Usted no se lo cree

Artículo de referencia: Por qué no se debe debatir con la negacionía. Sus 10+1 tácticas, y sus motivaciones
Descargar texto completo (3 partes) en pdf

1. Ferran P. Vilar (2009) – El movimiento negacionista en cambio climático: 2. ‘Petition project’ ¿30.000 científicos contra Al Gore? – Usted no se lo Cree – 26/12/2009 – https://ustednoselocree.com/2009/12/26/movimiento-negacionista-2/
2. Ferran P. Vilar (2010) – Abrazar las tácticas del oponente – Usted no se lo Cree – 27/01/2010 – https://ustednoselocree.com/2010/01/27/abrazar-oponente/
3. Ferran P. Vilar (2010) – Cambio climático e integridad científica: Nuevo (y contundente) llamamiento de la comunidad científica de los Estados Unidos – Usted no se lo Cree – 08/05/2010 – https://ustednoselocree.com/2010/05/08/cambio-climatico-e-integridad-cientifica-nuevo-y-contundente-llamamiento-de-la-comunidad-cientifica-de-los-estados-unidos/
4. Bob Burton – Who’d Pay for Rupert Murdoch’s Climate Change Skepticism? – PR Watch – 15/12/2009 – http://www.prwatch.org/node/8760
   “Both Sides of the Story? A common argument on why climate change skeptics get so much traction in the media is that when it comes to scientific disputes such as over global warming, generalist journalists and editors find it easier to simply opt for a «he said, she said» story. Using this formulaic approach, stories assign equal weight to both the views of peer-reviewed scientists who are specialists in their field and the arguments of skeptics who commonly have no or very limited scientific credentials.”
5. Peter J. Jacques (2006) – The Rearguard of Modernity: Environmental Skepticism as a Struggle of Citizenship – Environmental Politics 6:76-101 doi:10.1162/glep.2006.6.1.76 – 01/02/2006 – Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida; Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University
   “If the Kyoto Protocol controversy in the US is any indicator, simply creating significant levels of conflict within epistemic communities may be just as effective in stalling protective environmental policy as settling a debate between claims. Therefore, the contrarian knowledge claims made by skeptics are of secondary importance to the political conflict they generate and the meaning this has for global societies.”
6. S. Holly Stocking and Lisa W. Holstein (2009) – Manufacturing doubt: journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy – Public Understanding of Science 18:23-42 doi:10.1177/0963662507079373 – 01/01/2009
   “In recent decades, corporate and special interests have developed a wide repertoire of methods to manufacture doubt about science that threatens their interests … Our findings offer insight into how and why reporters respond to rhetorical claims about scientific ignorance and uncertainty that actors use to discredit threatening science. In so doing, they contribute to growing scholarship on journalists’ contributions to the social construction of ignorance in scientific controversies.”
7. Luis Carandell (1971) – Celtiberia Show – Guadiana de Publicaciones, Madrid
8. Artificial controversy – Wikipedia – Acceso: 21/08/2009 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_controversy
   “An artificial controversy, or variously a contrived controversy, engineered controversy, fabricated controversy, manufactured controversy, or manufactroversy is a controversy that does not stem from genuine difference of opinion. The controversy is typically developed by an interest group, such as a political party or a marketing company, to attract media attention, or to facilitate framing of a particular issue.”
9. Mark Lynas – Climate change is no longer just a middle-class issue – The Guardian – 02/07/2008 – – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
   “Like the tobacco lobbyists who spent years denying the links between smoking and cancer, global warming denialists don’t have to win the debate – they simply have to confuse the public indefinitely to successfully undermine any political action which might hit the interests of their backers in the fossil fuel industries. The arguments change all the time … As each argument is laboriously refuted by scientists, the deniers simply drop it and skip onto the next one.”
10. 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 – Published online: 21/06/2010 – Department of Biology, Stanford University
    “But we suggest that our methods and our expertise and prominence criteria provide conservative, robust, and relevant indicators of relative credibility of CE and UE groups of climate researchers … this suggests that not all experts are equal, and top CE researchers have much stronger expertise in climate science than those in the top UE group … We examined the top four most-cited papers for each CE and UE researcher with 20 or more climate publications and found immense disparity in scientific prominence between CE and UE communities … CE researchers’ top papers were cited an average of 172 times, compared with 105 times for UE researchers. Because a single, highly cited paper does not establish a highly credible reputation but might instead reflect the controversial nature of that paper (often called the single-paper effect), we also considered the average the citation count of the second through fourth most-highly cited papers of each researcher. Results were robust when only these papers were considered.”
11. Philip Mirovski (2008) – The Rise of the Dedicated Natural Science Think Tank – The Social Science Research Council – 01/01/2008 – University of Notre Dame
    “While the [US Tobacco] Institute was recognizably an industry creature, it became the staging point from which to mount an entire institutional campaign which is now widely recognized as setting the pattern for many subsequent incarnations of commercial science. As David Michaels puts it, they learned that debating the science turned out to be easier, cheaper and more politically effective than directly debating the policies themselves. We might rephrase it that they came round to accept that scientific debate was engagement in politics by other means.”
12. APCO Associates – Proposed Plan for the Public Launch of TASSC (Through 1993) – Draft Q and A for PM USA and TASCC – 30/09/1993 – 30/09/1993
    “Isn’t it true that Philip Morris created TASSC to act as a front group for it? A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many national, regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative organisations. PM has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various groups and corporations across the country … We are not in a position to suggest that TASSC examine any issue; it’s an independent organization and will no doubt proceed as best they determine.”
13. Nick Davies (2008) – Flat Earth News – Random House – http://www.flatearthnews.net
    “As one memo put it: ‘Doubt is our product since it is the best means to compete with the ‘body of facts’ that exist in the mind of the general public’. … A second PR agency, Burson-Marsteller, created the National Smokers Alliance as an Astro Turf group, to hold public meetings and hassle politicians, changing the tobacco story from a threat to health to a threat to freedom: ‘If Anti America…”
14. 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
    “The most striking finding of our content analysis is that an overwhelming majority (84%) of the articles contained an anti-regulatory message or admonition, asserting that a particular policy or regulatory perspective or program should be reversed or opposed because it is based on junk science. None of the articles reviewed used the term in conjunction with a pro-regulatory message … Almost none of the articles we reviewed documented scientific analysis conducted in a way that is inadequate or inappropriate. Despite the use of the phrase, ‘junk science,’ most of the articles reviewed were critiques of environmental or public health policies based on politics or values rather than on science.”
15. Steven J. Milloy. The “Junkman” exposed – Americans for Nonsmoker’s Rights – Published online: 01/02/2006 – Americans for Nonsmoker’s Rights – 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.”
16. P. H. Gleick et al (2010) – Climate Change and the Integrity of Science – Science 328:689-690 doi:10.1126/science.328.5979.689 – 07/05/2010 – U.S. National Academy of Sciences – http://www.pacinst.org/climate/climate_statement.pdf – 255 autores
    “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.”
17. Luis I. Gómez – El ejército verde. El ecoterrorismo que viene – Desde el Exilio. El Pensamiento es Libre – 10/11/2008 – – http://www.desdeelexilio.com/2008/11/10/el-ejercito-verde-el-ecoterrorismo-que-viene/
    “Ustedes, probablemente, no lean el magnífico blog Achse des Guten, donde un grupo de periodistas alemanes se reúne para hablar de islamismo, liberalismo, política internacional y ecologismo. No lo leerán, pues está, mayormente, en alemán. Una pena. De todos modos, les cuento que gracias a Benny Peiser y su entrada Klimakiller: Grüne Armee Fraktion nos enteramos de hasta qué punto se está radicalizando la “batalla verde” en el mundo. Después de que los juzgados británicos no tuviesen reparos en declarar el ecoterrorismo como socialmente aceptable, ya nada va a interponerse en el camino de las corrientes radicales dentro del movimiento ecologista.”
18. Roger M. Cooke (1991) – Experts in uncertainty: opinion and subjective probability in science – Oxford University Press, New York
    “[Plato] divided knowledge in four categories: The lowest category was ‘eikasia’, which is best translated as conjecture. After this comes ‘pistis’ (belief), followed by ‘dianoia’ (correct reasoning from hypothesis, as in mathematics), and ‘episteme’ (knowledge). A line divides the lower two categories, belonging to the realm of appearances and deception, from the upper two, for which rigorous intellectual training is required. ‘Uncertainty’, whatever it may be, certainly is beneath the line, whereas ‘expert’ denotes a result of rigorous intellectual training. What conceivable purpose could be served by studying the uncertainties of experts?”
19. Joe Walker – Draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan – Global Climate Science Team – Published online: 03/04/1998 – American Petroleum Institute – http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html
    ”Various metrics will be used to track progress. These measurements will have to be determined in fleshing out the action plan and may include: Baseline public / government official opinion surveys and periodic follow-up surveys on the percentage of Americans and government officials who recognize significant uncertainties in climate science. Tracking the percent of media articles that raise questions about climate science. Number of Members of Congress exposed to our materials on climate science. Number of communications on climate science received by Members of Congress from their constituents. Number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the «prevailing wisdom» on climate science. Number of school teachers / students reached with our information on climate science. Number of science writers briefed and who report upon climate science uncertainties. Total audience exposed to newspaper, radio, television coverage of science uncertainties. “
20. Ciencias duras y blandas – Wikipedia – 12/04/2011 – http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciencias_duras_y_blandas
    “Ciencia dura y Ciencia blanda son términos construidos de forma un tanto coloquial, no utilizados institucionalmente por su carácter problemático (no existen facultades ni licenciaturas de ciencias duras o de ciencias blandas), pero de uso epistemológico muy extendido para comparar campos de investigación científica o académica, designando como duros los que se quieren marcar como más científicos en el sentido de rigurosos y exactos, más capaces de producir predicciones y caracterizados como experimentales, empíricos, cuantificables y basados en datos y un método científico enfocado a la objetividad;1 mientras que los designados como blandos quedan marcados con los rasgos opuestos … Las ciencias naturales y las ciencias físicas se suelen incluir en el campo de las duras, mientras que las ciencias sociales o ciencias humanas se suelen incluir en el campo de las blandas,3 cuando no se niega directamente su condición científica, no necesariamente de forma peyorativa.”
21. James M. Taylor – Alarmist Hansen ‘Not Interested’ in Debate – The Heartland Institute – 10/09/2008 – http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23919/Alarmist_Hansen_Not_Interested_in_Debate.html
    “It is troubling that a supposedly eminent scientist, who draws his salary from federal taxpayers, is unwilling to publicly explain his beliefs and his policy recommendations unless he is assured in advance that nobody will ask any critical questions,” Lewis said. “Doesn’t he at least have the intellectual curiosity to hear and consider another point of view?” added Lewis.”
22. James Hansen – Statement of Political Inclinations – Columbia University – 13/03/2006 – NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute – http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2006/Inclinations_20060313.pdf
    “Political inclinations should have no impact on science analyses, but in any case the above description of my inclinations is inaccurate. I can be accurately described as moderately conservative. I am registered to vote (in Pennsylvania) as an Independent.”
23. Richard Monastersky – Storm Brews over Global Warming – Chronicle of Higher Education – 04/09/2007 – http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/ChronicleEd.pdf
    “Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen: … «I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,» she says. «But isn’t that the right of the editor?» The two papers apparently attracted notice high in the Bush administration. According to internal documents from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, made public by the National Wildlife Federation, the administration fought to include mention of the studies in an agency report on the state of the environment, a move that EPA staff members blocked by deleting all mention of climate change.”
24. 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 – 01/06/2008 – Department of Political Science, University of Central Florida; Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University- 3 authors “Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books … 92 % are linked to conservative think tanks … 90 % of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.”
25. 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 – – authors “The most striking finding of our content analysis is that an overwhelming majority (84%) of the articles contained an anti-regulatory message or admonition, asserting that a particular policy or regulatory perspective or program should be reversed or opposed because it is based on junk science. None of the articles reviewed used the term in conjunction with a pro-regulatory message … Almost none of the articles we reviewed documented scientific analysis conducted in a way that is inadequate or inappropriate. Despite the use of the phrase, ‘junk science,’ most of the articles reviewed were critiques of environmental or public health policies based on politics or values rather than on science.”
26. CBC News – CBC global warming «swindle» – CBC News – 27/04/2007 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf4NKmJvKUM
27. Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos – Cambio climático. Público impúdico – Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos – 28/03/2009 – http://www.gees.org/articulos/t27/
    “Y este es el gran problema de la izquierda española: su incapacidad para respetar el debate, en este caso dentro de la comunidad científica. Como decíamos el otro día, el fundamentalismo ecológico ha asumido la teoría del cambio climático como una religión y busca herejes por cada esquina.”
28. 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.”
29. Marc Bowen (2008) – Censoring Science. Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming – ISBN-10: 0525950141 – págs 61-62
    “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 Bradway 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’.”
30. Tarek Maassarani (2007) – Redacting the Science of Climate Change: An Investigative and Synthesis Report – Whistleblower – 01/03/2007 – Government Accountability Project – 131 págs – http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/RedactingtheScienceofClimateChange.pdf
    “Whether these restrictive communication policies and practices have precipitated overt and, often, well-publicized incidents or have acted by more subtle processes, their effect has been to misrepresent and under-represent the taxpayer-funded scientific knowledge generated by federal climate science agencies and programs. In some cases, the policies and practices constitute constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate science employees’ free speech and whistleblower rights. In most cases, the policies and practices undermine the government’s inherent obligation to disseminate the results of publicly-funded research.”
31. Union of Concerned Scientists (2009) – The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science – Union of Concerned Scientists – http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html
    “More than 15,000 of your scientist colleagues–including 52 Nobel Laureates–have spoken out against political interference”
32. Connaughton, James L., chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality; Cooney, Philip, former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and George Deutsch, former NASA Public Affairs Officer; Spencer, Roy, University of Alabama, Huntsville Spencer, Roy, University of Alabama, Huntsville (2007) – Allegations of Political Interference With Government Climate Change Science – House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – 19/03/2007 – – https://house.resource.org/110/org.c-span.197196-1.pdf
    “Today, the Committee continues its investigation into whether the non-partisan work of climate change scientists was distorted by political interference from the Bush Administration.”
33. Political Interference with Climate Change Science under the Bush Administration – United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – 01/12/2007
    “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”
34. Wiki – Suppressed research in the Soviet Union – Wikipedia – Accedido: 01/06/2011 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
    “Science and humanities were placed under a strict ideological scrutiny in the Soviet Union.[citation needed] All research was to be founded on the philosophy of dialectical materialism.[citation needed] All humanities and social sciences were additionally tested for strict accordance with historical materialism.[citation needed] These tests were alleged to serve as a cover for political suppression, to terrorize scientists who engaged in research labeled as «idealistic» or «bourgeois».[1] In several cases the consequences of ideological influences were dramatic. The suppression of research began during the Stalin era and continued after his regime.”
35. 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.”
36. Astroturfing – Wikipedia – Accedido: 02/09/2009 – Wikipedia – http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
    “Astroturfing es un término utilizado en campañas de relaciones públicas en el ámbito de la propaganda electoral y los anuncios comerciales que pretende dar una impresión de espontaneidad, fruto de un comportamiento con base social.”
37. Elisabeth Rosenthal – U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change – The New York Times – 17/11/2007 – http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/science/earth/17cnd-climate.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1195319
    “Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, describing climate change as “the defining challenge of our age,” released the final report of a United Nations panel on climate change here Saturday and called on the United States and China to play “a more constructive role… Today the world’s scientists have spoken, clearly and in one voice,” Mr. Ban said of the report”.
38. Michele M. Moody-Adams (1994) – Culture, Responsibility, and Affected Ignorance – Ethics 104:291-309 – http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2381578.pdf
    «Some of these views attempt to establish that, at least sometimes, widespread moral ignorance can be due principally to the cultural limitations of an entire era, rather than to individual moral defects. Michael Slote has argued, for example, that ancient Greek slave owners were simply «unable to see what virtue required in regard to slavery,» and that this inability «was not due to personal limitations (alone) but requires some explanation by social and historical forces, by cultural limitations [ref]». A second group of theories has developed out of somewhat different concerns: attempts within one culture to understand the behavior of an agent shaped by a different culture or by a subculture that seems to differ from the dominant culture in a complex society. Relying on notions like «social incapacitation,» and even «cultural insanity,» these theories attempt to establish that some behavior is evidence that one’s cultural background may radically impair one’s capacity for responsible action [ref]. Against both kinds of views, I contend that the link between culture and agency does not undermine the standard attributions of responsibility for action and hence cannot exempt human beings from responsibility.»
39. David McKnight – The climate change smokescreen – The Sidney Morning Herald – 02/08/2008 – University of New South Wales – http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/the-climate-change-smokescreen/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html
    “But climate is different. There are no «smoke-free areas» on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world’s most deadly PR campaign.”

Referencias adicionales sobre censura científica

Libros

Chris Mooney (2005) – The Republican War on Science – Perseus Books – 342 págs – ISBN: 13 978-0-465
“As head of Nixon’s Council on Environmental Quality at the time, Russel Train [(WWF)] publicly raised questions about the SST program’s environmental impact … Train angered the Nixon White House, but got away with criticizing the SST. Garwin wasn’t so lucky. The physicist free-lancing contributed to Nixon’s decision, after his 1972 reelection, to dissolve PSAC and abolish the office of presidential science adviser, a landmark moment in the relationship between scientists and government, and one that laid the groundwork for much of the politicization that came later… Jerome Wiesner later wrote: ‘He chose to kill the messenger’.”

Marc Bowen (2008) – Censoring Science. Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming – ISBN-10: 0525950141- págs 61-62
“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 Bradway 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’.”

Seth Shulman (2008) – Undermining Science. Suppression and Distortion in the Bush Administration – University of California Press
“An astonishing 46% of the climate scientists surveyed [sample: 1600] even reported that they or their colleagues ad been personally pressured by Bush administration officials to eliminate the words ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ from official documents, presumably in an Orwellian effort to try to suppress public attention to the issue”

Informes

Tarek Maassarani (2007) – Redacting the Science of Climate Change: An Investigative and Synthesis Report – Whistleblower – Published online: 01/03/2007 – Government Accountability Project – 131 págs – http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/RedactingtheScienceofClimateChange.pdf
“Whether these restrictive communication policies and practices have precipitated overt and, often, well-publicized incidents or have acted by more subtle processes, their effect has been to misrepresent and under-represent the taxpayer-funded scientific knowledge generated by federal climate science agencies and programs. In some cases, the policies and practices constitute constitutional and statutory infringements of the federal climate science employees’ free speech and whistleblower rights. In most cases, the policies and practices undermine the government’s inherent obligation to disseminate the results of publicly-funded research.”

Union of Concerned Scientists(2009) – The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science – Union of Concerned Scientists – http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html
“More than 15,000 of your scientist colleagues–including 52 Nobel Laureates–have spoken out against political interference”

Declaraciones en el Congreso de los EE.UU. (Testimonies)

Henry A. Waxman (2003) – Politics and Science in the Bush Administration – United States House Of Representatives, Committee On Government Reform – Published online: 13/11/2003
“The Bush Administration, however, has repeatedly suppressed, distorted, or obstructed science to suit political and ideological goals. These actions go far beyond the traditional influence that Presidents are permitted”

Rick Pilz (2007) – Testimony of Rick Piltz Before The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives.-Hearing on Allegations of Political Interference With The Work of Government Climate Change Scientists – Climate Science Watch – 30/01/2007 – – http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Piltz-testimony-30jan07.pdf
«It was well-understood by the agency principals that to challenge the chairman would, in effect, have been to challenge the White House – in particular CEQ.»

Connaughton, James L., chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality; Cooney, Philip, former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality; James Hansen, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; and George Deutsch, former NASA Public Affairs Officer; Spencer, Roy, University of Alabama, Huntsville Spencer, Roy, University of Alabama, Huntsville (2007) – Allegations of Political Interference With Government Climate Change Science – House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – Published online: 19/03/2007 – – https://house.resource.org/110/org.c-span.197196-1.pdf
“Today, the Committee continues its investigation into whether the non-partisan work of climate change scientists was distorted by political interference from the Bush Administration.»

Political Interference with Climate Change Science under the Bush Administration – United States House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform – Published online: 01/12/2007 – – – authors
“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”

Otros

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union – Wikipedia – Accedido: 01/06/2011 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union
«Science and humanities were placed under a strict ideological scrutiny in the Soviet Union.[citation needed] All research was to be founded on the philosophy of dialectical materialism.[citation needed] All humanities and social sciences were additionally tested for strict accordance with historical materialism.[citation needed] These tests were alleged to serve as a cover for political suppression, to terrorize scientists who engaged in research labeled as «idealistic» or «bourgeois».[1] In several cases the consequences of ideological influences were dramatic. The suppression of research began during the Stalin era and continued after his regime.»

WebExhibits – Distorting & Suppressing Climate Change Research – Scientific Integrity in Policymaking – http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/5.html
«In a process now-departed EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has since described as “brutal,” [ref] the entire section on climate change was ultimately deleted from the version released for public comment [ref]. According to internal EPA documents and interviews with EPA researchers, the agency staff chose this path rather than compromising their credibility by misrepresenting the scientific consensus [ref]. Doing otherwise, as one current, high-ranking EPA official puts it, would “poorly represent the science and ultimately undermine the credibility of the EPA and the White House [ref].”

Dylan Otto Krider (2004) – The Politicization of Science in the Bush Administration: Science-As-Public Relations – Skeptic – 08/10/2004 – http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-08
“Marburger also presented an argument that was made by Spinsanity, a self-described government watchdog website, which pointed out that just because a “frustrated scientist” had leaked an EPA report on children’s health to The Wall Street Journal, that did not prove there was a sinister intent to suppress it because bureaucratic delays in releasing information are common.”

Peter H. Gleick (2007) – The Political and Selective Use of Data: Cherry-Picking Climate Information in the White House – Pacific Institute – 01/06/2007 –http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/case_studies/selective_use_climate.html
“Interestingly, the origin of this claim is not the White House at all, but appears to be the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which published a version of this claim in the Washington Times, five days before the White House began using it.”

Tim Dickinson – The Secret Campaign of President Bush’s Administration To Deny Global Warming – Rolling Stone – 20/06/2007 –http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming
“In one document, Moss and Mahoney attempted to push back on several of Cooney’s more than 100 edits to an EPA document called «Our Changing Planet» – each of which served to amplify uncertainty and downplay the threat posed by global warming. Cooney repeatedly overruled Moss and Mahoney with an aggressive «no» scrawled in the margins. On another document Cooney marked up, he commanded EPA officials that «these changes must be made.» Beside one strike-through marked with a star, Cooney wrote, «Red Flag: Do not cite National Assessment» – dismissing the landmark report commissioned by Bush’s father. ”

La NASA falseó datos sobre el cambio climático – El País 03/06/2008 – – http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/NASA/falseo/datos/cambio/climatico/elpepusoc/20080603elpepusoc_7/Tes
«Un informe concluye que el departamento de prensa de la agencia encubrió informaciones por razones políticas.- La investigación comenzó después de que un científico de la organización denunciara algunas «distorsiones» en 2006.»

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
“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.”

Artículo de referencia: Por qué no se debe debatir con la negacionía. Sus 10+1 tácticas, y sus motivaciones
Descargar texto completo (3 partes) en pdf