Usted no se lo cree

Ir al artículo 1
Ir al artículo 2
Ir al artículo 3
Ir al artículo 4
Ir al artículo 5

1. Straight Talk – Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House – The Luntz Research Companies, 2002 – http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
   “1) Assure your audience that you are committed to “preserving and protecting” the environment, but that “it can be done more wisely and effectively.” (Absolutely do not raise economic arguments first.) Tell them a personal story from your life; 2) Provide specific examples of federal bureaucrats failing to meet their responsibilities to protect the environment; 3) Your plan must be put in terms of the future, not the past or present; 4) The three words Americans are looking for in an environmental policy, they are “safer,” “cleaner,” and “healthier.”; 5) Stay away from “risk assessment,” “cost-benefit analysis,” and the other traditional environmental terminology used by industry and corporations; 6) If you must use the economic argument, stress that you are seeking “a fair balance” between the environment and the economy; 7) Describe the limited role for Washington; 8) Emphasize common sense. In making regulatory decisions, we should use best estimates and realistic assumptions, not the worst-case scenarios advanced by environmental extremists.”
2. Pedro Rodríguez – Lenguaje y votos – ABC.es 23/09/2007 – http://participacion.abc.es/fiebredelpotomac/post/2007/09/23/lenguaje-y-votos “Frank Luntz se atreve incluso a ofrecer una relación de palabras favoritas y frases para el siglo XXI, que empiezan ya a repetirse bastante en la actual campaña presidencial y no solamente de la boca de republicanos.”
3. Astroturfing – http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing – 25/11/2009
   “El objetivo de una campaña de este estilo es disfrazar las acciones de una entidad política o comercial como la reacción pública espontánea e independiente frente a otra entidad, producto, servicio, etc. Los astroturfers (intoxicadores) intentan orquestar para ello acciones protagonizadas por unos pocos individuos aparentemente diversos y geográficamente distribuidos, tanto a través de actuaciones explícitas como más subliminales e incluso ocultas, y que dan la impresión de multitudinarios entusiastas de una causa.”
4. George Monbiot – Climate denial ‘astroturfers’ should stop hiding behind pseudonyms online – George Monbiot’s blog 08/07/2009 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/08/climate-denial-astroturfers-pseudonyms
   “To stop oil, coal and electricity companies inserting their views into the media by stealth, we need to make blog commenters accountable”
5. David Michaels and Celeste Monforton (2005) – Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment – American Journal of Public Health Supplement 1:S39-S48 doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.043059
   “Though most identified with the tobacco industry, this strategy has also been used by producers of other hazardous products. Its proponents use the label “junk science” to ridicule research that threatens powerful interests … Following a strategic plan developed in the mid-1950s by Hill and Knowlton (H&K), the tobacco industry hired scientists and commissioned research to challenge the growing scientific consensus linking cigarette smoking and severe health effects.”
6. George Monbiot – Pundits who contest climate change should tell us who is paying them – The Guardian 26/09/2006 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/sep/26/comment.oil
   “Covert lobbying, in the UK as well as the US, has severely set back efforts to combat the world’s biggest problem. UK Skeptics Use Old Tobacco Playbook”
7. 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 phrase “junk science” is being used as a trope. An expression is used as a trope when a writer or speaker uses a word or expression figuratively in order to give vividness or emphasis to an idea. Even when an expression is used figuratively instead of literally, it still tends to evoke the values, beliefs, and stereotypes associated with the original, or literal, use of the term. Thus, the strategic use of linguistic tropes can have powerful rhetorical and practical ramifications.”
8. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Coalition
   “The TASSC is a now-defunct, industry-funded PR front group run by the APCO Worldwide public relations firm. It worked to hang the label of «junk science» on environmentalists. Created in 1993, TASSC began as a front for Philip Morris.”
9. Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman (2008) – The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism – Environmental Politics 17:349-385 – June 2008
   “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.”
10. Malcolm Gladwell (2001) – The Tipping Point. How Little Things can Make a Big Difference – Abacus, 2001 – 279 pp – ISBN: 0-349-114463
11. Antonio Regalado – Debating Global Warming. Global Warming Skeptics Are Facing Storm Clouds – The Wall Street Journal 31/07/2003
    “The paper has been widely promoted by Washington think tanks and cited by the White House in revisions made to a recent Environmental Protection Agency report. At the same time, it has drawn stinging rebukes from other climate scientists. This week, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over the journal’s handling of the review process that approved the study; among them is Hans von Storch, the journal’s recently appointed editor in chief. «It was flawed and it shouldn’t have been published,» he said.”
12. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt – Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition – RealClimate 20/01/2005 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/
    “However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper’s conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.”
13. Dirk Notz (2009) – The future of ice sheets and sea ice: Between reversible retreat and unstoppable loss – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences PNAS doi: 10.1073/pnas.0902356106 – Published online 02/11/2009 – Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
    “In this contribution, we have examined the existence of so-called tipping points during the loss of sea ice and during the melting of the Greenland and WAIS. We have discussed why sea ice and ice sheets show greatly different behavior, with different consequences for the existence of a tipping point.”
14. Donella Meadows et al (1972) – The Limits to Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project for the Predicament of Mankind – Universe Books, New York
15. Graham M. Turner (2008) – A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality – Global Environmental Change 18:397- 411 – June 2008 – CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems Australia – Peer reviewed
    “The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favourably wuth key features of a ‘business as usual’ scenario, which result in collapse of the global system midway through the 21^st Century”
16. Karl Popper (1945) – La Sociedad Abierta y sus Enemigos – Routledge
17. T. Theocharis and M. Psimopoulis (1987) – Where science has gone wrong – Nature 329:595-598 – 15/10/1987
    “In 1919 Sir Karl Popper by his own account (ref) had taken a strong dislike to the theories of Marx, Freud and Adler, whose supporters maintained that they were scientific. The difficulty was that Popper could not find any obvious way to refute them conclusively.”
18. Karl Popper (1963, 1972) – Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge 4th ed. – Routledge & Kegan Paul. London, 1972 – pp. 33-37
19. Falsifiability – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability – 05/11/2008
    “Many contemporary philosophers of science and analytic philosophers … are strongly critical of Popper’s philosophy of science. Popper’s mistrust of inductive reasoning has led to claims that he misrepresents scientific practice … the Popperian view has never been seriously preferred to probabilistic induction, which is the mainstream account of scientific reasoning. Adherents of Popper speak with disrespect of «professional philosophy», for example W. W. Bartley:”
20. Carlos Elías – La razón estrangulada- Random House Mondadori, 2008
21. Barett Clark and Richard York (2005) – Dialectical Materialism and Nature: An Alternative to Economism and Deep Ecology – Organization & Environment 18: 318-337 DOI: 10.1177/1086026605279387 – University of Oregon
    “The authors advocate an alternative conception—one developed by Marxist scholars in the natural sciences that eschews both mechanistic and idealized conceptions of nature in favor of a dialectical, historical, and materialist view of natural processes. This approach allows us to better understand natural history and the dynamic processes of human interaction with the environment.”
22. Andrew Jarvis, David Leeda, C. James Taylor and Peter Young (2009) – Stabilizing global mean surface temperature: A feedback control perspective – Environmental Modelling & Software 24:665-674 doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.10.016 – Published online 24/12/2008 – Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University; Engineering Department, Lancaster University; Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University; School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications, University of New South Wales, Sydney
    “In this paper, we develop a discrete time, state variable feedback control regime to analyze the closed loop properties associated with stabilizing the global mean surface temperature anomaly at 2 ºC within a sequential decision making framework made up of 20 year review periods beginning in 2020. The design of the feedback control uses an optimal control approach that minimizes the peak deceleration of anthropogenic CO2 emissions whilst avoiding overshooting the 2 ºC target. The peak value for emissions deceleration that satisfies the closed-loop optimization was found to be linearly related to climate sensitivity and a climate sensitivity of 3.5 ºC gave a deceleration of ~1.9 GtC/a/20 years².”
23. Lógica difusa – http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lógica_difusa – 07/12/2009
    “Como principal ventaja, cabe destacar los excelentes resultados que brinda un sistema de control basado en lógica difusa: ofrece salidas de una forma veloz y precisa, disminuyendo así las transiciones de estados fundamentales en el entorno físico que controle.”
24. How Propaganda Became Known As «Public Relations» -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4iMwEZ8_-s&feature=related – 00:10:05
    “Edward Bernays: When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And ‘propaganda’ got to be a bad word because of the Germans…”
25. Pendiente de referenciar
26. 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 pp.
    “Klaus Kocks: ‘As a spin doctor I’m strongly opposed to discriminating against lying … the development of capitalism needed a ‘doppelmoral’ – double standards – right from the beginning … it is only ‘a  neurotic obsession of Calvinistic with hunters to ‘discriminate against’ and ‘delegitimize’ lying’. Kocks pushes a relativist case arguing that ‘spin doctoring is a privately financed public service provided by communication professionals to support markets that are in need of storytelling to enhance somebody’s business or the economy as a whole … The most important rule is ‘don’t get caught’ … ‘It’s bad PR to say that you are in PR now’.”
27. Sharon Beder (1997, 2002) – Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism – Chelsea Green Publishing, Chelsea – 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 “
28. Edward L. Bernays – 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.”
29. 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 pp.
    “The result of corporate propaganda can be seen in the contemporary ‘common sense’ that what is good for business must be good for society …corporations and political elites have used public relations and lobbying to subvert and subdue democracy … the process we examine are not limited to questions of communications alone. The attempts by corporations to tame democracy and pursue their interests have to be accomplished by putting words and ideas into action.”
30. Sharon Beder – Ecos Corp’s «Win-Win» Spin for Corporate Environmentalism – PR Watch.org 2^nd quarter, 2002 – http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2002Q2/ecos.html
    “PR Watch first reported in 1999 on the activities of the Ecos Corporation, an «environmental PR» firm founded in 1995 by former Greenpeace International executive director Paul Gilding … by recruiting Ben Woodhouse, a former PR executive and vice president at Dow Chemical. In 1999 Ecos only had a modest staff of six others operating from an old church in a suburb of Sydney, Australia.”
31. Curtis Moore – Rethinking the Think Tanks How industry-funded «experts» twist the environmental debate – Basel Action Network – October 2002 – http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_4_87/ai_87741368/
    “In 1999, for example, the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, the funding arm of CSE, paid for «friend of the court» briefs that sought to declare the Clean Air Act unconstitutional. Where might a nonprofit charity like CSEF come up on short notice with the money required to pay lawyers who can charge $5,000 an hour? Answer: the Claude Lambe Foundation, also controlled by the Kochs, which gave CSEF $600,000 for «general operating support»; the DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund, which kicked in another $250,000; and General Electric, which matched the DaimlerChrysler Fund’s donation. There’s no way of knowing whether that $1.1 million paid for the legal briefs, but that amount buys a lot of lawyers, even at Washington prices.”
32. Brad Johnson – Fraudster Bonner’s Client Exposed: ACCCE, King Coal’s Dirty Front Group – The Wonk Room, Think Progress, 03/08/2009 – http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/08/03/accce-bonner-party/
    “ACCCE’s choice of Bonner comes a little surprise, as Bonner has built a reputation as one of the most effective and amoral Astroturf companies inside the Beltway, having generated “grassroots” campaigns on behalf of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. When not paying for Astroturf fraud, ACCCE was the top lobbyist on climate change and clean energy last year, spending $10.5 million on powerhouse lobbyists such as the Podesta Group and Guinn Gillespie. ACCCE has been praised for the “sophistication” of its public message of supporting mandatory emissions limits in theory while virulently opposing the passage of any actual legislation. In addition, ACCCE has a $20 million budget for online campaigns for “shaping public attitudes” in favor of coal, has run tens of millions of dollars of television and radio ads, has handed out “clean coal” t-shirts and baseball caps, and even promoted “Frosty the Coalman” carols.”
33. Brad Johnson – Pollution Industry Dominates Climate Change Lobbying – Wonk Room, Think Progress, 25/02/2009 – http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/02/25/pollution-climate-lobbyists/
    “The Center for Public Integrity has found that “more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy on climate change in the past year,” estimating total expenditures of $90 million. Their comprehensive investigation of climate lobbying discovered that nearly 2,000 of the lobbyists represent corporate interests.”
34. More Pollution of the Climate Debate – PR Watch 19/08/2009 – http://www.prwatch.org/node/8512
    “An investigation has identified more faked letters sent to Congress as part of a deceptive campaign waged by the public relations firm Bonner & Associates, on behalf of the industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) … One sent to Representative Tom Perriello reads, «Many seniors, as you know, are on low fixed incomes. The cost to heat and cool our homes, run hot water and use other appliances is very important to those on a budget.»
35. Zachary Roth – Former Employee: Bonner «Just Got Caught This Time» – TPMMuckraker 31/07/2009 – http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/former_employee_bonner_just_got_caught_this_time.php
    “Jack Bonner said the letter had been sent by a «temporary employee» who has since been fired, and blamed the problem on that one «bad employee.» But a former Bonner and Associates employee who spoke to TPMmuckraker significantly complicated that picture, portraying Bonner and Associates as a place where ethical missteps were far from rare. «They just got caught this time,» he said.”
36. Whistleblower – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower –
    “The term whistleblower derives from the practice of English bobbies (policemen), who would blow their whistles when they noticed the commission of a crime. The whistle would alert other law enforcement officers and the general public of danger (ref). Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct to a fellow employee or superior within their company.”
37. Climate Science Watch – http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/
    “Promoting integrity in the use of climate science in government”
38. Testimony of Rick Piltz – Director, Climate Science Watch Government Accountability Project, Washington, D.C. 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 – 30/01/2007 – http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Piltz-testimony-30jan07.pdf
    “Depending on the next election results or other factors that should be irrelevant, under NASA’s fraudulent media policy reform, every NASA scientist communicating with this committee could be fired several years from now for disclosing Sensitive but Unclassified information. Not only is the policy disingenuous, it is illegal. It violates the Whistleblower Protection Act on its face, because that law only permits blanket restrictions on public speech if information is properly classified.”
39. Andrew C. Revkin – Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming – The New York Times, 8/06/2005 – 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.”
40. Andrew C. Revkin – Editor of Climate Reports Resigns – The New York Times, 10/06/2005 – http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/11cooney.long.html
    “Mr. Cooney has no scientific training … Dana Perino, a deputy White House press secretary, said Mr. Cooney “had accumulated many weeks of leave and had decided to resign and take the summer off to spend the time with his family.”
41. Andrew C. Revkin – Ex-Bush Aide Who Edited Climate Reports to Join ExxonMobil – The New York Times, 15/06/2005 – http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/science/14cnd-climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
    “’Perhaps he won’t even notice he has changed jobs,’ said David G. Hawkins, who directs the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private environmental group.”
42. Curtis Moore – About – http://curtismoore.wordpress.com/about/
    ”In 1989, Moore’s sponsor, Sen. Robert T. Stafford of Vermont, retired and Moore did the same. He opted to return to his original career as a writer rather than become a Washington lawyer/lobbyist (he had one over-the-transom offer of $250,000 per year, plus a partner’s share and perquisites, but the clients would have been General Motors and Dow Chemical).”
43. Curtis A. Moore – A computer-age equivalent to a letter to the editor that I wrote to the New York Times – The Time for Change is Now 02/06/2009 – http://curtismoore.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/a-computer-age-equivalent-to-a-letter-to-the-editor-that-i-wrote-to-the-new-york-times/
    “Let me at the outset provide my credentials: from 1978 to 1989, I was counsel to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works where I organized on December 10, 1985 the first-ever Senate hearing on global warming. I served at the will of Sen. Robert T. Stafford of Vermont, the most environmentally responsible Senator since Edmund S. Muskie, who wrote the revolutionary Clean Air and Clean Water Acts… My clients have ranged from Greenpeace and the American Lung Association to the Southern California Gas Company and the Tokyo Electric Power Company.”
44. Harry Collins (2009) – We cannot live by scepticism alone – Nature, 458:30-31 – 05/03/2009 – Peer-reviewed
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7234/full/458030a.html
    “The term ‘science studies’ was invented in the 1970s by ‘outsiders’, such as those from the social sciences and humanities, to describe what they had to say about science. Science studies have been through what my colleagues and I at the Cardiff School of Social Sciences, UK, see as two waves. In wave one, social scientists took science to be the ultimate form of knowledge and tried to work out what kind of society nurtures it best. Wave two was characterized by scepticism about science. The recent dominance of this second wave has unfortunately led some from science studies and the broader humanities movement known as post-modernism to conclude that science is just a form of faith or politics. They have become overly cynical about science.”
45. George Monbiot – Big oil’s big lie – guardian.co.uk 23/06/2008 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/23/climatechange.carbonemissions
    «The others are the very opposite of sceptics. Many of them are paid to start with a conclusion – that climate change isn’t happening or isn’t important – then to find data and arguments to support it. In most cases, they cherry-pick scientific findings; in a few cases, like the fake scientific paper attached to the celebrated Oregon petition, they make them up altogether. But people who don’t understand the difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a pamphlet are taken in.”
46. Phil Plait – I’m skeptical of denialism – Discover Magazine, Bad Astronomy blog – 9&06/2009 – http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/09/im-skeptical-of-denialism/
    “The word denial puts them in the same bin as holocaust deniers. That’s too bad. But the thing is, they do have something in common: a denial of evidence and of scientific consensus.”
47. Denialism – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism – 01/09/2009
    “Denialism «is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. Denialism is a form of propaganda covering a variety of activities. It can be as simple as like-minded individuals signing letters of dissent, or as elaborate as professional grey or black propaganda campaigns by advertising and marketing agencies … Common features include: Impossible expectations – Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of ‘complete’ or ‘absolute’ knowledge … Misrepresentations and logical fallacies – red herring; straw man; appeal to consequences; false analogy. Another common fallacy, often used in conjunction with impossible expectations, is the false dilemma fallacy, whereby unless there is an absolute proof of an assertion, the assertion is claimed false …  Additional propaganda techniques that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid include: flag-waving, glittering generalities, thought-terminating clichés, intentional vagueness, oversimplification, rationalization, slogans, stereotyping, testimonial, unstated assumption.”
48. Michael Shermer – The Flipping Point – Scientific American, 06/2006 – http://www.michaelshermer.com/2006/06/the-flipping-point/
    “As an undergraduate in the 1970s, I learned (and believed) that by the 1990s overpopulation would lead to worldwide starvation and the exhaustion of key minerals, metals and oil, predictions that failed utterly … How the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has converged to cause this environmental skeptic to make a cognitive flip. Reducing our CO₂ emissions by 70 percent by 2050 will not be enough … Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.”
49. Richard Lindzen – Contra las iniciativas precipitadas – En: Cambio Climático. El reto de la humanidad – Vanguardia Dossier 33 – Octubre/Diciembre 2009-10-25
    “Artículos de Stefan Rahmsdorf, Miquel Muñiz Cabré, Javier Martín Vide, Josep Canadell, Ken Caldeira, Manuel Ludevid, Esteve Corbera, Taleb Rifai, Martin Lloyd, Vicente Ricardo Barrios, Richard S. Lindzen”
50. Ferran P. Vilar – Negacionismo en La Vanguardia (1ª parte) – Usted no se lo cree 27/10/2009 – https://ustednoselocree.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/negacionismo-en-la-vanguardia-1/
    “Llegados a este punto cabe establecer algunas hipótesis que deberemos someter a ensayo inmediato. La primera que viene a la mente es: ¿Es Richard Lindzen un idiota? Me propongo en lo que sigue demostrar que no lo es, pues si bien el contenido científico del artículo sería vilipendiado y ridiculizado en el mundo entero es preciso reconocer que contiene otros elementos bien articulados -aunque tal vez menos evidentes- orientados a otros fines.”
51. Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi (2009) – On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data – Geophysical Research Letters 36 L16705 doi: 10.1029/2009GL039628 – Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – 26/08/2009 – Peer-reviewed
    “Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in SSTs. The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE … Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.”
52. Svante Arrhenius – On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature on the Ground – Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 22:169-194 – Abril 1896 – Peer-reviewed
    “To get an increase of 3.4 ºC it will be necessary to alter the quantity of carbonic acid till it reaches a value nearly midway between 2 and 2.5 [its present mean] … A simple calculation shows that the temperature on the Arctic regions would rise about 8º to 9 ºC if the carbonic acid increased to 2,5 or 3 times its present value.”
53. Jules G. Charney et al (1979) – Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment – Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate – National Academy of Sciences, USA – Peer-reviewed
    “We conclude that the predictions of CO2 induced climate changes made with the various models examined are basically consistent and mutually supporting … If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is indeed doubled … our best estimate is that changes in global temperature of the order of 3 ºC will occur”
54. Gabriele C. Hegerl, Francis W. Zwiers et al (2007) – Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. [In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York – http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf – Peer-reviewed
    “Although upper limits can be obtained by combining multiple lines of evidence, remaining uncertainties that are not accounted for in individual estimates (such as structural model uncertainties) and possible dependencies between individual lines of evidence make the upper 95% limit of ECS uncertain at present. Nevertheless, constraints from observed climate change support the overall assessment that the ECS is likely to lie between 2°C and 4.5°C with a most likely value of approximately 3°C.”
55. James Hansen et al (2008) – Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? – The Open Atmospheric Science Journal 2:217-231 – 10 authors – Peer-reviewed
    “Climate models alone are unable to define climate sensitivity more precisely, because it is difficult to prove that models realistically incorporate all feedback processes. The Earth’s history, however, allows empirical inference of both fast feedback climate sensitivity and long-term sensitivity to specified GHG change including the slow ice sheet feedback … The total 6.5 W/m2 forcing and global surface temperature change of 5 ± 1°C relative to the Holocene (ref) yield an empirical sensitivity ~¾ ± ¼ °C per W/m2 forcing, i.e., a Charney sensitivity of 3 ± 1 °C for the 4 W/m2 forcing of doubled CO2. This empirical fast-feedback climate sensitivity allows water vapor, clouds, aerosols, sea ice, and all other fast feedbacks that exist in the real world to respond naturally to global climate change.”
56. D.O. Breecker, Z.D. Sharp and L. D. McFadden (2009) – Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100 – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0902323106
    “Quantifying atmospheric CO₂ concentrations ([CO₂]_atm) during Earth’s ancient greenhouse episodes is essential for accurately predicting the response of future climate to elevated CO₂ levels. Empirical estimates of [CO₂]_atm during Paleozoic and Mesozoic greenhouse climates are based primarily on the carbon isotope composition of calcium carbonate in fossil soils. We report that greenhouse [CO₂]_atm have been significantly overestimated because previously assumed soil CO₂ concentrations during carbonate formation are too high. More accurate [CO₂]_atm, resulting from better constraints on soil CO₂, indicate that large (1,000s of ppmV) fluctuations in [CO₂]_atm did not characterize ancient climates and that past greenhouse climates were accompanied by concentrations similar to those projected for A.D. 2100.”
57. Trenberth et al (2010) – Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation – Geophysical Research Letters doi: 10.1029/2009GL042314 – Peer-reviewed http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2009GL042314-pip.pdf
    “Atmospheric model results are explored and found to be consistent with observations.  From 1985 to 1999 the largest perturbation in TOA [top-of-atmosphere] radiative fluxes was from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo and clearly models which do not include that forcing will not simulate the effects. Consequently, regressions of radiation with SSTs in the tropics may have nothing to say about climate sensitivity … As shown here, the approach taken by LC09 is flawed, and its results are seriously in error.  The LC09 choice of dates has distorted their results and underscores the defective nature of their analysis.”
58. Andre C. Revkin – A Rebuttal to a Cool Climate Paper – Dot Earth, New York Times 08/01/2010 – http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/a-rebuttal-to-a-cool-climate-paper/?src=twt&twt=dotearth
    “I asked Dr. Trenberth to run the numbers on how much the difference in analysis amounts to in terms of warming from a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration that long prevailed before the industrial revolution. He said that, if done correctly, the Lindzen-Choi analysis would have produced a 1.5 degree Fahrenheit warming instead of the 0.9 degree warming the paper initially contained. But rectifying an additional flaw — the paper’s selection of sea temperatures in a way that did not appear to be objective — produces a warming of 4.1 degrees, a level at the heart of what most climate simulations and other studies project. That did not include issues related to the original paper restricting its analysis to the tropics, he added.”
59. Joseph Romm – Lindzen debunked again: New scientific study finds his paper downplaying dangers of human-caused warming is “seriously in error” – Climate Progress 11/01/2010 – http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/science-lindzen-debunked-again-positive-negative-feedbacks-clouds-tropics/
    “Consistently being wrong and consistently producing one-sided analyses that are quickly debunked in the literature should lead scientific journals and the entire scientific community (and possibly the media) to start ignoring your work. But when you are one of the last remaining “serious” professional scientists spreading global warming disinformation who retains a (nano)ounce of credibility because you are associated with a major university — M.I.T. — and your name is Richard Lindzen, apparently you can just keep publishing and repeating the same crap over and over and over again.”
60. Piers M. de F. Forster and Jonathan M. Gregory (2006) – The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data – Journal of Climate 19:39-52 – 05/06/2006 – Department of Meteorology, University of Reading; Centre for Global Atmospheric Modelling, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading – http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3611.1&ct=1
    “A climate feedback parameter of 2.3 ±1.4 W m^-2 K^-1 is found. This corresponds to a 1.0–4.1-K range for the equilibrium warming due to a doubling of carbon dioxide (assuming Gaussian errors in observable parameters, which is approximately equivalent to a uniform “prior” in feedback parameter). The uncertainty range is due to a combination of the short time period for the analysis as well as uncertainties in the surface temperature time series and radiative forcing time series, mostly the former.”
61. Gabriele C. Hegerl, Francis W. Zwiers et al (2007) – Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. [In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York – http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
    “A further recent study uses Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) data (Forster and Gregory, 2006) in addition to surface temperature changes to estimate climate feedbacks (and thus ECS) from observed changes in forcing and climate.”
62. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt – Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition – RealClimate 20/01/2005 – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/
    “However, it is not foolproof — a deeply flawed paper can end up being published under a number of different potential circumstances: (i) the work is submitted to a journal outside the relevant field (e.g. a paper on paleoclimate submitted to a social science journal) where the reviewers are likely to be chosen from a pool of individuals lacking the expertise to properly review the paper, (ii) too few or too unqualified a set of reviewers are chosen by the editor, (iii) the reviewers or editor (or both) have agendas, and overlook flaws that invalidate the paper’s conclusions, and (iv) the journal may process and publish so many papers that individual manuscripts occasionally do not get the editorial attention they deserve.”
63. Reasoning Backwards at the George C. Marshall Institute – PR Watch – http://www.prwatch.org/node/8395
    “In September 2001, the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington D.C. think tank, appointed Matthew B. Crawford as its Executive Director. At the time, the think tank boasted that Crawford had «won numerous academic fellowships, including the Bradley Fellowship, The H.B. Earhart Fellowship, and the University of Chicago Century Fellowship; he was the John M. Olin Postdoctoral Fellow in the Committee on Social Thought.» The think tank, which has long promoted the work of prominent climate change skeptics, claims that it provides «unbiased technical analyses on a range of public policy issues.»
64. Matthew B. Crawford – The Case for Working with Your Hands – The New York Times 21/05/2009 – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?_r=4&em=&pagewanted=all
    “In the spring [of 2001] I landed a job as executive director of a policy organization in Washington. This felt like a coup. But certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn’t fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning. As I sat in my K Street office, Fred’s life as an independent tradesman gave me an image that I kept coming back to: someone who really knows what he is doing, losing himself in work that is genuinely useful and has a certain integrity to it. He also seemed to be having a lot of fun.»
65. Jeff Jacoby – The spreading skepticism on climate change – The Boston Globe 07/12/2008 – http://www.jeffjacoby.com/623/the-spreading-skepticism-on-climate-change
    “They are far from monolithic, but on this they would all agree: Science is not settled by majority vote, especially in a field as young as climate science … Skepticism and inquiry go to the essence of scientific progress. It is always legitimate to challenge the existing «consensus» with new data or an alternative hypothesis. Those who insist that dissent be silenced or even punished are not the allies of science, but something closer to religious fanatics.”
66. Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, and Simon F. B. Tett, (2004) – Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data – Science 306:679–682 DOI: 10.1126/science.1096109 22/10/2004 – Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre; Department of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; UK Meteorological Office, Hadley Centre
    “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.”
67. Eugene R. Wahl, David M. Ritson, and Caspar M. Ammann (2006) – Comment on ‘Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data’ – Science 312: 529 DOI: 10.1126/science.1120866] (in Technical Comments) – 28/04/2006
    “von Storch et al. (Reports, 22 October 2004, p. 679) criticized the ability of the ‘hockey stick’ climate field reconstruction method to yield realistic estimates of past variation in Northern Hemisphere temperature. However, their conclusion was based on incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure. Calibration was performed using detrended data, thus artificially removing a large fraction of the physical response to radiative forcing.”
68. Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Fidel González-Rouco, and Simon F. B. Tett, (2004) – Response to Comment on ‘Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data’ – Science 312, 529c doi: 10.1126/science.1121571 – Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre; Department of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Universidad Complutense, Madrid; UK Meteorological Office, Hadley Centre
    “It is commonly accepted that proxy indicators may contain non-climatic trends. This is particularly true with tree-ring data (8), which were intensively used in the study by MBH98. The calibration and validation of any statistical method using non-detrended data are dangerous, because the non-climatic trends are interpreted as a climate signal. Only in the case that the trend in the proxy indicators can be ascertained to be of climate origin is a non-detrended calibration and validation permissible. In realistic circumstances, however, it can lead to an overfitting and lack of skill outside the calibration period. In this respect, the observed and reconstructed NHT shown in figure 1A in (ref) only agree in the period with a large linear trend (centered in 1930). In the validation period, in contrast, the correlation between the (5-year-smoothed) reconstructed and observed NHT in the validation period 1856 to 1900 is 0.23. This low correlation skill in the validation period has been recently acknowledged (ref). Furthermore, whenever the observed NHT deviates from the centennial linear trend (e.g., around 1950) the reconstructed NHT does not follow the observed temperature. In our opinion, these are indications of a dangerous non-detrended calibration.”
69. Stefan Rahmstorf – Letter: Testing Climate Reconstructions – Science 312:1872-1873 DOI: 10.1126/science.312.5782.1872b – 30/06/2006 – Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
    “In addition, it has since been found (6) that the proxy method was implemented incorrectly by von Storch et al.; with correct implementation, the error is even smaller in HadCM3 than the 0.07ºC shown here. A similar, more recent test with the NCAR climate system model (7) also suggests only small errors for the proxy method, supporting the climate reconstruction of the past millennium by Mann et al.”
70. A guide to facts and fictions about climate change – The Royal Society. March 2005
    “Some have questioned whether natural temperature variations in the past 1000 years have been greater than those reported in the IPCC 2001 report. For instance, von Storch and others argued in the journal Science that the natural variations in average global temperature over the last 1000 years may have reached one centigrade degree, instead of the 0.5 centigrade degree implied by previous analyses. This conclusion was supported by Moberg and others in a paper in the journal Nature, in which they reported that natural variations in temperature may have reached up to one centigrade degree over periods of centuries during the last 2000 years. But they also pointed out: “We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia with warmer conditions then the post-1990 period – in agreement with previous similar studies.” They drew attention to the fact that models show natural factors alone could not be responsible for the recent warming trend.”
71. Hans von Storch – Die Klima-Krieger – Die Welt – 03/12/2009 – http://www.welt.de/die-welt/debatte/article5409414/Die-Klima-Krieger.html – http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2009/12/cartell.html
    “The other group knows that all this talk about anthropogenic climate change and its dire consequences is false, a hoax; elevated greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have no or only an insignificant effect, mostly positive indeed. And now, after the stolen CRU mails have shown up, it has become clear that we all have been mislead by a small group, the Team, who have manipulated data and the scientific process. Actually, they claim, temperatures are now falling. The «nail in the coffin of anthropogenic warming». One could even abandon the meeting in Copenhagen.“

Ir al artículo 1
Ir al artículo 2
Ir al artículo 3
Ir al artículo 4
Ir al artículo 5