- Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming by James Hoggan
- Join Kobo & start eReading today
- Customer Reviews
A Nature Research Journal. Now that the Copenhagen climate negotiations have passed, it may seem as if those who deny the existence of climate change have faded into the background. Yet, in Climate Cover-Up , James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore argue that we should never stop paying attention to the pervasive influence of climate-change scepticism. Since , the authors have been running the climate blog DeSmogBlog. Through this, they aim to combat what they see as a massive, ongoing public-relations campaign to distort people's perception of climate change by presenting scientific conclusions as biased.
Hoggan is president and founder of a public-relations company in Vancouver, Canada, and also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation, a science-based Canadian environmental organization. From this vantage point he became disgusted by how the tools of his trade were being misapplied. But when public-relations people confuse their role and become advocates for their clients, their tactics may veer into unethical terrain. Hoggan and Littlemore, who is a journalist and speech-writer, document the unfolding of a multi-pronged public-relations assault on the veracity of climate change.
Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming by James Hoggan
One tactic is 'astroturfing' — the development of faux grass-roots organizations that aim to transform lobbyists into activists and that can make source-funding and motives difficult to track. A strategy originally used by the tobacco industry, it has been honed and expanded by groups funded by the oil, gas and coal industries. The authors also identify leading sceptics who are often presented as climate 'experts', and debunk their credentials, affiliation histories and funding pathways.
The words of these spokespeople, who are talented but often acting outside their area of expertise, have a long reach through the 'echo chamber' of blogs, newspaper editorials, reports, public talks and other forms of message reinforcement. Hoggan and Littlemore offer citations to support their strong assertions. They also make the reader keenly aware of the perils of legal action against those who have challenged sceptics in the past; the chapter on strategic lawsuits against public participation is disturbing.
Hoggan and Littlemore's arguments will not be new to followers of climate-change debates, but their narrative deftly exposes a landscape of denial that is unrelenting, extensive, international and tactically rich. Still, it has 3 5-star reviews, which themselves bear reading. It is useful to know that one of the reviewers Paul Drallos write papers with Alexander back at Wayne State.
RC readers will recognize one of the other reviewers. Buckner, Hmm, which situation do you think will lead to the greatest draconian measures and bureaucratic power:. Oh, wait. All Rush et al. RC Welcome back! I was afraid you got lost. Please publish more often. I know you must be bored with saying the same thing over and over, but the world needs you.
Finally, thanks John for pointing out some of things people can do to help push this book far and wide, we need to break through the noise and get this in the hands of people not yet exposed to these misinformation efforts. Email me if you have a blog and you want a review copy desmogblog gmail. Send the link www. Send info on the book to a reporter you think might be interested in covering the book.
And as John points out, do a review on Amazon or Barnes and Noble. Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly. For miserably small amounts of that money the disinformation machine can seduce many people into saying many things.
Loads of money doing unspeakable things. Not even the most extreme end of prediction or extrapolated evidence. James Hoggan has done Canada and the world a huge service, not to mention doing much to redeem the public relations profession. I first got involved with digging into Friends of Science and documenting same at SourceWatch. A common and depressing feature of PR climate propaganda campaigns is the use of hidden, tax-deductible donations as primary source of funding.
In Canada, the Fraser Institute, Frontier Centre and other contrarian organizations receive such funding. Friends of Science has largely operated through indirect support from such funding as well. As long as organizations like the Calgary Foundation are allowed to stonewall, there will never be proper transparency and accountability. Five years after the Calgary Foundation first started funding these activities, their level of funding appears stronger than ever.
Ditto for the Fraser Institute and the others. But at least some are starting to ask the right questions. No, perhaps not.
I suspect you mean the scientists from many disciplines who contribute their own area of physical or chemical science to the climate models. More straw. No conspiracy needed. After all, what else can they do? No conspuiracy needed.
Evasive half truths. Misquotes and bad science all over. I was lucky enough to get a good public education in California, but public education for most Americans is horrendous. I agree with the CO2 science because I can understand it without a translator. If you had to estimate purely on personal experience of weather over your lifetime, could you say that you know the world is getting hotter?
The only reason I have any inclination of major climate change is because of data compiled and gathered by others. Data that I can understand without a translator. Since I agree with the results, the data gathering and translation by a relatively small group of people is a favor. Yes I do. My advice is to hammer down those decadal predictions, explain a solid understanding of the natural cycles and where they would have headed without the extra CO2.
KevinM, who has mistakenly equated climate scientists with fund managers, needs to read; a good start would be Chu-Carroll, here, who points out among much else cherrypicking numbers and ignoring risk as foolish financial moves. I was reading the statement by the scientists you refer to and I was fairly impressed by what they said.
After all, I am a non-scientist and non-AGW expert.
Join Kobo & start eReading today
And the I knew the German scientists were bullshitters. I am copying the entire earlier post fro Juliette as I think it is important, and I agree fully with her — Gavin take note? A lot of people here try hard to convince themselves. To realize that climate is driven mainly by other factors than just some more parts per million of CO2 in the air is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Have fun looking for your denialists. Hint: Look way, way down the list. Is this because they are bad scientists? It is because their ideologically driven insistence on a low CO2 sensitivity makes their outlook impotent when it comes to understanding climate.
When I get a bonus, it has 3 significant figures to the left of the decimal place. When a securities analyst gets a bonus, it has 6 or more significant figures to the left of the decimal place. Climate science is curiosity driven. This is not the case with climate science.
Financial research? Not so much.
Juliette 15 — Antarctica is doing mostly what is expected; not much. The only exception is Pine Island Glacier and two others nearby which appear to be in substantial retreat; enough to worry some. That is typical of a statement that is not even wrong. There is no such thing as the Antarctic ice shield. There are Antarctic ice shelves and Antarctic ice sheets. But which scientist is capable or willing to take on such a task? Until one is found, the septics are bound to win With regards to the alleged fact that an overwhelming majority of international climate experts agree about much of the tenants of AGW and are honest:.
There is a large, well known chemical company that was once under contract with the U S Department of Energy that insisted the best way to process millions of gallons of very high level radioactive waste was to add a complex organic molecule to million gallon underground waste tanks. The organic compound would precipitate the major radioactive constituent out of solution.
The liquid could then be pumped through filters to filter out the vast majority of the radioactive material, leaving a greatly reduced level of radioactivity in the liquid waste. The lone gommit scientist proposed the development of an ion exchange column resin that would remove the major radioactive constituents.
- Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming?
- Climate Cover-Up;
- Customer Reviews.
- Climate Cover-Up: A (Brief) Review « RealClimate;
- About This Item;
Write a review. Average rating: 5 out of 5 stars, based on 0 reviews. See more. Written by a customer while visiting librarything. Ask a question. Pricing policy About our prices. We're committed to providing low prices every day, on everything. So if you find a current lower price from an online retailer on an identical, in-stock product, tell us and we'll match it.
See more details at Online Price Match. Email address. Please enter a valid email address.