homehome Home chatchat Notifications


Climate change denial books: Over 70% have "verifiable link" to conservative think tanks.

It is indeed a war of manipulation and misdirection, but the main actors are not the ones you may think about first. As a new study concluded, some 3 out of every 4 climate change denial books have direct, easily verifiable connections to conservative organizations. A research conducted by Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State […]

Mihai Andrei
March 14, 2013 @ 4:08 am

share Share

It is indeed a war of manipulation and misdirection, but the main actors are not the ones you may think about first. As a new study concluded, some 3 out of every 4 climate change denial books have direct, easily verifiable connections to conservative organizations.

A research conducted by Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Peter J. Jacques of the University of Central Florida concluded that authors of nearly 90 percent of books from publishing houses (others were self-published) had ties to conservative think tanks such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the Marshall Institute.

climate dinosaurs

Another reported problem was the fact that most people writing such books had actually little or no adequate 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.

So we have a lot of biased, unscientific books that are used as weapons to manipulate people into thinking that climate change is a “hoax”:

“[The books] confer a sense of legitimacy on their authors and provide an effective tool for combating the findings of climate scientists that are published primarily in scholarly, peer-reviewed journals,” Dunlap and Jacques noted in the paper.

Also, they keep on pushing forth the same arguments over and over, even when they’re proven to be wrong time and time again:

“zombie arguments are disproven over and over and then pop up again. The books can make any points they want to,” without going through any of the scientific peer-review process that traditional scientific papers require.

Dunlap and Jacques’s study will appear in the June issue of American Behavioral Scientist as part of a seven-part special package, edited by Dunlap, focused on “climate change skepticism and denial.”

share Share

This New Coating Repels Oil Like Teflon Without the Nasty PFAs

An ultra-thin coating mimics Teflon’s performance—minus most of its toxicity.

To Fight Invasive Pythons in the Everglades Scientists Turned to Robot Rabbits

Scientists are unleashing robo-rabbits to trick and trap giant invasive snakes

The AI Boom Is Thirsty for Water — And Communities Are Paying the Price

What if the future of artificial intelligence depends on your town running out of water?

What If We Built Our Skyscrapers from Wood? It's Just Crazy Enough to Work (And Good for the Planet)

Forget concrete and steel. The real future is wood.

Southern Ocean Salinity May Be Triggering Sea Ice Loss

New satellite technology has revealed that the Southern Ocean is getting saltier, an unexpected turn of events that could spell big trouble for Antarctica.

Satellite Eyes Reveal Which Ocean Sanctuaries Are Really Working (And Which Are Just 'Paper Parks')

AI and radar satellites expose where illegal fishing ends — and where it persists.

Humans Built So Many Dams, We’ve Shifted the Planet’s Poles

Massive reservoirs have nudged Earth’s axis by over a meter since 1835.

Scientists Taught Bacteria to Make Cheese Protein Without a Single Cow

Researchers crack a decades-old problem by producing functional casein in E. coli

Moths Can Hear When Plants Are in Trouble and It Changes How They Lay Their Eggs

Researchers find moths avoid laying eggs on plants emitting ultrasonic distress clicks.

How Pesticides Are Giving Millions of Farmers Sleepless Nights

Pesticides seem to affect us in even more ways than we thought.