All posts by zcadmin

A Case Study of Personal Harassment and Amplification of Nonsense by the Denialist PR Machine

A Case Study of Personal Harassment and Amplification of Nonsense by the Denialist PR Machine
, by John R. Mashey

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) – the idea that recent temperature rises are substantially caused by humans is supported by a very strong scientific consensus. But for ideological or economic reasons some people are absolutely sure that it cannot be true, frequently attack it and are often called contrarians or denialists as a result. They try to manufacture doubt on the consensus among the public, not by doing good science, but by using PR techniques well-honed in fights over tobacco-disease linkage. These are amplified by widespread use of the Internet, which is at least as good at propagating nonsense as truth.

A recent, well-coordinated transatlantic attempt to attack the consensus included:
-A not-very-good anti-consensus paper written in the UK by an NHS King’s College endocrinologist, Mr Klaus-Martin Schulte, not obviously qualified for this task,
-of which much was posted by Viscount Christopher Monckton at a Washington, DC denialist website of Robert Ferguson, and publicized by Marc Morano of Senator James Inhofe’s staff.
-The non-story then propagated rapidly and pervasively through the blogosphere.
-This expanded further into personal harassment of a US researcher, Naomi Oreskes

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Science

by Naomi Oreskes

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then–EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change”. Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science. Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

Letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Cambridge Zero Carbon Society

1, Parker Street,



27th October 2007


Dear Prime Minister,



We are a group of concerned scientists, economists and students from the University of Cambridge and are writing to you regarding Britain’s CO2 reduction targets as set out under the draft climate bill. We believe the climate bill is a crucial element of strategy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a safe level and supports our international efforts to tackle climate change. We see the best approach as being a positive one and that Britain should lead by example, reducing its emissions to a sustainable level in a timescale that avoids dangerous climate change. Economic evidence suggests that conversion to a net zero carbon economy, when promoted by efficient economic instruments can be achieved at low cost or even with net benefit to the UK.


We feel it is important that the targets are chosen based on clear thinking and the most reliable up-to-date scientific evidence. We also understand the importance of a comprehensive or holistic approach taking into account pressures from the different parts of government and society.


Today we have been educating the public in London regarding these issues. It is important to simplify as much as possible this complex issue and demonstrate the choices we now face. We would like to draw your attention to the enclosed information sheet summarizing the fact that to prevent a 2°C increase in average global temperatures a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 is needed in the UK.

For further information on some suggested policies or to hear more from us please feel free to visit our website and contact us, We warmly welcome a response to this letter.


Yours sincerely,



Stephen Stretton


Economist, Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research


Stephen Rowley


Physicist, Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge


Reponse to Lomborg ‘Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming’

Some Reviews of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg (Knopf/Cyan-Marshall Cavendish: 2007. 272 pp./256 pp. $21/£19.99)

Partha Dasgupta’s Review on Bjorn Lomoborg: Available in Nature, Vol 449|13 September 2007

Kevin Watkins’s review

Eban Goodstein’s review
“The place is somewhere in Turkey, 5,200 years ago. Noah has just gotten word about an upcoming episode of abrupt climate change, and he and his family are hard at work building an ark. The plan is to take on board mating pairs of every living thing of all flesh, every creeping thing of the ground, in order, as God put it, to keep them alive.

Up walks a man who introduces himself as an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He says, “Noah, you have to stop. We’ve run the numbers and they don’t add up. I agree that there may be a few days of rain, but if you really want to help future generations, don’t build the ark. Grow the economy!” 

Gowns go to town for the climate

A group of Cambridge university students descended on the capital last Saturday (October 27th) to encourage people to lobby for stronger legislation to save the planet. The Cambridge Zero Carbon Society ( wants Parliament to toughen up its planned legislation on greenhouse gases.

The Parliament Square protest was organised to increase the targets set out in the forthcoming Climate Change Bill, due to be discussed by MPs in the next parliamentary session. The legislation will make Britain the first country in the world to pass laws to restrict greenhouse gas emissions.

“This Bill gives us the opportunity to lead the way in setting meaningful targets,” says organiser Stephen Stretton. “If we get this right we can set an example for other countries to follow and create a real possibility of creating a sustainable future”.

Current calculations suggest that a sustainable level of carbon dioxide emissions would be about one tonne CO2 per person per year, averaged across the total world population. The current global average is about 4 tonnes per person and growing, while in Britain each person is already responsible for ten.
This means Britain needs to reduce emissions by 90% to reach the sustainable target. In addition, it is important that these reductions are achieved in the next twenty years. This way we could limit any global temperature increase to no more than two degrees celsius above the pre-industrial, which is the point at which dangerous feedback mechanisms could cause more serious damage to the climate.

The students, who were dressed in their academic gowns, want the Climate Change Bill strengthened to increase the proposed target of 60% reduction by 2050 to 90% by 2030.


Note for Editors:
The protest happened from 11am-1pm in Parliament Square, Westminster. The protest was organised by the Cambridge Zero Carbon Society and supported by the Cambridge Climate Change Coalition.

Find our response to the UK Climate bill here:

Full document (pdf) here:


For further information please contact:

Marc Kaufmann: 0789 184 9630

An upstream solution to global warming

An upstream solution to global warming

By Ray Galvin

The only way we can save the planet from catastrophic climate change is to drastically reduce the amount of oil, coal and natural gas we are taking out of the ground. Any strategy for mitigating global warming that does not have this as its lynch-pin is bound to fail. Yet strangely, this is the one approach that no-one is talking about.

Full Article: An_Upstream_Solution by Ray Galvin

Introduction in Chinese

众所周知,通过燃烧 化石燃料(比如煤),石 油和天然气所释放到 大气层中去的二氧化 碳会导致全球范围内 的升温。

这个效应被 温室效 科学家们预测气候只 要比工业革命之前升 高两度(就可称为气 候的危险变化)将导 致大面积的沙漠化和 态系统(比如亚马 逊热带雨林)的崩溃
。从而更多存储在树 木中的碳将以二氧化 碳的形式释放到大气 层中去。按我们目前 发展趋势,在未来 几年内这种变化就会 发生。


Translation by Jiawen Chen & Helen Li

“The Great Global Warming Swindle”: Response by Geoff Wexler

“The Great Global Warming Swindle”: Response by Geoff Wexler

This programme shows that artificially created CO2 is not the cause of global warming. This is a remarkable achievement considering that so much research on the attribution problem points to CO2 as being the main cause of the last thirty years global warming. It had looked as if the alternative explanation based on sunspots was not doing at all well during the last few years because the sunspots had leveled off whereas the temperature had just kept rising. So what was wrong? The idea behind the new approach is quite revolutionary, it involves overthrowing the calendar, the evidence and the physics.

No, it is not 2007 now as you have been told. The date is now 1975 or 1988 depending on which source you use. Applying these corrections has the effect of removing most of the contentious warming from the data. What’s left correlates quite well with the length of the sunspot cycle especially if you start with an obscure set of temperature data , pull it about a bit and attribute it to NASA for the sake of familiarity. Going back in time there was a shortage of sunspot data, so it is convenient for educational reasons to make it up. After all, it makes it easier to see the relationship between the two curves if they coincide completely.

Continue reading “The Great Global Warming Swindle”: Response by Geoff Wexler