Livros de Ambientalismo PDF

American Behavioral Scientist
57(6) 699 731

2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0002764213477096
abs.sagepub.com
477096ABS57610.1177/0002764213477096Ame
rican Behavioral ScientistDunlap and Jacques
2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA
2
University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Riley E. Dunlap, Department of Sociology, Oklahoma State University, 439 Murray Hall, Stillwater, OK
74078-4062, USA.
Email: rdunlap@okstate.edu
Climate Change Denial
Books and Conservative
Think Tanks: Exploring the
Connection
Riley E. Dunlap
1
and Peter J. Jacques
2
Abstract
The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying
the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by
manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial
means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between
conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published
through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number
of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and
the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of
American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that
an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific
training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review,
allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then
amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.
Keywords
climate change denial, conservative movement, conservative think tanks, denial books
No sooner had anthropogenic global warming (AGW) been placed on the public
agenda, perhaps most effectively by James Hansens 1988 congressional testimony,
than an organized campaign to deny its reality and significance was launched. The
Article
700 American Behavioral Scientist 57(6)
early campaign was centered in corporate America, reflected by the Global Climate
Coalition, but from the outset the conservative movement was heavily involved
(McCright & Dunlap, 2000). The formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli-
mate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and the emergence of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change from the UNs 1992 Earth Summit in Rio generated
fears of international action to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels use, fears
crystallized by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Consequently, corporate America (especially
fossil fuels corporations worried about restrictions on their products) and the U.S.
conservative movement (for which opposition to governmental regulations is founda-
tional) joined forces in attacking the scientific evidence for AGW and thus the neces-
sity of reducing carbon emissionsthe goal of the Kyoto Protocol.
Both industry and the conservative movement learned during the Reagan adminis-
tration that frontal attacks on environmental regulations could create a backlash among
the public (Dunlap, 1987). Consequently, they gradually shifted to another strategy,
promoting environmental skepticism. This strategy challenges the scientific evi-
dence for environmental problems and therefore the need for regulations to protect
environmental quality (Jacques, 2006; Jacques, Dunlap, & Freeman, 2008). Their
major tactic was and continues to be manufacturing uncertainty (Michaels, 2008;
Oreskes & Conway, 2010), constantly asserting that the evidence is not sufficient to
warrant regulatory action. Historically these efforts focused on specific problems such
as secondhand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, but in the case of AGW they
have ballooned into a full-scale assault on the multifaceted field of climate science, the
IPCC, scientific organizations endorsing AGW, and even individual scientists (Powell,
2011; Weart, 2011).
With scientific evidence for AGW growing stronger and public awareness of
global warming mounting (Nisbet & Meyers, 2007), in the late 1990s portions of
corporate Americaincluding some fossil fuels corporationsexpressed accep-
tance both of the reality of AGW and necessity of reducing carbon emissions. Several
corporations withdrew from the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), gradually leading
to its demise in 2002, and it appeared that industry-funded attacks on the scientific
evidence supporting AGW were subsiding (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). However,
the conservative movement seemed dismayed by the corporate sellout and stepped
up its already substantial efforts to deny the reality of climate change by attacking
climate science and scientists (McCright & Dunlap, 2000, 2003). This transition is
symbolized by the Cooler Heads Coalition, a coalition largely of conservative think
tanks (CTTs) centered in the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), emerging to fill
the void created by the GCC. Similarly, the Heartland Institute, a small regional
think tank in the 1990s, emerged as a leading force in climate change denial in the
past decade (Pooley, 2010).
It now appears that CTTs such as CEI, the Heartland Institute, the CATO Institute,
and the Marshall Institute are playing an ever more important role in efforts to deny
AGW by attacking climate science. However, it must be noted that besides helping
fund these think tanks, many corporations maintain ambivalent positions concerning
Dunlap and Jacques 701
the necessity of reducing carbon emissions (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2012).
Furthermore, major corporate associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and the American Petroleum Institute continue to strongly oppose policies to reduce
carbon emissions (Pooley, 2010). Still, although corporations can bring their enor-
mous resources to bear in lobbying against legislation, the conservative movement
(especially its think tanks) often takes the lead in manufacturing uncertainty over cli-
mate science. Indeed, CTTs offer the ideal vehicle for undermining the credibility of
climate science and attacking climate scientists.
CTTs have long been recognized as the crucial organizational base of the conserva-
tive movement, functioning as core social movement organizations (Jacques et al.,
2008). Typically treated by media as credible sources of objective information, CTTs
have achieved the status of an alternate academia, and it is common to see their
representatives interviewed along with or in lieu of leading academics and treated as
independent experts on policy-relevant issues. They employ both in-house and com-
missioned personnel to produce a vast array of print material (from op-eds to policy
briefs to magazine articles to books) as well as make media appearances, provide
congressional testimony, give speeches, and so on to promote conservative positions
on a wide range of policy issues including environmental protection (McCright &
Dunlap, 2000, 2003). CTTs have been credited with having a major impact on U.S.
politics and policy making (e.g., Stefanic & Delgado, 1996), influencing such aspects
of American life as the conservative tilt of our judicial system (Teles, 2007), tax poli-
cies resulting in escalating inequality (Hacker & Pierson, 2007), and the fundamental
framing of political debate (Smith, 2007).
It is little wonder then that CTTs have become central actors in climate change
policy debates, especially by promoting denial of the reality and significance of AGW
and thus the necessity of carbon emission reductions (Dunlap & McCright, 2011;
Hoggan, 2009; Lahsen, 2008; McCright & Dunlap, 2000, 2003; Oreskes & Conway,
2010; Powell, 2011). The purpose of this article is to examine in detail one key tool
CTTs use to sow skepticism toward AGW throughout the larger society: sponsoring
books espousing climate change denial, including those by the small number of con-
trarian scientists who challenge mainstream climate science.
Books Challenging Climate Science
Although just one of many forms of media employed by CTTs, books are especially
important for reaching the conservative movements core constituency, wider seg-
ments of the public, and critical sectors of society such as corporate, political, and
media leaders. Books confer a sense of legitimacy on their authors and provide them
an effective tool for combating the findings of climate scientists that are published
primarily in scholarly, peer-reviewed journalsat least within the public and policy (as
opposed to scientific) arenas. Authors of successful books critiquing climate science
often come to be viewed as climate experts, regardless of their academic back-
grounds or scientific credentials, and despite the fact that their books are seldom peer
reviewed. They are interviewed on TV and radio, quoted by newspaper columnists,
and cited by sympathetic politicians and corporate figures. Their books are fre-
quently carried by major bookstore chains, where they are seen (even if not pur-
chased) by a wide segment of the public, many receive enormous publicity on CTT
websites and from conservative and skeptical bloggers, and some are carried by the
Conservative Book Club. In short, books are a potent means for diffusing skepticism
concerning AGW and the need to reduce carbon emissions. Given the critical role of
CTTs in challenging climate science and policy making, and their proclivity for
using books to promote their causes, we expect to find a strong link between CTTs
and books espousing climate change denial.
In part this expectation is based on prior experience. In an earlier study of environ-
mental skepticism writ large (Jacques et al., 2008), we examined 141 books espousing
skepticism toward the scientific evidence for environmental problems of all types
(including global warming) published through 2005, looking for evidence of linkages
to CTTs. We found that 130, or 92%, of the books were linked to a CTT, either via
publication by a CTT press or a verifiable connection between the author or editor and
a CTT, or both. These links to highly influential and generally well-heeled CTTs chal-
lenge a common theme of the booksnamely, that the authors or editors are little
Davids battling the Goliath of environmental science.
The present study extends our earlier work by examining books espousing cli-
mate change denial per se published through 2010, including some examined in the
prior study since they represent examples of environmental skepticism. Besides
focusing on book connections to CTTs, we also examine the educational credentials
and national backgrounds of their authors or editors. Given that climate change
denial has become widespread within the United States and to some degree interna-
tionally, we pay particular attention to the role of CTTs in diffusing a skeptical view
of climate change and climate science to a wider audience both within the United
States and internationally.
The Study
Our data set consists of the population of English-language books assigned an
International Standard Book Number (ISBN) that espouse various forms of climate
change denial.
1
These books reject evidence that global warming is occurring, that
human actions are the predominant cause of global warming, and/or that global warm-
ing will have negative impacts on human and natural systems. These arguments have
been labeled trend, attribution, and impact denial (Rahmstorf, 2004). Books were
included only if they take one or more of these positions challenging climate science,
all of which are used to reject the necessity of carbon emission reductions. We located
108 books espousing one or more of these versions of climate change denial published
through 2010, employing searches via online book stores, bibliographies in denial
books, references in articles written by climate change skeptics, and several skeptic
blogs that promote denial literature. Climate change denial books, especially those
that were published by obscure presses or were self-published, can be difficult to
locate, and we have possibly missed a few. However, we are confident that the 108
we analyze represent virtually all denial books in English, allowing us to generalize
our findings with confidence.
We limit our analysis to first-edition books, ignoring the small number of second-
edition volumes that came out in only slightly revised form.
2
The books are listed in
the appendix (along with selected information we will shortly describe), grouped by
their country of origin as determined via the lead authors or editors apparent place of
residence, and then arranged alphabetically by lead author or editor.
In addition to examining book links with CTTsas done in our prior studyand
location of lead author, we coded date of publication, the type of publisher employed,
and information on the academic credentials (degrees and fields of study) of authors or
editors. Our overall goal is to provide a good sense of the sources of these volumes
who is writing them and who is publishing thempaying special attention to the role
of CTTs in the process. In the following sections we describe our coding decisions and
thereby clarify information presented for each book in the appendix.
Results
We begin by charting the publication of these books over time, documenting the recent
rapid increase in their numbers, and then highlight a significant new developmentthe
growth of self-published books, often by laypersons denying AGW. We then examine
the connections between CTTs and the books, noting how this connection differs for
books issued by publishing houses and those that are self-published. We next examine
the national origins of the books, showing how production of climate change denial
volumes has spread from the United States to several other nations as denial has dif-
fused internationally, noting the role of CTTs in this process. Then we turn to the aca-
demic and scientific credentials of the authors or editors of the books, highlighting
trends over time and variation across nations. We end by commenting on how the
publishing sources used by the denial authors enables most of them to avoid peer
review.
Trends Over Time
As apparent in Figure 1, the first denial volume, Sherwood Idsos Carbon Dioxide:
Friend or Foe,
3
appeared in 1982, well before AGW had achieved a prominent place
on the nations agenda. Highlighting the benefits of carbon dioxide, Idso took issue
with early climate science that suggested increasing levels of carbon dioxide could
produce deleterious effects. The remaining 107 books began appearing in 1989, the
year after AGW became a highly visible issue in the United States and the IPCC was
established, with 4 coming out that year. They were followed by 19 denial books
published in the 1990s, 13 of them in the last half of that decade, reflecting a relatively
slow but steady growth in their rate of publication. Another 15 appeared during the
first half of the next decade, followed by a veritable explosion of 54 in the second half
(especially 2007 to 2009), making a total of 69 from 2000 to 2009. Another 15 came
out in 2010, yielding the total of 108 we are examining.
Many factors influence the writing and timing of books, and we can only speculate
on the trend we have just described. There is a slow growth in the number of books
appearing before the December 1997 meeting on the Kyoto Protocol,
4
then a relatively
stable period of modest production (from one to five books a year) for the following
decade, followed by the very rapid increase in the number of denial books per year
beginning in 2007. There are several factors that likely stimulated the accelerated pro-
duction of denial books starting in 2007: The release of Al Gores (2006) An
Inconvenient Truth in both video and book form the prior year and the enormous pub-
licity it received, culminating in the video receiving the 2007 Academy Award for best
documentary; Gore and the IPCC receiving the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize; publication
of the IPCCs fourth Assessment Report claiming unequivocal evidence of global
warming, and attributing it primarily to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas con-
centrations; consideration of climate change legislation in Congress, particularly the
Warner-Lieberman Bill in the Senate and then the Waxman-Markey Bill in the House;
and a notable rise in public concern about global warming (Brulle, Carmichael, &
Jenkins, 2012).
1
0 0 0 0 0 0
4
0
1
3
0
2
3
1
4
2
3 3
1
3 3
5
4
2
13
14
21
15
0
5
10
15
20
25
19821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010
Total Books By Year
Figure 1. Climate change denial books by year.
The rising salience of global warming in the eyes of the public and the growing
pressure for ameliorative policy action stimulated those skeptical of AGW and
opposed to carbon emission reduction policies to step up their efforts to deny the real-
ity and seriousness of AGW. One manifestation of this increased sense of urgency is
the accelerating appearance of books critiquing climate science, attacking Gore and
climate scientists, and arguing against the need for carbon emission reductions. Other
manifestations include conservative elites and media becoming major vehicles for
climate change denial, making it a virtual litmus test for Republican political candi-
dates and adding it to the culture wars (joining God, gays, guns, and abortion) in
the eyes of conservative laypeopleparticularly those attracted to the Tea Party
(Hoffman, 2012; Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Hmielowski, 2011;
McCright & Dunlap, 2011).
Such diffusion of climate change denial from the core sectors of the conservative
movement, especially think tanks, is reflected in an interesting development concern-
ing the denial books: a rapid growth in self-published volumes.
5
Specifically, 33 of the
books under examination were published by individuals on their own or via a vanity
press, but 30 of them have appeared since 2000with 26 coming out between 2007
and 2010! This development has influenced the relationship between denial books and
CTTs, as we see next.
Book Ties With Conservative Think Tanks
Our examination of the links between the denial books and CTTs follows the proce-
dure we used in our prior study of environmental skepticism (Jacques et al., 2008).
Specifically, links were established in one of two ways: The author or editor was
affiliated with a CTT or the book was published (or copublished) by a CTT press
(often both). Author or editor affiliations with CTTs had to be empirically verifiable
(typically from the CTT websites, where they were listed as board members, advisors,
experts, etc.) and were not inferred. In choosing to err on the side of caution, we have
possibly missed a few affiliations.
Table 1 shows the number of denial books linked to CTTs by decade (20002010
covers 11 years), as well by whether or not they were issued by a publisher or were
self-published. To begin with, in the bottom of the third column we see that across
all years 78 of the total 108 volumes, or 72%, have a verifiable link with a CTT.
Although reflecting a strong link between CTTs and the denial volumes, this is
noticeably lower than the 92% of books espousing environmental skepticism (which,
again, includes some of the same books) published through 2005 found to have such
a link in our prior study. However, the primary reasons for the lower percentage of
climate change denial books being linked to CTTs are suggested by the trends over
time as well as a comparison of the links for self-published books versus those
issued by publishing houses. First, in the third column we can see that 100% of the
denial books published in the 1980s and 95% published in the 1990s are linked to
CTTs, whereas this is true of only 65% of those published since 2000. Second, the
large decline in the percentage of CTT links since 2000 is primarily the result of the
preponderance of self-published books appearing over the 11 years, as only one third
of the 30 self-published books coming out since 2000 are linked to a CTT. In con-
trast, 83% of the books from publishing houses since 2000 have links to CTTs. More
generally, in the bottom row we see that of the 75 denial books issued by a publish-
ing house, 87% are linked to a CTT, whereas of the 33 self-published denial books,
only 39% have such a link.
In recent years production of climate change denial books has diffused from
CTTs to a broader segment of the conservative movement, just as endorsement of
climate change denial has spread throughout most of the conservative sector of the
public (McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Although the link between denial books issued by
publishing houses and CTT presses (87%) is nearly as strong as the overall link found
in our prior study of books espousing environmental skepticism, the link is much
weaker for self-published denial books. This reflects the fact that many of the self-
published books are written by laypeople, often without any scientific background
whatsoever, who are clearly quite conservative and have presumably adopted climate
change denial because it has become a core tenet of conservatism and is promoted by
conservative media and elites.
Table 1. Conservative Think Tank Connections of Climate Change Denial BooksWith
Publishers, Self-Published, and Totalby Decade.
Publisher Self-published Total books
% n % n % n
19801989
Yes 100 3 100 2 100 5
No 0 0 0
Total 100 3 100 2 100 5
19901999
Yes 94 17 100 1 95 18
No 6 1 0 5 1
Total 100 18 100 1 100 19
20002010
Yes 83 45 33 10 65 55
No 17 9 67 20 35 29
Total 100 54 100 30 100 84
All books
Yes 87 65 39 13 72 78
No 13 10 61 20 28 30
Total 100 75 100 33 100 108
Furthermore, it should be noted that nearly all of the authors or editors of the 108
books endorse a conservative ideology, confirming the strong link between conserva-
tism and promotion of climate change denial emphasized by analysts of the denial
campaign (Dunlap & McCright, 2011; Oreskes & Conway, 2010). Also, 17 of the 75
books issued by a publishing house, including the numerous CTT presses, are pub-
lished by overtly conservative presses or conservative religious presses (as noted in
the appendix), additional evidence of the strong link between conservatism and cli-
mate change denial.
Social movement organizations attempt to diffuse their views, both within the
movement as well as throughout the larger society (Strang & Soule, 1998). As the core
organizations of the conservative movement, CTTs have obviously been effective in
spreading climate change denial throughout the movement, helped of course by con-
servative media and politicians, various Astroturf campaigns (that they helped estab-
lish), the Tea Party, and other elements of what has been termed the climate change
denial machine (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). As noted above, one manifestation is
the increasing number of self-published books by conservative individuals not directly
linked to a CTT. The fact that these authors typically cite (and often rely heavily on)
prior books with links to CTTs illustrates this successful diffusion.
There should be no doubt as to which set of books is most influential. At major
bookstores you are likely to find titles like Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner of the
CEI, Shattered Consensus by Patrick Michaels of the CATO Institute, or Unstoppable
Global Warming by Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and
Dennis Avery of the Hudson Institute, titles also likely to be carried by the Conservative
Book Club. On average, the books affiliated with CTTs receive far more publicity
(including media appearances for their authors), sell much better, and thus reach larger
audiences than do those that are self-published. In addition, individuals affiliated with
CTTs are especially likely to produce multiple denial volumesmost notably Fred
Singer with six and Patrick Michaels with five. In fact, of the 15 individuals who have
published two or more books, 14 are affiliated with CTTs.
It is therefore clear that CTTs have played a central role in the explosion of books
promoting climate change denial. Indeed, the CTTs that have played particularly
prominent roles in attacking climate science in various ways are especially likely to
publish (or copublish) the denial books, with the Cato Institute publishing five, the
Heartland Institute publishing four, and the CEI, the Marshall Institute, the Hoover
Institution, and the U.K. Institute for Economic Affairs each publishing three. These
same CTTs are of course linked to far more of the titles via author or editor
affiliations.
National Origins of Books
The denial of climate change has also diffused geographically, as in the past several
years vigorous denial campaigns have developed in the United Kingdom, Canada, and
Australia (Hamilton, 2007; Hoggan, 2009; Monbiot, 2007), andto a lesser degree
in a number of other nations (Dunlap & McCright, 2011). This diffusion has been
stimulated in part by the direct efforts of U.S.-based CTTs, which have sent represen-
tatives including contrarian scientists Fred Singer and Patrick Michaels to other
nations to promote climate change denial and to network with other members of the
denial community.
6
These efforts have succeeded particularly well in nations that have
a recent history of staunch conservative governments, influential CTTs, and a strong
fossil fuels sectoras do Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, along with the
United States.
The results of the successful geographical diffusion of climate change denial are
apparent in Table 2 and the appendix. The latter shows that 19 of the denial books have
been authored (or in one case edited) by individuals residing in the United Kingdom,
followed by 7 from Canada and 6 from Australia. Other nations from which these
English-only books have sprung include Denmark, France, and Sweden, with two each,
and the Czech Republic, Germany, New Zealand, and the Netherlands, with one each.
7

The results in Table 2 portray the pattern of diffusion by decade. In the 1980s, 80% of the
denial books originated in the United States, and the United Kingdom was the only other
nation with a single volume (contributing 20% of the small total of five). In the 1990s,
the United States contributed 63% of the denial books, followed by the United Kingdom
with 21%, whereas the other nine nations contributed 16%. Since 2000, 60% of the
denial books have come from the United States, 17% from the United Kingdom, and
24% from the remaining nine nations. That 4 of every 10 denial books since 2000 have
been produced by authors or editors outside of the United States is evidence of the suc-
cess of the U.S. conservative movement in helping diffuse denial internationally.
The role of CTTs in diffusing climate change denial internationally is shown in
Table 3. Here we see that (because of the recent growth of self-published denial
books in the United States) 65% of all denial books in the United States have a link
with a CTT, but the figure is much higher in the other nations. In fact, 79% of the
books from the United Kingdom are connected to CTTs, and 87% of the books from
the various other nations are connected to CTTs. Thus, the pattern of strong connec-
tions between climate change denial books coming out of other nations (the large
Table 2. Climate Change Denial Books by Nation by Decade and for All Years.
United States United Kingdom Other Total
% n % n % n % n
1980s 80 4 20 1 0 100 5
1990s 63 12 21 4 16 3 100 19
2000+ 60 50 17 14 24 20 101
a
84
All years 61 66 18 19 21 23 100 108
a. Rounding error.
majority of which were published since 2000) comes close to the earlier situation in
the United States where all 4 of the denial books published in the 1980s are linked
to CTTs, and 11 of 12 published in the 1990s have such a link, making 94% of the
early (prior to 2000) U.S. books having a CTT connection. It is not surprising that
all eight of the denial books with non-U.S. authors or editors published prior to 2000
are connected to a CTT.
Although there is considerable variation in the strength of the conservative move-
ment across the nations being examined, especially in terms of support among the
general public, as well as in the popularity and ease of putting out self-published
books, it will nonetheless be interesting to see if the production of climate change
denial books diffuses beyond CTTs in other nations to the degree that it has in the
United States in the past decade.
Academic Credentials of Authors and Editors
Interests promoting environmental skepticism have long employed individuals with
academic degrees in sciencelikely to be accepted as experts by the public,
media, and policy makersto attack scientific evidence suggesting the need for
environmental regulations (Jacques et al., 2008; Michaels, 2008; Oreskes &
Conway, 2010). In their efforts to manufacture uncertainty over climate science,
both the fossil fuels industry (especially early on) and CTTs have enlisted the sup-
port of a small number of contrarian scientists to critique and attack both climate
science and climate scientists. Although the contrarians portray themselves as a
minority of truth seekers battling the large climate establishment, some of them
have worked directly for the incredibly wealthy fossil fuels industry (including
front groups it has set up, like the GCC) or well-funded CTTs. Patrick Michaels
and Fred Singer are particularly notable in this regard (Hoggan, 2009; Powell,
2011).
One of the key features of the debate over climate change and especially the cred-
ibility of climate science is the asymmetry between the scientific credentials of main-
stream climate scientists and their critics in the denial community, including the small
Table 3. Conservative Think Tank Connections of Climate Change Denial Books by Nation
and for All Books.
United States United Kingdom Other All books
% n % n % n % n
Yes 65 43 79 15 87 20 72 78
No 35 23 21 4 13 3 28 30
Total Books 100 66 100 19 100 23 100 108
number of contrarian scientists who critique and often attack mainstream climate sci-
ence and scientists (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010). A handful of con-
trarians have degrees in disciplines relevant to climate science, but others have PhDs
in less germane natural science fields (e.g., soil science) that nonethelessat least in
the eyes of nonscientistsprovide them with scientific credentials (Hoggan, 2009;
Powell, 2011).
Because the use of apparent scientific expertise by those promoting climate
change denial has played a vital role in the attacks on climate science (McCright &
Dunlap, 2000, 2003; Powell, 2011), we examined the academic credentials of the
authors or editors of the 108 denial books. Our aim is to provide a good sense of the
contribution of contrarian scientists (who produce a wide range of material, from
op-eds to policy briefs to an occasional journal article) to the denial volumes, as well
as the backgrounds of the nonscientists who are also producing them. We coded each
author or editor in terms of his or her highest academic degree and the field in which
it was obtained. For present purposes we have separated the authors or editors into
three categories: (a) those with PhDs in natural science (regardless of the field, thus
including chemistry, geology, soil science, etc., as well as those more directly related
to climate science), (b) those with other PhDs or equivalent degrees,
8
often in social
science, and (c) those with less than a doctorate. Of the of 106 individuals who have
authored or coauthored or edited or coedited one or more of the 108 denial books, 32
have a natural science PhD, 24 have a PhD in other fields, and 50 do not have
doctorates.
We next assigned a code to each volume based on the highest or most relevant
degree of any coauthor or coeditor. Thus, for example, Man-Made Global Warming by
Hans Labohm, Simon Rozendaal, and Dick Thoenes (of the Netherlands) is coded as
a 1 because Thoenes has a doctorate in chemical engineering. The results reported in
Table 4 reveal that even with our relaxed coding scheme, whereby any natural sci-
ence PhD degree held by any coauthor or coeditor is treated as indicating (at least
potentially) relevant scientific expertise, only 39% of the total 108 denial volumes are
authored or edited by individuals with scientific credentials as normally defined in
Table 4. Climate Change Denial Books by Academic Degrees of Authors or Editors by
Decade and for All Years.
Natural science PhD Other PhD No PhD Total books
% n % n % n % n
1980s 80 4 0 20 1 100 5
1990s 53 10 37 7 11 2 101
a
19
2000+ 33 28 17 14 50 42 100 84
All years 39 42 19 21 42 45 100 108
a. Rounding error.
academic circles.
9
Another 19% of the books are produced by individuals with other
doctorates, primarily in economics, politics, and law, and the remaining 42% by indi-
viduals without a doctorate.
When it comes to putting out books, the denial community clearly relies on a wide
range of contributors well beyond the small number of contrarian (natural) scientists
in its ranks. Again, however, we can observe some degree of diffusion over time, as
individuals with natural science doctorates were involved in producing 80% of the
small number of books coming out in the 1980s (4 of 5) and 53% (10 of 19) in the
1990s, but only 33% (28 of 84) since 2000. Thus, the campaign to deny the signifi-
cance of AGW relied heavily on contrarian scientists early on, to give it scientific
credibility, but over time climate change denial has spread sufficiently throughout the
conservative community that individuals without any scientific expertise now produce
denial volumes.
Finally, just as we earlier noted variation in the degree to which denial books are
linked to CTTs across nations, we also find national variation in the reliance on con-
trarian scientists. Table 5 shows that natural scientists are involved with nearly half
(48%) of the denial volumes coming from the United States. In stark contrast, only 2
of the 19 denial books or just 11% coming out of the United Kingdom have natural
scientists as authors or editors, whereas 35% of the denial books from the remaining
nine countries are produced (or coproduced) by natural scientists. These patterns par-
tially reflect temporal trends, since the natural scientists are most heavily involved in
the denial books published before 2000, and the preponderance of non-U.S. books
have come out since then.
What these patterns suggest is that early on a small number of contrarian scientists,
primarily located in the United States, played a critical role in planting and legitimat-
ing climate change denial within conservative circles. Highly influential scientists
such as physicists Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, and Robert Nierenberg of the
Marshall Institute (Lahsen, 2008; Oreskes & Conway, 2010) and omnipresent Fred
Singer and Patrick Michaels (Hoggan, 2009; Powell, 2011) worked diligently to criti-
cize climate science and scientists and received a good deal of visibility (McCright &
Table 5. Climate Change Denial Books by Author or Editor Degrees by Nation and for All
Books.
Natural science PhD Other PhD No PhD Total books
% n % n % n % n
United States 48 32 18 12 33 22 99
a
66
United Kingdom 11 2 32 6 58 11 101
a
19
Other 35 8 13 3 52 12 100 23
All books 39 42 19 21 42 45 100 108
a. Rounding error.
Dunlap, 2003). As denial evolved over time and spread throughout a larger segment of
American society (particularly among conservatives) as well as to other nations, the
seeds sown by the contrarians have germinated and a wide range of individuals with-
out backgrounds in natural science and thus relevant credentials for evaluating climate
science feel free to write books denying AGWand often publish them on their own!
Of course, the diffusion has been facilitated by powerful actors, first by the fossil fuels
industry and then by the conservative movement, primarily via the latters influential
think tanks.
The strong connection between contrarian scientists and CTTs is reflected in one
additional finding. Of the 32 individuals with natural science PhDs in our study, 25 or
78% are connected to at least one CTT. In contrast, of the 50 individuals without a PhD,
only 25 or 50% have a CTT connection, reflecting the fact that these people are often
laypersons who are likely to self-publish their books. The strongest connection exists
for the 24 individuals with nonscience PhDs, as 21 or 88% of them have links to one or
more CTTs, where degrees in economics (8 individuals), politics (4 individuals), and
law (3 individuals) confer plausible policy expertise.
Freedom From Peer Review and Its Implications
It is often noted that individuals promoting climate change denial, including the small
number of contrarian scientists, mainly criticize or audit the work of climate scien-
tists (especially as summarized by the IPCC), and only infrequently contribute to
climate science themselves (e.g., Powell, 2011, chap. 3). Unlike mainstream climate
scientists, who publish primarily in peer-reviewed journals, these critics typically
employ a range of non-peer-reviewed outlets, ranging from blogs to the books we are
examining. A large majority97 of the 108 booksare self-published (33), pub-
lished by a CTT press (35), published by a conservative (or conservative religious)
press (17), or published by a popular press (12), and are thus unlikely to have under-
gone peer reviewparticularly by individuals with expertise in climate science. The
remaining 11 books are issued by publishing houses that specialize in natural science
and may have been subject to peer review, but this is often not clear from the publish-
ers websites. Of interest, four volumes are issued by Multi-Science Publishing in the
United Kingdom, which also publishes Energy & Environment, a minor journal
known primarily for providing a forum for climate skeptics and criticized for lack of
adequate peer review (see, e.g., Barley, 2011). Notably, not a single denial book is
published by a university press.
10
The general lack of peer review allows authors or editors of denial books to make
inaccurate assertions that misrepresent the current state of climate science. Like the
vast range of other non-peer-reviewed material produced by the denial community,
book authors can make whatever claims they wish, no matter how scientifically
unfounded.
11
In fact, the lack of peer review in the denialosphere (Pooley, 2010)
means that denial claims are continually recycled, no matter how many times they are
refuted by empirical test or shown to be logically untenable (Powell, 2011; Washington
& Cook, 2011). Weart (2011, p. 48) terms them zombie arguments because they
repeatedly rise from the grave.
Whereas scientific knowledge slowly but surely accumulates through testing,
and then rejecting, modifying, and/or verifying hypotheses and theories,
12
the
denial literature is cumulative in the literal sense. Regardless of how thoroughly
discredited in the scientific literature, denialist claims (the recent warming trend
reflects a natural cycle, is the result of solar activity, wont produce harmful
impacts, etc.) are retained and reused whenever convenient. Non-peer-reviewed
books espousing climate change denial offer an ideal means of presenting these
claims, accounting for the growing popularity of such books. Strikingly, many of
these books not only provide fallacious critiques of climate science but also present
an alternate reality in which global warming is a hoax created by a conspiracy of
supposedly greedy scientists, liberal politicians, and environmentalists (McKewon,
2012).
The general lack of peer review for the denial books is a common feature of the
vast body of literature produced by the climate change denial community, ranging
from blogs to newspaper op-eds to policy briefs from CTTs. Not being subject to
peer review allows authors or editors of denial books to make scientifically inac-
curate and discredited claims that are often amplified in conservative media and the
blogosphere, potentially reaching significant segments of the general public. Their
false claims are also used by conservative politicians, who sometimes invite the
authors to testify at congressional hearings (McCright & Dunlap, 2003) and thereby
provide them a direct voice in the policy-making arena. Although mainstream sci-
entists occasionally take the time to debunk some of the more visible denial vol-
umes, the proliferation of such books makes it impossible for busy scientists to
critically review most of them. Thus, denial books are likely to continue to multi-
ply, and many will receive considerable attention from sympathetic and scientifi-
cally unsophisticated audiences (McKewon, 2012). They are clearly a vital weapon
in the conservative movements war on climate science, and one of the key means
by which it diffuses climate change denial throughout American society and into
other nations.
Appendix
First-Edition English-Language Books Espousing Climate Change
Denial and Their Links to Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs)
Titles in bold do NOT have an apparent link with a CTT
CTTs are italicized
Italicized authors or editors hold a natural science doctorate
*Self-published title
**Overtly conservative publisher
***Conservative religious publisher
714
L
e
a
d

A
u
t
h
o
r

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
A
.

U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s

(
n

=

6
6
)
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
A
d
l
e
r
,

J
o
n
a
t
h
a
n

H
.

(
e
d
.
)
T
h
e

C
o
s
t
s

o
f

K
y
o
t
o
:

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

P
o
l
i
c
y

a
n
d

I
t
s

I
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

E
c
o
n
o
m
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

C
e
n
t
e
r
1
9
9
7
A
l
e
x
a
n
d
e
r
,

R
a
l
p
h

B
.
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

F
a
l
s
e

A
l
a
r
m
:

T
h
e

B
a
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

B
e
h
i
n
d

t
h
e

U
n
i
t
e
d

N
a
t
i
o
n
s

A
s
s
e
r
t
i
o
n

t
h
a
t

M
a
n
-
M
a
d
e

C
O
2

C
a
u
s
e
s

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
C
a
n
t
e
r
b
u
r
y

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
9
A
r
r
a
k
,

A
r
n
o
W
h
a
t

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
?

S
a
t
e
l
l
i
t
e

V
i
e
w

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
B
o
o
k
s
u
r
g
e
.
c
o
m

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
9
A
u
x
t
,

J
a
y

A
.

a
n
d

W
i
l
l
i
a
m

C
u
r
t
i
s

I
I
I
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

t
h
e

C
r
e
a
t
o
r
s

P
l
a
n
N
e
w

L
e
a
f

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g

G
r
o
u
p
/
M
a
s
t
e
r

B
o
o
k
s
*
*
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
9
B
a
i
l
e
y
,

R
o
n
a
l
d

(
E
d
.
)
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r

E
c
o

M
y
t
h
s
:

H
o
w

t
h
e

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

M
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

U
s
e
s

F
a
l
s
e

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

t
o

S
c
a
r
e

U
s

t
o

D
e
a
t
h
P
r
i
m
a

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
/
F
o
r
u
m
/
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
2
B
a
l
l
i
n
g
,

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
.
,

J
r
.
T
h
e

H
e
a
t
e
d

D
e
b
a
t
e
:

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s

V
e
r
s
u
s

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

R
e
a
l
i
t
y
P
a
c
i
f
i
c

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e

f
o
r

a

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e

T
o
m
o
r
r
o
w
;

G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

T
e
c
h
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
/
T
C
S
D
a
i
l
y
.
c
o
m
;
a

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

I
C
E
C
A
P
b
1
9
9
2
B
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
,

J
a
m
e
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

f
o
r

D
i
m

W
i
t
s
:

A

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s

P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e

o
f

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
l

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
715
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
B
a
t
t
r
o
s
,

M
i
t
c
h
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

A

C
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t

D
i
s
g
u
i
s
e
E
a
r
t
h

C
h
a
n
g
e
s

M
e
d
i
a
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
7
B
r
a
d
l
e
y
,

R
o
b
e
r
t

L
.
,

J
r
.
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

A
l
a
r
m
i
s
m

R
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

E
n
e
r
g
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
2
0
0
3
C
o
t
t
o
n
,

W
i
l
l
i
a
m

R
.

a
n
d

R
o
g
e
r

A
.

P
i
e
l
k
e

S
r
.
H
u
m
a
n

I
m
p
a
c
t
s

o
n

W
e
a
t
h
e
r

a
n
d

C
l
i
m
a
t
e
A
S
T
e
R

P
r
e
s
s
*
C
o
t
t
o
n
:

T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
,

I
C
E
C
A
P
;

P
i
e
l
k
e
,

S
r
.
:

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
;

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
1
9
9
2
D
a
n
a
,

D
.

J
.
A

C
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t

L
i
e
:

C
o
m
m
o
n

S
e
n
s
e

T
a
l
k

A
b
o
u
t

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
C
r
e
a
t
e
S
p
a
c
e
.
c
o
m
.
c
o
m
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
D
e
a
r
s
,

D
o
n
n
C
a
r
b
o
n

F
o
l
l
y
:

C
O
2

E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

S
o
u
r
c
e
s

a
n
d

O
p
t
i
o
n
s
T
S
A
u
g
u
s
t
*
G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
8
F
o
n
g
,

P
e
t
e
r
G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

N
u
c
l
e
a
r

H
a
z
a
r
d
s
W
o
r
l
d

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
5
G
o
r
e
h
a
m
,

S
t
e
v
e
C
l
i
m
a
t
i
s
m
!

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,

C
o
m
m
o
n

S
e
n
s
e
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

2
1
s
t

C
e
n
t
u
r
y
s

H
o
t
t
e
s
t

T
o
p
i
c
N
e
w

L
e
n
o
x

B
o
o
k
s
*
H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
1
0
H
a
y
d
e
n
,

H
o
w
a
r
d

C
.

(
E
d
.
)
A

P
r
i
m
e
r

o
n

C
O
2

a
n
d

C
l
i
m
a
t
e
V
a
l
e
s

L
a
k
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
,

L
L
C
*
T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
/
C
o
o
l
e
r

H
e
a
d
s

C
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
7
H
o
f
f
m
a
n
,

D
o
u
g

a
n
d

A
l
l
e
n

S
i
m
m
o
n
s
T
h
e

R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
t

E
a
r
t
h
:

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

t
h
e

F
u
t
u
r
e

o
f

H
u
m
a
n
i
t
y
B
o
o
k
s
u
r
g
e
.
c
o
m
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
9
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
716
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
H
o
r
n
e
r
,

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

C
.
T
h
e

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

I
n
c
o
r
r
e
c
t

G
u
i
d
e

t
o

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

(
a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
s
m
)
R
e
g
n
e
r
y

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
*
T
h
e

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
/
C
o
o
l
e
r

H
e
a
d
s

C
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
7
H
o
r
n
e
r
,

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

C
.
R
e
d

H
o
t

L
i
e
s
:

H
o
w

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

A
l
a
r
m
i
s
t
s

U
s
e

T
h
r
e
a
t
s
,

F
r
a
u
d
,

a
n
d

D
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

t
o

K
e
e
p

Y
o
u

M
i
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
R
e
g
n
e
r
y

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
8
H
u
n
t
,

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
d
:

T
r
u
e

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
r
i
s
i
s

o
r

M
e
d
i
a

H
y
p
e
?
C
r
e
a
t
e
S
p
a
c
e
.
c
o
m
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
9
H
u
n
t
,

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e
d
:

C
o
s
t

O
p
t
i
m
i
z
e
d

E
d
i
t
i
o
n
C
r
e
a
t
e
S
p
a
c
e
.
c
o
m
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
H
u
s
e
m
a
n
,

R
i
c
h
a
r
d
M
a
n
-
M
a
d
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

H
o
a
x
E
q
u
i
t
y

P
r
e
s
s
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
H
u
s
h
e
r
,

J
o
h
n

D
u
r
b
i
n
B
e
y
o
n
d

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

T
h
e

B
i
g
g
e
r

P
r
o
b
l
e
m

a
n
d

R
e
a
l

C
r
i
s
i
s
i
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
e
,

I
n
c
.
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
7
I
d
s
o
,

C
r
a
i
g

D
.
C
O
2
,

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

C
o
r
a
l

R
e
e
f
s
:

P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
s

f
o
r

T
h
e

F
u
t
u
r
e
V
a
l
e
s

L
a
k
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
,

L
L
C

w
i
t
h

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
y

o
f

C
0
2
;

I
C
E
C
A
P
2
0
0
9
I
d
s
o
,

C
r
a
i
g

D
.

a
n
d

S
h
e
r
w
o
o
d

B
.

I
d
s
o
C
O
2
,

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

S
p
e
c
i
e
s

E
x
t
i
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
:

P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
s

f
o
r

t
h
e

F
u
t
u
r
e
V
a
l
e
s

L
a
k
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
,

L
L
C

w
i
t
h

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
y

o
f

C
a
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

a
n
d

G
l
o
b
a
l

C
h
a
n
g
e

a
n
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
C
r
a
i
g
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
;

S
h
e
r
w
o
o
d
:

G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
y

o
f

C
0
2
;

I
C
E
C
A
P

A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
717
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
I
d
s
o
,

C
r
a
i
g

D
.

a
n
d

S
.

F
r
e
d

S
i
n
g
e
r
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

R
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
:

T
h
e

2
0
0
9

R
e
p
o
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

N
o
n
-
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
a
n
e
l

o
n

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

(
N
I
P
C
C
)
H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
I
d
s
o
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
;

S
i
n
g
e
r
:

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
;

I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

o
n

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

H
e
a
l
t
h
;

C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

P
o
l
i
c
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
;

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

S
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
;

T
h
e

H
o
o
v
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

o
n

W
a
r
,

R
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

P
e
a
c
e
;

H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
;

I
C
E
C
A
P
2
0
0
9
I
d
s
o
,

S
h
e
r
w
o
o
d

B
.
C
a
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e
:

F
r
i
e
n
d

o
r

F
o
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

B
i
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
1
9
8
2
I
d
s
o
,

S
h
e
r
w
o
o
d

B
.
C
a
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

a
n
d

G
l
o
b
a
l

C
h
a
n
g
e
:

E
a
r
t
h

i
n

T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

B
i
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
1
9
8
9
I
n
n
e
s
,

W
i
l
l
i
a
m

B
.
C
L
I
M
A
T
E

C
O
N
?

H
i
s
t
o
r
y

a
n
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

o
f

t
h
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

S
c
a
r
e
A
u
t
h
o
r
h
o
u
s
e
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
7
I
n
n
i
s
,

R
o
y
E
n
e
r
g
y

K
e
e
p
e
r
s
,

E
n
e
r
g
y

K
i
l
l
e
r
s
M
e
r
r
i
l

P
r
e
s
s

(
B
r
a
n
c
h

o
f

T
h
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

D
e
f
e
n
s
e

o
f

F
r
e
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
)
T
h
e

C
o
n
g
r
e
s
s

o
f

R
a
c
i
a
l

E
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
;

T
h
e

H
u
d
s
o
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
8
J
a
s
t
r
o
w
,

R
o
b
e
r
t
,

W
i
l
l
i
a
m

N
i
e
r
e
n
b
e
r
g
,

a
n
d

F
r
e
d
e
r
i
c
k

S
e
i
t
z
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

P
r
o
b
l
e
m
J
a
m
e
s
o
n

B
o
o
k
s
/
T
h
e

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

P
r
e
s
s

(
G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
)
J
a
s
t
r
o
w
:

G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

N
i
e
r
e
n
b
e
r
g
:

G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
;

S
e
i
t
z
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
1
9
8
9

v
i
a

G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
/
1
9
9
0

v
i
a

J
a
m
e
s
o
n

a
n
d

T
h
e

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

P
r
e
s
s
J
o
h
n
s
o
n
,

L
e
o
T
h
e

L
a
y
m
a
n
s

G
u
i
d
e

t
o

U
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g

t
h
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

H
o
a
x
R
e
d

A
n
v
i
l

P
r
e
s
s
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
8
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
718
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
M
e
n
d
e
l
s
o
h
n
,

R
o
b
e
r
t

O
.
T
h
e

G
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

(
A
E
I

S
t
u
d
i
e
s

o
n

G
l
o
b
a
l

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y
)
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

P
o
l
i
c
y

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
1
9
9
9
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
s
,

P
a
t
r
i
c
k

J
.
S
o
u
n
d

a
n
d

F
u
r
y
:

T
h
e

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
s

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r

A
l
e
r
t
;

G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

T
h
e

H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
;

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
;

I
C
E
C
A
P
1
9
9
2
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
s
,

P
a
t
r
i
c
k

J
.
M
e
l
t
d
o
w
n
:

T
h
e

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
a
b
l
e

D
i
s
t
o
r
t
i
o
n

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

b
y

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
,

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
i
a
n
s
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

M
e
d
i
a
C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
4
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
s
,

P
a
t
r
i
c
k

J
.

(
E
d
.
)
S
h
a
t
t
e
r
e
d

C
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
:

T
h
e

T
r
u
e

S
t
a
t
e

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
R
o
w
m
a
n

&

L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
/
G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
5
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
s
,

P
a
t
r
i
c
k

J
.

a
n
d

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
.

B
a
l
l
i
n
g
,

J
r
.
T
h
e

S
a
t
a
n
i
c

G
a
s
e
s
:

C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

A
i
r

A
b
o
u
t

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
s
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
;

B
a
l
l
i
n
g
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
0
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
s
,

P
a
t
r
i
c
k

J
.

a
n
d

R
o
b
e
r
t

C
.

B
a
l
l
i
n
g
,

J
r
.
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

o
f

E
x
t
r
e
m
e
s
:

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

T
h
e
y

D
o
n
t

W
a
n
t

Y
o
u

t
o

K
n
o
w
C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
s
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
;

B
a
l
l
i
n
g
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
9
M
o
o
r
e
,

T
h
o
m
a
s

G
a
l
e
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

A

B
o
o
n

t
o

H
u
m
a
n
s

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r

A
n
i
m
a
l
s
T
h
e

H
o
o
v
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

o
n

W
a
r
,

R
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

P
e
a
c
e
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

T
h
e

I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

T
h
e

H
o
o
v
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

o
n

W
a
r
,

R
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

P
e
a
c
e
;

C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
1
9
9
5
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
719
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
M
o
o
r
e
,

T
h
o
m
a
s

G
a
l
e
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

o
f

F
e
a
r
:

W
h
y

W
e

S
h
o
u
l
d
n
t

W
o
r
r
y

A
b
o
u
t

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
C
a
t
o

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
1
9
9
8
M
o
o
r
e
,

T
h
o
m
a
s

G
a
l
e
I
n

S
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

o
r

i
n

H
e
a
l
t
h
:

T
h
e

K
y
o
t
o

P
r
o
t
o
c
o
l

V
e
r
s
u
s

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
T
h
e

H
o
o
v
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

o
n

W
a
r
,

R
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

P
e
a
c
e
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
0
M
o
s
h
e
r
,

S
t
e
v
e
n

M
.

a
n
d

T
h
o
m
a
s

W
.

F
u
l
l
e
r
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
g
a
t
e
:

T
h
e

C
R
U
t
a
p
e

L
e
t
t
e
r
s
C
r
e
a
t
e
S
p
a
c
e
.
c
o
m
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
O
k
o
n
s
k
i
,

K
e
n
d
r
a

(
E
d
.
)
A
d
a
p
t

o
r

D
i
e
:

T
h
e

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
s

a
n
d

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s

o
f

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
P
r
o
f
i
l
e

B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
/
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

a
n
d

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
2
0
0
3
O
p
a
l
e
k
,

C
h
a
r
l
e
s
A

C
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t

F
a
b
r
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:

T
h
e

N
o
n
-
c
r
i
s
i
s

o
f

M
a
n
m
a
d
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

W
h
y

W
e

A
r
e

P
o
w
e
r
l
e
s
s

t
o

C
h
a
n
g
e

t
h
e

C
l
i
m
a
t
e
.
L
u
l
u
.
c
o
m
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
7
P
a
r
s
o
n
s
,

M
i
c
h
a
e
l
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

T
h
e

T
r
u
t
h

B
e
h
i
n
d

t
h
e

M
y
t
h
I
n
s
i
g
h
t

B
o
o
k
s
/
P
l
e
n
u
m

P
r
e
s
s
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
1
9
9
5
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
,

D
a
v
i
d

E
.
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
g
a
t
e

D
e
b
u
n
k
e
d
:

B
i
g

B
r
o
t
h
e
r
,

M
a
i
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

M
e
d
i
a
,

C
o
v
e
r
-
u
p
s
C
r
e
a
t
e
S
p
a
c
e
.
c
o
m
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
S
e
i
t
z
,

F
r
e
d
e
r
i
c
k
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

O
z
o
n
e

H
o
l
e

C
o
n
t
r
o
v
e
r
s
i
e
s
:

A

C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
e

t
o

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

J
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
1
9
9
4
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
720
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
S
i
n
g
e
r
,

S
.

F
r
e
d

(
E
d
.
)
G
l
o
b
a
l

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
:

H
u
m
a
n

a
n
d

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

I
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
s
P
a
r
a
g
o
n

H
o
u
s
e
/
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e

o
n

t
h
e

U
n
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
*
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
1
9
8
9
S
i
n
g
e
r
,

S
.

F
r
e
d
H
o
t

T
a
l
k

C
o
l
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
:

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
s

U
n
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d

D
e
b
a
t
e
T
h
e

I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
1
9
9
7
S
i
n
g
e
r
,

S
.

F
r
e
d
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

P
o
l
i
c
y
F
r
o
m

R
i
o

t
o

K
y
o
t
o
:

A

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

I
s
s
u
e

f
o
r

2
0
0
0
A
n
d

B
e
y
o
n
d
T
h
e

H
o
o
v
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n

o
n

W
a
r
,

R
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

P
e
a
c
e
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
0
S
i
n
g
e
r
,

S
.

F
r
e
d
N
a
t
u
r
e
,

N
o
t

H
u
m
a
n

A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,

R
u
l
e
s

t
h
e

C
l
i
m
a
t
e
T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
8
S
i
n
g
e
r
,

S
.

F
r
e
d

a
n
d

D
e
n
n
i
s

T
.

A
v
e
r
y
U
n
s
t
o
p
p
a
b
l
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

E
v
e
r
y

1
,
5
0
0

Y
e
a
r
s

(
P
a
p
e
r
b
a
c
k
)
R
o
w
m
a
n

&

L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
S
i
n
g
e
r
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
;

A
v
e
r
y
:

T
h
e

H
u
d
s
o
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
7
S
o
o
n
,

W
i
l
l
i
e

W
e
i
-
H
o
c
k

a
n
d

S
t
e
v
e
n

H
.

Y
a
s
k
e
l
l
T
h
e

M
a
u
n
d
e
r

M
i
n
i
m
u
m

a
n
d

t
h
e

V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e

S
u
n
-
E
a
r
t
h

C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
l
d

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g

C
o
.
S
o
o
n
:

G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.
M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;
T
h
e

G
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

E
a
r
t
h

S
o
c
i
e
t
y
;

(
I
C
E
C
A
P
)
;

T
e
c
h
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
/
T
C
S
D
a
i
l
y
.
o
r
g
;

Y
a
s
k
e
l
l
:

F
u
n
d
a
c
i
o
n

A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a

d
e

E
c
o
l
o
g
i
a

C
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
2
0
0
3
S
o
o
n
,

W
i
l
l
i
e

W
e
i
-
H
o
c
k
,

S
a
l
l
i
e

B
a
l
i
u
n
a
s
,

A
r
t
h
u
r

B
.

R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
,

a
n
d

Z
a
c
h
a
r
y

W
.

R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

A

G
u
i
d
e

t
o

t
h
e

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

(
R
i
s
k

C
o
n
t
r
o
v
e
r
s
y

S
e
r
i
e
s
)
T
h
e

F
r
a
s
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
S
o
o
n
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
;

B
a
l
i
u
n
a
s
:

G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;
T
h
e

G
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

E
a
r
t
h

S
o
c
i
e
t
y
;

T
e
c
h
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
/
T
C
S
D
a
i
l
y
;

C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e

f
o
r

a

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e

T
o
m
o
r
r
o
w
;
(
I
C
E
C
A
P
)
;

A
.

B
.

R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
:

O
r
e
g
o
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

M
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
;

Z
.

W
.

R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
:

O
r
e
g
o
n

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

M
e
d
i
c
i
n
e
2
0
0
1
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
721
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
,

R
o
y
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
o
n
f
u
s
i
o
n
:

H
o
w

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

L
e
a
d
s

t
o

B
a
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,

P
a
n
d
e
r
i
n
g

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
i
a
n
s

a
n
d

M
i
s
g
u
i
d
e
d

P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

T
h
a
t

H
u
r
t

t
h
e

P
o
o
r
E
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r

B
o
o
k
s
*
*
G
e
o
r
g
e

C
.

M
a
r
s
h
a
l
l

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

(
I
C
E
C
A
P
)
;

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

T
e
c
h
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
/
T
C
S
D
a
i
l
y
.
c
o
m
2
0
0
8
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
,

R
o
y

W
.
T
h
e

G
r
e
a
t

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

B
l
u
n
d
e
r
:

H
o
w

M
o
t
h
e
r

N
a
t
u
r
e

F
o
o
l
e
d

t
h
e

W
o
r
l
d
s

T
o
p

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
E
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r

B
o
o
k
s
*
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
1
0
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
,

R
o
y

W
.
T
h
e

B
a
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

B
a
d

P
o
l
i
c
y

o
f

O
b
a
m
a
s

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

A
g
e
n
d
a
E
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r

B
o
o
k
s
*
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
1
0
S
p
i
t
e
,

P
a
u
l

F
.
A

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
r
i
s
i
s

a

l
a

G
o
r
e
:

T
h
e

R
e
a
l

P
r
o
f
i
t

P
u
s
h
i
n
g

t
h
e

P
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

M
a
n

M
a
d
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
B
o
o
k
s
u
r
g
e
.
c
o
m
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
8
S
t
e
w
a
r
d
,

H
.

L
e
i
g
h
t
o
n
F
i
r
e
,

I
c
e

a
n
d

P
a
r
a
d
i
s
e
A
u
t
h
o
r
h
o
u
s
e
*
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

P
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

P
l
a
n
t
s
N
e
e
d

C
O
2

a
n
d

C
O
2

I
s

G
r
e
e
n
;
c

T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
8
S
u
s
s
m
a
n
,

B
r
i
a
n
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
g
a
t
e
:

A

V
e
t
e
r
a
n

M
e
t
e
o
r
o
l
o
g
i
s
t

E
x
p
o
s
e
s

t
h
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

S
c
a
m
W
N
D

B
o
o
k
s
*
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
T
a
y
l
o
r
,

P
a
u
l
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

o
f

E
c
o
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
s
:

A

C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s

G
u
i
d
e
i
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
e
,

I
n
c
.
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
8
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
722
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r
T
i
t
l
e
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
A
u
t
h
o
r

o
r

e
d
i
t
o
r

a
f
f
i
l
i
a
t
i
o
n
s

w
i
t
h

C
T
T
s
D
a
t
e

f
i
r
s
t

p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
V
o
g
t
,

D
o
u
g
l
a
s
G
o
d
s

D
a
y

o
f

J
u
d
g
m
e
n
t
:

T
h
e

R
e
a
l

C
a
u
s
e

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
V
e
c
t
o
r

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
7
W
a
l
k
e
r
,

C
h
a
r
l
s

E
.
,

M
a
r
k

A
.

B
l
o
o
m
f
i
e
l
d
,

a
n
d

M
a
r
g
o

T
h
o
r
n
i
n
g

(
E
d
s
.
)
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

P
o
l
i
c
y
:

P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l

S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s

t
o

P
r
o
m
o
t
e

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

G
r
o
w
t
h

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

f
o
r

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

P
o
l
i
c
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
l
l
:

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

f
o
r

C
a
p
i
t
a
l

F
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
1
9
9
9
W
a
t
t
s
,

A
n
t
h
o
n
y
I
s

t
h
e

U
.
S
.

S
u
r
f
a
c
e

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

R
e
c
o
r
d

R
e
l
i
a
b
l
e
?
T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
9
W
i
t
t
w
e
r
,

S
y
l
v
a
n

H
.
F
o
o
d
,

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

a
n
d

C
a
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e
:

T
h
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

W
o
r
l
d

F
o
o
d

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
R
C

P
r
e
s
s
G
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

E
a
r
t
h

S
o
c
i
e
t
y
;

C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
y

o
f

C
a
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

a
n
d

G
l
o
b
a
l

C
h
a
n
g
e
1
9
9
5
W
o
o
d
,

W
i
l
l
i
a
m

W
.
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

A

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

P
h
e
n
o
m
e
n
o
n
T
r
a
f
f
o
r
d

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
y

o
f

C
a
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

a
n
d

G
l
o
b
a
l

C
h
a
n
g
e
2
0
0
5
Z
y
r
k
o
w
s
k
i
,

J
o
h
n
I
t
s

t
h
e

S
u
n
,

N
o
t

Y
o
u
r

S
U
V
:

C
0
2

W
o
n
t

D
e
s
t
r
o
y

t
h
e

E
a
r
t
h
S
t
.

A
u
g
u
s
t
i
n
e

P
r
e
s
s
*
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
8
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
723
B
.

U
n
i
t
e
d

K
i
n
g
d
o
m

(
n

=

1
9
)
B
a
t
e
,

R
o
g
e
r

(
E
d
.
)
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

T
h
e

C
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
n
g

D
e
b
a
t
e
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

&

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

F
o
r
u
m
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
;

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
;

C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e

f
o
r

a

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e

T
o
m
o
r
r
o
w
;

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

F
o
r
u
m
;

A
f
r
i
c
a

F
i
g
h
t
i
n
g

M
a
l
a
r
i
a
1
9
9
8
B
a
t
e
,

R
o
g
e
r
,

a
n
d

J
u
l
i
a
n

M
o
r
r
i
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

A
p
o
c
a
l
y
p
s
e

o
r

H
o
t

A
i
r
?

(
I
E
A

S
t
u
d
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
)
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

U
n
i
t
/

C
o
r
o
n
e
t

B
o
o
k
s
*
*
B
a
t
e
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
;

M
o
r
r
i
s
:

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
:

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y

N
e
t
w
o
r
k
1
9
9
4
B
o
e
h
m
e
r
-
C
h
r
i
s
t
i
a
n
s
e
n
,

S
o
n
j
a
,

a
n
d

A
y
n
s
l
e
y

J
.

K
e
l
l
o
w
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

P
o
l
i
c
y
:

I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
s

a
n
d

t
h
e

F
a
i
l
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

K
y
o
t
o

P
r
o
c
e
s
s
E
d
w
a
r
d

E
l
g
a
r

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
B
o
e
h
m
e
r
-
C
h
r
i
s
t
i
a
n
s
e
n
:

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

K
e
l
l
o
w
:

T
h
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
2
0
0
2
B
o
o
k
e
r
,

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
T
h
e

R
e
a
l

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

D
i
s
a
s
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

W
o
m
e
n
s

F
o
r
u
m
;

B
r
u
g
e
s

G
r
o
u
p
2
0
0
9
B
o
o
k
e
r
,

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

a
n
d

R
i
c
h
a
r
d

N
o
r
t
h
S
c
a
r
e
d

t
o

D
e
a
t
h
:

F
r
o
m

B
S
E

t
o

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

W
h
y

S
c
a
r
e
s

A
r
e

C
o
s
t
i
n
g

U
s

t
h
e

E
a
r
t
h
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m

(
h
a
r
d
b
a
c
k
)
;

G
e
r
a
l
d

D
u
c
k
w
o
r
t
h

&

C
o
.

(
p
a
p
e
r
b
a
c
k
)
B
o
o
k
e
r
:

s
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
;

N
o
r
t
h
:

I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t

W
o
m
e
n
s

F
o
r
u
m
;

B
r
u
g
e
s

G
r
o
u
p
2
0
0
7
D
a
l
y
,

J
o
h
n

L
.
T
h
e

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

T
r
a
p
:

W
h
y

t
h
e

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

E
f
f
e
c
t

W
i
l
l

N
o
t

E
n
d

L
i
f
e

o
n

E
a
r
t
h
B
a
n
t
a
m

B
o
o
k
s
T
h
e

G
r
e
e
n
i
n
g

E
a
r
t
h

S
o
c
i
e
t
y
1
9
8
9
E
m
s
l
e
y
,

J
o
h
n

(
E
d
.
)
T
h
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

D
e
b
a
t
e
:

T
h
e

R
e
p
o
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

F
o
r
u
m
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

&

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

F
o
r
u
m
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

&

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

F
o
r
u
m
1
9
9
6
F
e
l
d
m
a
n
,

S
t
a
n
l
e
y
,

a
n
d

V
i
n
c
e
n
t

M
a
r
k
s
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

a
n
d

O
t
h
e
r

B
o
l
l
o
c
k
s
:

T
h
e

T
r
u
t
h

A
b
o
u
t

A
l
l

T
h
o
s
e

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

S
c
a
r
e

S
t
o
r
i
e
s
M
e
t
r
o

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
/
J
o
h
n

B
l
a
k
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
F
e
l
d
m
a
n
:

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

I
d
e
a
s
;

M
a
r
k
s
:

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
2
0
0
9
(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
724
F
o
s
t
e
r
,

K
e
i
t
h
C
a
t
a
s
t
r
o
p
h
e
?

A

N
e
w

T
h
e
o
r
y

a
s

t
o

t
h
e

C
a
u
s
e

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
S
a
g
a
x

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
6
F
o
s
t
e
r
,

P
h
i
l
i
p
W
h
i
l
e

t
h
e

E
a
r
t
h

E
n
d
u
r
e
s
:

C
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,

C
o
s
m
o
l
o
g
y
,

a
n
d

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
S
t
.

M
a
t
t
h
e
w

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
*
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
9
G
l
o
v
e
r
,

P
e
t
e
r

C
.

a
n
d

M
i
c
h
a
e
l

J
.

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
d
e
s
E
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

W
a
r
s
:

H
o
w

N
a
v
e

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
i
a
n
s
,

G
r
e
e
n

I
d
e
o
l
o
g
u
e
s
,

a
n
d

M
e
d
i
a

E
l
i
t
e
s

a
r
e

U
n
d
e
r
m
i
n
i
n
g

t
h
e

T
r
u
t
h

A
b
o
u
t

E
n
e
r
g
y

a
n
d

C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
u
m
G
l
o
v
e
r
:

n
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
;

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
d
e
s
:

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
1
0
G
r
a
y
,

V
i
n
c
e
n
t
T
h
e

G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e

D
e
l
u
s
i
o
n
:

A

C
r
i
t
i
q
u
e

o
f

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

2
0
0
1
M
u
l
t
i
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

S
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
2
0
0
4
H
e
l
m
e
r
,

R
o
g
e
r
C
o
o
l

T
h
i
n
k
i
n
g

o
n

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
:

W
h
y

t
h
e

E
U
s

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

A
l
a
r
m
i
s
m

i
s

B
o
t
h

M
i
s
t
a
k
e
n

a
n
d

D
a
n
g
e
r
o
u
s
B
r
u
g
e
s

G
r
o
u
p
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n

L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
x
c
h
a
n
g
e

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
;

B
r
u
g
e
s

G
r
o
u
p
2
0
0
9
L
a
w
s
o
n
,

N
i
g
e
l
A
n

A
p
p
e
a
l

t
o

R
e
a
s
o
n
:

A

C
o
o
l

L
o
o
k

a
t

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
O
v
e
r
l
o
o
k

D
u
c
k
w
o
r
t
h
,

P
e
t
e
r

M
a
y
e
r

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

P
o
l
i
c
y

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
;

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

P
o
l
i
c
y

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
d
2
0
0
8
M
o
n
t
f
o
r
d
,

A
.

W
.
T
h
e

H
o
c
k
e
y
s
t
i
c
k

I
l
l
u
s
i
o
n
:

C
l
i
m
a
t
e
g
a
t
e

a
n
d

t
h
e

C
o
r
r
u
p
t
i
o
n

o
f

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
t
a
c
e
y

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
*
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
M
o
r
r
i
s
,

J
u
l
i
a
n

(
E
d
.
)
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
:

C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g

t
h
e

C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l

W
i
s
d
o
m

(
I
E
A

S
t
u
d
i
e
s

o
n

t
h
e

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
)
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

U
n
i
t
/
C
o
r
o
n
e
t

B
o
o
k
s
*
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
1
9
9
7
M
u
r
r
a
y
,

I
a
i
n
T
h
e

R
e
a
l
l
y

I
n
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t

T
r
u
t
h
s
:

S
e
v
e
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

C
a
t
a
s
t
r
o
p
h
e
s

L
i
b
e
r
a
l
s

D
o
n
t

W
a
n
t

Y
o
u

t
o

K
n
o
w

A
b
o
u
t
B
e
c
a
u
s
e

T
h
e
y

H
e
l
p
e
d

C
a
u
s
e

T
h
e
m
R
e
g
n
e
r
y

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
*
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
8
R
o
b
i
n
s
o
n
,

C
o
l
i
n
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

P
o
l
i
c
y
:

C
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g

t
h
e

A
c
t
i
v
i
s
t
s
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
2
0
0
8
T
a
y
l
o
r
,

P
e
t
e
r
C
h
i
l
l
:

A

R
e
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

T
h
e
o
r
y
C
l
a
i
r
v
i
e
w

B
o
o
k
s
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
9
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x

(
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
725
C
.

A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a

(
n

=

6
)
C
a
r
t
e
r
,

R
o
b
e
r
t
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
:

T
h
e

C
o
u
n
t
e
r
-
C
o
n
s
e
n
s
u
s
A

P
a
l
e
o
c
l
i
m
a
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t

S
p
e
a
k
s
S
t
a
c
e
y

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
*
*
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

f
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
;

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

P
o
l
i
c
y

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
0
K
i
n
i
n
m
o
n
t
h
,

W
i
l
l
i
a
m
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
:

A

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

H
a
z
a
r
d
M
u
l
t
i
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
T
h
e

L
a
v
o
i
s
i
e
r

G
r
o
u
p
,

I
n
c
.
2
0
0
4
N
o
v
a
,

J
o
a
n
n
e
T
h
e

S
k
e
p
t
i
c
s

H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
T
h
e

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
/
C
o
o
l
e
r

H
e
a
d
s

C
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
;

H
e
a
r
t
l
a
n
d
;

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
9
N
o
v
a
,

J
o
a
n
n
e
T
h
e

S
k
e
p
t
i
c
s

H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k

I
I
:

G
l
o
b
a
l

B
u
l
l
i
e
s

W
a
n
t

Y
o
u
r

M
o
n
e
y
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
j
o
a
n
n
e
n
o
v
a
.
c
o
m
.
a
u
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
9
P
a
l
t
r
i
d
g
e
,

G
a
r
t
h
T
h
e

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
a
p
e
r
C
o
n
n
o
r

C
o
u
r
t

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
*
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

P
u
b
l
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
;

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

S
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
0
0
9
P
l
i
m
e
r
,

I
a
n
H
e
a
v
e
n

a
n
d

E
a
r
t
h
:

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
,

t
h
e

M
i
s
s
i
n
g

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
o
n
n
o
r

C
o
u
r
t

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
*
*
;

T
a
y
l
o
r

T
r
a
d
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g

(
U
n
i
t
e
d

S
t
a
t
e
s
)
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e

o
f

P
u
b
l
i
c

A
f
f
a
i
r
s
;

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

P
o
l
i
c
y

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
9
726
D
.

C
a
n
a
d
a

(
n

=

7
)
E
s
s
e
x
,

C
h
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r

a
n
d

R
o
s
s

M
c
K
i
t
r
i
c
k
T
a
k
e
n

B
y

S
t
o
r
m
:

T
h
e

T
r
o
u
b
l
e
d

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,

P
o
l
i
c
y

a
n
d

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
s

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
K
e
y

P
o
r
t
e
r

B
o
o
k
s
M
c
K
i
t
r
i
c
k
:

T
h
e

F
r
a
s
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
;

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
/
C
o
o
l
e
r

H
e
a
d
s

C
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
;

E
s
s
e
x
:

C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
/
C
o
o
l
e
r

H
e
a
d
s

C
o
a
l
i
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
2
I
s
m
a
i
l
,

N
a
e
A

H
o
t

T
e
a

b
y

t
h
e

G
i
z
a
:

T
h
e

R
e
a
l

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
,

N
o
t

C
O
2

H
o
a
x
i
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
e
,

I
n
c
.
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
1
0
J
o
n
e
s
,

L
a
u
r
a

(
E
d
.
)
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

T
h
e

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

t
h
e

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
s
T
h
e

F
r
a
s
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
T
h
e

F
r
a
s
e
r

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
1
9
9
7
S
o
l
o
m
o
n
,

L
a
w
r
e
n
c
e
T
h
e

D
e
n
i
e
r
s
:

T
h
e

W
o
r
l
d

R
e
n
o
w
n
e
d

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s

W
h
o

S
t
o
o
d

U
p

A
g
a
i
n
s
t

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

H
y
s
t
e
r
i
a
,

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

P
e
r
s
e
c
u
t
i
o
n
,

a
n
d

F
r
a
u
d
,

a
n
d

T
h
o
s
e

W
h
o

A
r
e

T
o
o

F
e
a
r
f
u
l

t
o

D
o

S
o
R
i
c
h
a
r
d

V
i
g
i
l
a
n
t
e

B
o
o
k
s
*
*
E
n
e
r
g
y

P
r
o
b
e
2
0
0
8
S
p
e
e
r
s
,

J
.

A
l
v
i
n
K
y
o
t
o

F
a
l
l
a
c
y
-
H
o
a
x

o
f

t
h
e

M
i
l
l
e
n
n
i
u
m
,

A

C
h
r
o
n
o
l
o
g
y
A
a
r
d
v
a
r
k

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
s
*
N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
7
W
i
s
k
e
l
,

B
r
u
n
o
T
h
e

E
m
p
e
r
o
r
s

N
e
w

C
l
i
m
a
t
e
:

D
e
b
u
n
k
i
n
g

t
h
e

M
y
t
h
s

o
f

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
*
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r

C
e
n
t
r
e

f
o
r

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y
2
0
0
6
W
i
s
k
e
l
,

B
r
u
n
o
T
h
e

S
k
y

I
s

N
o
t

F
a
l
l
i
n
g
:

P
u
t
t
i
n
g

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e

o
n

T
r
i
a
l
E
v
e
r
g
r
e
e
n

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

C
o
m
p
a
n
y
*
S
e
e

a
b
o
v
e
2
0
0
9
727
E
.

C
z
e
c
h

R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c

(
n

=

1
)
K
l
a
u
s
,

V
a
c
l
a
v
B
l
u
e

P
l
a
n
e
t

i
n

G
r
e
e
n

S
h
a
c
k
l
e
s
:

W
h
a
t

I
s

E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
,

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

o
r

F
r
e
e
d
o
m
?
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
7
F
.

D
e
n
m
a
r
k

(
n

=

2
)
L
o
m
b
o
r
g
,

B
j
o
r
n
C
o
o
l

I
t
:

T
h
e

S
k
e
p
t
i
c
a
l

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
s
t
s

G
u
i
d
e

t
o

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
K
n
o
p
f
C
o
m
p
e
t
i
t
i
v
e

E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
7
S
v
e
n
s
m
a
r
k
,

H
e
n
r
i
k

a
n
d

N
i
g
e
l

C
a
l
d
e
r
T
h
e

C
h
i
l
l
i
n
g

S
t
a
r
s
:

T
h
e

N
e
w

T
h
e
o
r
y

o
f

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

C
h
a
n
g
e
T
o
t
e
m

B
o
o
k
s
/
I
c
o
n
B
o
t
h
:

N
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
2
0
0
7
G
.

F
r
a
n
c
e

(
n

=

2
)
G
e
r
o
n
d
e
a
u
,

C
h
r
i
s
t
i
a
n
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
:

T
h
e

G
r
e
a
t

D
e
l
u
s
i
o
n
:

A

S
t
u
d
y

o
f

t
h
e

C
l
i
m
a
t
i
c
,

E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

a
n
d

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l

U
n
r
e
a
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
a
c
e
y

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
*
*
E
c
o
l
e

N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
e

d
e
s

P
o
n
t
s

e
t

C
h
a
u
s
s
e
e
s
;

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

P
o
l
i
c
y

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
1
0
L
e
r
o
u
x
,

M
a
r
c
e
l
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
M
y
t
h

o
r

R
e
a
l
i
t
y
?

T
h
e

E
r
r
i
n
g

W
a
y
s

o
f

C
l
i
m
a
t
o
l
o
g
y

(
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r

P
r
a
x
i
s

B
o
o
k
s
/
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
)
S
p
r
i
n
g
e
r
2
1
s
t

C
e
n
t
u
r
y

A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
2
0
0
5
H
.

G
e
r
m
a
n
y

(
n

=

1
)
W
e
b
e
r
,

G
e
r
d

R
.
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

T
h
e

R
e
s
t

o
f

t
h
e

S
t
o
r
y
P
a
u
l

&

C
o
.

P
u
b
.

C
o
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
/
B
o
t
t
i
g
e
r

V
e
r
l
a
g
s
-
G
m
b
H
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e

f
o
r

a

C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
v
e

T
o
m
o
r
r
o
w
1
9
9
1
728
I
.

N
e
w

Z
e
a
l
a
n
d

(
n

=

1
)
W
i
s
h
a
r
t
,

I
a
n
A
i
r

C
o
n
:

T
h
e

S
e
r
i
o
u
s
l
y

I
n
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
t

T
r
u
t
h

A
b
o
u
t

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
H
o
w
l
i
n
g

a
t

t
h
e

M
o
o
n

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
r
s
*
S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
9
J
.

S
w
e
d
e
n

(
n

=

2
)
G
e
r
h
o
l
m
,

T
o
r

R
a
g
n
a
r

(
E
d
.
)
C
l
i
m
a
t
e

P
o
l
i
c
y

A
f
t
e
r

K
y
o
t
o
M
u
l
t
i
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t

P
o
l
i
c
y

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
9
9
9
M
a
t
h
i
e
s
e
n
,

M
i
h
k
e
l

M
.
G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

i
n

a

P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
y

C
o
r
r
e
c
t

C
l
i
m
a
t
e
:

H
o
w

T
r
u
t
h

B
e
c
a
m
e

C
o
n
t
r
o
v
e
r
s
i
a
l
i
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
e
,

I
n
c
.
*
C
e
n
t
e
r

f
o
r

t
h
e

S
t
u
d
y

o
f

C
0
2

a
n
d

G
l
o
b
a
l

C
h
a
n
g
e
2
0
0
4
K
.

T
h
e

N
e
t
h
e
r
l
a
n
d
s

(
n

=

1
)
L
a
b
o
h
m
,

H
a
n
s
,

S
i
m
o
n

R
o
z
e
n
d
a
a
l
,

a
n
d

D
i
c
k

T
h
o
e
n
e
s
M
a
n
-
M
a
d
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g
:

U
n
r
a
v
e
l
l
i
n
g

a

D
o
g
m
a
M
u
l
t
i
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e

P
u
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
L
a
b
o
h
m
:

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

S
t
e
w
a
r
d
s
h
i
p

C
o
u
n
c
i
l
;

R
o
z
e
n
d
a
a
l
:

n
o
n
e

a
p
p
a
r
e
n
t
;

T
h
o
e
n
e
s
:

S
c
i
e
n
c
e

a
n
d

P
u
b
l
i
c

P
o
l
i
c
y

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
2
0
0
4
a
.

T
e
c
h
c
e
n
t
r
a
l
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
c
o
m
/
T
C
S
D
a
i
l
y
.
c
o
m

h
a
s

g
o
n
e

t
h
r
o
u
g
h

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,

b
u
t

i
t

h
a
s

m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d

a

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e

p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
.

C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

i
t

i
s

p
a
r
t

o
f

t
h
e

G
e
o
r
g
e

W
.

B
u
s
h

I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
.
b
.

I
C
E
C
A
P
,

o
r

t
h
e

I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

C
l
i
m
a
t
e

a
n
d

E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

C
h
a
n
g
e

A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,

a
t

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
i
c
e
c
a
p
.
u
s
,

i
s

a

n
o
n
p
r
o
f
i
t

o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n

d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d

t
o

a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

s
k
e
p
t
i
c
i
s
m
,

b
u
t

i
t

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

p
u
t

f
r
e
e

e
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e

a
s

a
n

o
v
e
r
t

g
o
a
l

a
n
d

t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

q
u
a
l
i
f
y

a
s

a

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e

t
h
i
n
k

t
a
n
k
.
c
.

H
.

L
e
i
g
h
t
o
n

S
t
e
w
a
r
d

l
e
a
d
s

t
h
e
s
e

g
r
o
u
p
s
,

w
h
o
s
e

m
i
s
s
i
o
n

i
t

i
s

t
o

e
d
u
c
a
t
e

t
h
e

p
u
b
l
i
c

o
n

t
h
e

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

e
f
f
e
c
t
s

o
f

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c

C
O
2

a
n
d

h
e
l
p

p
r
e
v
e
n
t

t
h
e

i
n
a
d
v
e
r
t
e
n
t

n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

t
o

h
u
m
a
n
,

p
l
a
n
t

a
n
d

a
n
i
m
a
l

l
i
f
e

i
f

w
e

r
e
d
u
c
e

C
O
2
.

T
h
e
y

a
r
e

n
o
t

o
v
e
r
t
l
y

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
.
d
.

T
h
e

G
l
o
b
a
l

W
a
r
m
i
n
g

P
o
l
i
c
y

F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

i
s

a

t
h
i
n
k

t
a
n
k

f
o
u
n
d
e
d

b
y

N
i
g
e
l

L
a
w
s
o
n

a
n
d

B
e
n
n
y

P
e
i
s
e
r
,

a
n
d

i
t

n
o
t
e
s

o
n

i
t
s

w
e
b
s
i
t
e
,

W
e

a
r
e

a
n

a
l
l
-
p
a
r
t
y

a
n
d

n
o
n
-
p
a
r
t
y

t
h
i
n
k

t
a
n
k

a
n
d

a

r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d

e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

c
h
a
r
i
t
y

w
h
i
c
h
,

w
h
i
l
e

o
p
e
n
-
m
i
n
d
e
d

o
n

t
h
e

c
o
n
t
e
s
t
e
d

s
c
i
e
n
c
e

o
f

g
l
o
b
a
l

w
a
r
m
i
n
g
,

i
s

d
e
e
p
l
y

c
o
n
c
e
r
n
e
d

a
b
o
u
t

t
h
e

c
o
s
t
s

a
n
d

o
t
h
e
r

i
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

m
a
n
y

o
f

t
h
e

p
o
l
i
c
i
e
s

c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y

b
e
i
n
g

a
d
v
o
c
a
t
e
d
.

T
h
e

f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n

w
o
r
k
s

t
o

q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n

c
l
i
m
a
t
e

s
c
i
e
n
c
e
,

a
n
d

i
t
s

A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c

A
d
v
i
s
o
r
y

C
o
u
n
c
i
l

c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s

m
a
n
y

h
i
g
h
-
p
r
o
f
i
l
e

s
k
e
p
t
i
c
s
,

b
u
t

i
s

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

f
i
t

a
s

o
v
e
r
t
l
y

c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are due to Robert Brulle and Aaron McCright for valuable comments on earlier drafts.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Notes
1. ISBNs represent a useful operationalization of what constitutes a book, although a few of
the volumes could be considered booklets or pamphlets.
2. We do this because we do not want to overrepresent authors in the various analyses reported
below. The two books by William Hunt published in 2009 and 2010 were sufficiently dif-
ferent that we decided to include both of them.
3. Books referred to in text that are listed in the appendix are not listed in the references.
4. McCright and Dunlap (2000) found a surge in a wide range of material criticizing climate
science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Kyoto Protocol posted
on the websites of conservative think tanks leading up to the Kyoto Conference.
5. Self-published books are those where the author is the principal actor in printing the
book. This includes authors paying vanity presses to print their books and those creating
their own presses.
6. Singer is well-known for initiating petitions of scientists who criticize climate science,
including the Heidelberg Appeal and the Leipzig Declaration (Hoggan, 2009, p. 92; Pow-
ell, 2011, pp. 55-56).
7. Limiting our analysis to books published in English leads us to ignore a small number of
denial books in other languages.
8. These include three JDs (Jonathan Alder, Mark Bloomfield, and Christopher Horner), two
MDs (Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks), one ThD (William Curtis), and one DVM
(Zachary Robinson)all professional doctorates that are equated with PhDs.
9. We acknowledge that individuals without doctorates can develop considerable expertise
with relevant work experience, and some would see, for example, Brian Sussman and
Anthony Watts as having relevant expertise based on their experience as meteorologists
and weather forecasters. However, meteorologists specialize in short-term weather and
not long-term climate and lack training in climate science and often hold views of AGW at
odds with those of mainstream climate scientists (e.g., Maibach, Wilson, & Witte, 2011).
10. The closest is Patrick Michaelss Shattered Consensus, which was copublished by the Mar-
shall Institute and Rowman & Littlefield, the latter a respected academic press.
11. A good example is the highly debunkedbut successful in terms of sales, publicity, and
policy impactbook by Australian geologist and mining executive Ian Plimer, Heaven and
Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science (see the critiques cited in McKewon, 2012,
and Washington & Cook, 2011). For a good and continually updated overview of denial
claims that have been debunked by mainstream scientists, see http://skepticalscience.com/.
12. See Weart (2008, 2011) on the operation of these processes in the evolution of climate
science.
References
Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in
climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(27), 12107-12109.
Barley, S. (2011, February 25). Real Climate faces libel suit. Guardian. Retrieved from http://
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/25/real-climate-libel-threat
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, C. J. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change:
An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S.,
20022010. Climatic Change, 114, 169-188.
Dunlap, R. E. (1987, July/August). Polls, pollution, and politics revisited: Public opinion on the
environment in the Reagan era. Environment, 29, 6-11, 32-37.
Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. In J. S. Dryzek,
R. B. Norgaard & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change (pp. 144-160).
London, UK: Oxford.
Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books.
Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2007). Tax politics and the struggle over activist government.
In P. Pierson & T. Skocpol (Eds.), The transformation of American politics (pp. 256-280).
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hamilton, C. (2007). Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change. Melbourne, Australia:
Black Inc. Agenda.
Hoffman, A. J. (2012, Fall). Climate science as culture war. Stanford Social Innovation Review,
10, 30-37.
Hoggan, J., with Littlemore, R. (2009). Climate cover-up: The crusade to deny global warming.
Vancouver, Canada: Greystone Books.
Jacques, P. (2006). The rearguard of modernity: Environmental skepticism as a struggle of citi-
zenship. Global Environmental Politics, 6, 76-101.
Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organization of denial: Conservative
think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349-385.
Lahsen, M. (2008). Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse. Global Environmental Change,
18, 204-219.
Leiserowitz, A. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2011). Politics and
global warming: Democrats, Republicans, Independents, & the Tea Party. New Haven, CT:
Yale Project on Climate Change Communication.
Maibach, E., Wilson, K., & Witte, J. (2011). A national survey of television meteorologists
about climate change education. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Center for Climate
Change Education.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem:
An analysis of the conservative movements counter-claims. Social Problems, 47, 499-522.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movements
impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems, 50, 348-373.
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change: Political polariza-
tion in the American publics views of global warming. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155-194.
McKewon, E. (2012). Duelling realities: Conspiracy theories vs. climate science in regional
newspaper coverage of Ian Plimers book, Heaven & Earth. Rural Society, 21, 99-115.
Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Monbiot, G. (2007). Heat. Cambridge, MA: South End.
Nisbet, M. C., & Meyers, T. (2007). Twenty years of public opinion about global warming.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 444-470.
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Pooley, E. (2010). The climate war. New York, NY: Hyperion.
Powell, J. L. (2011). The inquisition of climate science. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Rahmstorf, S. (2004). The climate skeptics. In Munich Re (Ed.), Weather catastrophes & cli-
mate change (pp. 76-83). Munich, Germany: Munich Re.
Smith, M. A. (2007). The right talk. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stefanic, J., & Delgado, R. (1996). No mercy: How conservative think tanks and foundations
changed Americas social agenda. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24, 265-290.
Teles, S. M. (2007). The rise of the conservative legal movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2012). A climate of corporate control: How corporations have
influenced the U.S. dialogue on climate science and policy. Cambridge, MA: Author.
Washington, H., & Cook, J. (2011). Climate change denial: Heads in the sand. London, UK:
Earthscan.
Weart, S. R. (2008). The discovery of global warming (Rev. & exp. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
Weart, S. (2011). Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Bulletin of the Atomic Sci-
entists, 67(1), 41-50.
Author Biographies
Riley E. Dunlap is Regents Professor of Sociology and Dresser Professor in the Department of
Sociology at Oklahoma State University, and a past-president of the International Sociological
Associations Research Committee on Environment and Society.
Peter J. Jacques is associate professor of political science at the University of Central Florida
and the managing executive editor of the Journal of Environmental Science and Studies.

Livros de Ambientalismo PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Livros de Ambientalismo PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

American Behavioral Scientist

57(6) 699 731

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi