Narratives of denial: Examining how climate change deniers convince their audiences.

Narratives of denial: Examining how climate change deniers convince their audiences.

Mihai Sarbu, M. Sc., M. Ed., Ph.D. (c)

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa

[email protected]

Paper submitted for a presentation

to the 48th Annual Conference of the

Canadian Sociological Association

Session Title: The Sociology of Climate Change

April 30, 2013

2

Introduction.

There are multiple social representations of climate change, which come from different

interpretations of science and fuel controversial debates over how climate change needs to be

dealt with. The opinions range from a total denial of any climate change problem1 to the

hypothesis that climate change is now unstoppable and all that humanity can still do is to

organize an orderly retreat.2 Beyond this diversity of opinions, the seriousness of the climate

change threat and the weight of scientific evidence behind it require that we take action to

prevent it and deal with its possible consequences. Our actions are not matching the seriousness

of the threat and this is due at least in part to climate change deniers, who “seek to promote or

delay public policy by announcing that there is an ongoing scientific debate about a matter for

which there is actually an overwhelming scientific consensus” and “take advantage of balancing

norms and appeals to democratic values” (Ceccarelli, 2011, p. 195).

In this work I seek to better understand how climate change deniers use narratives to

convince their audiences and I will attempt to identify some of the techniques they use. My main

source for analyzing the narratives of the deniers will be a movie produced in 20073 which

features 19 speakers4 who argue against the idea of anthropogenic global warming. After this I

will present the results of a focus group activity that I conducted in February 2013 using the same

movie. In the conclusion of this paper I will elaborate a few hypotheses that could help explain

why the messages of climate change deniers are effective.

1 The Alberta-based organization Friends of Science provides several “proofs” that climate change is not happening:The earth is cooling; the Sun causes climate change; violent weather isn’t getting worse; climate computer modelsare proven wrong (Friends of Science, 2013).2 James Lovelock considers that it is too late and too risky to try to reach any international consensus on climatechange. He recommends that Britain acts alone, by securing sources of energy, preparing for the protection andeventual abandonment of cities close to sea level such as London and Liverpool, and “plan for the synthesis of foodfrom nothing more than air, water and a few minerals” (2006, p. 13).3 The great global warming swindle by Martin Durkin (2007).4 Two of them, Carl Wunsch and Eigil Friis-Christensen, are not deniers. See Ofcom (2008) for their implication.

3

The narratives of the deniers.

The great global warming swindle aired in the UK, on Channel 4, on March 8, 2007, and

then again on More4, on March 12, 2007. The main arguments advanced in the movie are the

following: Carbon dioxide never drove the Earth’s climate in the past—therefore there is no

reason to refrain from using fossil fuels; the climate has been warmer in the past and it has been

cooler as well—and this did not lead to any disasters; the media are rushing to publish and

broadcast alarmist news regarding climate change; today’s “greens” are extremists who cloak

their neo-Marxism under an environmental guise and want to destroy the economies of the world,

especially those of the developing countries; Al Gore has misrepresented science because heat

drives carbon dioxide and not the other way around; scientists have a vested interest to keep the

climate change controversy alive because this is beneficial for their research funding; the

scientists who disagree with the “climate change hysteria” are afraid to express their views

because they fear being ostracized or losing their funding; the IPCC is a bureaucratic machine

that disregards science in order to be able to perpetuate the funding it receives from the UN

(Durkin, 2007).

A full analysis of this movie goes beyond the scope of a short presentation5; in the

following paragraphs I highlight the most salient features of the arguments advanced in the movie

and examine how these arguments are constructed. I found that the movie’s message is

essentially reassuring: there is no real danger that climate change poses to the world, so we

should not feel inadequate because we might be compromising the lives of future generations.

This is what “global warming alarmists” are trying to make us believe, but this is “not science—

it’s propaganda” (Durkin, 2007). We can rest assured that the conveniences of modern life,

powered by fossil fuels, do not have anything to do with changing the climate of the planet. The

5 See Rive et al., 2007.

4

ones that want us to think otherwise are not even true environmentalists—their real purpose is to

destroy the capitalist system (Durkin, 2007).

Recent studies (Lewandowski, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013) have provided empirical

support to an association between free market values, conspiracy theories and the denial of

climate science, but the point I’m trying to make here does not rest on their arguments. While

proving such an association is a rational endeavour, my main hypothesis is that the makers of The

great global warming swindle do not target rationality, but emotions.

The movie starts with the declarations of several scientists and bureaucrats with

impressive credentials who deliver small pieces of information that converge toward a “hidden

face” of the global warming controversy. Moreover, they form a story that we are gradually led

into discovering. The process is similar to solving a puzzle—the image starts gradually to take

shape—and even if there is no definite “aha” moment, in the end we come to believe that we

understand something we have not understood before. This feeling of understanding, of things

coming together, is real and liberating—even if the facts underlying it are falsified.

I think this feeling of relief that comes with understanding makes us to be interested in the

deniers’ story and not to question where it is leading us. We do not realize that it is made of “an

accumulation of consecutive interviewee statements that taken together [italics added] amount to

narration,” in “an attempt to give the impression that a contentious opinion is a fact” (Rive et al.,

2007, p. 13). Otherwise a reply-by-reply analysis of the movie could show us how strikingly

short each individual statement is: from a total of 212 statements, 51 (23%) are less than 10

seconds long; 129 (60%) are less than 20 seconds long; 170 (79%) are less than 30 seconds long;

190 (89%) are less than 40 seconds long; 204 (95%) are less than 50 seconds long; and 209

5

(98%) are less than one minute long. Finally only 3 statements are longer than one minute, 61,

65, and 67 seconds respectively.6

The briefness of the statements is meaningful. On the one hand, a majority of them are

less than 20 seconds long, and it is quite obvious that no one can say something substantial so

quickly; and on the other hand, if the statements were improvised (as most of them appear) their

different meanings would not have been coherent.7 There is therefore an underlying structure that

explains this coherence, or rather, coherences (or structures), because one can identify several

major issues addressed by the movie, each of which could eventually bring proof that global

warming is real.

The first issue is whether or not the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can

lead to global warming and the conclusion is that it cannot. Since this is the case, and yet the

climate is changing, we need to look for other elements that can explain climate variability. And

they are not hard to find: we only have to “look up in the sky.” If we “look at that massive thing,

the sun,” we realize that we are “minute relative to that” (Stott, as cited in Rive et al., 2007, p.

51). This correlates well with Pier Corbyn’s “radically new way of forecasting the weather,”

whose “secret of . . . success” was also the sun (Rive et al., 2007, p. 51). The “secrets” of the

“global warming alarmists” fall thereafter like a domino: the paleoclimate temperature

reconstructions show that temperature drives CO2—so CO2 is not a climate driver; the main

greenhouse gas is water vapour and not CO2; climate models are notoriously inaccurate; the polar

ice is not melting any more than usual; the media thrive on catastrophic news about climate

6 These statements are detailed in Appendix A.7 Such techniques are not unique to The great global warming swindle. They are similar with techniques used inother productions made to purposefully mislead and falsify: “As the editors intercut the action sequences with directaddress interviews, the program encourages the viewers to empathize with a reading of the situation” (Edwards,2006, p. 267) that is contrary to reality. Such films “draw and play with audiences’ acceptance of the wider culturaldiscourses that couch and partly articulate [the] documentary [genre]” (Hight & Roscoe, 2006, p. 171).

6

change; so many jobs depend on the bureaucratic “gravy train” of the IPCC that no one dares

touching it; and today’s environmentalists, many of whom “think of humans as sort of being

scum” (Moore, as cited in Rive et al., 2007, p. 114) insist on promoting renewable energy

technologies in order to destroy the economies of African countries.

In this context truth is irrelevant—and Dr. Frederick Singer’s statements that end the

movie seem to offer a sound conclusion:

There will still be people who believe that this is the end of the world—particularly when

you have, for example, the chief scientist of the UK [italics added] telling people that by

the end of the century the only inhabitable place on the earth will be the Antarctic and it

may, humanity may survive, thanks to some breeding couples who moved to the

Antarctic—I mean this is hilarious. It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren’t so sad. (as

cited in Ofcom, 2008, p. 36)

Dr. Singer’s misinterpretations are so gross and the explanations he offered were so

absurd that the Ofcom found Channel 4 in breach of broadcasting rules (2008, pp. 36–42);

however, this fact is relatively unknown. At the same time the statements seem believable and

this appears to me much more important. The audiences are likely to trust their feelings and find

the statements trustworthy.

The narratives of the audiences.

The participants to my focus group were 6 sociology students, 3 in the MA program and 3

in the Ph.D. program, none of whom had climate change or environmental sociology as a

research interest. The first activity was to ask the participants what was their general

understanding of climate change. Their answers reflected a significant degree of doubt whether

the warming we experienced lately is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide or to

7

natural cycles; they also felt that the issue of climate change was more prevalent a few years ago

but it was gradually losing steam.

The second activity was to ask the participants to complete a handout intended to assess

what importance they assigned to climate change. In order to operationalize importance, I

formulated two criteria: potential impacts and level of preparedness. After completing the

handouts,8 the participants watched the movie; after this an identical set of handouts were given

to them and they were asked to complete them again. My purpose in repeating this activity was to

assess if the movie had any significant influence on their opinions about the importance of

climate change. Although the small sample does not allow me to reach reliable conclusions it is

interesting to note that after seeing the movie the answers of the participants reflected a 40%

decrease in the perceived severity of the consequences of climate change and a 20% increase in

the adequacy of our preparedness.

Other themes that were expressed by the participants are the following:

- The movie is very well made and disturbing.

- The movie may be a mix of truth and propaganda. It is hard to judge because we are

not experts.

- After watching the movie one feels “a juxtaposition of hopefulness and hopelessness”

depending on whether we consider that global warming is caused by humans or not.

- People have interests and they are using science to promote those interests.

- There seems to be a debate on how to choose between development and climate

change.

- The IPCC seems to have deleted controversial statements from their final report.

8 Please see Appendixes B and C.

8

- It is true that money influences research and examples can be given from other fields

as well, not only from climate change.

- We don’t know what the actual truth is.

- There are natural climatic fluctuations, but what is happening today is occurring over

a much shorter period of time.

- If the climate cools in the near future it will be very damaging for the credibility of the

climate change theory.

- It would be a bad idea to show the movie to a high school audience,9 because it is well

made and could have a powerful impact.

- The graphs regarding solar activity and temperature and the relation between CO2 and

temperature are very disturbing.10

- The movie insists on creating a prestigious image for each of the speakers presented.

- Climate change is not the only issue we have to deal with, the over-exploitation of

fresh water is a problem as well.

- Other important factors to be considered are: “consumption . . . wasteful lifestyles . . .

living above our means, the exploitation of oil.”

- There is much greenwashing today, and the measures taken may be insufficient to

reverse the course we are engaged in.

- There is significant destruction that accompanies industrial development.

- During difficult economic times people are much less inclined to make the

environment a priority.

9 I am preparing to do this in May 2013.10 The graphs are falsified but the participants did not know that.

9

After reviewing these themes I am inclined to think that, in spite of occasional concerns

about the possibility that humans are causing climate change and that climate change could lead

us to a serious crisis in the future, the participants were strongly influenced by the ideas presented

in the movie.11 Why is it so? What are the possible implications, considering that the participants

were all graduate students and possibly in a better position to examine the movie critically? What

is this telling us about the deniers’ effectiveness? Answering these questions would require

further research but a theme that is obviously missing is the desire to get involved in dealing with

climate change.

It can be argued that feelings of powerlessness and the desire to avoid psychological

discomfort can lead people onto a path of avoidance and disengagement, in spite of their

awareness of global warming and its dangers. One of the participants in my focus group activity

said the following:

So in this case, what I’m saying, OK, what do I want to believe now? Do I want to worry

about global warming—no, I don’t want to worry about global warming, me as an

average person who doesn’t have . . . like a person who feels powerless in front of what

big corporations, big politicians are saying. I’m saying, OK, I don’t want to bother with

this, and I probably choose the point of view that entails me to believe that, OK, I can’t

do much about global warming, so I take my thoughts away from this story. (2013,

February 12)

These statements corroborate well with some of Norgaard’s (2006) findings following a

one year study on the negative emotions associated with climate change. She conducted her field

research in a Norwegian village and found evidence that people tend to “look the other way”

when they feel guilty about global warming or believe it is an issue beyond their reach. The fact

11 Please see Appendix D for a list of movies produced by Martin Durkin.

10

that Norway is an important oil producer and it is “the world’s second largest oil exporter after

Saudi Arabia” (Norgaard, p. 382) makes it difficult for some Norwegians to avoid feelings of

guilt about “being bad persons” (p. 382). In order to avoid this distress they often adopt

“strategies of emotion management” (p. 385). Such strategies are the following: selective

attention—controlling exposure to information, not thinking too far ahead, focusing on

something they can do; and perspectival selectivity—overemphasizing the role of the United

States while at the same time minimizing the role of Norway in the climate crisis. A desire to

avoid psychological discomfort can therefore make people more susceptible to accept the

messages of the deniers and less likely to be involved in dealing with the climate crisis.

Conclusion.

In spite of the near-unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming the

social controversy around it is raging. The stakes are very high, as, on the one hand, the window

of opportunity for dealing effectively with climate change is closing, and, on the other hand, oil

and gas polluters stand to lose astronomic amounts of money if climate change becomes a central

issue for the public. Important decisions are ahead of us this year: Will President Obama approve

the Keystone XL project?12 And what will be the deniers’ reaction to the IPCC AR5 report?

Moreover, is the debate between climate change scientists and deniers going to become an

entrenched controversy just like the one between evolutionism and creationism?13 Are the deniers

going to be successful in their bid to institutionalize their doctrine?14 Could the concerns of the

12 The prominent climatologist James Hansen argues that approving the pipeline will “exacerbate global warmingand put the U.S. on the hook for spills and environmental degradation, all in service to one of the planet’s dirtiestfuels” (2013).13 See Rosenau, 2013.14 See Horn, 2013.

11

insurance industry15 and some faith groups16 about climate change reflect deeper worries within

the general public?

I will not dare to answer any of these questions but rather focus my final thoughts on the

micro-level interaction between deniers and their audiences. How do deniers convince their

audiences? On the one hand the narratives of deniers are craftily articulated to take advantage of

the complexity of climate science and of the fact that the most serious effects of climate change

are still far in the future. The deniers also use a variety of techniques to promote their messages,

including conspiracy theories, the testimony of fake experts, setting impossible expectations

(such as requiring 100% scientific proof), misrepresentations, logical fallacies, and cherry-

picking the evidence (Washington & Cook, 2011).

But how do the audiences react to the deniers’ messages? Why are these messages often

accepted at face value? More work is needed on the role of feelings in relation to climate change

but I think their importance should not be underestimated. We listen to the messages of the

deniers and we believe them because they tell us what we like to hear. Their narratives are easy to

follow, have immediate applications, and are likely to make us feel reassured, knowledgeable,

and empowered. The messages of the scientists are distinctly inferior from this “user”

perspective. They are hard to follow, have a long time horizon, and are likely to make us feel

disturbed and uncertain about our knowledge and future—or outright scared. In these

circumstances it is quite easy to see why we might feel tempted to turn our back to the scientists

and look more favourably toward the deniers.

15 See Leurig & Dlugolecki, 2013.16 See Wilkinson, 2012.

12

Should this be true, our psychological well-being risks being short-lived and paid for

dearly. I think we need to face the truth, and this will not be easy. It is however something that

we need to do—a first step in dealing with the enormous threats that lie ahead.

13

References

Ceccarelli, L. (2011). Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate.

Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 195–228.

Durkin, M. (2007). The great global warming swindle [Motion picture]. UK: Wag TV.

Durkin, M (2010). Britain’s trillion pound horror story. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from

http://www.martindurkin.com/dvd-shop

Edwards, L. H. (2006). Chasing the real: Reality television and documentary forms. In G. D.

Rhodes, & J. P. Springer (Eds.), Docufictions: Essays on the intersection of documentary

and fictional filmmaking (pp. 253–269). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co.

Friends of Science. (2012). Six things everyone should know about climate change. Retrieved

January 5, 2013 from http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=196

Hansen, J. (2013, April 4). Keystone XL: The pipeline to disaster. Retrieved April 6, 2013 from

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-hansen-keystone-obama-

20130404,0,3169887.story

Hight, C., & Roscoe, J. (2006). Forgotten silver: A New Zealand television hoax and its

audience. In A. Juhasz, & J. Lerner (Eds.), F is for phony: Fake documentary and the

truth’s undoing (pp. 171–186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Horn, S. (2013). Three states pushing ALEC bill to require teaching climate change denial in

schools. Retrieved February 1, 2013 from http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/01/31/three-

states-pushing-alec-bill-climate-change-denial-schools

Leurig, S., & Dlugolecki, A. (2013, March). Insurer climate risk disclosure survey: 2012 findings

and recommendations. CERES webinar, Boston, MA.

14

Lewandowski, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—

therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.

Psychological Science, 24(3), 1–12.

Lovelock, J. (2006). The revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth is fighting back – and how we can still

save humanity. London: Penguin Books.

Norgaard, K. M. (2006). “People want to protect themselves a little bit”: Emotions, denial, and

social movement nonparticipation. Sociological Inquiry, 76(3), 372–396.

Ofcom (2008, July 21). Ofcom broadcast bulletin, issue number 114. London, UK: Ofcom—

Independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries.

Rive, N., Jackson, B., Rado, D., Marsh, R., Woodward, A., Kohler, J., et al. (2007). Complaint to

Ofcom regarding The great global warming swindle. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint.pdf

Rosenau, J. (2013). Will climate change denial inherit the wind? Retrieved April 12, 2013 from

http://mobilizingideas.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/will-climate-change-denial-inherit-the-

wind/

Washington, H., & Cook, J. (2011). Climate change denial: heads in the sand. London:

Earthscan.

Wilkinson, K. K. (2012). Between God and green: How Evangelicals are cultivating a middle

ground on climate change. New York: Oxford University Press.

15

Appendix A

A reply-by-reply timing of the statements made in The great global warming swindle.17

SPEAKER MAIN IDEAS START END Length(sec.).H M S H M S

Narrator(Martin Durkin)

Humans are not the main source of carbondioxide.

0 22 28 0 22 31 3


This is the distortion of a whole area ofscience.

0 3 42 0 3 46 4


This is a story of censorship andintimidation.

0 4 34 0 4 38 4


. . . but the Earth's climate is alwayschanging! (images of people on beach).

0 6 53 0 6 57 4


What does drive Earth's climate? 0 26 0 0 26 4 4


GW has given rise to a whole new branch ofjournalism.

0 50 2 0 50 6 4

Roy Spencer Climate scientists need there to be a problemto get funding.

0 3 47 0 3 51 4

Ian Clark From a geological perspective CO2 has neverbeen a climate driver.

0 1 29 0 1 34 5

Ian Clark CO2 never drove climate in the past andtherefore it doesn’t now either.

0 1 42 0 1 47 5

James Shikwati Africans are told not to use resources like oiland coal and this is very sad.

1 11 29 1 11 34 5

John Christy Climate scientists need to create panic sothey get funding.

0 3 52 0 3 57 5

John Christy Water vapour is "by far the most importantgreenhouse gas."

0 14 24 0 14 29 5


A political campaign turned into abureaucratic bandwagon.

0 4 5 0 4 10 5


Conclusion of correlation between Arctictemperatures and solar activity.

0 33 36 0 33 41 5


Two billion people, many of them in Africa,lack electricity and need to develop.

1 5 56 1 6 1 5

Nigel Calder The politicization of the climate issue startedwith Margaret Thatcher.

0 37 7 0 37 12 5

Piers Corbyn "The Sun is driving climate change, CO2 isirrelevant."

0 33 42 0 33 47 5


Recent warming happened at wrong place &time to be consistent w/GHG.

0 18 8 0 18 14 6

17 In this particular table the statements are sorted in ascending order of length, so the narrative is not in sequence.

16

Nigel Calder Nigel Calder says he is not paid by any oilcompany.

1 0 15 1 0 21 6

Philip Stott The IPCC like any other UN body ispolitical and so are its decisions.

0 2 20 0 2 26 6

Piers Corbyn None of the climate changes in last 1,000years can be explained by CO2.

0 1 35 0 1 41 6

RichardLindzen

Nobody should ever say that [globalwarming] might not be a problem.

0 3 58 0 4 4 6

RichardLindzen

The higher temperatures at the surface showwarming is not due to GHG.

0 17 39 0 17 45 6

Tim Ball Climate change exists, but it is not caused byCO2 emissions.

0 0 8 0 0 14 6

Carl Wunsch The models can be adjusted so they do"something very exciting."

0 47 4 0 47 11 7


The West invokes the threat of CC to hinderprogress in developing world.

0 4 51 0 4 58 7


We are told the Earth's climate ischanging . . . (images of natural disaster).

0 6 45 0 6 52 7


Introduction of Patrick Moore, co-founder ofGreenpeace

0 40 48 0 40 55 7


There is a fashion now of blaming everystorm or hurricane on global warming.

0 50 54 0 51 1 7

PatrickMichaels

Patrick Michaels worked on projectspartially funded by the coal industry.

1 1 1 1 1 8 7

Philip Stott Philip Stott says he never received a pennyfrom the multi-nationals.

0 59 57 1 0 4 7

Ian Clark CO2 cannot cause temperature changesbecause it follows temperature chg.

0 21 23 0 21 31 8

John Christy Humans generate a "single digit percentage-wise" of all CO2 produced.

0 22 32 0 22 40 8


A theory about climate has turned into apolitical ideology.

0 3 22 0 3 30 8


The idea that CO2 drives Earth's climateappealed not only to Mrs. Thatcher.

0 39 33 0 39 41 8


All climate change models assume that CO2

drives CC rather than Sun & clouds.0 46 6 0 46 14 8


"The range of climate forecasts variesgreatly" by subtly altering the assumptions.

0 46 55 0 47 3 8

Nir Shaviv A few years ago, influenced by the media, hethought CO2 is cause.

0 0 15 0 0 23 8

John Christy Billions of dollars invested in climatescience means many people want thatmoney.

1 2 44 1 2 53 9


Climate change news exaggerated,politicians don’t dare to contradict.

0 0 24 0 0 33 9

17


Media exaggeration made GW "scare" intothe defining idea of a generation.

0 5 22 0 5 31 9


Greenhouse gases are small part ofatmosphere and CO2 is a minor GHG.

0 14 0 0 14 9 9


There is a common prejudice that scientistswho disagree w/GW are paid by industry.

0 59 47 0 59 56 9

PatrickMichaels

Currently thousands of jobs depend onglobal warming, it is big business.

0 4 11 0 4 20 9

Patrick Moore The environmental movement is thestrongest anti-development force.

0 5 12 0 5 21 9

Patrick Moore The environmental movement is thestrongest anti-development force.

1 11 19 1 11 28 9

Tim Ball Tim Ball says he "never received a nickelfrom the oil and gas companies".

1 0 5 1 0 14 9

FrederickSinger

Temperature increase led to CO2 increase, soCO2 cannot be cause of GW.

0 21 12 0 21 22 10

FrederickSinger

The large amount of money poured in thisarea has distorted the scientific effort.

0 44 18 0 44 28 10

Ian Clark Comments on correlation between Arctictemperatures and solar activity.

0 33 25 0 33 35 10


Recent warming earlier part of 20 centuryand higher at the surface: not GHG.

0 18 15 0 18 25 10


News reports argue that even a minorwarming could lead to melting of ice caps.

0 51 34 0 51 44 10


Satellites captured the expansion andcontraction of Arctic sea ice in the 1990s.

0 53 3 0 53 13 10


Alarming TV programs show sea levelincreases, but how does the sea levelchange?

0 54 2 0 54 12 10

Patrick Moore Not an environmental movement anymore,but political, very influential.

0 3 31 0 3 41 10

Roy Spencer Climate models are only as good as theassumptions that go into them.

0 45 24 0 45 34 10

Ian Clark Comments on the correlation btw solaractivity & cloud formation.

0 31 28 0 31 39 11


When Sun is more active pushes cosmic raysaway, fewer clouds are formed.

0 30 33 0 30 44 11

Nigel Calder “Seen and heard ‘they’ are spitting withfury” at anybody who disagrees.

0 4 39 0 4 50 11

Nigel Calder This 1974 broadcast warned of globalcooling & the coming of a new ice age.

0 34 49 0 35 0 11

Nigel Calder Elementary principles of journalism havebeen abandoned in the case of CC.

0 49 50 0 50 1 11

RichardLindzen

Specialists are forced to agree with the pointof view of the majority.

0 3 10 0 3 21 11

18

Roy Spencer Very few scientists speak out because theyrisk losing their research funding.

0 59 35 0 59 46 11

Ian Clark You can make the model forecast warmer orcolder weather by changing things.

0 47 12 0 47 24 12

James Shikwati Interests looking to kill African developmentusing environmental debate.

0 4 59 0 5 11 12

James Shikwati The African dream is to develop, but thereare people who want to kill this dream.

1 11 6 1 11 18 12

John Christy There is no scientific consensus—he is adissenter and others are too.

0 1 48 0 2 0 12


Several ice core surveys showed thattemperature drives CO2, not reverse.

0 20 59 0 21 11 12


M. Thatcher set up a unit at the Met Office,which constituted the base for IPCC.

0 38 36 0 38 48 12


News reports show ice breaking but don'tmention this is very normal.

0 53 28 0 53 40 12

Philip Stott “An awful lot of people” depend on globalwarming for their jobs.

0 4 21 0 4 33 12

RichardLindzen

There were very many people interested inGW only because of research money.

0 43 32 0 43 44 12

Lord Lawson ofBlaby

If people stand up and want to be rationalabout GW, they are ostracized.

1 3 15 1 3 28 13


Al Gore has reversed the relationship btwCO2 and temperatures.

0 20 19 0 20 32 13


Why does temperature drives CO2? CO2 isproduced by all living organisms.

0 21 58 0 22 11 13


By the early 1990s GW was attracting mediaattention and therefore govt funding.

0 42 48 0 43 1 13


One way of making the forecasts moreimpressive is to increase atmospheric CO2.

0 47 25 0 47 38 13


Models have the appearance of science andprovide spectacular stories for media.

0 49 36 0 49 49 13


To receive private industry research grantscan be very damaging for scientists.

1 0 22 1 0 35 13

Nigel Calder M. Thatcher went to the Royal Society, toldscientists there is money to prove CC.

0 37 56 0 38 9 13

Nir Shaviv CO2 was much higher in the past but thetemperatures do not correlate.

0 1 15 0 1 28 13

Paul Reiter Specialists who disagree / resign are still lefton the authors’ list.

0 2 56 0 3 9 13

RichardLindzen

Scientists numbers beefed up w/ governmentemployees, many disagree.

0 2 42 0 2 55 13

Syun-IchiAkasofu

TV programs about GW show ice breakingoff, but ice is always moving.

0 53 14 0 53 27 13

Tim Ball Greenhouse gases are small part ofatmosphere; water vapour 95% of GHG.

0 14 10 0 14 23 13

19


In the past there have been periods when ithas been much warmer / cooler.

0 6 58 0 7 12 14


The final conclusion is that climate is mainlycontrolled by the Sun.

0 31 40 0 31 54 14


Western leaders want to use theprecautionary principle to argue foremissions cuts.

1 5 16 1 5 30 14

Patrick Moore Green movement idealizes rural life and seesindustrialization as evil.

1 10 51 1 11 5 14

Paul Driessen The efforts to curb GW have a disastrouseffect on the world's poorest people.

1 5 1 1 5 15 14

Paul Driessen If we oblige Africans to have only wind andsolar, they cannot have electricity.

1 10 3 1 10 17 14

Paul Reiter Many of the people designated as scientistsare actually non-specialists.

0 2 27 0 2 41 14

Philip Stott The environmentalists are anti-developmentand against the United States.

0 40 33 0 40 47 14

Bert Bolland One Swedish expert thought the human CO2

could mitigate this cooling.0 35 31 0 35 46 15

John Christy 1,000 years ago Greenland was muchwarmer but did not have catastrophicmelting.

0 51 45 0 52 0 15

Lord Lawson ofBlaby

There is absolute intolerance towardanybody who contradicts CC.

0 0 34 0 0 49 15


The way to tell if warming is due to GHGincrease is to examine troposphere.

0 14 30 0 14 45 15


Research on man-made GW is "one of thebest funded areas of science," $2Bn-US.

0 59 19 0 59 34 15

Nigel Calder Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it isessential to all living beings.

0 22 12 0 22 27 15

RichardLindzen

GHG would imply higher warming middletroposphere than Earth's surface.

0 14 46 0 15 1 15

RichardLindzen

It is much easier to get research money ifyour field is an area of concern.

0 44 29 0 44 44 15


Before the Little Ice Age there was theMedieval Warm Period

0 8 3 0 8 19 16


Scientists are attacked if they dare tochallenge the theory of man-made GW.

1 3 29 1 3 45 16

Nigel Calder Global warming is like a religion, peoplewho disagree are called heretics.

0 5 32 0 5 48 16

PatrickMichaels

Anyone who blames GW on CO2 has notlooked at the basic numbers.

0 10 34 0 10 50 16

Ian Clark Ice cores - isotopes reconstruct temperatureand atmosphere shows CO2.

0 20 1 0 20 18 17


Holocene Maximum temperatures muchhigher for more than 3,000 years.

0 9 11 0 9 28 17

20


Presents the credentials and work of CarlWunsch.

0 23 17 0 23 34 17


The sun affects us directly, but also throughclouds. Cloud formation follows.

0 29 51 0 30 8 17


The temperatures started to rise & thepolitical context changed (miners on strike).

0 36 6 0 36 23 17

Tim Ball It is very difficult to challenge GW, TimBall says he has received death threats.

1 3 46 1 4 3 17


CC theory is presented as having the stampof approval of the IPCC.

0 2 1 0 2 19 18


In 2005 UK House of Lords inquiryanalyzed the scientific evidence on GW.

0 5 56 0 6 14 18


Temperature graph depicted showing theLittle Ice Age start 14th Century.

0 7 13 0 7 31 18


CO2 is not cause of GW because it is a verysmall part of the atmosphere.

0 13 20 0 13 38 18


Syun-Ichi Akasofu says that polar ice capsnaturally expand and retract each year.

0 52 22 0 52 40 18


Few miles away from houses withoutelectricity the UN hosts its conference onCC.

1 7 22 1 7 40 18

Nigel Calder CO2 increased and temperature decreased, soCO2 theory is absurd.

0 13 1 0 13 19 18

Nigel Calder They were the first to put Bolland on TV andwere harshly criticized at the time.

0 35 47 0 36 5 18

Paul Reiter Reiter was "horrified" by the 2nd and 3rdIPCC report ignoring scientific literature.

0 57 9 0 57 27 18

Piers Corbyn Corbyn used a "solar weather technique oflong range forecasting."

0 26 55 0 27 13 18

Ian Clark A climate model has to take into account allthe factors that influence climate.

0 46 35 0 46 54 19

Lord Lawson ofBlaby

The left found a new guise for its anti-capitalist ideas, that of environmentalism.

0 42 4 0 42 23 19


The idea that CO2 drives Earth's climate is atodds with much of the science.

0 25 38 0 25 57 19


IPCC replied saying "there has been nodishonesty . . . and no bias."

0 58 17 0 58 36 19


Africa has coal and oil; environmentalgroups campaign against them and for solar.

1 7 41 1 8 0 19

Tim Ball Analogy: if a car is not running and you failto check the engine and transmission.

0 46 15 0 46 34 19

Ian Clark During Holocene it was much warmer andpolar bears survived.

0 9 29 0 9 49 20


Global warming alarmists ignore all contraryevidence and are "beyond reason."

1 12 4 1 12 24 20

21

Nigel Calder Where Calder lives they have a local councilglobal warming officer.

1 2 54 1 3 14 20

Philip Stott 7 or 8,000 years ago the Russian permafrostmelted but the world did not end.

0 52 1 0 52 21 20

Syun-IchiAkasofu

Ice breaks off all the time but this does notmean there is any GHG disaster.

0 53 41 0 54 1 20

Tim Ball CO2 increased and temperature decreased, so"the facts didn't fit the theory"

0 12 40 0 13 0 20

Tim Ball CO2 is 0.054% of the atmosphere andhumans are contributing only a part.

0 13 39 0 13 59 20

FrederickSinger

Max warming over the equator should beapprox. 10 KM high if due to GHG.

0 15 30 0 15 51 21

FrederickSinger

Lower temperatures in the air falsify thetheory of man-made GW.

0 17 46 0 18 7 21


Al Gore missed very important aspects ofthe CO2-temperature relationship.

0 19 39 0 20 0 21

Syun-IchiAkasofu

Ice blocks always break up in the Arctic, butnow they are detected with satellites.

0 52 41 0 53 2 21


If CO2 is irrelevant why are we bombardedwith news about man-made GW?

0 33 48 0 34 10 22


Cosmic rays meet water vapour from the seaand form droplets - make clouds.

0 30 9 0 30 32 23

Nigel Calder A strange alliance btw Mrs. Thatcher andextremist leftists promoted a crazy idea.

0 42 24 0 42 47 23

PatrickMichaels

Models have more than double the amountof emitted CO2 and predict more heat.

0 47 39 0 48 2 23

Philip Stott The Sun is an extremely important factor ininfluencing Earth's climate.

0 26 5 0 26 28 23

N/A Images from a campaign about reduced useof energy (according to one speaker).

1 1 46 1 2 10 24


GW has become “a new kind of morality,”but science does not support it.

0 0 50 0 1 14 24


Introduction of Patrick Michaels and hiscredentials.

1 0 36 1 1 0 24


Western governments want to reduceindustrial activity everywhere in the world.

1 4 36 1 5 0 24

Nigel Calder CO2 is a symbol of industrialization this iswhy many fringe groups support GW.

0 39 42 0 40 6 24

Paul Driessen The precautionary principle is used topromote particular agendas and ideologies.

1 5 31 1 5 55 24

Carl Wunsch It can take tens or hundreds of years for thedeep ocean to react to surface changes.

0 54 43 0 55 8 25

FrederickSinger

There are forces in environmental movementwho think economic growth is bad.

0 40 7 0 40 32 25

Ian Clark The temperature drives the CO2 and there isan 800 years lag btw them.

0 20 33 0 20 58 25

22


Piers Corbyn has consistently generatedaccurate weather forecasts.

0 26 29 0 26 54 25


We in the West cannot imagine life withoutelectricity.

1 6 56 1 7 21 25

Philip Stott Scientists set to prove the relationship btwCO2 and GW, but for political reasons.

0 38 10 0 38 35 25

Tim Ball The CO2-temperature relationship isreversed, so the whole theory is wrong.

0 21 32 0 21 57 25

Carl Wunsch The current effects observed in the oceanshave causes leading decades back.

0 24 36 0 25 2 26


Forecasts are long term, modellers areinterested in producing shocking forecasts.

0 48 3 0 48 29 26


GHG role explanation; warming should behigher middle troposphere.

0 15 2 0 15 29 27

RichardLindzen

Bush the Elder - funding for environmentalresearch jumped more than 10-fold.

0 43 2 0 43 29 27

N/A Al Gore explains "very complicated" relationbtw CO2 levels & temperatures.

0 19 10 0 19 38 28

PatrickMichaels

Surface temperatures warm more than upperatmosphere: theory is wrong.

0 17 10 0 17 38 28

Patrick Moore Patrick Moore find it legitimate to callenvironmentalists anti-human.

1 11 35 1 12 3 28

Syun-IchiAkasofu

CO2 increased and temperature decreasedfrom 1940 to 1975.

0 12 11 0 12 39 28

Carl Wunsch Ocean is major reservoir in and out for CO2:cooler dissolves and warmer releases.

0 23 35 0 24 4 29

Lord Lawson ofBlaby

The GW science is very uncertain and somescientists are questioning it.

0 6 15 0 6 44 29


After 4 decades of falling temperaturesexperts were worried.

0 35 1 0 35 30 29

Philip Stott Sea levels do not change from melting icebut from land raising/falling or are eustatic.

0 54 13 0 54 42 29

FrederickSinger

It is said that by the end of the century onlyAntarctica will he habitable - this ishilarious.

1 12 25 1 12 55 30


Time lag btw temperature and CO2 isexplained by the inertia of the oceans.

0 24 5 0 24 35 30


In the past people were more modest abouttheir ability to predict the weather.

0 45 35 0 46 5 30


IPCC: "Mosquito species that transmitmalaria do not usually survive where themain winter temperature drops below 16-18°C."

0 56 38 0 57 8 30

Philip Stott During the Little Ice Age when winters wereharsh the Thames would freeze.

0 7 32 0 8 2 30

23

Piers Corbyn Corbyn bet against the Met Office based onhis sunspots theory and won.

0 27 55 0 28 25 30


By the 1990s "tens of billions of dollars"were "diverted" toward GW research.

0 44 52 0 45 23 31

Patrick Moore People skeptic of CC are like Holocaustdeniers (images from a demonstration).

1 4 4 1 4 35 31

RichardLindzen

GW influence on weather is false,disturbances come from diff btw tropics &poles.

0 51 2 0 51 33 31

James Shikwati Wind and solar electricity cannot power bigconsumers, Africa cannot industrialize.

1 10 18 1 10 50 32


Post WWII economic boom lead toincreased industrial activity worldwide.

0 10 51 0 11 23 32


A UN GW conference took place in Nairobi;> 6,000 delegates over 10 days.

1 2 11 1 2 43 32

Nigel Calder If you write "Global Warming" on a grantapplication it is automatically approved.

0 43 45 0 44 17 32

John Christy The upper atmosphere should warm more ifGHG theories were correct.

0 16 36 0 17 9 33


Correlation between sunspots in the 20th

century and the temperature record.0 28 26 0 28 59 33


Having determined that CO2 does not driveEarth's climate, what does?

0 25 3 0 25 37 34


Volcanoes, animals, dying vegetation,oceans emissions high CO2 sources.

0 22 41 0 23 16 35


Environmentalists are unreasonable andwant under-developed world not to develop.

1 1 9 1 1 45 36


In 1974 the BBC (The weather machine)warned of impeding climate disasters.

0 34 11 0 34 48 37


In 2005 astrophysicists from Harvardcorrelated Arctic temp & solar activity.

0 32 46 0 33 24 38


More sunspots are reliably correlated withwarmer weather, and reverse.

0 27 14 0 27 54 40

Paul Reiter Specialists who disagree / resign are still lefton the authors’ list.

0 58 37 0 59 18 41

Lord Lawson ofBlaby

M. Thatcher started to push nuclear energyfor political reasons long before CC.

0 37 13 0 37 55 42


Correlation btw solar activity & cloudformation - Nir Shaviv & Ian Weitzer

0 30 45 0 31 27 42


Margaret Thatcher set to break the miners'power by promoting nuclear energy.

0 36 24 0 37 6 42

Paul Reiter Mosquitoes are not living only in warmregions, but in temperate and Arctic as well.

0 55 55 0 56 37 42


Climate variations are natural, but now theyare blamed on industrial activity.

0 9 50 0 10 33 43

24


John Christy expertise and credentials;satellites and weather balloons.

0 15 52 0 16 35 43


Ice core sampling explanation (images fromAl Gore Inconvenient Truth).

0 18 26 0 19 9 43

Nigel Calder The 1st report of IPCC establishedrelationship btw CO2 & GW against science.

0 38 49 0 39 32 43


It is said that a rise in temperature will meanspread of malaria to the north, is it true?

0 55 9 0 55 54 45


Temperatures increased before 1940 anddecreased during economic boom.

0 11 24 0 12 10 46

Nigel Calder Environmental journalists needs to get moreand more alarmist and shriller.

0 50 7 0 50 53 46


Prof. F. Seitz wrote a letter of complaint tothe Wall Street Journal re: IPCC report.

0 57 28 0 58 16 48

Eigil Friis-Christensen

There are clear correlations between solaractivity and temperature variation.

0 29 0 0 29 50 50

Nigel Calder Comments on the force of the Sun &intensification of magnetic field 20 Century.

0 31 55 0 32 45 50

Philip Stott The Medieval Warm Period was a period ofprosperity.

0 8 20 0 9 10 50

James Shikwati For many Africans development meanselectricity.

1 6 2 1 6 55 53


Wind electrical generation and solar panelsare unreliable and expensive.

1 9 3 1 10 2 59


Rural clinic in Kenya has solar panels butcan only use either the refrigerator or lights.

1 8 1 1 9 2 61

Carl Wunsch There is a strong bias in science and mediatoward results that are can be dramatized.

0 48 30 0 49 35 65

Patrick Moore There are two reasons for the rise of theclimate change movement: The progress ofenvironmentalism & fall of communism.

0 40 56 0 42 3 67

25

Appendix B

Focus group questions—I.

It is claimed that global warming may lead to disruptions in our way of life. How serious

do you think these disruptions will be?

1. Inexistent.

2. Negligible.

3. Noticeable.

4. Mild.

5. Less than important.

6. Important.

7. Severe.

8. Very severe.

9. Extremely severe.

10. Catastrophic.

26

Appendix C

Focus group questions—II.

How well equipped do you think we are to respond to the challenges posed by climate

change? Please use a scale from 1 to 10, ‘1’ meaning “Not at all prepared,” and ‘10’ meaning

“Exceptionally well prepared.”

Answer: ____

27

Appendix D

Very brief descriptions of the movies produced by Martin Durkin.

The movies produced by Martin Durkin are the following: Against nature (1997), in

which he argues that environmentalists are akin to Nazis; Storm in a D Cup (1999), argues that

silicone implants are beneficial for women’s health because they reduce the incidence of breast

cancer; Modified truth—the rise and fall of GM (2000), argues that genetically modified foods

are fully safe and beneficial. The great global warming swindle (2007) was discussed in this

paper; and finally in Britain’s trillion pound horror story (2010) Durkin analyzes the situation of

the British economy after the 2008 crisis and reaches the conclusion at what is needed is “to stop

politicians spending money” and to “drastically lower taxes to make Britain's economy boom

again.” This is not an ad hominem attack against Durkin; I mentioned these other movies only

because their arguments are just as far from recognized mainstream positions as the arguments

presented in The great global warming swindle.

Narratives of denial: Examining how climate change deniers convince their audiences.

Documents

Transcript of Narratives of denial: Examining how climate change deniers convince their audiences.