The Serengeti Strategy

IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

®

Feature Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 2015, Vol. 71(1) 33–45 ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: The Serengeti strategy: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0096340214563674 How special interests try to http://thebulletin.sagepub.com intimidate scientists, and how best to fight back

Michael E. Mann

Photo credit: Brocken Inaglory.

Abstract Much as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced with adverse scientific evidence often target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once. Part of the reasoning behind this approach is that it is easier to bring down individuals than an entire group of scientists, and it still serves the larger aim: to dismiss, obscure, and misrepresent well-established science and its implications. In addition, such highly visible tactics create an atmosphere of intimidation that discourages other scientists from conveying their researchÕs implications to the public. This ÒSerengeti strategyÓ is often employed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the worldÕs scientists about the under- lying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts of DDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change. The goal is to attack those researchers whose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves. This article draws upon the authorÕs own experience to examine the ÒSerengeti strategy,Ó and offers possible countermeasures to such orchestrated campaigns. It examines what responses by scientists have been most successful, and how to combat the doubt-sowing that industry has done regarding the science behind climate change and other fields. 34 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

Keywords climate change, communication, global warming, hockey stick, modeling, propaganda, science disinformation

ritics of science frequently pre- (http://www.rachelwaswrong.org), dedi- sent scientific knowledge as if cated to discrediting Carson and her C all our understanding of a given legacy as a way of casting doubt upon all field hinges on the work of just one scien- environmental concerns. tist. Forget the thousands of evolutionary This is a classic ad hominem attack, biologists whose work over more than a consisting of innuendo and obfuscation, century has repeatedly confirmed the often focusing on irrelevant items, theory of evolution; to creationists, it whose net effect is to direct attention is just ÒDarwinismÓÑthe conclusions of away from the merits of an argument one ostensibly suspect individual named and instead to the character of the Charles Darwin. person making it. This approach appeals And it is labeled as Òjust a theory,Ó as if to feelings, emotions, and prejudices that somehow diminishes its validity. rather than intellectÑexactly the point (For that matter, gravity is Òjust a theoryÓ when the attacker is on the wrong side as well. Yet no one steps off a tall build- of the facts. This approach is not held in ing to test it.) high regard by those interested in reason This reflects a popular misconception and rationalism, based as it is upon tenets of what a theory is to scientists. While in that are the opposite of science. common parlance the word ÒtheoryÓ con- But it is effective, for a number of rea- veys something speculative, tentative, or sons. By singling out a sole scientist, it is uncertain, in the field of science the word possible for the forces of Òanti-scienceÓ refers to an understanding of an aspect of to bring many more resources to bear on the natural world that has held up repeat- one individual, exerting enormous pres- edly to scrutiny and testing over time. sure from multiple directions at once, Industry-funded front groups and making defense difficult. It is similar to their hired guns have learned that they what happens when a group of lions on can use this confusion over terminology the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable indi- to their benefit. Rather than admit that vidual zebra at the edge of a herd, which decades of research has revealed danger- is why I call it the ÒSerengeti strategyÓ in ous effects of DDT on our environment, my book The Hockey Stick and the Cli- these organizations try to lead the public mate Wars (Mann, 2012). into believing that concerns about these An additional part of the motivation chemical contaminants are just the hys- behind the targeting of individuals: It is terical speculations of one scientist difficult to take on an entire group of sci- named Rachel Carson. For example, the entists at once. But bringing down indi- Competitive Enterprise Institute (http:// viduals is easier, and it serves the larger www.cei.org)Ñan advocacy group funded effort of dismissing, obscuring, and by fossil fuel and chemical industry con- misrepresenting well-established sci- cerns and conservative private interestsÑ ence and its implications. WhatÕs more, maintains a website, RachelWasWrong these highly visible tactics create such a Mann 35 negative atmosphere that other scientists Indeed, when overseas Americans are discouraged from conveying their encounter the widespread acceptance researchÕs implications to the public. of anthropogenic climate change, they This strategy falls under the umbrella are often surprised. ÒAfter my climate of a larger, overall conception, which change book came out, I had dinner some researchers refer to as the Òtobacco with a Dutch minister from a right-wing, strategyÓ because it characterizes the conservative partyÑand he sounded like way that tobacco interests sought to dis- a Greenpeace guy,Ó commented author credit research that linked their products Elizabeth Kolbert (The Bulletin of the to lung cancer (Oreskes and Conway, Atomic Scientists, 2014) about the Euro- 2010). Whatever it is called, it has repeat- pean reception to her book The Sixth edly been adopted by the chemical Extinction: An Unnatural History (Kol- industry, big agriculture, the pharma- bert, 2014). ceutical industry, and just about any corporate interest that has found itself Climate change: A quick recap on a collision course with scientific researchÑparticularly research that re- A quick refresher about the present state veals specific potential damages or of the discourse in the United States about threats caused by their product. climate change: Despite first impressions, It is educational to see how long the only a minority of our populace clings to a use of these tactics has been around, wholesale rejection of all the established and how it was applied on a massive, evidence for anthropogenic climate wide-reaching scale to make a memeÑa change. Yet this rejection can be powerful cultural idea or belief system, similar in (and backed by powerful interests), as I some ways to a catchphraseÑgo viral, wrote in The New York Times: long before the social media era. And of course, this technique has now been This virulent strain of anti-science infects the refined and expanded upon, to include a halls of Congress, the pages of leading news- papers, and what we see on TV, leading to the barrage of messages from authoritatively appearance of a debate where none should named pseudo-news outlets, an alpha- exist. In fact, there is broad agreement among bet soup of legitimate-sounding front climate scientists not only that climate change groups, and a bevy of experts-for-hire is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent with impressiveÑor at least impressive- agree), but that we must respond to the dan- soundingÑcredentials, who together gers of a warming planet. If one is looking for form a ÒPotemkin VillageÓ (Oreskes and real differences among mainstream scientists, Conway, 2010) of antiscientific disinfor- they can be found on two fronts: the precise implications of those higher temperatures, mation. One can observe this strategy and which technologies and policies offer the writ large in the current public discourse best solution to reducing, on a global scale, the in the United States over whether or not emission of greenhouse gases. (Mann, 2014a) human-caused climate change existsÑa debate that has been largely settled in Such a high level of agreement among other parts of the world, such as the any group of people is extraordinary; European countries whose citizens just try to get 97 percent of Americans have overwhelmingly accepted the evi- to agree about favorite pizza toppings. dence for it. Nothing in the field of science ever gets 36 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

100 percent agreementÑthereÕs still a Many of the attacks have been aimed Flat Earth Society that holds monthly at undermining one of the scientific com- meetingsÑbut the fact that a few con- munityÕs great strengthsÑthe trust that trarians still exist around the topic of cli- the public has in scientists as communi- mate change may be one reason why the cators and messengers. A poll conducted public gets confused when hearing about by Yale University and George Mason the issue. They expect all experts every- University indicated that climate where to be in complete agreement, all scientists are the most trusted source of the time. information about global warming for There is no longer any reasonable voting-age Americans (Yale Project, doubt among mainstream researchers 2012). This is in line with a number of about the fact that climate change is real, polls regarding science that have been caused by human activity, and a potential conducted over the years, which consist- threat to civilization. That is the conclu- ently show that the public ranks scien- sion of every major scientific organization tists near the top for trustworthiness that deals in any of the underlying areas of (Pew Research Center, 2009)Ñwhile science, including the American Physical they put members of Congress, TV repor- Society, the American Meteorological ters, and used-car salesmen near the Society, the American Chemical Society, bottom. (At the very bottom are lobbyists, the Geological Society of America, the who have only a 6 percent approval rating American Geophysical Union, and several for honesty and ethics (Gallup, 2014)). dozen more. Indeed, it is the conclusion In their effort to discredit the genuine of the national academies of every major science behind climate change, fossil industrial nation on the planet.1 fuel interests and their front groups But faced with this overwhelming sci- have sought to undermine that trust in entific consensus about the threat of science and scientists. human-caused climate changeÑand, by implication, the necessity to reduce Swiftboating comes to climate global carbon emissionsÑfossil fuel science interests have in many cases chosen not to accept the evidence, nor to engage in The earliest attacks on climate scientists good-faith discussion about possible were aimed at physicist-turned-climate solutions. Instead, they have opted to scientist Stephen Schneider of Stanford deny the problem exists. University, a particularly effective For more than two decades now, lead- messenger at communicating climate ing fossil fuel companies like ExxonMo- change risk to the public. Climate bil, as well as privately held fossil fuel change deniers found an opening in interests like Koch Industries, have SchneiderÕs use of loosely phrased, off- been orchestrating attacks on the sci- the-cuff comments that could be taken ence of climate change through their out of context. For example, 25 years various front groups (Mann, 2012; ago Schneider did an interview for Dis- Oreskes and Conway, 2010). As the evi- cover magazine in which he stated: dence has grown stronger and the scien- tific case more firm, they have simply On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically doubled down on the assault. bound to the scientific method, in effect Mann 37

promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and on climateÓ (Mann, 2012). This was nothing butÑwhich means that we must the first time such a statement had include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not been made. just scientists but human beings as well. And Ben Santer, a relatively young scien- like most people weÕd like to see the world a tist at the time, was the lead author of better place, which in this context translates the key chapter on the Òdetection and into our working to reduce the risk of poten- tially disastrous climatic change. To do that we attributionÓ of climate changeÑwhich need to get some broad-based support, to cap- demonstrated that the ÒsignalÓ of an- ture the publicÕs imagination. That, of course, thropogenic climate change and global entails getting loads of media coverage. So we warming was now discernible from the have to offer up scary scenarios, make simpli- fied, dramatic statements, and make little men- background ÒnoiseÓ of natural climate tion of any doubts we might have. This Òdouble variability. SanterÕs own scientific work ethical bindÓ we frequently find ourselves in was critical to that conclusion; as a cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us result, he found himself at the center of has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that a campaign in which his integrity was means being both. (Schneider, 1989: 47) impugned by industry affiliates, along with charges of Òscientific cleansingÓ Climate change critics2 have frequently similar to ethnic cleansing in Wall taken this statement completely out of Street Journal op-eds. His job and even context, editing it down to the snippet his life were threatened (Mann, 2012). Òwe have to offer up scary scenarios, The assaults against Santer were just a make simplified, dramatic statements, sign of what was to come. and make little mention of any doubts we might have.Ó By cutting out the sen- The hockey stick and the tences that follow, and not providing the Serengeti strategy full context, SchneiderÕs detractors mis- represented the point Schneider was From the late 1980s through the mid- actually making: that we can, and 1990s, scientists like Schneider and should, be both effective and honest in Santer were subject to ÒswiftboatÓ-like3 communicating the science and its impli- attacks, owing to the prominence of their cations to the public. work in raising awareness of the threat of The critics ratcheted up their cam- climate change. I was the involuntary paign in the mid-1990s. In December next member in this lineage. 1995, just as I was finalizing my disserta- My work as a postdoctoral researcher tion on the topic of natural climate in the late 1990s reconstructing past tem- variabilityÑresearch that had little if perature changes led my colleagues and anything to do with the topic of human- me to publish the now well-known caused climate changeÑa group of hun- Òhockey stickÓ4 curve depicting tem- dreds of leading climate experts from perature changes over the past thousand around the world were assessing the years. Looking much like a hockey stick state of the science of climate change. lying on its sideÑwhich is why it got its Known as the Intergovernmental Panel nameÑthis curve graphically illustrated on Climate Change, or IPCC, the group in easy-to-understand terms the past issued a report that concluded that there centuryÕs warming spike (the ÒbladeÓ), was now a Òdiscernible human influence as it rose above the range of natural 38 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) variation over the past millennium (the emerged as an iconic image of human- ÒhandleÓ). As it sloped downward from caused climate change, conveying a left to right, the lengthy handle indicated simple, straightforward message about that there were only relatively modest the reality of global warming. To mix changes in Northern Hemisphere tem- metaphors, this graph became a lightning peratures for almost 1,000 yearsÑas far rod of debateÑand its publication turned back as our data went at the time of pub- me into a reluctant public figure. Some lication. (In its September 2013 report, years after his own experiences, Ben the IPCC extended the stick farther Santer stated: ÒThere are people who back in time, reflecting their conclusion believe that if they bring down Mike that the recent warming was unprece- Mann, they can bring down the IPCCÓ dented for at least 1,400 years.) In con- (Pearce, 2006). trast, the short and abruptly upturned I recount my experiences in full in my blade, at the extreme right of the graph, book The Hockey Stick and the Climate indicated the abrupt rise in temperatures Wars (Mann, 2012), but include a brief since the mid-1800sÑwhich roughly cor- summary of a few highlights here. responded to the arrival of the Industrial I was vilified in the editorial pages of Revolution in the Northern Hemisphere The Wall Street Journal and on Fox and the emission of much more carbon News. I was in the sights now of power- into the atmosphere (see Figure 1). ful, well-heeled interests such as the The hockey stick was featured in the Scaife Foundations and the Koch broth- summary for policy makers of the IPCC ers (Mann, 2012). A Scaife-funded front Fourth Assessment Report of 2001. It group known as the Commonwealth

Figure 1. “Hockey stick graph” of rising global temperatures

1000 years of global temperature and CO2 change 1.0 370

0.8 350

0.6 330

0.4 310 0.2 (ppm) 2 290 CO 0

Temperature change °F 270 –0.2

250 –0.4

–0.6 230 1000 1045 1090 1135 1180 1225 1315 1360 1405 1495 1540 1585 1630 1675 1720 1765 1810 1855 1900 1945 1270 1450 1990 Mann 39

Foundation unsuccessfully pressured Institute (ATI) sought to demand the Penn State University to fire me, while same e-mails through misuse of state the Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune- open-records laws. The ATI too was Review frequently published attacks rebuffed all the way to the state Supreme upon me personally. IÕve stopped count- Court, which ultimately demanded that ing the number of attacks by individuals, they pay both the University of Virginia organizations, and front groups con- and me damages for their frivolous peti- nected to the Koch brothersÑconserva- tioning of the court (Sturgis, 2014). tive activists who are heavily invested in Many of the attacks claimed that the fossil fuel extraction and transportation hockey stick was simply wrong, or bad (see, e.g., Mayer, 2010). science, or that it was debunked or dis- I was subject to what The Washington credited, despite all evidence to the Post and The New York Times denounced contraryÑsuch as the reaffirmation of as an ÒinquisitionÓ and a Òwitch huntÓ5 by our findings by the National Academy politicians in the pay of fossil fuel inter- of Sciences,7 the subsequent reports of ests (Mann, 2012), looking to discredit the IPCC,8 and the most recent peer- my work.6 reviewed research.9 The former chair of the House Energy Others were challenges to my integrity and Commerce Committee, Texas Repub- and honesty. Most worrisome were thinly lican Joe Barton, attempted in 2005 to sub- veiled threats leveled against my family poena all of my personal records and those and me. (And some not so veiled, such of my two Òhockey stickÓ co-authors, even as letters and e-mails threatening my life though the vast majority of what he was and my familyÕs lives, including an enve- demanding was already in the public lope sent in the mail that contained a domain. (Among the fiercest critics of white powder, subsequently investigated BartonÕs behavior were two powerful by the FBI (Mann, 2012: Chapter 14.)) senior members of his own partyÑthe Then came the manufactured, so- chair of the House Science Committee, called ÒclimategateÓ controversy (Mann, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York, 2012: Chapter 14), in which climate change and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.) deniers stole thousands of e-mails and Subsequently, Ken Cuccinelli, the mined them for words and phrases that newly minted attorney general of Virginia, could be taken out of context and made whoÕd received significant Koch brothers to sound as if scientists had been doctor- support (see Blumenthal, 2013; Cramer, ing data or otherwise engaged in misbe- 2013; and Vogel, 2011), attempted to havior. Nine investigations later,10 we obtain all of my personal e-mails with know that the only wrongdoing was more than 30 scientists around the world the criminal theft of the e-mails in the from the 1999 to 2005 time period, during first place. which I was a professor at the University of Virginia, under the aegis of a civil Fighting back against the subpoena designed to root out state Medi- doubt-sowers care fraud. After Cuccinelli was repeat- edly rebuffed by the courts all the way to In this poisonous environment, we are the state Supreme Court, a Koch-funded each faced with a choice. Should we group called the American Tradition avoid the fray? Should we simply don 40 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1) our lab coats, perform our research, pub- our citizenship at the door of a public lish it in peer-reviewed literature, pre- meeting. There is nothing inappropriate sent our results at scientific meetings, about drawing on our scientific know- and leave it to others to translate them ledge to speak out about the very real for consumption by the public and implications of our research. As Stephen policy makers? Do we not owe it to soci- Schneider used to say, being a scientist- ety to explain the potential implications advocate is not an oxymoron. If scien- of our work? tists choose not to engage on matters of I was not given the choice of remain- policy-relevant science, then we leave a ing outside the public arena. Arguably, void that will be filled by industry- I could have tried to ignore the attacks funded disinformation. in the hope they would eventually go While this is not what I signed up away. But retreating into my lab and forÑI majored in physics and mathemat- simply focusing on my work did not ics, obtained a masterÕs degree in phys- feel like a responsible option. For one, it ics, and earned a doctorate in the would signal the success of the Serengeti Department of Geology and Geophysics strategy, and it would encourage similar at Yale UniversityÑin my view, there is behavior against other climate scientists. nothing that could be more noble than It would set a poor example for younger striving to communicate, in terms that scientists just entering the field, showing are simultaneously accurate and access- them that it is unsafe to participate in ible, the implications of our scientific public outreach about the implications knowledge. When it comes to fighting of their scientific research. What if the against disinformation, the old adage tobacco interests had ultimately been Òthe best defense is a good offenseÓ successful in intimidating health re- rings true. Consequently, I have devoted searchers out of studying and reporting an increasing part of my career to com- on the link between tobacco products municating the science and its implica- and lung cancer and other smoking- tions to the larger public, to the best of related ailments? The cost would have my abilities. been measured in millions more human lives lost. Unchecked climate change Successful responses couldtakeanevengreatertoll.Thatis whysome(Hansen,2008)havecharacter- While engaged in a full-time round of ized bad-faith attacks on the science of cli- teaching, advising students, performing mate change a Òcrime against humanity.Ó and publishing research, and attempting Perhaps it is because of my experi- to meet all my other obligations as a uni- ences in the center of the battle over cli- versity professor, I spend a good deal of mate change that I have become a my time these days engaged in outreach passionate believer in the role of the and communication. This takes the form Òscientist-advocateÓ (Schneider, 1993). of more than 50 public lectures, panel I think that it is indeed our responsibility discussions, and other public-speaking collectively, as scientists, to convey the engagements per year; hundreds of societal implications of our work (Mann, newspaper, magazine, television, and 2014a). Just because we are scientists radio interviews; and dozens of op-eds, does not mean that we should check commentaries, and letters to the editor. Mann 41

In addition, I co-founded a popular sci- predict. (This is the same principle ence blog known as RealClimate (http:// underlying why we purchase fire insur- www.realclimate.org) nearly a decade anceÑit isnÕt because we think it likely agoÑin part as a reaction to the fact that that our house will burn down, but if one did a web search on terms like Òglo- because the damages would be so great bal warmingÓ or Òclimate changeÓ what if it did occur that it makes sense to one mostly got back were links to indus- invest now to hedge against this cata- try-funded, antiscientific propaganda. I strophic outcome). have also chosen to embrace newer As for climate change denial and dis- modes of communication, including information, I find it useful to let the social media vehicles such as Facebook words and actions of the critics speak and Twitter (where IÕm @MichaelEMann). for themselves. It can provide moments Because an increasingly large share of of levity, and IÕm a firm believer in the the publicÑyounger audiences in particu- principle that scientists must retain a larÑno longer gets its news from Òtrad- sense of humor, even when discussing a itionalÓ media sources, scientists must rather dour topic like climate change. A increasingly leave their Òcomfort zoneÓ case in point is the way that climate and take the social media plunge if they change contrarians like to present them- are to reach the broadest possible audience. selves as modern-day Galileos, fighting There is also something very satisfying against the hegemony of mainstream sci- about being able to communicate infor- entific thinking. The phenomenon even mation directly to the public, without has a nameÑthe Galileo gambit. But the ÒmiddlemanÓ of journalists or media denial for the sake of denial, without pre- organizations. That is not to say that jour- senting any supporting evidence, is not nalists and traditional media donÕt remain true scientific skepticism. In fact, it is vital sources of information for the quite the opposite. When climate public, but that scientists now find them- change deniers attempt to play the selves in a more complex new-media ÒThey laughed at Galileo tooÓ card, IÕm ÒecosystemÓ where they risk limiting fond of citing Carl SaganÕs retort: ÒThey their reach if they donÕt embrace the full also laughed at Bozo the Clown.Ó11 range of informational vehicles available. Where skeptics express doubt in what The message I convey, naturally, appears to be good faith, scientists depends on the venue and the audience, should attempt to engage with them but if there is a common theme it is that constructively. There may well be an climate change is real, it is caused by us, opportunity to disabuse them of miscon- and it remains a grave threat if we donÕt ceptions, inform them of the facts, and do something about it. When it comes to arm them with helpful resources they the issue of uncertainty, which is some- can rely upon in the future. My favorite times used as a crutch by those arguing is the smartphone app offered by the site against action, I strive to convey the idea Skeptical Science (http://www.skepti- that uncertainty is not a reason for inac- calscience.com) which provides, at the tion but a reason for even more immedi- touch of a finger, the responsesÑat the ate and greater action, because of the beginner, intermediate, and advanced possibility that the impacts will be sub- levelÑto more than a hundred common stantially worse than scientists currently denialist myths. 42 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

Yet where good faith is not evident threat through a reduction of fossil fuel and when critics appear more interested burning and carbon emissions. Despite in personal insults, inflammatory rhet- claiming to assent to the scientific evi- oric, and argument purely for its own dence, delayers tend to downplay the cli- sake, another quote, this time from mate change threat by assuming Mark Twain, is apropos: ÒNever argue unrealistic, low-end projections of cli- with a fool; onlookers may not be able mate change, denying the reality of key to tell the difference.Ó Translating to climate change effects, and employing 21st-century Internet-speak: ÒDonÕt feed lowball estimates of the costs of those the trolls.Ó It is far better to expend impacts. When the cost-benefit analysis your time and effort engaging with of taking action is skewed by a down- those individuals who display a capacity wardly biased estimate of the cost of inac- to reconsider their viewpointsÑwho are tion, it is far easier to make the Pollyanna- receptive to new information and evi- ish argument that technology and the free denceÑthan waste it on those who are market will simply solve the problem on not. It is also better for your emotional their own. It is a backdoor way of saying health (and blood pressure). that we do not need to pursue clean, non- fossil fuel energy sources, which are argu- Looking forward ably the only real ways to avoid locking in dangerous climate change. There is some evidence that flat-out cli- So while the battle is far from over, the mate change denial has lost favor over tide does appear to be turning. We are the past few years. With authoritative seeing the slow but steady retreat of cli- reports coming in from not just the sci- mate change contrarians down the Òlad- entific community but the business der of denialÓ (Mann, 2012). The window community, the national security com- of public discourse appears to be shifting munity, and even some conservative away from the false debate over whether groups that climate change is a very there is a problem toward the worthy real and existential threat to society, a debate about what to do about it. That new breed of climate change contrar- is reason for optimism. And optimism is ianÑthe delayerÑhas now emerged. important, for people respond poorly to Examples of individuals occupying messages of doom and gloom that lack that niche in the media today are folks any sign of hope. Defeatism is indeed like Judith Curry of the Georgia Tech self-fulfilling. People must see a way for- School of Earth and Atmospheric ward, and fortunately it exists. There is Sciences, former UC Berkeley astro- still time to act so that we avert leaving a physicist Richard Muller, and Òskeptical fundamentally degraded planet for environmentalistÓ Bjorn Lomborg. future generations. But time is running Rather than flat-out denying the exist- out, and there is unprecedented urgency ence of human-caused climate change, now in taking action (Mann, 2014a).12 delayers claim to accept the science, but That brings us back, finally, to the role downplay the seriousness of the threat or of the scientist in the public arena, and I the need to act. The end result is an asser- find myself compelled to return to the tion that we should delay or resist entirely Òdouble ethical bindÓ that Schneider any efforts to mitigate the climate change spoke so eloquently about. We scientists Mann 43 must hold ourselves to a higher standard 3. ÒSwiftboatingÓ has been described as Òthe than the deniers-for-hire. We must be nastiest of campaign smearsÓ (Zernike, honest as we convey the threat posed 2008). The term originated with the attacks against Sen. John Kerry during the run-up to by climate change to the public. But we the 2004 presidential election. The intent must also be effective. The stakes are was to take one of his perceived strengthsÑ simply too great for us to fail to commu- his service in VietnamÑand turn it instead nicate the risks of inaction. into a liability (false claims of dishonorable The good news is that scientists actions). Some of the same organizations and have truth on their side, and truth will even some of the same individuals who were ultimately win out. That too is reason instrumental in this deceitful practice are for optimism. working today to attack and discredit climate scientists. For example, as discussed in Chap- ter 5 of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Acknowledgements Wars (Mann, 2012), Marc Morano got his The author would like to acknowledge very helpful start working for radio commentator Rush conversations over the years about the broad topics Limbaugh before moving on to work for the explored here with folks such as Steve Schneider, ExxonMobil and Richard Mellon Scaife- Naomi Oreskes, Susan Joy-Hassol, Stefan Rahmstorf, financed Conservative News Service (now Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, Ben Santer, Richard the Cybercast News Service). In this cap- Somerville, and Gavin Schmidt. The author would acity, Morano was directly involved in the also like to thank Pete Fontaine, Scott Mandia, and original swiftboat campaign against Kerry. Josh Wolfe and the Climate Science Legal Defense Morano was subsequently appointed to Sen. Fund for their efforts. James InhofeÕs staff, in that capacity launch- ing swiftboat-like attacks on scientists. For Funding example, he called NASAÕs James Hansen a This research received no specific grant from any Òwannabe UnabomberÓ and a Òpotential ter- funding agency in the public, commercial, or not- roristÓ in an interview with the ABC News for-profit sectors. program Nightline. For more detail, see the transcript available at ClimateDepot.com (2010). Notes 4. The term Òhockey stickÓ was first used to 1. Lists of scientific societies and organizations describe the curve by Jerry Mahlman, the and national academies that have issued former head of the National Oceanic and statements endorsing the scientific consen- Atmospheric AdministrationÕs Geophysical sus, and links to their statements, are avail- Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, able at: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific- New Jersey. consensus/, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_ 5. The Washington Post (2005) published an warming/science_and_impacts/science/ editorial denouncing the attack on me by scientific-consensus-on.html, and http:// Rep. Joe Barton entitled ÒHunting WitchesÓ; www.skepticalscience.com/global-warm- while The New York Times (2005) wrote an ing-scientific-consensus-intermediate. htm. editorial characterizing it as an ÒinquisitionÓ. 2. One example is Martin Durkin of the United The Washington Post (2010) also wrote an Kingdom. He produced the ironically titled editorial about Virginia Attorney General documentary ÒThe Great Global Warming Ken CuccinelliÕs attempt to subpoena my Swindle.Ó As reported by BBC News, British personal e-mails entitled ÒA Judge Puts a media regulator Ofcom found that the film Damper on Mr. CuccinelliÕs U-Va. Witch Òdid not fulfil obligations to be impartial HuntÓ. and to reflect a range of views on controver- 6. Documentation that these politicians were sial issuesÓ and that it Òtreated interviewees leading recipients of fossil fuel funding in unfairlyÓ (Black, 2008). the US House and Senate is in the book. 44 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

7. See North et al. (2006). The report stated References that Òthe basic conclusion of Mann et al. Ahmed M, Anchukaitis KJ, Asrat A et al. (2013) Con- (1998, 1999) ...that the late 20th century tinental-scale temperature variability during the warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was past two millennia. Nature Geoscience 6: unprecedented during at least the last 339”346. Available at: http://www.nature.com/ 1,000 years ...has subsequently been sup- ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html. ported by an array of evidence that includes Black R (2008) Climate documentary Ôbroke rules.Õ the additional large-scale surface tempera- BBC News, July 21. Available at: http://news. ture reconstructions and documentation of bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7517509.stm. Blumenthal P (2013) Ken Cuccinelli receives $50,000 the spatial coherence of recent warming ... Koch brothers contribution. Huffington Post, Janu- and also the pronounced changes in a variety ary 15. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost. of local proxy indicatorsÓ (p. 3). Further- com/2013/01/15/ken-cuccinelli-koch-brothers_ more, the report concluded that Òbased on n_2482708.html. the analyses presented in the original papers Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2014) Elizabeth Kol- by Mann et al. and this newer supporting bert: Covering the hot topic of climate change by evidence, the committee finds it plausible going to the ends of the Earth. Bulletin of the that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer Atomic Scientists 70(4): 1”9. Available at: http:// during the last few decades of the 20th cen- thebulletin.org/2014/july/elizabeth-kolbert-cov- tury than during any comparable period ering-hot-topic-climate-change-going-ends- earth7277. over the preceding millenniumÓ (p. 19). ClimateDepot.com (2010) Watch now: Rare ABC 8. The IPCC (2007: 9) Fourth Assessment News TV climate debateÑClimate Depot vs. Report concluded that Òpalaeoclimatic Center for American Progress: Morano: ÔThe cli- information supports the interpretation mate con is endingÕ. July 13. Available at: http:// that the warmth of the last half century is www.climatedepot.com/2010/07/13/watch-now- unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years,Ó rare-abc-news-tv-climate-debate-climate-depot- while the IPCC (2013: 3) Fifth Assessment vs-center-for-am-progress-morano-the-climate-con- Report concluded that Òin the Northern is-ending. Hemisphere, the period 1983”2012 was Cramer R (2013) Koch brother to host a fundraiser for likely the warmest 30-year period of the Ken Cuccinelli. BuzzFeed, May 22. Available at: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/koch- last 1400 years (medium confidence).Ó brother-to-host-a-fundraiser-ken-cuccinelli. 9. The most comprehensive analysis to date, Gallup (2014) Honesty/ethics in professions. Survey, by a team of nearly 80 paleoclimate December 5”8. Available at: http://www.gallup. researchers representing more than 40 com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx. institutions and employing the most wide- Hansen J (2008) Twenty years later: Tipping points spread set of proxy climate data yet, deter- near on global warming. Huffington Post, June 23. mined that current warmth in the Northern Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ Hemisphere is unprecedented over at least dr-james-hansen/twenty-years-later-tippin_b_ the past 1,400 years. See Ahmed et al. (2013). 108766.html. 10. A list of the various investigations and gov- IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: The physical sci- ence basis. Contribution of Working Group I to ernment agency reviews clearing scientists the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern- of any misconduct or wrongdoing is pro- mental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: vided by the Union of Concerned Scientists Cambridge University Press. Available at: http:// (2009). www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/. 11. The full quote is ÒThey laughed at Colum- IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical sci- bus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at ence basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovern- Bozo the ClownÓ (Sagan, 1979: 64). mental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: 12. See my recent article in Scientific American Cambridge University Press. Available at: http:// (Mann, 2014b). www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Mann 45

Kolbert E (2014) The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural scientist. Facing South, July 8. Available at: History. New York: Henry Holt. http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/07/climate- Mann ME (2012) The Hockey Stick and the Climate science-denier-group-must-pay-damages-for-.html. Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. New Union of Concerned Scientists (2009) Debunking York: Columbia University Press. misinformation about stolen climate emails in Mann ME (2014a) If you see something, say some- the ÒClimategateÓ manufactured controversy. thing. New York Times, January 17. Available at: Available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/ warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/ sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html. debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails- Mann ME (2014b) False hope: Earth will cross the cli- climategate.html. mate danger threshold by 2036. Scientific Ameri- Vogel KP (2011) McDonnell, Cuccinelli attend Koch can, April. Available at: http://www. summit in Colorado. Politico, June 28. Available at: scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross- http://hamptonroads.com/2011/06/mcdonnell- the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/. cuccinelli-attend-koch-summit-colorado. Mayer J (2010) Covert operations: The billionaire Washington Post (2005) Hunting witches. Editorial, brothers who are waging a war against Obama. July 23. Available at: http://www.washington- New Yorker, August 30. Available at: http:// post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/ www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/ AR2005072201658.html. covert-operations. Washington Post (2010) A judge puts a damper on Mr. New York Times (2005) Houses divided on warming. CuccinelliÕs U-Va. witch hunt. Editorial, August 31. Editorial, July 23. Available at: http://www.nyti- Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ mes.com/2005/07/23/opinion/23sat1.html. wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR20100 North GR, Biondi F, Bloomfield P et al. (2006) Surface 83004405.html. Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Yale Project on Climate Change Communication/ Years. Washington, DC: National Academies George Mason University Center for Climate Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog. Change Communication (2012) Climate change in php?record_id¼11676. the American mind: AmericansÕ global warming Oreskes N and Conway EM (2010) Merchants of beliefs and attitudes in September 2012. Available at: Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communi- Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global cation/files/Climate-Beliefs-September-2012. pdf. Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press. Zernike K (2008) Veterans long to reclaim the name Pearce F (2006) Climate change special: State of ÔSwift Boat.Õ New York Times, June 30. Available at: denial. New Scientist, November. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/poli- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10445 - tics/30swift.html. climate-change-special-state-of-denial.html. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2009) Public praises science; scientists fault Author biography public, media. Available at: http://www.people- press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science- Michael E. Mann is distinguished professor of scientists-fault-public-media/. meteorology and director of the Earth System Sagan C (1979) BrocaÕs Brain: Reflections on the Science Center at Pennsylvania State Univer- Romance of Science. New York: Coronet, 79. sity, USA. Among numerous other awards and Schneider S (1989) Interview. Discover, October, commendations, he contributed to the work of pp. 45”48. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Schneider S (1993) Is the Ôscientist-advocateÕ an oxy- Change that received the 2007 Nobel Peace moron? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Prize. He is the author of The Hockey Stick and Science, Boston, MA, USA, February 12. the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Sturgis S (2014) Climate science denier group must Lines (Columbia University Press, 2012). pay damages for frivolous lawsuit against UVA,