The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
New Report Details History of Attacks on Climate Science
In advance of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report coming out this month, Greenpeace has released a new report, Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Machine vs. Climate Science.
Dealing in Doubt presents a brief history of climate denial and attacks on climate science over the past two decades, focusing specifically on denier campaigns against the IPCC, including current efforts by the Heartland Institute, the funding of those campaigns and the wide range of tactics and tricks used by a small handful of deniers to undermine legitimate science.
“We can document a well funded climate denial machine that revved up in the early 1990s, fueled by millions of dollars from corporate polluters," said Greenpeace U.S. Research Director Kert Davies. "They are still fighting the science and still being funded."
"The lasting legacy of these corporations, front groups, organizations and individuals who have threatened scientists and attacked scientific institutions like the IPCC, is a delay in reaction time and solutions to the climate crisis," Davies concluded. "This means global warming will hit harder and cost more to fix.”
The IPCC Assessment Reports are considered the definitive assessments of global climate risk, and include the contributions of hundreds of scientists; at each release of a new assessment, the IPCC undergoes a wave of attacks from deniers. Despite the IPCC traditionally leaning towards a conservative assessment of the science, denier campaigns consistently paint the reports as exaggerations. Dealing in Doubt aims to serve as a primer on the history of those attacks, who’s behind them, who funds them and the dirty tricks deployed.
An update of the 2010 report of the same name, Dealing in Doubt includes:
- a history of IPCC report attacks from the first assessment report in 1990 to the present
- descriptions of the ongoing attempts to attack individual scientists and their work, including Michael Mann, Dr. Benjamin Santer, Dr. Kevin Trenberth and James Hansen
- tactics and tricks of deniers, including “pal” review instead of peer review, false credentials and fake scientific support
- a second look at the “Climategate” scandal, what really happened and the exoneration of the scientists at the heart of the story
- the global reach of the climate denial machine
- the “continental army”—the small group of spokespeople and strategists that have perpetuated these attacks over two decades
The report also includes a case study focusing on the Heartland Institute, which has started pushing its Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, Climate Change Reconsidered due next week.
Dealing in Doubt shows how the NIPCC report differs from the crucial scientific updates provided by the IPCC—unlike the IPCC, the Heartland Institute, heavily funded by fossil fuel groups, had already reached its conclusions before starting out (i.e., climate change is a hoax) and only reviews papers written by deniers (the IPCC reviews all papers on the subject).
“The NIPCC reports are a clear attempt to muddle the science rather than provide clarity,” said Davies. “It’s unbelievable that anyone would take these attempts to confuse the media and the public seriously after seeing the history of lying and misinformation perpetuated by these authors, and the fossil fuel money behind them.”
Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
"The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension," the government announced in a press release shared on social media.
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
By Grant Smith
From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
In a big victory for animals, Prada has announced that it's ending its use of fur! It joins Coach, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and many others PETA has pushed toward a ban.
This is a victory more than a decade in the making. PETA and our international affiliates have crashed Prada's catwalks with anti-fur signs, held eye-catching demonstrations all around the world, and sent the company loads of information about the fur industry. In 2018, actor and animal rights advocate Pamela Anderson sent a letter on PETA's behalf urging Miuccia Prada to commit to leaving fur out of all future collections, and the iconic designer has finally listened.
If people in three European countries want to fight the climate crisis, they need to chill out more.
"The rapid pace of labour-saving technology brings into focus the possibility of a shorter working week for all, if deployed properly," Autonomy Director Will Stronge said, The Guardian reported. "However, while automation shows that less work is technically possible, the urgent pressures on the environment and on our available carbon budget show that reducing the working week is in fact necessary."
The report found that if the economies of Germany, Sweden and the UK maintain their current levels of carbon intensity and productivity, they would need to switch to a six, 12 and nine hour work week respectively if they wanted keep the rise in global temperatures to the below two degrees Celsius promised by the Paris agreement, The Independent reported.
The study based its conclusions on data from the UN and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in all three countries.
The report comes as the group Momentum called on the UK's Labour Party to endorse a four-day work week.
"We welcome this attempt by Autonomy to grapple with the very real changes society will need to make in order to live within the limits of the planet," Emma Williams of the Four Day Week campaign said in a statement reported by The Independent. "In addition to improved well-being, enhanced gender equality and increased productivity, addressing climate change is another compelling reason we should all be working less."
Supporters of the idea linked it to calls in the U.S. and Europe for a Green New Deal that would decarbonize the economy while promoting equality and well-being.
"This new paper from Autonomy is a thought experiment that should give policymakers, activists and campaigners more ballast to make the case that a Green New Deal is absolutely necessary," Common Wealth think tank Director Mat Lawrence told The Independent. "The link between working time and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions has been proved by a number of studies. Using OECD data and relating it to our carbon budget, Autonomy have taken the step to show what that link means in terms of our working weeks."
Stronge also linked his report to calls for a Green New Deal.
"Becoming a green, sustainable society will require a number of strategies – a shorter working week being just one of them," he said, according to The Guardian. "This paper and the other nascent research in the field should give us plenty of food for thought when we consider how urgent a Green New Deal is and what it should look like."
- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change ›
- How working less could solve all our problems. Really. | ›
- Needed: A shorter work week – People's World ›