. Buckley’s founding of National review in 1955 was an event that signified the willingness of conservatives to work together despite ideological differences. (p. 12)”
32. Peter J. Jacques (2006) – The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle of Citizenship – Environmental Politics 6:76-101 doi:doi:10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.7 – Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida; Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University
    “Social research in response to environmental skepticism indicates that skeptical interpretation is dependent on a relatively narrow set of ideological values from a conservative counter-environmental movement. These values include a “deep anthropocentric” ethic … In 2003, Peter Balint tested the theory that “unexplored ethical differences” and values determine or have a heavy hand in determining how someone interprets data and derives policy goals. He finds that this is the case for both environmentally concerned scientists and Lomborg.”
33. Geoff Brumfiel (2009)- Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? – Nature 458:274-277 doi:10.1038/458274a – http://www.commscicourse.com/Nature%202009%20Blogging%20vs%20media.pdf
    “Two Ivy League giants, Princeton University in New Jersey and Yale University, are trying to do something about the problems they see in environmental coverage with websites aimed at generating scientifically accurate news coverage. «We’re bringing something new to the table,» says Roger Cohn, a veteran journalist who now edits the Yale Environment 360 website, which is funded in part by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The site is home to reports by journalists and opinions by scientists on subjects such as climate change, but it has «no axe to grind on any one of these issues», says Cohn.”