(Pics added by this blog)
The Reagan White House worried
that a treaty on CO₂ might happen as quickly, and set about ensuring
the official scientific advice guiding leaders at the negotiations was
under at least partial control. So emerged the intergovernmental – rather than international – panel on climate change, in 1988.
Already before Sundsvall, in 1989, figures in the automotive and fossil fuel industries of the US had set up the Global Climate Coalition to argue against rapid action and to cast doubt on the evidence. Alongside thinktanks, such as the George Marshall Institute, and trade bodies, such as the Western Fuels Association, it kept up a steady stream of publishing in the media – including a movie – to discredit the science.
But their efforts to discourage political commitment were only partially successful. The scientists held firm, and a climate treaty was agreed in 1992. And so attention turned to the scientists themselves.
In the late 1990s, Michael Mann, whose famous “hockey stick”
diagram of global temperatures was a key part of the third assessment
report, came under fire from right-wing thinktanks and even the Attorney General of Virginia. Mann called this attempt to pick on scientists perceived to be vulnerable to pressure “the Serengeti strategy”.
As Mann himself wrote
Go to complete The Conversation article
by
Related: 2020 is a Warning That Our Civilization is Beginning to Fall Apart (excerpt): Medium
#bigbusiness, #bushfires, #carbonstorage, #climatecriminals, #criminalesclimáticosdelacárcel, #climateemergency, #jailclimatecriminals, #jail the climate criminals, anti-science, climate science,
 |
| Wildfire |
..... "The path to the summit
The accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, caused
primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, had been worrying scientists
since the 1970s. The discovery of the “ozone hole” above Antarctica had
given atmospheric scientists enormous credibility and clout among the
public, and an international treaty banning chlorofluorocarbons, the
chemicals causing the problem, was swiftly signed.  |
| Greenhouse gases |
Already before Sundsvall, in 1989, figures in the automotive and fossil fuel industries of the US had set up the Global Climate Coalition to argue against rapid action and to cast doubt on the evidence. Alongside thinktanks, such as the George Marshall Institute, and trade bodies, such as the Western Fuels Association, it kept up a steady stream of publishing in the media – including a movie – to discredit the science.
But their efforts to discourage political commitment were only partially successful. The scientists held firm, and a climate treaty was agreed in 1992. And so attention turned to the scientists themselves.
The Serengeti strategy
In 1996, there were sustained attacks on climate scientist Ben Santer, who had been responsible for synthesising text in the IPCC’s second assessment report. He was accused of having “tampered with” wording and somehow “twisting” the intent of IPCC authors by Fred Seitz of the Global Climate Coalition. |
| Wildfire |
As Mann himself wrote
By singling out a sole scientist, it is possible for the forces of “anti-science” to bring many more resources to bear on one individual, exerting enormous pressure from multiple directions at once, making defence difficult. It is similar to what happens when a group of lions on the Serengeti seek out a vulnerable individual zebra at the edge of a herd."
Vote for your children's future
Go to complete The Conversation article
by
Research Associate in Social Movements, Keele University
Related: 2020 is a Warning That Our Civilization is Beginning to Fall Apart (excerpt): Medium
#bigbusiness, #bushfires, #carbonstorage, #climatecriminals, #criminalesclimáticosdelacárcel, #climateemergency, #jailclimatecriminals, #jail the climate criminals, anti-science, climate science,
