ANNEX FE Annex E: Publications on Fossil Fuel Industry Involvement in Undermining Climate Science and Action
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Heartland Institute Under Attack Global Warming Fever Drives Scientists to Desperation
GREEN WATCH BANNER TO BE INSERTED HERE The Heartland Institute Under Attack Global Warming Fever Drives Scientists to Desperation By Matt Patterson Summary: It was Valentine’s Day, but it was no love letter. On February 14, 2012, renowned environmental scientist Peter Gleick transmitted to a group of liberal bloggers and journalists documents that he obtained from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think-tank specializing in environmental policy. Gleick’s goal: destroy Heartland, a group that has mobilized scien- tists who are skeptical about global warm- ing. Gleick faked his identity and pretended to be a Heartland board member to obtain some of the documents. One of the docu- Dr. Peter Gleick - Thief ments that Gleick sent was a fake, created Yale and received his Ph.D. in Energy and social equity.” In 2010 the Pacifi c by Gleick or parties unknown to prove what and Resources from the University of Institute received more than $2.2 million wasn’t true. Gleick’s reckless, unethical and, California, Berkeley in 1986. He is in grants and contributions from a mix of most likely, criminal action shows just how currently president of the Pacifi c Institute foundations (e.g. Hewlett, Packard, Robert desperate green activists are to prop up their for Studies in Development, Environment, Wood Johnson, Rockefeller Brothers, overblown claims about global warming. and Security, which he co-founded in Rockefeller) and government agencies r. Peter Gleick was a trusted 1987. (e.g. Sacramento County and the Florida and respected scientist, with a Dcareer studded with honors and The Oakland, California-based research May 2012 awards. -
Cool Dudes: the Denial of Climate Change Among Conservative White Males in the United States
G Model JGEC-908; No. of Pages 10 Global Environmental Change xxx (2011) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Global Environmental Change jo urnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States a, b Aaron M. McCright *, Riley E. Dunlap a Lyman Briggs College, Department of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University, E-185 Holmes Hall, East Lansing, MI 48825-1107, USA b Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University, 006 Classroom Building, Stillwater, OK 74078-4062, USA A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: We examine whether conservative white males are more likely than are other adults in the U.S. general Received 17 January 2011 public to endorse climate change denial. We draw theoretical and analytical guidance from the identity- Received in revised form 24 June 2011 protective cognition thesis explaining the white male effect and from recent political psychology Accepted 28 June 2011 scholarship documenting the heightened system-justification tendencies of political conservatives. We utilize public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010, focusing specifically on five Keywords: indicators of climate change denial. We find that conservative white males are significantly more likely Political ideology than are other Americans to endorse denialist views on all five items, and that these differences are even Race greater for those conservative white males who self-report understanding global warming very well. Gender Furthermore, the results of our multivariate logistic regression models reveal that the conservative white Climate change denial Public opinion male effect remains significant when controlling for the direct effects of political ideology, race, and gender as well as the effects of nine control variables. -
Albert Jacobs
Climate Science Newsletters By: Albert Jacobs ___________________________________________________________________________ CliSci # 82 2011-12-21 Four Sceptic Scientists testify before the Canadian Senate Committee. The Senate Energy & Environment Committee Hearing with Drs. Ross McKitrick, Ian Clark, Jan Veizer and Tim Patterson took place on December 15th 2011. The video is now on YouTube at: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW19pPFfIyg#t=65> ------------------------------ The COP 17 aftermath The conclusions of COP 17 are found on <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011//eng/l04.pdf> In the words of Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International Executive Director: “The grim news is that the blockers lead by the US have succeeded in inserting a vital get- out clause that could easily prevent the next big climate deal being legally binding. If that loophole is exploited it could be a disaster. And the deal is due to be implemented ‘from 2020′ leaving almost no room for increasing the depth of carbon cuts in this decade when scientists say we need emissions to peak,” “Right now the global climate regime amounts to nothing more than a voluntary deal that’s put off for a decade. This could take us over the two degree threshold where we pass from danger to potential catastrophe.” And on December 12th: <http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/12/canada-formally-withdrawig-from- kyoto-protocol/> Canada put a full stop after Jean Chrétien’s folly. We do not quote DeSmogBlog very often, but they seem to have blown their top: " Canada's decision to turn its back on its international obligations confirms yet again that Stephen Harper and his carbon cronies are securing a hellish future for generations to come. -
Climate Change: Debate and Reality
CLIMATE CHANGE: DEBATE AND REALITY DANIEL R. HEADRICK Roosevelt University Abstract The debate about climate change has been raging for over 30 years. Is the climate really changing? If it is, are the changes caused by human actions? If they are, can anything be done about it? And, if so, should anything be done? On each of these questions, opinions clash. On one side are those who would say yes to all four questions. Among them are almost all climate scientists, most of the world’s governments and a large part of the educated public. On the other side are the current United States Government, most oil, gas and coal corporations, and most conservative politicians and their supporters, especially in the United States. It cannot be denied that the debate has caused confusion in the mind of the public—at least in the United States—and has helped prevent effective measures to mitigate global warming. In this essay, however, I argue that the impact of the debate pales in comparison to that of two other factors: developmentalism, the glorification of economic growth; and consumerism, the modern energy-intensive way of life. While the causes of the failure to mitigate global warming can be found in every country, the case of China is particularly glaring. Keywords: China, climate change, developmentalism, US Government Climate change: The evidence Among climate scientists, there is an almost complete consensus on the anthropogenic causes of global warming. All 928 articles on the subject published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 agree on this point, as do the reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Science, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. -
Timothy F. Ball
Tags: Friends Of Science, Friends of Science, Natural Resource Stewardship Project, Nrsp, NRSP, Tim Ball, tim ball, timothy f ball, tom harris Timothy F. Ball Ball and the oil industry Ball is listed as a "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). Ball is also listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. DeSmog recently uncovered information showing that two of the founding directors of the NRSP are lobbyists for the energy sector. Ball and the oil industry In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the Friends of Science admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August 2006 Globe and Mail feature, FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding this fact. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS. Ball inflates credentials Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the "first Canadian PhD in climatology." Even further, Ball once claimed he was "one of the first climatology PhD's in the world." As many people have pointed out, there have been many PhD's in the field prior to Ball. Ball and the NRSP Ball is listed as an "Executive" for a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose its funding sources. -
Disruptive Ideas: Public Intellectuals and Their Arguments for Action on Climate Change Matthew C
Advanced Review Disruptive ideas: public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change Matthew C. Nisbet∗ In this paper, I analyze three distinct groups of prominent public intellectuals arguing for action on climate change. I detail how public intellectuals establish their authority, spread their ideas, and shape political discourse, analyzing the contrasting stories that they tell about the causes and solutions to climate change. ‘Ecological Activists’ like U.S. writer/activist Bill McKibben or Charles Sturt University (AU) philosopher Clive Hamilton argue that climate change is a symptom of a capitalist society that has dangerously exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. They are skeptical of technological or market-based solutions to the problem, urging the need for a global movement that dramatically re-organizes society. ‘Smart Growth Reformers’ like UK economist Nicholas Stern or former U.S. vice president Al Gore agree that climate change poses catastrophic risks but argue that those risks can be avoided if political leaders adopt the right market-based mechanisms, enabling sustainable economic growth to continue. ‘Ecomodernists’ like The New York Times (U.S.) writer Andrew Revkin and Oxford University (UK) anthropologist Steve Rayner argue for recognizing the biases in how we have conventionally defined climate change as a social problem. Progress will be achieved not by relying on social protest or market-based mechanisms, but by government investment in a diverse menu of policies that catalyze technological innovation, protect against climate impacts, and provide developing countries abundant, cleaner sources of energy. To conclude, I propose methods for building on my analysis and urge the need for forums that feature a diversity of voices, discourses, and ideas. -
Tracing Climate Change Denial in the United States and Looking for Impacts on the United States’ Science Diplomacy
CENTRE INTERNATIONAL DE FORMATION EUROPEENNE SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUT EUROPEEN · EUROPEAN INSTITUTE Tracing Climate Change Denial in the United States and Looking for Impacts on the United States’ Science Diplomacy By Stephanie Baima A thesis submitted for the Joint Master degree in Global Economic Governance & Public Affairs (GEGPA) Academic year 2019 – 2020 July 2020 Supervisor: Hartmut Marhold Reviewer: Christian Blasberg PLAGIARISM STATEMENT I certify that this thesis is my own work, based on my personal study and/or research and that I have acknowledged all material and sources used in its preparation. I further certify that I have not copied or used any ideas or formulations from any book, article or thesis, in printed or electronic form, without specifically mentioning their origin, and that the complete citations are indicated in quotation marks. I also certify that this thesis has not previously been submitted for assessment in any other unit, except where specific permission has been granted from all unit coordinators involved, and that I have not copied in part or whole or otherwise plagiarized the work of other students and/or persons. In accordance with the law, failure to comply with these regulations makes me liable to prosecution by the disciplinary commission and the courts of the French Republic for university plagiarism. Stephanie Baima 10 July 2020 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ 3 Abstract -
Fake Science, Fakexperts, Funny Finances, Free of Tax 2 SEPP, Heartland, CSCDGC, Allies & DONORS John R
Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax 2 SEPP, Heartland, CSCDGC, allies & DONORS John R. Mashey V2 10/23/12 (sections changed *) Fred Singer Craig Idso Whitney Ball Joseph Bast Joe Camel Diane C Bast Z.2008.07-8 James Taylor Contents E. NIPCC –Council for Tobacco Research reborn? 34 K. CSCDGC, CO2Science, SPPI and Ferguson 77 Executive Summary 2 Fig. E.1 NIPCC People, Activities, Orgs 36 K.1 A tax-free Idso family business 77 Fig. ES.1 Murky maze of money, memes * 3 Fig. K.1.1 Money to FoF, CSCDG, SPPI 78 0. Front Matter 6 F. Advocacy anti-science - start with tobacco 37 Fig. K.1.2 CSCDGC, CO2Science finances 79 0.1 Advice on reading this report 6 Fig. F.1 General flow of money, memes 37 K.2 CO2Science – Craig’s subsidiary 80 0.2 Key references and further reading * 6 Fig. F.2 1984~ % smoking starts by age 38 K.3 Robert Ferguson and SPPI (fake entity) 81 0.3 Glossary 7 Fig. F.3 % smoking starts, from F.2 38 K.4 Summary 82 0.4 501(c)(3) non-profits, IRS-?? tags 8 Fig. F.4 Philip Morris 1991-2001 funding 39 0.5 Memes 11 Fig. F.5 What did think tanks do for PM? 40 N. Nature, Science and AAAS. 83 0.6 Recipient glossary and top funders 12 N.1 Nature 83 0.7 Tobacco Playbook, climate anti-science 13 G. Heartland Institute funding and elected officials 43 N.2 Science 84 1 Introduction 14 G.1 Joseph Bast defends Joe Camel, wants $ 43 N.3 AAAS statement 28 June 2011 85 2 SEPP, Singer and 2 years of dead Chairman 15 G.2 Heartland and some donors 1999- 2003 48 P. -
Unleashing Blessed Unrest As the Heating Happens
Sustainability Frontiers Unleashing Blessed Unrest As the Heating Happens How learning spaces can help to avoid the worst scenarios now before us and four learning activities to engage young people By David Selby and Fumiyo Kagawa the United Nations regard as livable with and ‘economically acceptable’. (We should note that one of the world’s leading alifornian ENVironmEntalist Paul climate scientists, James Hansen, perceives a 2.0ºC rise as Hawken coined the phrase ‘blessed unrest’. He uses being nothing short of a “disaster scenario” and that a growing it to describe the worldwide grassroots stirring of number of scientists think that holding the global tempera- C ture rise to 2.0ºC will be an uphill, perhaps impossible, task peoples—at best loosely organized and thinly networked—in defense of “the timeless ways of being human” now “threat- anyway3.) ened by global forces that do not consider people’s deepest As runaway climate change lurches forward, future longings”.1 This movement, informed by social justice and scenarios look grim—a mix of ubiquitous environmental environmental activism as well as indigenous cultural resis- disaster (including a huge loss of biodiversity), ongoing and tance to globalization, seems to us to be core to any mean- massive internal and external population displacement as a ingful response to runaway climate change. In this article we result of sea incursions, seasonally recurring wildfires and consider how learning spaces can help unleash the blessed desertification (and resultant social dislocation), hunger, unrest we hold to be vital if human society is to have any starvation, internecine strife, violent conflict, tribalism, chance of escaping the worst scenarios now before us for the aggressively defensive localism, as well as the ever-lurking heating of the planet. -
Han GHP's Additional List of Climate Resources (3-21-2014
Han GHP’s additional list of climate resources (3-21-2014) ================================================ * books suitable for use in high school courses ** books I have used in my courses (# excerpts used in my courses) More Books by Climate Scientists: Bert Bolin, A History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change: The Role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007, 250pp) Raymond S. Bradley, Global Warming and Political Intimidation: How Politicians Cracked Down on Scientists as the Earth Heated Up (2011, 156pp) Paul N. Edwards, A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming (2010, 439pp) *Kerry Emanuel, What We Know About Climate Change (2007, 85pp) Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump, Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming – The Illustrated Guide to the Findings of the IPCC (2008, 202pp) *Michael D. Mastrandrea and Stephen H. Schneider, Preparing for Climate Change (2010, 99pp) Gavin Schmidt and Joshua Wolfe, Climate Change: Picturing the Science (2009, 294pp) Stephen H. Schneider, Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate (2009, 281pp) Climate Books on Theology and Ethics: John Broome, Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World (2012, 192pp) James Garvey, The Ethics of Climate Change: Right and Wrong in a Warming World (2008, 158pp) Sallie McFague, A New Climate for Theology: God, the World, and Global Warming (2008, 176pp) Michael S. Northcott, A Moral Climate: The Ethics of Global Warming (2007, 285pp) OTHER NOTABLE CLIMATE BOOKS: Maxwell T. -
Should We Tolerate Climate Denial?
Should we tolerate climate denial? Article Accepted Version McKinnon, C. (2016) Should we tolerate climate denial? Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 40 (1). pp. 205-216. ISSN 1475-4975 doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/misp.12056 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/65823/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/misp.12056 Publisher: Wiley All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online 1 Should We Tolerate Climate Change Denial?1 Forthcoming Midwest Studies in Philosophy (Vol XL, 2016): ‘Ethics and Global Climate Change’ 1. Introduction: hope and danger At 18.27 on 12 December 2015 Laurent Fabius brought down his gavel to mark the adoption of the Paris Agreement by nearly 200 countries. Even the most optimistic commentators agree that the scale and speed of the action needed to realise the ambitions of the Agreement is daunting. The history of action on climate change gives us no grounds for optimism. But perhaps we still have grounds for hope (McKinnon 2014). Many things could snuff out this fragile hope. In this paper I shall address conduct that explicitly aims to do so: climate change denial (from here on in, ‘climate denial’). -
Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change
Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change A paper to the Climate Controversies: Science and politics conference Museum of Natural Sciences, Brussels, 28 October 2010 Clive Hamilton 1 Repudiating science Let me begin with a pregnant fact about United States’ voters. In 1997 there was virtually no difference between Democratic and Republican voters in their views on global warming, with around half saying warming had begun. In 2008, reflecting the accumulation and dissemination of scientific evidence, the proportion of Democratic voters taking this view had risen from 52 to 76 per cent. 2 But the proportion of Republican voters fell from 48 per cent to 42 per cent—a four percent gap had become a 34 per cent gap. What had happened? The opening of the gulf was due to the fact that Republican Party activists, in collaboration with fossil fuel interests and conservative think tanks, had successfully associated acceptance of global warming science with “liberal” views. 3 In other words, they had activated the human predisposition to adopt views that cement one’s connections with cultural groups that strengthen one’s definition of self.4 In the 1990s views on global warming were influenced mostly by attentiveness to the science; now one can make a good guess at an American’s opinion on global warming by identifying their views on abortion, same-sex marriage and gun-control. That global warming has been made a battleground in the wider culture war is most apparent from the political and social views of those who reject climate science outright. In 2008 they accounted for seven per cent of US voters, rising to 18 per cent if those with serious doubts are added.5 Among those who dismiss climate science, 76 per cent describe themselves as “conservative” and only three per cent as “liberal” (with the rest “moderate”).