Customer Reviews

Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(19)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

ANTI-SCIENCE AND WHO DOES IT
Anti-science (or agnotology), seeks to cover-up or obscure science considered inconvenient, or at least create doubt in the minds of public and decision-makers. It seeks to replace knowledge with ignorance, and has no resemblance to normal arguments within science, by scientists.

Modern anti-science is most skillfully executed by a relatively small subset of lobbyists and PR agencies. Some of the most effective are actually "thinktanks". They have public identities distinct from their (often-unidentified) funders, and can often be labeled "non-profit", thus avoiding the expense of taxes. They often seek funding in the same way as lobbyist/PR agencies, as is well-documented in the Tobacco Archives.

Such entities have played successful roles in activities like fending off tobacco regulation, fighting CFC regulation ("ozone hole"), fighting mercury regulation, etc. For some, their top priority has changed to obfuscating climate science. Anyone who can help keep children getting addicted to tobacco should find it easy to create confusion about climate.

So, if you wonder how and why so many people, especially in North America, are confused about the current state of climate science, this is an excellent introduction to the key players and tactics.

SAMPLE CHAPTERS AND TOPICS

four: THE AGE OF ASTROTURFING
People respond better to "grass-roots" efforts than to PR from business. If no grass-roots efforts exist, then one can set up fake ones ... astroturf.

eight DENIAL BY THE POUND
Within science, the only things that really count are:
- publication in credible, peer-reviewed journals, a relatively low bar that mostly means "Not obviously wrong and might be worth reading."

- and surviving the high bar: widespread review by scientists in the field, to see if the results stand the test of time. Many don't. A few don't survive more than a few days.

But, if people cannot even get something over the low bar, they can try "petition science", in which large numbers of names are collected, sometimes including people who object violently to their inclusion as misrepresentation.

This tactic is popular, but absurd:

If you have heart problems, and 10 of the world's top cardiologists agree that you need a quad-bypass operation, do you listen to them? Suppose 10 brain surgeons sign a petition saying cardiologists know nothing about hearts. Do you believe *that* instead? Maybe the problem can be ignored?

How about a petition with 10,000 signatures ... of brain surgeons, engineers, epidemiologists, economists, politicians, chemists, nuclear physicists, and maybe a handful of (mostly-retired or not very successful) cardiologists? Are 10,000 non-experts more believable than 10 non-experts? Are they more believable than 10 experts?

nine JUNK SCIENTISTS
The same people who were often helped the tobacco industry now help others, using well-honed tactics and claims of non-existent expertise.

fourteen WHITEWASHING COAL
"Clean coal" isn't. I grew up in Western Pennsylvania, and used to work summers at the US Bureau of Mines, which tried to regulate the industry. Homes still collapse due to mine subsidence, although the coal companies departed long ago.

One topic that I hope will get more attention in any later editions is the role of certain wealthy family foundations in funding anti-science, as corporations are not the only funders. of course, this can be hard to track, given the complex web of funding that rather resembles money-laundering.

---- Added 9/24/09
Corporate funding for climate anti-science is rather concentrated in a few sectors, but corporations generally need not support anti-science. For example, on 9/22/09, the large California utility, Pacific Gas and Electric, announced its withdrawal from the US Chamber of Commerce over the latter's climate policies. The article "Irreconcilable Differences" at PG&E's website Next100 quoted PG&E CEO Peter Darbee's strong, succinct statement:

"We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another."
----

SUMMARY
Those new to this topic will learn quite a bit of what goes on behind the scenes. Even those familiar with the topic will discover new connections - I certainly did.

Some Canadian references might be unfamiliar to Americans, but are useful, because they offer both similarities and contrasts. Also, Canada has many parallels with Australia (oil or coal exports), so Australians may find this instructive as well. Australian blogger Tim Lambert gets plaudits for his sleuth work. New Zealand cases are mentioned, and the UK is well-represented. Climate anti-science knows no borders.

This is an excellent introduction to an important topic. An informed citizen should not only understand a little climate science, but really needs to recognize the machinery of climate anti-science, which really does not want informed citizens.

The chasm between the practice of science and the public's perception is enormous. Any body of knowledge that may require a change in public policy rapidly becomes prey to ideology. One need look no farther than the reviews posted about this very book. A large portion of the public does not understand how to understand science and tends to look for voices of authority. It's no surprise that those they trust to form their political views may also end up framing their views about science. This is true no matter where a person sits along the political spectrum. It's a pity, because ideology has no place in understanding this important topic.

I believe there are still many people who would like to know what the fuss is about. They don't like to have their opinions dictated to them by someone else. They may be vaguely suspicious that there's more than impartiality going on. This book is an imperfect step for readers who may fit that description. There is too much of the author's own opinion where a simple statement of facts is more than sufficient. The book steers a little too uncertainly between polemic and journalism.

I found the preface and initial chapters somewhat off-putting. The author spends some time on the case of Freeman Dyson, a scientist with a respected opinion in many areas. Dyson has moved strongly into the camp of 'deniers' (a term I promise not to use again). Author Hoggan makes quite a spectacle of Dyson's lack of credentials in this area. This is a dangerous approach for many reasons. There are certainly cases of scientists displaying remarkable ignorance outside their fields. One need look no further than William Shockley to understand that. But there are also many uncredentialed scientists who've done spectacular work. For example, the much-respected paleontologist Jack Horner never finished his bachelor's degree. Most importantly, James Hoggan isn't a scientist at all. It's not about the credentials. It's about the work. The author demonstrates this well at many later points in the book, but he may well lose many potential readers before he gets to the good stuff.

If one finds the opening pages unattractive, I might suggested jumping ahead to chapter six, "Mangling the Language". Hoggan's own work in public relations makes him more than qualified to speak on this topic. What you learn in this chapter can prove useful far beyond the scope of the book itself. Other good chapters follow, focusing on trade groups and the spokesmen they employ. If anything, Hoggan should have been even more critical of the press. Most news organizations are arms of a larger corporation. They employ hordes of people to cover Hollywood but no one qualified to cover science. With a few welcome exceptions press coverage of science is abysmal, and has left the public ill-prepared to discuss topics as serious as climate change.

I wish that Hoggan had injected a little less of himself in this book. Much of the reportage is quite persuasive and doesn't need to be shouted. For readers whose views are not hardened, there's much to appreciate.

Climate Cover-up is a book that is long overdue. For too long we have been subjected to the disinformation campaigns of many vested interests whose sole intent is to stop any meaningful action on the biggest problem facing us today. Global warming is real, we are the ones causing it and the consequences of this change will be very bad. While the media, encouraged by the biggest industrial players in energy today (big coal and big oil), has made it seem like there is doubt and confusion about global warming, the people who should know, whose jobs it is to know (such as the American National Academy of Science, which Abraham Lincoln founded to be the "supreme court" of science in America), are not confused at all. The biggest, most prestigious scientific bodies in the world all agree with the reality of global warming: it is real, we are the ones, it will be bad for us. We must stop warming up. We must stop burning coal and oil.

Why don't people today all know that we are taking a terrible risk that we should not be taking? We don't all know because there are too many active vested interests trying to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). They are using the same tactics that big Tobacco used quite successfully to delay for decades significant action in reducing the number of smokers in America. Their actions are short term and short sighted, for they too will have to live in a world where the consequences of our continuing to burn fossil fuels will damage and change our civilization forever. Climate Cover-up does an excellent job of removing the wool that has been pulled over our eyes.

Our democracy has been high-jacked by these vested interests. Climate Cover-up describes for us the many dirty tricks that are being used to deceive our politicians, to confuse our citizens and to stall any meaning action. Knowing how these vested interests work is an essential step in protecting our democracy. We need to be able to see through the facades and outright lies that some industry players use, not only to help us realize what is really happening to our climate, but to be alert to these same tactics when they are used by other industries, public relations companies and think-tanks for other issues, like health care.

Beyond learning how the climate debate has been firstly created (there is no debate in the highest scientific organizations of the world) and then shaped by the vested interests, Climate Cover-up also provides fascinating looks into the history of the "dark side" of public relations (and the author runs a PR company, so is in a great position to understand this industry) and the use of "astroturfing," which is a pseudo-grass roots movement, designed by big oil and big coal to make it appear to our politicians that there is a real grass-roots support for not taking action on global warming, when there is no such movement. These fake grass-roots movements are called astroturfing and are used more and more frequently by industry to mislead our leaders.

There are many valuable insights found in this book but one other needs highlighting: Climate Cover-up also names names. There are many fake experts proclaiming that climate change is not happening; or if it is, it is not us doing it; and if we are, the consequences will be minor; and if they aren't, industry and/or the market will fix it. By learning who these fake experts are (politely called sceptics or deniers) we can be on our guard against their dissemination of FUD.

The changes happening today because of global warming need to be known, not disguised. Our attention needs to be focused on the real issues, not diverted. Our leaders need to know the truth about what is happening and the consequences, not to be deceived. Climate Cover-up takes us in the right direction. It helps to clear away the FUD surrounding global warming. It is a very important book. Buy it. Read it. Pass it along to a friend and make sure they too read it, and pass it along.

I have been reading about the science of climate change as a non-scientist, and about the policy and political implications, for a number of years, trying to learn what was going on, and what needs to be done in response. I particularly recommend Kolbert, "Field Notes from a Catastrophe," and Flannery, "The Weather Makers" for a good overview. And "Scientific American" provides good regular coverage of the issue. The description of this book struck me as interesting so I bought it from amazon and read it, and recommend it as well written and clear, and providing a good overview of the long-term disinformation campaign by professional skeptics who don't do much science, but do a lot of public relations on behalf of the industry that does not want to be responsible for the harm climate change is causing. I think business students familiar with marketing and advertising will find the authors perspective on how that industry plays in this area quite interesting. The insight into Canadian tar sands gives a new perspective to a subject for readers unfamiliar with anything except U.S. politics. I read it just before the latest round of PR broke --- the theft of the East Anglia E-mails and the controversy over the Himalaya glacier melt rates in the IPCC report. None of these undercut the overall science of climate change, but they play into the PR campaign to put off a timely cost-effective response. Another book I bought here, "What's the Worse That Can Happen," lays out the risk assessment argument for responsible action. But I fear our political and legal system is too dysfunctional to be able to respond in time. In any event, this book will need a second edition to take into account the events of recent months, and perhaps by then we will know the e-mails of the professional skeptics as well.

You can tell a book hits home when the opposition (some who obviously have not even read the book) post poor reviews to lower a book's rating. Such is the case with Climate Cover-Up.

If global warming deniers are willing to make that kind of effort for something as insignificant as a book review, imagine what they'll do to when it comes to protecting their own special interests.

As someone who has read Climate Cover-Up from cover-to-cover, I can recommend it without reservation. In fact, I have already bought an extra copy to give away and will likely buy several more.

Because I speak about human-caused global warming, all over the United States, I didn't expect this book teach me a lot that I didn't already know. Boy was I wrong! The best thing about this book is that it gives the reader a behind-the-scenes look at the campaign to deny global warming through the eyes of a public relations expert. It's kind of like a veteran quarterback telling you what's going on inside the huddle.

Even if you are not passionate about saving our planet, this book is still worth the read for its excellent lesson in public relations. As I read about the brilliant but despicable tactics used by the fossil fuels industry, I couldn't help but be distracted from time to time, wondering, hmmm . . . how could I adapt that particular tactic and use it elsewhere for good?

Marty Essen
Author of "Cool Creatures, Hot Planet: Exploring the Seven Continents"

This isn't a book restating the scientific case for global warming. It's also not a book stressing the potential consequences of acting or failing to do so with regards to climate change. Nor is it a doomsaying text predicting the end of the world. No, it's a detailed look at the PR machine behind many of the most vocal deniers of global warming, how without appropriate scientific credentials but with fat pockets laden with carbon industry cash the "dissent" and "debate" over human-influenced climate change has come about.

This is Hoggan's own field of expertise--not climatology, but public relations--and he's an expert indeed. Throughout the book, Hoggan examines how "astroturf" groups (funded by a rogue's gallery of industry players with much to lose like the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, the Western Fuels Association, and so forth) have been carefully crafted to stir up public sentiment against the undeniable body of science on climate change. Hoggan points out the inherent dishonesty of their tactics, including the fundamental yet apparently so-often-ignored fact that dissent in science is expressed through research and publication, not public speaking, and, of course, the money trail leading back to the big energy companies and industry groups.

He addresses several of the most notorious players--often soi-disant "experts" who spend their time preening before the podium at local events and in front of the cameras on news talk programs and who haven't done a bit of research in climatology in their lives. Hoggan looks at the myth of "Clean Coal" (pointing out there's yet to be a single such power plant built in the world--yet commercials we see on television seemingly every day would have us believe pollution-free electricity from coal is already here), and he points out the twisted interests of Canada's tar sands and their environmental costs--all of which does an excellent job of demonstrating how those with such a vested interest in denying climate change are involved in manufacturing a debate which quite simply doesn't exist within the only field which should matter: climate science.

Overall, the book only really hits the tip of the iceberg, and there are many dark stories untold and dirty players left unexposed. However, the book does serve as a refreshing change from the stacks of science texts (both geared at the public and otherwise) on climate research and the many climate change denial polemics available today. If you read Hoggan's book with that in mind--that he is not intending to rehash the science, but rather highlight the PR war being waged against it--you'll probably find the book a much better read.

James Hoggan has put together an eye-opening expose of the deliberate activities of many powerful entities to refute, deny, or disclaim the cumulative scientific consensus regarding global climate change - that human activities are the primary driving force behind global climate change. These powerful entities include the oil and gas industry, the coal industry, and other money-rich manufacturing and industrial groups, as well as some local and federal governments (e.g., Canada, and the USA - under the last Bush administation). These are all entities that will suffer significantly once the general population comes to a realization that the climate is changing and that there is a worrisome risk associated with this change.

Hoggan and his associates outline and document case after case where the scientific community's consensus on climate change, including strong statements from the UN's IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, and the AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] that the global climate is changing due mainly to human activities is ridiculed, undercut, and smeared by people paid either directly or indirectly by special interest money (oil, gas, coal, tobacco, manufacturing, etc.).

The margins of many pages of my copy of this book filled with comments and personal observations of things that I had long suspected, but had never been able to take the time to discover on my own. As the pages flew by I found myself getting madder and madder, and sadder and sadder. Many things I had long suspected were confirmed repeatedly.

In summary, this is not a book about climate change or even a call for action. This is a book about the practices and tactics used by the anti-climate change community to muddy the water and to keep the general population (including all of us) from coming to the realization that there is a strong scientific consensus on this issue, and that the longer we wait to act, the less effective our actions will be. This campaign of disinformation and misinformation has been so effective that even some people that should know better because of their knowledge and training have been deceived. So I certainly don't blame people for being confused when this topic is outside of their own realm of expertise and experience.

FYI - I am not just parroting what Hoggan said in his book. I have been following and studying and teaching about the environment for almost 20 years. Everything I read in Hoggan's book rang true to what I know and many things I have long suspected.

No matter where you fall on the climate change "debate" you will benefit from reading this book!

Thanks for the insights and strong reminders about the need to be diligent regarding not only the messages we hear, but their ultimate sources as well.

5 solid stars!

This review follows on the heels of what the media has dubbed climtategate--a textbook example of how to make a mountain out of a mole hill. A few weeks prior to that brouhaha, the media was awash with reports that the world is actually cooling, which upon closer inspection also amounted to nothing. Sticking with mole analogies, correcting the disinformation perpetuated by those who seek to discredit climate research has become a perpetual game of Whac-A-Mole.

The book does a very thorough job of documenting the history of sometimes despicable attempts by various vested interests and contrarians to discredit climate science. There is no doubt which side holds the science high-ground on this issue and after reading this book there should be little doubt which side holds the moral high-ground.

It gets off to a slow start but hang in there. It gets better, ending with a bang. It is not a neutral perspective of the pros and cons of the global warming debate. This is a detailed, no holds barred account of the people who work to discredit climate science and the methods they use to do it.

The authors begin with a critique of octogenarian Freeman Dyson, the world's most notable global warming skeptic. Dyson is in a class of his own and does not deserve to be lumped in with the usual ignoramuses, cranks, and conspiracy theorists. I suspect his mention at the front of the book was one of those last minute edit jobs in response to a NYT article about Dyson's skepticism just prior to the book's release. Climategate, the latest global cooling farce, and Dyson's skepticism are all examples suggesting that an updated version of this book a year from now might be twice as long.

Dyson is an icon in the world of science and scientists don't like it when anyone takes a pot shot at one of their heroes. Dyson is by all accounts a genius. He probably thinks people who use calculators are sissies. Back in the seventies, Dyson published a paper which calculated that we could stabilize carbon in the atmosphere by simply planting a trillion or so fast growing trees.

Intellectually speaking, I am but a speck of dirt on the bottom of one of Dyson's shoes, but people who once proved brilliant in their field of expertise rarely prove to be quite so brilliant in unrelated fields, like climatology. Michael Jordon comes to mind.

Some climate models suggest that planting trees in the upper latitudes would have a warming effect because they would reduce reflectivity of snow on the ground. If true, this is an example of how humanity has already reached some points of no return. Out of curiosity, I just fired up a spreadsheet to calculate how much land mass a trillion trees would cover spaced at five foot intervals. Dyson could probably do this in his head. Maybe I have a decimal point in the wrong place but according to my calculations they would cover the Earth's landmass dozens of times over.

The following was found in a publication describing a lecture Dyson gave in 2006:

"He had useful advice for his home planet, but he also puts most of his hope in the colonization of space and a future beyond our atmosphere. In outer space, he believes, there will again be speciation in the Darwinian sense."


Following are some quotes from a NYT article:

"Forty years ago it was fashionable to worry about the coming ice age. Better to attack the real problems like the extinction of species and overfishing. There are so many practical measures we could take"

"I'm still perfectly happy if you buy me a Prius!" Imme [his wife] said.

"It's toys for the rich," her husband smiled, and then they were arguing about windmills."


1) The ice age hypothesis was short lived, not widely accepted, and blown out of proportion by a lay media looking for sensationalist headlines, as always.

2) If we attacked all of the world's problems (like overfishing and species extinction) linearly (one at a time) instead of in parallel, the sun would go dead before we got to the end of the list.

3) A Prius is not a toy for the rich.

Dyson is also a big proponent of solar power, so, go figure.

Skepticism is one of the keystones of science and anyone who wasn't skeptical when they first heard about global warming should contact me so I can sell them some land in Florida. Likewise, the word skeptic might be appropriate for those who have been living in caves for the last decade and have just caught wind of the concept, but what do you call someone who refuses to move to the next stage regardless of the evidence?

The word denier was used 36 times in this book. Denial is also the first stage listed in Elizabeth Kübler-Ross' book, "On Death and Dying." (see the Wikipedia article on the Kubler-Ross model). Denial is the overarching reason for a belief in an afterlife. Acceptance of the results of decades of global warming research is not by any means tantamount to accepting one's eventual demise, but the potential ramifications of global warming appear to be enough to send many people scurrying for their ostrich holes.

Much of the denial we see is probably related to the potential ravages of global warming. If the research results were suggesting that global warming has little potential and would have little impact, I doubt there would be any debate at all.

Few of us will live an entire life without facing situations that we find so threatening that we deny they are true, at least at first. Coping mechanisms help us deal with unpleasant realities until we can gather ourselves and face them, or not. But some people have become very adept, maybe too adept, at capturing the anxiety relief denial can provide especially when doing so will not have a negative impact on their daily lives. They have a hair-trigger reality switch that has been honed to a shine by repeated use, and few people who do it are consciously aware that they do it because awareness would deactivate the switch.

We of course pick and choose our denials. You could deny that walking in front of a speeding bus is dangerous but you would also be taking a big personal risk. Unlike some forms of denial, denying the potential ramifications of global warming entails no physical danger to the denier, only anxiety relief. It is custom-made for using denial as a coping mechanism. However, a prolonged and collective denial by enough people may have an impact on our children's and grandchildren's lives by radically altering the world they will live on. Collective, self-reinforcing denial may have been what brought the Easter Island civilization down.

There are plenty of other reasons not to accept the findings of decades of global warming science. You may just be ignorant or misinformed, or have a contrarian personality disorder that is not constrained by logic and evidence (conspiracy theorists fall into this group), but whatever reasons you have, they are not backed by science, regardless of what you may have told yourself to the contrary.

This is an informative, timely effort to identify the causes behind the public's failure to believe that global warming is a real threat to the world's environmental future. It is the story of how two major industries, coal and oil, with some help from their friends, planned and financed a public relations campaign of disinformation that has been successful beyond their wildest hopes and dreams.

Hoggan, a public relations expert in his own right, documents how PR techniques have obscured scientific facts and created doubt in the public mind about the dangers of global warming when there is almost unanimous scientific findings that such global warming exists and unchecked will cause major environmental and economic problems in the near future. He names names and gives details about the efforts, mostly successful, of pollsters, lobbyists, think tank experts, and the usual political suspects that tend to place economic considerations ahead of the public good. To read this book is to have faith in the old adage that if you want to find out the basic reasons for the actions of an individual or organization, just "follow the money."
I was a bit disappointed in that the author does not make any mention of what the Pulitzer Prize winning author Barton Gellman, in his 2008 book "Angler; The Cheney Vice Presidency," documents was the beginning of a governmental campaing beginning in March of 2001 by Cheney to create disinformation and confusion in both the media and public areas on the subject of global warming. Hoggan is silent on this revelation and does not mention Cheney at all in the book. If, as Gellman claims, Cheney was the architect of the global warming disinformation campaing, you would think Hoggan would have at least mentioned it. I think this is a critical ommision and it causes me to at least wonder about what else has been left out or overlooked.
This book is a good start for anyone seeking some of the reasons behind the current global warming controversy but it is not the final word for those looking for an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

Regardless of how you feel about Climate Change, whether you believe it is man made or not, whether you believe that the debate is decided or not, this book is important. In his book Climate Cover-Up, the author James Hoggan does not attempt to prove the case for Climate Change, nor is he concerned with refuting those that do not think that we need to take immediate action. What he does attempt to do, and succeeds at doing very well, is to show how the public has been misled, confused and lied to by the hucksters that have something to gain by showing that Climate Change is fake. From his unique position as a Public Relations man, Hoggan provides startling insight into the amazingly well designed campaign to muddy the debate.

Hoggan painstakingly details individuals, groups and their ties to the coal and gas industries. He reveals campaigns and exposes the lies that have been steadily fed into the public discourse until we scarcely know who to believe. He backs up his claims with solid research and information that is easily verifiable. You don't have to believe that Florida will become a swamp in 10 years to feel outraged at the deceptions that have been allowed to filter unchallenged through the debate after you read this book. For anyone that wants to know the truth about the Climate Debate cover-up, this book is essential reading. Even if you aren't interested in Climate Change itself, this book is an excellent resource to help you educate yourself about the manipulations and machinations that find their way into the public conversation.