Usted no se lo cree

Ir al artículo | Anar a l’article

1. Paul G. Bain et al (2012) – Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers – Nature Climate Change doi:10.1038/nclimate1532 – School of Psychology, University of Queensland – 4 autors
   “To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on howmitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.”
2. 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 autors
   “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.”
3. Maxwell T. Boykoff and Jules M. Boykoff (2004) – Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press – Global Environmental Change 14:125-136 doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 – Environmental Studies Department, University of California, Santa Cruz; Department of Government, American University – http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf– 2 autors
   “Even though the IPCC has strongly posited that anthropogenic activities have had a ‘discernable’ effect on the global climate (IPCC, 1996), urgent, mandatory action has not been taken. The central messages in the generally agreed-upon scientific discourse have therefore not been proliferated by the mass media into the popular arena. The failed discursive translation between the scientific community and popular, mass-mediatized discourse is not random; rather the mis-translation is systematic and occurs for perfectly logical reasons rooted in journalistic norms, and values.”
4. Conference Statement – Statement on Implications for Global Security – World Conference on the Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security, Toronto – June 1988 – http://www.cmos.ca/ChangingAtmosphere1988e.pdf
   “Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war … Reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 20% of 1988 levels  by the year 2005 as an initial global goal. Clearly, the industrialized nations  have a responsibility to lead the way, both through their national energy policies and their bilateral and multilateral assistance arrangements. About one-half of this reduction would be sought from energy efficiency and other conservation measures. The other half should be effected by modifications in supplies … Initiate the development of a comprehensive global convention as a framework  for protocols on the protection of the atmosphere.”
5. Andrew A. Lacis et al (2010) – Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature – Science 330:356-359 doi:10.1126/science.1190653 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies – http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/lacis101015.pdf– 4 autors
6. H. Jesse Smith (2007) – Early reversals – Science 316:1670 doi:10.1126/science.316.5832.1670d
   “Over the Pleistocene epoch, sea level was more than 100 m lower during some glacial periods than it is now; even within cold intervals, it may have varied by tens of meters. During the last interglacial, global average temperatures were near where they are expected to be in the coming century, and sea level was 4 to 6 m higher. Thus, conditions in that period seem relevant to our near future. Recently compiled evidence suggests that sea levels fluctuated by as much as 30 to 40 m during the beginning of that warm interval, but the large changes inferred have been controversial due to a lack of corroborating records. Andrews et al. have confirmed the variability using deposits that record the relative elevations of the Greek shoreline.”
7. Chris D. Thomas et al (2004) – Extinction risk from climate change – Nature 427:145-148 doi:10.1038/nature02121 – Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, School of Biology, University of Leeds – http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/83/1/thomascd1.pdf – 19 autors
   “This ‘climate envelope’ represents the conditions under which populations of a species currently persist in the face of competitors and natural enemies… We predict, on the basis of mid-range climate-warming scenarios for 2050, that 15–37% of species in our sample of regions and taxa will be ‘committed to extinction’”
8. James Hansen et al (2010) – Global Surface Temperature Change – Reviews of Geophysics 48 RG4004 doi:10.1029/2010RG000345 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute – http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0601.pdf – 4 authors
   “Of course it is possible to find almost any trend for a limited period via judicious choice of start and end dates of a data set that has high temporal resolution, but that is not a meaningful exercise. Even a more moderate assessment, «the trend in global surface temperature has been nearly flat since the late 1990s despite continuing increases in the forcing due to the sum of the well-mixed greenhouse gases» [Solomon et al., 2009], is not supported by our data. On the contrary, we conclude that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”
9. Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Y. Feng (2008) – On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS 105:14245-14250 doi:10.1073/pnas.0803838105 – Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego – http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/doc/zpq038084771p.pdf– 2 autors
   “About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century, determined by the rate of the unmasking of the aerosol cooling effect by air pollution abatement laws and by the rate of release of the GHGs-forcing stored in the oceans. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4 °C”
10. Simon K. Allen et al (2011) – IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) – Fact Sheet – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – http://ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/srex/SREX_fact_sheet.pdf– 29 autors
    “It is very likely that average sea level rise will contribute to upward trends in extreme sea levels in extreme coastal high water levels.”
11. E. Rignot et al (2011) – Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise – Geophysical Research Letters 38 L05503doi:10.1029/2011GL046583 – Earth System Science, University of California – http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2012-0315-200618/rignot_etal_grl2011.pdf – 5 autors
    “Ice sheet mass balance estimates have improved substantially in recent years using a variety of techniques, over different time periods, and at various levels of spatial detail. Considerable disparity remains between these estimates due to the inherent uncertainties of each method, the lack of detailed comparison between independent estimates, and the effect of temporal modulations in ice sheet surface mass balance. Here, we present a consistent record of mass balance for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the past two decades, validated by the comparison of two independent techniques over the last 8 years: one differencing perimeter loss from net accumulation, and one using a dense time series of time-variable gravity. We find excellent agreement between the two techniques for absolute mass loss and acceleration of mass loss. In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 Gt/yr, equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise. Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2. This acceleration is 3 times larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (12 ± 6 Gt/yr2). If this trend continues, ice sheets will be the dominant contributor to sea level rise in the 21st century.”
12. Hans-Martin Füssel (2009) – An updated assessment of the risks from climate change based on research published since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report – Climatic Change doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9648-5 – Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research –  –  autors
    “Comparison of the most recent observed trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global-mean surface temperature and sea level with the projections in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) shows that previous IPCC projections have not exaggerated, but in some respects underestimated, the change in global climate. The observed increase in global mean surface temperature since 1990 is 0.33◦C; this is in the upper part of the range set by the IPCC. Sea level data from tide gauges and satellite data show a linear trend of 3.3 mm/year for the 1993–2006 period (which was already reported in the AR4) whereas the IPCC TAR projected a best-estimate rise of less than 2 mm/year (Rahmstorf et al. 2007). The observed decline of Arctic sea ice extent from 1953–2006 is about three times faster than the mean of climate models participating in the IPCC AR4 and larger than any of these models (Stroeve et al. 2007). About half of current climate models already display an ice-free Arctic Ocean in late summer by the end of the 21st century for the SRES A1B scenario (Arzel et al. 2006) but this estimate may be too conservative in the light of the new observations.”
13. Ian Allison et al (2009) – The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009 – UNSW Climate Change Research Centre Australia – http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/– 26 autors
    “By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4; for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as ~ 2 meters sea level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized, and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.”
14. James Hansen et al (2007) – Climate Change and Trace Gases – Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 365:1925-1954 doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2052 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute – http://www.planetwork.net/climate/Hansen2007.pdf– 6 autors
    “That a glacier on Greenland slowed after speeding up, used as ‘proof’ that reticence is appropriate, is little different than the common misconception that a cold weather snap disproves global warming. Spatial and temporal fluctuations are normal. Moreover, short-term expectations for Greenland glaciers are different from long-term expectations for West Antarctica. Integration via the gravity satellite measurements puts individual glacier fluctuations in a proper perspective. The broader picture gives a strong indication that ice sheets will, and are already beginning to, respond in a nonlinear fashion to global warming. There is enough information now, in my opinion, to make it a near certainty that IPCC BAU climate forcing scenarios would lead to a disastrous multi-meter sea level rise on the century timescale.”
15. Jörg Pross et al (2012) – Persistent near-tropical warmth on the Antarctic continent during the early Eocene epoch – Nature 488:73–77 doi:10.1038/nature11300 – 17 autores (+318 expedicionarios)
    “The warmest global climates of the past 65 million years occurred during the early Eocene epoch (about 55 to 48 million years ago), when the Equator-to-pole temperature gradients were much smaller than today [refs] and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were in excess of one thousand parts per million by volume [refs]. Recently the early Eocene has received considerable interest because it may provide insight into the response of Earth’s climate and biosphere to the high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels that are expected in the near future [ref] as a consequence of unabated anthropogenic carbon emissions [refs]”
16. James Zachos et al (2001) – Trends, Rhythms, and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present – Science 292:686-693 doi:10.1126/science.1059412 – Earth Sciences Department, University of California, Santa Cruz – http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/jan18/Zachosetal.pdf – 5 autors «Since 65 million years ago (Ma), Earth’s climate has undergone a significant and complex evolution, the finer details of which are now coming to light through investigations of deep-sea sediment cores. This evolution includes gradual trends of warming and cooling driven by tectonic processes on time scales of 105 to 107 years, rhythmic or periodic cycles driven by orbital processes with 104- to 106-year cyclicity, and rare rapid aberrant shifts and extreme climate transients with durations of 103 to 105 years. Here, recent progress in defining the evolution of global climate over the Cenozoic Era is reviewed. We focus primarily on the periodic and anomalous components of variability over the early portion of this era, as constrained by the latest generation of deep-sea isotope records. We also consider how this improved perspective has led to the recognition of previously unforeseen mechanisms for altering climate.»
17. James Hansen et al (2011) – Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications – Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11:13421-13449 doi:10.5194/acp-11-13421-2011 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies + Columbia University Earth Institute – http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/13421/2011/acp-11-13421-2011.pdf– 4 autors
    “The lag in the climate response to a forcing is a sensitive function of equilibrium climate sensitivity, varying approximately as the square of the sensitivity [ref], and it depends on the rate of heat exchange between the ocean’s surface mixed layer and the deeper ocean [refs]. The lag could be as short as a decade, if climate sensitivity is as small as 0.25 ºC per W/m2 of forcing, but it is a century or longer if climate sensitivity is 1 ºC perW/m2 or larger [refs]. Evidence from Earth’s history [refs] and climate models [ref] suggests that climate sensitivity is 0.75 ± 0.25 ºC perW/m2, implying that 25 to 50 years are needed for Earth’s surface temperature to reach 60% of its equilibrium response [ref].”
18. James Hansen et al (2005) – Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications – Science 308:1431-1435 doi:10.1126/science.1110252 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute – http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/Hansen-04-29-05.pdf– 15 autors
    “This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years. Implications include (i) the expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6 ºC without further change of atmospheric composition; (ii) the confirmation of the climate system’s lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change; and (iii) the likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise.”
19. Joel B. Smith et al (2009) – Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ‘reasons for concern’ – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS 106:4133-4137 doi:10.1073/pnas.0812355106  – Stratus Consulting, Inc. –  http://www.pnas.org/content/106/11/4133.full.pdf+html – 15 authors
    “Based on our expert judgment about new findings … compared with results reported in the TAR [IPCC Third Assessment Report], smaller increases in GMT [Global Mean Temperature] are now estimated to lead to significant or substantial consequences in the framework of the 5 ‘‘reasons for concern.”
20. Harry Dowsett et al (1994) – Joint investigations of the Middle Pliocene climate I: PRISM paleoenvironmental reconstructions – Global and Planetary Change 9:169-195 – U.S. Geological Survey – 9 autors
    “This reconstruction, developed primarily from paleontological data, includes middle Pliocene sea level, vegetation, land-ice distribution, sea-ice distribution, and sea-surface temperature (SST), all of which contribute to our conceptual understanding of this climate system. These data indicate middle Pliocene sea level was at least 25 m higher than present, presumably due in large part to a reduction in the size of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
21. Josh Wingrove – Our world, 4 degrees warmer – The Globe and Mail, 22/10/2009 – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/our-world-4-degrees-warmer/article1334908/
    “In an effort to understand the consequences of “high-end climate change,” the U.K.’s Met Office Hadley Centre climate research team built a map illustrating the effects of a worldwide average temperature increase of four degrees Celsius. It isn’t date-specific, but is based on a pair of socioeconomic climate change scenarios developed by the UN’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The researchers picked four degrees as their benchmark after 34 simulations that projected long-term effects of climate change. In 23, the overall temperature increase reached an average of four degrees Celsius, suggesting that this is a realistic projected outcome of global warming.”
22. Kurt Kleiner (2010) – Climate science in 2009 – Nature Reports Climate Change 4:4-6 – http://links.ealert.nature.com/ctt?kn=29&m=34526761&r=MTc2NjMzOTY1MAS2&b=0&j=NjM1OTEzNTMS1&mt=1&rt=0
    “Richard Betts, a researcher with the UK Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, told the conference that temperatures could reach 4 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2060, in part because natural carbon sinks might lose their ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere. In November, a European consortium of 65 research centers concluded that to avoid overshooting 2 °C, emissions would have to reach almost zero by 2100, and we might need to start pulling carbon out of the atmosphere by 2050.”
23. Andrei Sokolov et al (2009) – Probabilistic forecast for 21st century climate based on uncertainties in emissions (without policy) and climate parameters – Journal of Climate 22:5175-5204 doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1 – Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf  – 15 autors
    “The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model’s first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1 °C compared to 2.4 °C in the earlier study.”
24. Gaia Vince (2009) – How to survive the coming century – New Scientist 2697  – http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html
    “A 4 ºC could easily occur. The 2007 report of the International Panel of Climate change, whose conclusions are generally accepted as conservative, predicted a rise of anywhere between 2 ºC and 6.4 ºC this century. And, in August 2008, Bob Watson, former chair of the IPCC, warned the world should work on mitigation and adaptation strategies to ‘prepare for a 4 ºC of warming’. A key factor in how well we deal in a warmer world is how much time we have to adapt. According to models, we could cook the planet by 4ºC by 2100. Some scientists fear that we may get there as soon as 2050. If this happens, the ramifications for life on Earth are so terrifying that some scientists contacted for this article preferred not to contemplate them.”
25. James Hansen (2009) – Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity – Bloomsbury New York – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute – http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/
    “After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
26. James Hansen et al (2011) – The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future – Columbia University – 04/05/2011 – Columbia University Earth Institute, New York – http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeople.pdf  – 15 autors
    ”In contrast to scenarios with continued BAU emissions, Figure 6 (a) shows the scenario with 6% per year decrease of fossil fuel CO2 emissions and 100 GtC reforestation in the period 2031-2080. This scenario yields additional global warming of ~0.3°C. Global temperature relative to the 1880-1920 mean would barely exceed 1°C and would remain above 1°C for only about 3 decades. Thus this scenario provides the prospect that young people, future generations, and other life on the planet would have a chance of residing in a world similar to the one in which civilization developed.”
27. Susan Solomon et al (2009) – Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS 106:10933-10938 doi:10.1073/pnas.0812721106 – Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html– 4 autors
    “The climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1.000 years after emissions stop.”
28. M. Eby et al (2009) – Lifetime of Anthropogenic Climate Change: Millennial Time Scales of Potential CO2 and Surface Temperature Perturbations – Journal of Climate 22: 2501-2511 doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2554.1 – School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria – http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/eby.2009.long_tail.pdf– 6 autors
    “Regardless of the future emissions trajectory, changes to the earth’s climate will likely persist for several thousands of years. The logarithmic relationship between CO2 and its radiative forcing implies that the time scale at which atmospheric temperature declines will be longer than the time scale of CO2. For ecosystems having already adapted to a warmer world, slow cooling may be beneficial. Nevertheless, it is sobering to ponder the notion that the carbon we emit over a handful of human lifetimes may significantly affect the earth’s climate over tens of thousands of years.”
29. Katherine Richardson et al (2009) – Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions – International Scientific Congress Climate Change – Australian National University, ETH Zürich, National University of Singapore, Peking University, University of California – Berkeley, University of Cambridge, University of Copenhagen, University of Oxford, The University of Tokyo, Yale University – http://www.climatecongress.ku.dk– 12 autors
    “To limit the extent of the overshoot, emissions should peak in the near future. Recent studies (refs) suggest that if peak greenhouse gas emissions are not reached until after 2020, the emission reduction rates required thereafter to retain a reasonable chance of remaining within the 2°C guardrail will have to exceed 5% per annum. This is a daunting challenge when compared to a long-term average annual increase of 2% in emissions (Box 2). The conclusion from both the IPCC and later analyses (ref) is simple – immediate and dramatic emission reductions of all greenhouse gases are needed if the 2ºC guardrail is to be respected.”
30. H. D. Matthews and Ken Caldeira (2008) – Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions – Geophysical Research Abstracts 10 EGU2008-A-08242 ID:1607-7962/gra/EGU2008-A-08242 – Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University; Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford – http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Geo-politics/Matthews_Caldeira%20zero%20carbon.pdf–
    “To hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions … future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures … any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales”.
31. Susan Solomon et al (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 [Susan Solomon et al (eds.)] – Cambridge University Press – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
    “…only in the case of essentially complete elimination of emissions can the atmospheric concentration of CO2 ultimately be stabilised at a constant level. All other cases of moderate CO2 emission reductions show increasing concentrations because of the characteristic exchange processes associated with the cycling of carbon in the climate system….”
32. Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1971) – The Entropy Law and the Economic Process – Harvard University Press
33. J. Kraft and A. Kraft (1978) – On the relationship between energy and GNP – Journal of Energy and Development 3:401-403
    “Using a Sims causality test, the authors find a unidirectional causality from GNP to energy use in the United States from 1947 to 1974.”
34. Gail E. Tverberg (2012) – Oil supply limits and the continuing financial crisis – Energy 37:27–34 doi:10.1016/j.energy.2011.05.049 – The Oil Drum
    “Since 2005, (1) world oil supply has not increased, and (2) the world has undergone its most severe economic crisis since the Depression. In this paper, logical arguments and direct evidence are presented suggesting that a reduction in oil supply can be expected to reduce the ability of economies to use debt for leverage. The expected impact of reduced oil supply combined with this reduced leverage is similar to the actual impact of the 2008–2009 recession in OECD countries. If world oil supply should continue to remain generally flat, there appears to be a significant possibility that oil consumption in OECD countries will continue to decline, as emerging markets consume a greater share of the total oil that is available. If this should happen, based on these findings we can expect a continuing financial crisis similar to the 2008–2009 recession including significant debt defaults. The financial crisis may eventually worsen, to resemble a collapse situation as described by Joseph Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies (1990) or an adverse decline situation similar to adverse scenarios foreseen by Donella Meadows in Limits to Growth (1972).”
35. Carlos de Castro et al (2011) – Global wind power potential: Physical and technological limits – Energy Policy 39:6677-6682 doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.027 – Applied Physics, Campus Miguel Delibes, University of Valladolid – 4 autors
    “The results give roughly 1 TW for the top limit of the future electrical potential of wind energy. This value is much lower than previous estimates and even lower than economic and realizable potentials published for the mid-century.”
36. Carlos de Castro et al (2012) – Global solar electric power potential: technical and ecological limits – Energy Policy – Applied Physics, Campus Miguel Delibes, University of Valladolid – http://www.eis.uva.es/energiasostenible/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/solar-energy-draft.pdf– 4 autors
    “Although some uncertainties can not be avoid, our estimations for the global potential of solar electrical power are 1,75-4,5 TWe, which implies a hard techno-ecological of solar power potential, much lesser than other assessments.  ”
37. Antonio García-Olivares et al (2011) – A global renewable mix with proven technologies and common materials – Energy Policy doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.018 – Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas – http://www.imedea.uib-csic.es/master/cambioglobal/Modulo_1_03/Ballabrera_Diciembre_2011/Articulos/Garcia-Olivares.2011.pdf – 4 autors
    “Material requirements are studied for the generation, power transport and for some future transport systems. The order of magnitude of copper, aluminium, neodymium, lithium, nickel, zinc and platinum that may be required for the proposed solution is obtained and compared with available reserves. Overall, the proposed global alternative to fossil fuels seems technically feasible. However, lithium, nickel and platinum could become limiting materials for future vehicles fleet if no global recycling systems were implemented and rechargeable zinc–air batteries would not be developed; 60% of the current copper reserves would have to be employed in the implementation of the proposed solution. Altogether, they may become a long-term physical constraint, preventing the continuation of the usual exponential growth of energy consumption.”
38. Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (2011) – Effective Climate-Energy Solutions, Escape Routes and Peak Oil – Draft – ICREA, Barcelona + Institute for Environmental Science and Technology & Department of Economics and Economic History, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona – http://icta.uab.cat/99_recursos/1331896721815.pdf
    “Many well-intended climate-energy strategies are ineffective in the absence of serious  environmental regulation. This holds, among others, for direct support of clean energy,  voluntary energy conservation, technical standards on a limited set of products, unilateral  stringent carbon pricing, and awaiting peak oil as a climate strategy. All of these suffer from  “escape routes” that indirectly increase CO2 emissions and thus make the original strategy  ineffective. On the other hand, environmental regulation alone may lead to a myopia-bias,  stimulating early dominance of cost-effective technologies and a focus on incremental  innovations associated with such technologies rather than on radical innovations. Although  adopting a partial viewpoint keeps the analysis  simple, we urgently need a more inclusive  systems perspective on climate solutions. This will allow the formulation of an effective climate  policy package that addresses the various escape routes.”
39. Garrett Hardin (1968) – The Tragedy of the Commons – Science 162:1243-1248 doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243 – Professor Emeritus of Human Ecology in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of California, Santa Barbara – http://www.cs.wright.edu/~swang/cs409/Hardin.pdf
    “Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”
40. Stephen M. Gardiner (2006) – A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate Change, Intergenerational Ethics and the Problem of Moral Corruption – Environmental Values 15:397-413 – Department of Philosophy and Program on Values in Society, University of Washington – http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Environmental_Philosophy_Sp_09/Gardner_Perfect_Moral_Storm.pdf
    “Corruption of the kind I have in mind can be facilitated in a number of ways. Consider the following examples of possible strategies: Distraction; Complacency; Unreasonable Doubt; Selective Attention; Delusion; Pandering; False Witness; Hypocrisy”
41. Stephen M. Gardiner (2010) – Ethics and climate change: an introduction – WIRES Climate Change doi:10.1002/wcc.26 – Department of Philosophy and Program on Values in Society, University of Washington
    “If the decision to pursue geoengineering is made in the context of serious inertia on mitigation and adaptation for climate change, and a more general indifference to global environmental problems, the claim is that this reflects badly on the particular societies and generations who make that decision and perhaps on humanity as such. On one way of looking at things, having created a problem, we are obstinately refusing to face it in a serious way, but instead doing whatever we can to defer action, impose the burden on others, and obfuscate matters by arguing that we must hold out for a less demanding solution (however unrealistic that may be). What kind of people would do such a thing?”
42. Stephan Lewandowsky et al (2012) – NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science – Psychological Science – University of Western Australia – http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf– 3 autors
    “Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world’s climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific c evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and in uential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ‘ :80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to” the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.”
43. Antonio R. Damasio (1994) – Descartes’ Error and the Future of Human Life – Scientific American – http://www.biu.ac.il/hu/ef/home/rp2/Descartes.doc
    “This view strikes a sympathetic chord, because my research has persuaded me that emotion is integral to the process of reasoning. I even suspect that humanity is not suffering from a defect in logical competence but rather from a defect in the emotions that inform the deployment of logic … Emotion may well be the support system without which the edifice of reason cannot function properly and may even collapse … It is not likely that reason begins with thought and language, in a rarefied cognitive domain, but rather that it originates from the biological regulation of a living organism being on surviving.”
44. Chris Hedges (2006) – American Fascists. The Christian Right and the War on America – Free Press New York – ISBN-13: 978-0743284431 – 272 págs.
    “While a majority of Christian Americans embrace a literal interpretation of the Bible, only a tiny minority – among them Christian dominionists – are comfortable with this darker vision of an intolerant, theocratic America- Unofrtunately, it is this minority that is taking over the machinery of U.S. state and religious institutions.»
45. 45.   Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap (2000) – Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movement’s Counter-Claims – Social Problems 47:499-522 – Department of Sociology, Washington State University – http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/McCright_Challenging%20Global%20Warming.pdf
    “It will be shown that core organizations in the conservative movement mobilized in recent years as a countermovement opposing the efforts of the environmental movement and its allies to establish the seriousness of global environmental problems.”
46. 46.   Peter J. Jacques (2006) – The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle of Citizenship – Environmental Politics 6:76-101 doi:10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.7 – Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida; Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University
    “The contrarian knowledge claims made by skeptics are of secondary importance … the struggle over the state of the planet is a struggle over society’s dominant core social values that institutionalize obligation and power. This contest has been overshadowed if not wholly unrealized because academics have been overly concerned with the contrarian claims themselves, leaving the meaning of skepticism relatively underdetermined and under-analyzed.”
47. Dan Kahan (2010) – Fixing the communications failure – Nature 463:296-297 doi:10.1038/463296a – Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of law at Yale Law School
    “People find it disconcerting to believe that behaviour that they find noble is nevertheless detrimental to society, and behaviour that they find base is beneficial to it. Because accepting such a claim could drive a wedge between them and their peers, they have a strong emotional predisposition to reject it.”
48. Steven Luke (2005) – Power: A radical view, 2nd edition – Macmillan
    “The “third dimension of power”: is it not the supreme and most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchangeable (p. 24).”
49. Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap (2010) – Anti-reflexivity: The American Conservative Movement’s Success in Undermining Climate Science and Policy – Theory Culture Society 27:100-133 doi:10.1177/0263276409356001 – Assistant Professor of Sociology in Lyman Briggs College and the Department of Sociology at Michigan State University; Regents Professor in the Department of Sociology at Oklahoma State University + Past president of the International Sociological Association’s Research Committee on Environment and Society – http://history.ucsd.edu/_files/base-folder1/Anti-reflexivity%20-%20The%20American%20Conservative%20Movement%20Success%20in%20Undermining%20Climate%20Science%20and%20Policy.pdf
    “The American conservative movement has employed four nondecision- making techniques associated with the second dimension of power to make climate change a non-issue and prevent significant progress on climate policy-making. This countermovement has (1) obfuscated, misrepresented, manipulated and suppressed the results of scientific research; (2) intimidated or threatened to sanction individual scientists; (3) invoked existing rules or created new procedures in the political system; and (4) invoked an existing bias of the media.”
50. Antonio Gramsci (1971) – Selections from the Prison Notebooks – International Publishers New York
    “… the relationship between the intellectuals and the world of production is not as direct as it is with the fundamental social groups but is, in varying degrees, ‘mediated’ by the whole fabric of society.”
51. 51.   Edward L. Bernays (1926, 1955) – Propaganda – Horace LiveRight New York 1926
    “Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons … who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
52. Charles N. Herrick and Dale Jamieson (2001) – Junk Science and Environmental Policy: Obscuring Public Debate with Misleading Discourse – Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly 21:11-16 – Stratus Consulting Inc.; Henry R. Luce Professor in Human Dimensions of Global Change, Carleton College, Northfield – http://as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1192/JunkScienceEnvironmentalPolicy.pdf
    “Environmental and Health Issues Characterized as Junk Science in OpEds and News Stories: Global Warming, Electro-magnetic flux from power lines, Pesticide use in schools, Silicon breast implants, Air bag safety, Air pollution in National Parks, Gender and clinical trials for new drugs, Mortality and health risks from air pollution, Sea level rise due to climatic change, Endangered species, Dursban pesticides, Trans fats and coronary disease, Exposure thresholds and effects of radiation, Genetically modified corn, Mad cow disease, Oxygenated fuel and air pollution control, Dioxin clean-up at Times Beach, Missouri, Pollution control for SUVs, Ergonomic standards, Tobacco addiction, Second-hand tobacco smoke, Sodium and high blood pressure, Endocrine disruptors and human reproductive effects, Fen-phen and heart damage, Evaluation of affirmative action programs, Nitrogen oxide emissions in the Eastern United States Wildlife management in National Parks”
53. Vicenç Navarro – ¿Cuál sería la política económica de la Catalunya independiente? – Vicenç Navarro, 08/10/2012 – http://www.vnavarro.org/?p=7917
    “Según Sala i Martín, esta medida que intentaba proteger a la ciudadanía consiguió lo contrario, pues –según él- conllevó que la mortalidad en los accidentes aumentara en lugar de disminuir, debido a que la gente se creía más segura llevando el cinturón y conducía más confiada e irresponsablemente. Tengo que admitir que incluso yo, que he leído escritos de Sala i Martín y sé de sus exageraciones (en una ocasión indicó que el gobierno más parecido al tripartito catalán era el gobierno de Corea del Norte -tengo la evidencia para mostrar tal exageración- y escaso rigor en sus presentaciones -ver mi artículo “La manipulación neoliberal de la imagen de España”, Fundación Sistema, 08.10.10-) me sorprendió que llegara a este nivel de falsedad.”
54. William R. L. Anderegg et al (2010) – Expert credibility in climate change – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107 – Department of Biology, Stanford University – http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html– 4 autors
    “A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreementamong top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
55. Naomi Oreskes (2004) – The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change – Science 306:1686 doi:10.1126/science.1103618  Professor of History Science Studies Program University of California, San Diego
    «The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point. «
56. James Lawrence Powell – The State of Climate Science – Science Progress, 15/11/2012 – National Physical Science Consortium – http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/
    “By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17. Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.”
57. P.H. Gleick et al (2010) – Climate Change and the Integrity of Science – Science 328:689-690 doi:10.1126/science.328.5979.689 – U.S. National Academy of Sciences – http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf – 255 authors
    “For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.”
58. Myles R. Allen and David J. Frame (2007) – Call Off the Quest – Science 318:582-583 doi:10.1126/science.1149988 – Department of Physics, University of Oxford; Oxford University Centre for the Environment
    “The lower bound of 2°C is slightly higher than the 1.6°C proposed in the 1970s (2); progress on the upper bound has been minimal. On page 629 of this issue, Roe and Baker (3) explain why. The fundamental problem is that the properties of the climate system that we can observe now do not distinguish between a climate sensitivity, S, of 4°C and S > 6°C. In a sense, this should be obvious: Once the world has warmed by 4°C, conditions will be so different from anything we can observe today (and still more different from the last ice age) that it is inherently hard to say when the warming will stop. Roe and Baker formalize the problem by showing how a symmetric constraint on the strength of the feedback parameter f (which determines how much energy is radiated to space per degree of surface warming) gives a strongly asymmetric constraint on S. The reason is simple: As f approaches 1, S approaches infinity. Roe and Baker illustrate the point with the information provided by recent analyses of observed climate change, atmospheric feedbacks, and «perturbed physics» experiments in which uncertain parameters are varied in climate models.”
59. Detlef P. van Vuuren et al (2009) – How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change? – Climatic Change 104:255-285 doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9764-2 – Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency – http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~plattner/papers/vanvuuren09cc_online_first.pdf – 9 autors
    “Thermal response: … Figure 3 clearly shows a bias of the IAMs towards the lower end of the likely AR4 range; only PAGE samples this range by default. The implication of most IAMs not sampling the upper part of the IPCC AR4 range of likely climate sensitivities is that in the long-term the larger damages associated with these higher temperature ranges are not being simulated.”
60. William R. Freudenburg et al (2008) – Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt – Sociological Inquiry 78:2-38 doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x – University of California, Santa Barbara; University of Louisiana-Lafayette; University of Alberta – 3 autors
    “Proponents of so-called “sound science”—those who argue for a singleminded focus on Type I errors while ignoring Type II errors—might well claim, with at least a germ of legitimacy, that even though 80 percent of the workers at the Bayway facility suffered severe symptoms of lead poisoning, that fact alone could not be taken as “proving,” with a 95 percent level of confidence, that the substances being handled at that facility were hazardous … To the extent to which a SCAM is successful, however, the question of proving the safety of the chemical or technology is one that simply never comes up.”
61. P.H. Gleick et al (2010) – Climate Change and the Integrity of Science – Science 328:689-690 doi:10.1126/science.328.5979.689 – U.S. National Academy of Sciences – http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf– 255 autors
    “For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.”
62. David H. Guston (2001) – Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science. An Introduction – Science Technology & Human Values 26:399-408 – Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey – http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~breth/PCC/guston_2001_BoundaryOrg.pdf
    “Science is not devoid of values prior to some politicization, nor politics of rationality, prior to any scientification. Rather, both should be understood to mean the rendering of norms and practices in one enterprise in a way that unreflexively mimics norms and practices in the other. These concerns have been central to the so called science wars.”
63. Patrick Basham y John Luik – Politización de la ciencia – Libertad Digital, 09/07/2007 – Democracy Institute (Washington). – http://www.libertaddigital.com/opinion/patrick-basham-y-john-luik/politizacion-de-la-ciencia-38365/
    “Lamentablemente, el IPCC ha fomentado que se dé la espalda a las investigaciones científicas, logrando así politizar la ciencia.”
64. James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato (2011) – Earth’s Climate History: Implications for Tomorrow – GISS NASA, 01/07/2011 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute – http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/PaleoImplications.pdf
    «The past is the key to the future. Contrary to popular belief, climate models are not the principal basis for assessing human-made climate effects. Our most precise knowledge comes from Earth’s paleoclimate, its ancient climate, and how it responded to past changes of climate forcings, including atmospheric composition. Our second essential source of information is provided by global observations today, especially satellite observations, which reveal how the climate system is responding to rapid human-made changes of atmospheric composition, especially atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Models help us interpret past and present climate changes, and, in so far as they succeed in simulating past changes, they provide a tool to help evaluate the impacts of alternative policies that affect climate.»
65. Alan Sokal (2008) – Más allá de las imposturas intelectuales. Ciencia, filosofía y cultura – Ediciones Paidós Ibérica Barcelona – ISBN: 978-84-493-2314-0 – 576 págs.
    “Bruno Latour, que dedicó varias décadas a insistir en ‘la construcción social de los hechos científicos’ lamenta ahora la munición que teme haber dado él y sus colegas a la derecha republicana, ayudándole a negar o enturbiar el consenso científico sobre el calentamiento planetario, la evolución biológica y multitud de otras cuestiones.”
66. 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
    “The Ethics and Public Policy Center has funded and distributed an entire journal called The New Atlantis 4dedicated to the philosophy and sociology of science, primarily to counter the general popularity of ‘science studies’ within the academy. Nowhere are the responsible parties indicated; and the journal has been circulated for free among many in the history and philosophy of science community. For a journal dedicated to the discussion of “the effects of technology on human life”, it is unerringly filled with neoliberal proscriptions for the kinds of natural science promoted within the think tank community.”
67. CBC News – CBC global warming «swindle» – CBC News, 27/04/2007 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf4NKmJvKUM&feature=related  –
    “Timothy Ball, un climatólogo canadiense jubilado y conocido por su ubicuidad allí donde haya que negar la evidencia científica sostiene impertérrito que el documental de Al Gore ‘Una verdad incómoda’ es un puro trabajo de agencias de comunicación, ‘spin’ y relaciones públicas. Pura ‘propaganda’, señala. Por lo demás, esta noticia es un ejemplo perfecto de cómo no debe informarse en cambio climático, dando el mismo peso a las ‘dos partes’ y apelando a la existencia de un supuesto ‘debate’ científico.”
68. Joseph Romm – Fox News Compares James Hansen’s Prizes for Truth Telling to Big Tobacco Paying a Doctor to Deny the Risks of Smoking – Climate Progress, 28/06/2011 – http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/28/253240/fox-news-james-hansen/
    «It’s also no surprise that the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the subject of lawsuits and smears by the fossil-fuel-funded anti-science deniers who want unrestricted pollution, whose efforts, if successful, would doom billions to a ruined climate. The latest effort is this lawsuit by Christopher Horner (of the American Tradition Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute), which is debunked here (and below).  This smearing of scientists is what Horner does for a living (see Inhofe, Horner, McIntyre and Watts fabricate another phony “despicable smear” against Michael Mann).»
69. Jess Zimmerman – How the Heartland Institute plans to wreck education – Grist, 15/02/2012 – http://grist.org/list/how-the-heartland-institute-plans-to-wreck-education/
    “The think tank has set aside $100,000 a year to develop a “global warming curriculum” that would teach schoolkids to discard established science. As early as the sixth grade, kids would be told that CO2 might not be a big deal, that climate models are unreliable, that human-made climate change is a “major scientific controversy,” and that so-called “evidence” of evolution may well be the work of an Intelligent Designer.“
70. Andrew C. Revkin – Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming – The New York Times, 08/06/2005 – http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html
    “In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports … The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase «significant and fundamental» before the word «uncertainties,» tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust. Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.”
71. Political Interference with Climate Change Science under the Bush Administration – United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – December 2007 – http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/political-interference.pdf
    “The Committee’s 16-month investigation reveals a systematic White House effort to censor climate scientists by controlling their access to the press and editing testimony to Congress”
72. Clive Hamilton – Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial – Australian Bradcasting Corporation – http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/abc_denialism_series_complete.pdf
    “Australia’s most distinguished climate scientists have become the target of a new form of cyber-bullying aimed at driving them out of the public debate. In recent months, each time they enter the public debate through a newspaper article or radio interview these scientists are immediately subjected to a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails. Apart from the volume and viciousness of the emails, the campaign has two features – it is mostly anonymous and it appears to be orchestrated. The messages are typically peppered with insults. One scientist was called a «Loudmouth, arrogant, conceited, ignorant wanker». The emails frequently accuse the scientists of being frauds who manipulate their research in order to receive funding, such as this one to Ben McNeil at the UNSW: «It’s so obvious you are an activist going along with the climate change lie to protect your very lucrative employment contract.»”
73. Union of Concerned Scientists – Obama Administration a Year Behind on Scientific Integrity Plan – Union of Concerned Scientists – March 2010 – http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/obama-administration-scientific-integrity-plan-0357.html
    “A report  released last week by George Washington University found that scientists face difficulties in disseminating their work, are not always able to speak freely with the public and press, and are blocked from sharing data with colleagues at other agencies. The report documents that federal scientists have seen little systemic change since the Obama administration took office. UCS, working with government scientists and other policy experts, developed a comprehensive set of scientific integrity reforms, outlined in the 2008 report «Federal Science and the Public Good» and summarized in comments submitted to OSTP last May. “
74. Mario Cuéllar (2009) – Propaganda de guerra y cambio climático. Técnicas informativas del negacionismo climático – Globalízate.org – http://www.globalizate.org/pgccmc180109.pdf
    “Sus armas son, como se ha citado, buscar un nombre y cargar contra él, ya sea científico o político mediante ataques personales o cuestionando sus resultados científicos mediante la manipulación de datos o aludiendo a otros científicos que tras una sencilla búsqueda de información se descubre que no son tales o que sus resultados son falsos.”
75. Manuel Ansede – Telemadrid impide informar sobre el calentamiento global – Público, 01/06/2009 – http://www.publico.es/culturas/229263/telemadrid/impide/informar/calentamiento/global
    “La noticia no se cubre porque, como la presidenta de la Comunidad de Madrid ha dicho que son boberías, para los informativos de Telemadrid el cambio climático no existe», certifica la presidenta del comité de empresa, Teresa García … Telemadrid «oculta sistemáticamente estudios publicados en Nature o Science que describen las repercusiones del cambio climático». En su lugar, la cadena invita regularmente a sus tertulias a Jorge Alcalde, autor de Las mentiras del cambio climático, y al presidente del Instituto Juan de Mariana, Gabriel Calzada, reconocido negacionista. El director de informativos de Telemadrid no quiso responder la semana pasada a las llamadas de este periódico para defenderse de estas acusaciones de censura.”
76. Brian Angliss (2007) – We Berate, You Deride – A look at Steven J. Milloy’s current affiliates and backers – Scholars and Rogues, 28/11/2007 – http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11/28/we-berate-you-deride-a-look-at-steven-j-milloys-current-affiliates-and-backers/
    “When I started looking into DemandDebate.com’s financial sponsors, I was unable to determine who they really are. There’s no board of directors, no staff listed, not even a phone number and address. Not even a “WhoIs” query finds DemandDebate.com’s patrons because Mr. Milloy anonymized his registration. Initially, I didn’t even realize that Mr. Milloy was associated with DemandDebate.com. It’s only when you look at the site’s publications (like the discredited IPCC survey) that you discover that Steven J. Milloy is the executive director of DemandDebate.com. However, in the process of hunting for, and failing to discover, who exactly is funding DemandDebate.com, I did discover an amazing web of patronage that weaves back and forth through Mr. Milloy’s past and present in fascinating ways.”
77. Clive Hamilton (2010) – Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial – Australian Bradcasting Corporation – Australian National University  – http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/abc_denialism_series_complete.pdf
    “Australia’s most distinguished climate scientists have become the target of a new form of cyber-bullying aimed at driving them out of the public debate. In recent months, each time they enter the public debate through a newspaper article or radio interview these scientists are immediately subjected to a torrent of aggressive, abusive and, at times, threatening emails. Apart from the volume and viciousness of the emails, the campaign has two features – it is mostly anonymous and it appears to be orchestrated. The messages are typically peppered with insults. One scientist was called a «Loudmouth, arrogant, conceited, ignorant wanker». The emails frequently accuse the scientists of being frauds who manipulate their research in order to receive funding, such as this one to Ben McNeil at the UNSW: ‘It’s so obvious you are an activist going along with the climate change lie to protect your very lucrative employment contract.’.”
78. David A. Kaplan – Climate science under attack – Fortune, 08/10/2010 –  – http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/06/news/economy/michael_mann_climate.fortune/index.htm
    “Mann says the AG’s investigation represents a «witch hunt» that is the predictable culmination of efforts by «vested interests» to attack not only science but scientists. He says the threat to the academy isn’t theoretical and knows of graduate students who’ve decided to steer clear of research in global studies for fear of controversy. Others in climatology never list their home addresses and have bodyguards at public-speaking events. Mann himself says he’s had to contact law enforcement over harassing e-mail and snail mail; read one: «I was hoping I would see the news that you’d committed suicide. Do it, freak.» There’s no excuse for that kind of implicit threat. It’s hard to forget that the acts of the Unabomber maimed professors. And McCarthyism proved that mere words could jeopardize academic freedom. But it’s wise to remember that demonizing scientists is nothing new. Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species 151 years ago. Six decades later the Scopes trial was a national spectacle, and evolution remains a target for opportunists who can’t distinguish between religion and fact. Even so, most of us are wise enough to recognize that creationism isn’t a danger to science.”
79. Rosslyn Beeby – Climate of fear: scientists face death threats – Canberra Times , 04/06/2011 – http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-of-fear-scientists-face-death-threats/2185089.aspx
    “Australia’s leading climate change scientists are being targeted by a vicious, unrelenting email campaign that has resulted in police investigations of death threats. The Australian National University has confirmed it moved several high-profile climate scientists, economists and policy researchers into more secure buildings, following explicit threats to their personal safety.”
80. Jesús Rosino (2012)- El acoso negacionista a los científicos – Cambio climático, 28/03/2012 – http://aziroet.com/cambioclimatico/2012/03/28/el-acoso-negacionista-a-los-cientificos/
    “Los científicos del clima no se dejan intimidar por los implacables negacionistas del cambio climático.”
81. Jim Efstathiou Jr. – Climate-Change Scientist Cleared in Closing of U.S. Data-Altering Inquiry – Bloomberg, 23/08/2011 – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html
    “Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania researcher who’s been a target of climate-change skeptics, was cleared of wrongdoing by U.S. investigators in the flap surrounding e-mails hacked from a U.K. university. Finding no “evidence of research misconduct,” the Arlington, Virginia-based National Science Foundation closed its inquiry into Mann, according to an Aug. 15 report from the inspector general for the U.S. agency. Pennsylvania State University, where Mann is a professor of meteorology, exonerated him in February of suppressing or falsifying data, deleting e- mails and misusing privileged information. The report confirms findings from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s inspector general and a separate panel of seven scientists based at universities in the U.K., U.S. and Switzerland. The University of East Anglia announced the committee. Ron Oxburgh, the former head of Shell Transport & Trading Plc and a member of the U.K. House of Lords, was chairman.”
82. Marc Bowen (2008) – Censoring Science. Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming – Dutton, Penguin Group
    “On the 20th of January, as it began to appear that Yime magazine would let the story flip, Jim gave roughly the same information to an old contact, Andrew Revkin, the lead global warming correspondent for The New York Times. On the 24th, Larry Travis was hit and severely injured by a truck as he walked across Broadway on his way to work, Jim’s (Hansen) car was also broken into around that time, and the house in New Jersey in which he and Annie had raised their children burned to the ground. Darnell Cain, Jim’s assistant admits to being ‘sufficiently lazy and negligent to not update the NASA public records with Jim’s new address when he moved to Pennsylvania’”
83. Sharon Beder (1997, 2002) – Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism – Green Books – School of Social Sciences, Media and Communication,University of Wollongong – http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q3/beder.html
    “The strategies and tactics used by corporations discussed in the book include: establishing front groups, astroturf or artificially created grassroots support for corporate views, the promotion of the Wise Use Movement, Strategic Lawsuits Against Participation (SLAPPs), funding of conservative think tanks, promotion of free market environmentalism, corporate classroom materials, public relations, greenwashing, media, advertising, corporate sponsored confusion .“
84. 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. – Pág. 115
85. Andrew Austin (2002) – Advancing Accumulation And Managing Its Discontents: The U.S. Antienvironmental Countermovement – Sociological Spectrum 22:71-105 – Department of Social Change and Development, University of Wisconsin
    “Based on his investigations, Gramsci contends that the printed word is quantitatively the biggest and most dynamic part of the ideological front … A primary site for antienvironmental literature is the think tank (Lind 1997; J. Smith 1991).2 Intellectuals working in right wing think tanks constitute a vanguard of organic intellectuals. They perform two basic functions: 1) They produce knowledge designed to raise and align the political consciousness of the capitalist class, and 2) they coordinate pro-corporate discourse for private and public sector elites by providing scripts crafted to obscure the class character of accumulation and deceive the majority into supporting policies contrary to its interests (Stefancic and Delgado 1996).”
86. Andrew Austin and Laurel Phoenix (2005) – The neoconservative assault on the Earth: The environmental imperialism of the Bush administration – Capitalism Nature Socialism 16:25-44 doi:10.1080/10455750500108278 – Department of Social Change and Development, University of Wisconsin
    “Meyer and Staggenborg have observed that countermovements arise amid three circumstances: a successful social movement, real or perceived danger to group interest, and political confederates fomenting ‘oppositional mobilization.’ The anti-environmental countermovement emerged at the juncture of such circumstances: First, anti-environmental politics are a response to the success of the environmental movement. Second, the interests environmentalism jeopardizes are capitalist interests. Third, the Republican Party is the principal channel through which anti-environmentalism flows. With the emergence of Republican Party hegemony, anti-environmentalism has grown and under Bush has entered the institutional phase of its development.”
87. Union of Concerned Scientists (2007) – Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air. How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science – Union of Concerned Scientists – 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. (ExxonMobil corporate reports, 1998-2005)”
88. Sally Covington (2005) – Moving Public Policy to the Right: The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations 89-115 en Faber, Daniel R., Deborah McCarthy (eds.) – En: Faber Daniel R. Deborah McCarthy (eds.) – Foundations for Social Change Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield – http://archive.commonwealinstitute.org/ncrp.covington.1.htm
    “Richard Fink, president of the Charles G. Koch and Claude R. Lambe charitable foundations … argued that the translation of ideas into action requires the development of intellectual raw materials, their conversion into specific policy products, and the marketing and distribution of these products to citizen-consumers. Grant makers, Fink argued, would do well to invest in change along the entire production continuum, funding scholars and university programs where the intellectual framework for social transformation is developed, think tanks where scholarly ideas get translated into specific policy proposals, and implementation groups to bring these proposals into the political marketplace and eventually to consumers.”
89. Steven J. Milloy: The “Junkman” exposed – Americans for Nonsmoker’s Rights – Americans for Nonsmoker’s Rights, 01/02/2006  – http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=482
    “In 1999, Milloy became an “adjunct scholar” with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, DC that received at least $100,000 from PM and $50,000 from R.J. Reynolds in 1995.29 Cato’s board of directors includes Rupert Murdoch, who also sits on PM’s board.30 The Cato Institute has published three books by Milloy—Science Without Sense; Silencing Science; and Junk Science Judo: Self Defense Against Health Scares and Scams.”
90. Curtis A. Moore (2008) – Taking Control by Implementing the Manifiesto  – Saving Ourselves – Basel Action Network – Former counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works from 1978 to 1989 – http://www.saving-ourselves.com/pdf/Taking-Control.pdf
    “The Business Roundtable (www.businessroundtable.org), an association of chief executive officers of more than 140 of the nation’s Fortune 500 companies, was founded in 1972. With a 2006 budget of $23 million, 24 and members whose companies had $4.5 trillion in annual revenues and more than 10 million employees, it was founded “in the belief that the business sector should play an active and effective role in the formation of public policy.”
91. John Mashey – Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax – Desmogblog, 14/02/2012 – http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake.pdf
    “Philanthropy Roundtable Board:324 (@: past affiliations) Michael Grebe Chairman; President /CEO of L&H Bradley Fnd James Pierson Vice-Chairman; President of William E. Simon Fnd; Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow American Spectator Fnd Board; Hoover Instn Board Donors Trust Board, §I.3 John Tyler Secretary; VP/corp scty,Ewing Marion Kauffman Fn325 Don Weinberg Treas.; Chair/EVP of Harry&Jeanette Weinberg Fnd* Ana Thompson Fin Com. Chr;Exec Dir, Charles &Mary Schwab Fnd* Daniel S. Peters Board; President Lovett & Ruth Peters Foundation Jeff D. Sandefer Board; Acton School of Business. (energy investor) Staff includes:326 Adam Myerson President; was VP@ Heritage Foundation 1993-2001. @Wall Street Journal 1979-1983. Donors Capital Chairman of the Board” Shannon Toronto COO; @Ex. Dir Marriner S. Eccles Foundation (UT) Kari Barbic Assoc. Editor, Philanthropy; @ Weekly Standard. Michael Horn Membership Manager; @Charles G. Koch Fnd; @Koch intern at State Policy Network Jo Kwong Dir. Economic Opportunity Programs @Institute for Humane Studies, @Capital Research Center, @ATLAS Patrice Lee Project Mgr, Public Policy; @ C.G. Koch Associate Christopher Levenick Editor-in-Chief, Philanthropy; @ AEI Suzi Marchena Dir. Finance & HR; @Heritage Foundation Lindsay Miller Annual Meeting Director; @ALEC Anthony Penta Dep. Dir K-12 Education Pgms; @Acton in MI, @grad of C. G. Koch Associates Program. Evan Sparks Managing Editor, Philanthropy; @AEI. Amanda Telford Dir of Development; @Frontiers of Freedom. Rachel Verdejo Grant Writer; @ Grove City College B.A. 2008.”
92. edcutlip – Blackwater Founder and West Michigan Native Funds Right-wing through Foundation – Media Mouse, 27/09/2006 – http://www.mediamouse.org/news/2006/09/blackwater-foun.php
    “Blackwater USA founder and West Michigan native Erik Prince funds a variety of rightwing and religious causes according to a review of grants awarded by Prince’s Freiheit Foundation. Prince, who’s Blackwater has drawn considerable attention for its work in Iraq, post-Katrina New Orleans, and Colombia, also has strong ties to the economic and religious right both through the contributions of his Freiheit Foundation as well as his parents, Edgar and Elsa Prince, who are prominent supporters of the religious right both in West Michigan and on the national level. Additionally, Erik Prince’s sister is Betsy DeVos, who married into one of West Michigan’s most well-known rightwing families and has made been a career organizer for rightwing and Republican causes. While several reports on Prince have made some mention of his lineage and his political contributions, there has been no detailed examinations of his ‘philanthropy.’.”
93. Dieter Plehwe (2008) – Forging a neoliberal knowledge elite (perspective) and restricted pluralism: The history of the Mont Pèlerin Society networks of intellectuals and think tanks – The Social Science Research Council – Research Fellow, Social Science Research Center Berlin, Research Unit “Organization and Internationalization” – http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/images/crm/new_publication_3/%7Ba2d4e5f1-7d36-de11-afac-001cc477ec70%7D.pdf
    “Their transnational, transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transprofessional intellectual, research, media, policy advisory and organizing capacities are hitherto unmatched by competing forces despite the coming into existence of competing think tank(s) networks founded during the 1990s (e.g. Soros networks, the transform network of the European left) or older networks of Social Democracy and Trade Unions.”
94. Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (2009) – Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change – EOS Climate Change 90:22-23 – Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago
    “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.”
95. Aaron M. McCright and Riley E. Dunlap (2011) – The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming – The Sociological Quarterly 52:155–194 doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x – Lyman Briggs College, Department of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University – http://environment.arizona.edu/files/env/McCright%20and%20Dunlap%202011.pdf
    “We examine political polarization over climate change within the American public by analyzing data from 10 nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010.We find that liberals and Democrats are more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives and Republicans. Further, the effects of educational attainment and self-reported understanding on global warming beliefs and concern are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans. Last, significant ideological and partisan polarization has occurred on the issue of climate change over the past decade.”
96. Pablo Ángel Meira Cartea et al (2012) – La sociedad ante el cambio climático: conocimientos, valoraciones y comportamientos en la población española – IX seminario “Respuestas desde la comunicación y la educación al cambio climático”, Valsaín (Segovia) – 06/11/2012 – Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
97. Roser Solà et al (2008) – Percepció pública del canvi climàtic a Catalunya. Una aproximació quantitativa – En: Joan David Tàbara et al (2008) – Percepció pública i política del canvi climàtic a Catalunya – Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible de Catalunya (CADS) – Unitat d’investigació Sociotècnica. Departament de Projectes Estratègics. CIEMAT – http://www.iec.cat/canviclimatic/Activitats_GECCC/Documents_07/cads_catala_14.pdf – 3
    “Quan es concreta més i es pregunta als enquestats, de diferents problemàtiques ambientals, quin creuen que és el primer problema al qual ha de fer front el país, el canvi climàtic apareix en primer lloc amb un 24 % de respostes (figura 1.1). Així, tot i que el medi ambient, en general, no es considera el principal problema en l’actualitat, el canvi climàtic apareix com el problema ambiental fonamental, seguit de prop per la destrucció de la capa d’ozó i la contaminació de les aigües.”
98. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – ¿Hay cambio climático? – El Periódico de Catalunya, 08/01/1999 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/catala/articles/esp/clima/climaesp.pdf
    “No hay evidencia científica convincente que demuestre que la emisión de dióxido de carbono (CO2) o de otros gases cause el calentamiento catastrófico de la atmósfera y conlleve el cambio climático a la Tierra …El problema es que todas estas profecías están basadas en modelos teóricos cuya validez está por demostrar. Y esto es lo que los 17.000 científicos que firman el documento citado cuestionan … Lo más peligroso es que estas políticas pueden limitar severamente la capacidad de crecimiento de muchos países pobres. Y esto sí sería un grave problema para la humanidad. A diferencia del fenómeno del calentamiento de la Tierra, la existencia de pobreza en muchas zonas del mundo es un hecho contrastado y, por tanto, tenemos que ser prudentes y ayudar a los países pobres a convertirse en ricos, aunque esto conlleve la utilización de combustibles fósiles. No debemos limitarles las posibilidades de crecimiento basándonos en un supuesto cambio climático que mucha gente da por válido pero que no está, ni mucho menos, científicamente demostrado.”
99. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – Marketing Climático  – La Vanguardia, 17/08/2002 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Profesor Visitante, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/catala/articles/2002/canvi%20climatic/canvi%20climatic_LV.htm
    “A pesar de que no hay unanimidad entre los científicos, los defensores de la teoría del calentamiento global parecen haber convencido a la prensa y a la ciudadanía de que el problema está ahí.”
100. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – Cambio Climático (I): Una Verdad Incómoda – La Vanguardia, 10/02/2007 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Profesor Visitante, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/catala/articles/2007/canvi_climatic/canvi_climatic_1_gore.htm
     “Empecemos por la afirmación de que un 100% de los científicos están de acuerdo con sus postulados. Es verdad que hay casi unanimidad en que la tierra se ha calentado (menos de un grado, eso sí) durante el último siglo. Desafortunadamente para la credibilidad de Gore, la unanimidad se acaba aquí. Y si no, comparemos las afirmaciones de la película, no con algún informe de algún científico loco en la nómina de Exxon, sino con el documento que el Grupo Intergubernamental del Cambio Climático (IPCC) de la ONU hizo público la semana pasada, documento probablemente sesgado a favor de posiciones ecologistas pero que, incluso así, demuestra que la película está llena de exageraciones.”
101. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – Cambio Climático (II): Mezclar Ciencia y Política – La Vanguardia, 10/03/2007 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Profesor Visitante, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/catala/articles/2007/canvi_climatic/canvi_climatic_2_ciencia_y_politica.htm
     “En 2003, los canadienses McKitrick y McIntyre descubrieron errores fundamentales en el trabajo de Mann que, una vez corregidos, revelaban que las temperaturas durante siglo XIV habían sido más altas que las actuales. El siglo XX ya no era una anormalidad y la afirmación estrella del IPCC quedaba en entredicho.”
102. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – Cambio Climático (III): A la vuelta de la esquina – La Vanguardia, 17/03/2007 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Profesor Visitante, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20070317/51313643909/cc-3-a-la-vuelta-de-la-esquina.html
     “Ustedes se preguntarán: y todo esto ¿cómo lo saben? Los catastrofistas simplemente se lo inventan, por lo que deben ser ignorados. ¿Y los científicos? Pues la verdad honesta es que… tampoco lo saben; lo proyectan con complicados modelos matemáticos.“
103. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – Cambio Climático (IV): El Tipo de Interés – La Vanguardia, 10/04/2007 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Profesor Visitante, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/catala/articles/2007/canvi_climatic/canvi_climatic_4_El_Tipo_de_Interes.htm
     “Les explico esto porque el mismo principio debería guiar las decisiones sobre el cambio climático (CC) ya que, según los científicos serios, los costes de dicho cambio no se van a notar en décadas o quizá siglos.”
104. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – Cambio Climático (V): Entre Unos y Otros – La Vanguardia, 17/04/2007 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Profesor Visitante, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/catala/articles/2007/canvi_climatic/canvi_climatic_5_Entre_Unos_y_Otros.htm
     “La inversión más productiva relacionada con el medio ambiente es, sin lugar a dudas, el I+D. Dicen los expertos que hay tres áreas prometedoras en las que investigar. La primera es la de las energías alternativas … Al exagerar los catastrofistas la urgencia del problema, nuestros líderes estén abandonando la investigación en fusión nuclear porque creen que llegará demasiado tarde.”
105. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – Cambio Climático (y vi): No Es Nuestra Prioridad – La Vanguardia, 10/05/2007 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Profesor Visitante, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.elcato.org/cambio-climatico-no-es-nuestra-prioridad
     “La pregunta clave del debate del CC es, pues: si priorizáramos de manera racional, con información experta y sin las histerias generadas por películas de Hollywood, ¿qué problema de los muchos que tiene el mundo, deberíamos atacar primero?”
106. Xavier Sala-i-Martin – El premio Nobel de la Paz – La Vanguardia, 17/10/2007 – Catedrático de Columbia University + Profesor Visitante, Universitat Pompeu Fabra – http://www.lavanguardia.com/opinion/20071017/54058908878/el-premio-nobel-de-la-paz.html
     “Lo peor es que Al Gore comparte con Rigoberta Menchú su afición por fabricar historias. Y eso no lo digo yo, lo dice el otro ganador del mismo premio, el IPCC, cuyas aportaciones científicas demuestran que hasta nueve de las más dramáticas afirmaciones hechas por Gore en su documental son exageraciones que faltan a la verdad. “
107. Fundació Catalunya Oberta – Presidència i patronat – Visitado: 14/11/2012 –  – http://www.catalunyaoberta.cat/index.php/fco/patrons
     “Joan Guitart i Agell, Químic; Josep Maria Antràs, Advocat; Lluís Prenafeta, Empresari; Antoni Biarnés, Llicenciat en Ciències Polítiques; Enric Canals, Periodista; Daniel Clivillé, Economista; Enric Doménech, Empresari; Joan Oliver Fontanet, Periodista; Maria Àngels Orriols, Professora de Dret Administratiu; Lluís Oliva, Periodista; Valentí Popescu, Periodista; Marc Prenafeta, Advocat; Josep Maria Puig Planas, Empresari; Josep Puigbó, Periodista; Francesc Puigpelat, Periodista; Marcel Riera, Editor; Ferran Sáez Mateu, Doctor en filosofia; Xavier Sala-i-Martín, Economista; Josep Maria Sanclimens, Empresari; Vicent Sanchis, Periodista; Joan Antoni Solans, Arquitecte; Joan Uriach Marsal, Empresari; Joaquim Tosas Mir, Enginyer de Camins, Canals i Ports; Antoni Vila Casas, Empresari; Lluís Monset, Metge; Francesc X. Ventura, Arquitecte; Lluís Jou, Notari.”
108. Roger Jiménez – El canvi mediàtic – Fundació Catalunya Oberta, 22/07/2009 – http://www.catalunyaoberta.cat/index.php/continguts/view/opinio/762
     “Hi ha ben poques proves d’amenaces discernibles per a la supervivència del gènere humà en les lliçons que ens pot ensenyar l’ecologia … És penós! Més que de canvi climàtic hauríem de parlar de canvi mediàtic.”
109. The Stockholm Network – Think Tank Details. Spain – http://www.stockholm-network.org/details.php?id=18
     “Civismo (Pamplona), Fundación para el Análisis y los Estudios Sociales (FAES, Madrid), Instituto Juan de Mariana (Madrid), Fundació Catalunya Oberta (FCO, Barcelona), Institución Futuro (Navarra), y Poder Limitado (La Coruña).”
110. Richard S.Lindzen (2009) – Contra las iniciativas precipitadas – La Vanguardia Dossier 33 – Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
111. Dennis L. Hartmann and Marc L. Michelsen (2001) – No Evidence for Iris – Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society BAMS February 2002 249-254 – Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington in Seattle
     “It is unreasonable to interpret these changes as evidence that deep tropical convective anvils contract in response to SST increases. Moreover, the nature of the cloudweighted SST statistic is such that any variation in cloud fraction over the coldest water must produce a negative correlation with cloud fraction, a fact that has no useful interpretation in climate sensitivity analysis. Therefore, the observational analysis in LCH lends no support to the hypothesis that increased SST decreases the area covered by tropical anvil cloud.”
112. Josep Martí – La Mentida del Canvi Climàtic – El Singular Digital, 22/12/2009 – Mapa Media – http://www.elsingulardigital.cat/cat/notices/2009/12/la_mentida_del_canvi_climatic_45817.php
     “Llegirem mil vegades, i mil vegades serà mentida, que el fracàs de la cimera del clima és la demostració que als dirigents del planeta se’ls en fum el futur de la terra i dels seus habitants. La veritat, com en tots els assumptes, s’amaga en la invisibilitat de les línies no escrites: senzillament no s’empassen ni la gravetat ni les causes del canvi climàtic.”
113. 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.”
114. Eduardo Zorita – Notable & Quotable  – The Wall Street Journal – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572093483921568.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments
     “I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas. I [do not] think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere—and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now—editors, reviewers and autors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed.”
115. Hans von Storch et al (2004) – Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data – Science 306:679-682 doi:10.1126/science.1096109 – Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre; Department of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; UK Meteorological Office, Hadley Centre
     “Idealized proxy records are represented by simulated grid-point temperature, degraded with statistical noise. The centennial variability of the NH temperature is underestimated by the regression based methods applied here, suggesting that past variations may have been at least a factor of 2 larger than indicated by empirical reconstructions.”
116. Tomàs Molina (2008) – El año que mi abuelo vio llover – Editorial Planeta – Observador en la Organización Meteorológica Mundial – ISBN: 978-84-08-07251-5 – 282 págs.
117. Per qué no ens creiem el que diu la ciència sobre el canvi climàtic? – Organitza Alumni UB, Universitat de Barcelona, Torres Earth i Greenpeace  – 14/05/2012 – http://www.alumni.ub.edu/index.php?p=activitat217
     “Presentació de la jornada a càrrec de Tomàs Molina. Ponents: Stephan Faris: periodista especialitzat en el món desenvolupat; Javier Martín Vide: catedràtic de Geografia Física, professor de la Universitat de Barcelona, autor de més de vint llibres i expert en canvi climàtic; Antón Uriarte Geògraf especialitzat en climatologia. Catedràtic de la Universitat del País Basc; Aida Vila: responsable de la campanya sobre canvi climàtic i energia de Greenpeace; Salvador Samitier Director de l’Oficina Catalana del Canvi Climàtic; Antonio Cerrillo Periodista especialitzat en Medi Ambient del diari La Vanguardia.”
118. Nicholas Stern (2006) – Stern review on the economics of climate change – Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK – Grantham Institute, IndiaObservatory, and STICERD at the London School of Economics and Political Science – http://mudancasclimaticas.cptec.inpe.br/~rmclima/pdfs/destaques/sternreview_report_complete.pdf – 22 authors
     “Above all, they carry out cost–benefit analysis appropriate for the appraisal of small projects, but we have argued in Chapter 2 that this method is not suitable for the appraisal of global climate change policy, because of the very large uncertainties faced. As a result, these studies underestimate the risks associated with large amounts of warming. Neither does any of these studies place much weight on benefits and costs accruing to future generations, as a consequence of their ethical choices about how to discount future consumption.”
119. David Adam – I underestimated the threat, says Stern – The Guardian, 18/04/2008 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.carbonemissions
     “He pointed to last year’s reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and new research which shows that the planet’s oceans and forests are soaking up less carbon dioxide than expected. He said: ‘Emissions are growing much faster than we’d thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we’d thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates and the speed of climate change seems to be faster.’ Stern said the new findings vindicated his report, which has been criticised by climate sceptics and some economists as exaggerating the possible damage. ‘People who said I was scaremongering were profoundly wrong,’ he told a conference in London.”
120. Andrei Sokolov et al (2009) – Probabilistic forecast for 21st century climate based on uncertainties in emissions (without policy) and climate parameters – Journal of Climate 22:5175–5204 doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1 – Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
121. David Archer (2006) – Global warming: Understanding the Forecast – Blackwell Publishing – Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago
     “Fig. 2.7.- The relationship between sea level and temperature on geologic timescales. The IPCC forecast is for 0,5 m whereas the geological forecast is for 50 m, eventually.”
122. Corporate Europe Observatory – Mapping Europe’s climate deniers – December 2010 – http://www.corporateeurope.org/system/files/files/article/climate_denial_web.pdf
123. Jordi Pigem (2010) – Revalorar el món: Els valors de la sostenibilitat – Consell Assessor per al Desenvolupament Sostenible – Generalitat de Catalunya – Premi de Filosofia de l’Institut d’Estudis Catalans – http://www15.gencat.cat/cads/AppPHP/images/stories/publicacions/paperssostenibilitat/2010/pds_15_web.pdf
     “La visió materialista que hem heretat veu la Terra com un mer magatzem de recursos i contempla el món com una suma arbitrària d’objectes, a punt per a ser posseïts, classificats, manipulats i consumits. Aquesta visió del món és insostenible en el doble sentit de la paraula: és insostenible per les seves conseqüències ecològiques, però també és insostenible en el sentit que no es pot sostenir conceptualment, no és pot defensar amb arguments, tal com diem que una proposició o doctrina són insostenibles. La crisi econòmica i la crisi ecològica mostren avui que el materialisme no funciona.”