Mark Twain

The timing of climate reports and communication to the public

 “The immense collective effort to produce periodic climate assessments is typically not 

well matched with public communication and outreach efforts for these reports, leaving a

 vacuum to be filled by less authoritative sources.”

-Peter C. Frumhoff

Despite the numerous climate reports released every year by many organizations, the pubic is still not convinced by the science. Ekwurzel in 2011 et al. from the Union of Concerned Scientists, delved into this a bit deeper and found that perhaps it was the shear timing and outreach and communication efforts made to publicize them!  

The paper looks in depth at many reports and how exactly they were released but a good example of a bad choice of communicating and releasing an important report is when the first US NCA report was released in November 2000, when every US news station was focused on the Presidential election.

NCA = National Climate Assessment released in November 2000; ACIA = Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment released in November 2004; WG1 = IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Working Group 1, released in February 2007; WG2 = IPCC AR4 Working Group 2, released in April 2007; USGCRP = Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States released in June 2009; ACC = America’s Climate Choices released in May 2010; GW = Global Warming; CC = Climate Change

(Some of this information was covered in a previous post of mine, including Boykoff 2011.)

It was interesting that the ACIA covers cryospheric impacts far from where the population live and low media coverage of climate change, but received greater total and proportional coverage (17%!) than the USGCRP Assessments, or the America’s Climate Choices.

it was (nicely) surprising that WGI and WGII media coverage were still significantly higher 

than the controversy in 2010 (of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing) than they 

propagated. It was such a big issue and is still talked about today, so it goes to show that 

even if something negative is not widely released, its magnitude of controversy can 

cause it to percolate through the public ears and take a very long time to be forgotten with 

time. 

Boykoff M (2011) 2000-2011 US newspaper coverage of climate change or global warming. Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. 

Ekwurzel, B. 2011. Climate uncertainties and their discontents: increasing the impact of assessments on public understanding of climate risks and choices. Climatic Change. 108. 4, 791-802.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-011-0194-6

National Assessment Synthesis Team (2001) Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change, report for the US global change research program. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

international climate negotiation comics

Precautionary Principle and Skeptics

The framework of my previous post on the paper “Climate Science as Political Art”  by Wynne 2010 reminds me of something called the precautionary principle. This environmental law and ethical principle(not a scientific one!) it is that despite scientific uncertainties that may arise, certain precautionary measures and policies must be taken that could prevent the harm from being inflicted; any burden of proof that it is NOT harmful falls on those taking the action. it was coined in the 1990's by the UN, but many definitions are used by countries and international organizations, an issue in itself.  The burden part is being undertaken by every skeptic of climate change, and there are many. No one can really (intelligently) say extreme temperatures, sea level rise natural disasters (from global warming) are not harmful. So instead the approach is to say CO2 is good for the environment and we need it to live (yes but...) OR to simply say global warming is not happening at all.

This is a very important principle, and rather late in the game in 2006 Deloso finally wrote a paper on it, international law and climate change that explains it very well. It was even reviewed by an IPCC chairman.

Deloso, R.  2006. The Precautionary Principle - International Law and Climate Change, Munich, GRIN Publishing GmbH, http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/183852/the-precautionary-principle-international-law-and-climate-change

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment 

and Development. UNEP. Retrieved December 9, 2010.

World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST)

 2005. The Precautionary Principle). United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO). 

Wynne, B. 2010. Strange Weather, Again Climate Science as Political Art. Theory, Culture & Society. March. 27. 2-3. 289-305.http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/27/2-3/289.short

Climate Science as Political Art

Shortly after "Climategate" in 2009 Brian Wynne at Lancaster University published a paper on how current climate policies are strictly relating to the "truth or falsity of the proposition that human behaviour is responsible" for it. The importance of it being published after the scandal when it was still very popular validated its importance of looking at climate skepticism from a different angle. He titled the paper Climate Science as political art (beautiful title for a science article!). He brings up a ‘translation’ model, in which policies are, or are not, implemented depending on is somethings is disputed or having a high level of uncertainity. He shows how the actual science of the discipline is more about the understanding and having the possibility of it being true, and that the social and economic human acts are creating understatements on what may happen. Its a very interesting article relating it back to the public readiness. 

Alexander (2009) discussed the efforts behind skepticism and climate myths. He reasoned that the whole point for making false statements was merely to "forestall the implementation of policies which combat climate change." So, once again it all comes down to politics, not necessarily trying to propagate information because one thinks it to be true! 



Wynne, B. Strange Weather, Again Climate Science as Political Art. 2010. Theory, Culture & Society. March. 27. 2-3. 289-305.http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/27/2-3/289.short

Alexander, A. 2009. Debunking the Myths of Climate Scepticism. The New Presence. 2, 56-57.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/40208478/debunking-myths-climate-scepticism

The Skeptics Handbook

Yes, there is actually a real "handbook" on how to be a climate skeptic. (and conveniently available in 30 languages and some nice pictures!)

It says the bottom line and the only thing that matters (really the only thing?) is if adding more CO2 makes the world warmer. The very first error on oage 2 claims that anthropogenic's definition is human CO2 emissions are the cause. There is a bit more to it than that. The guide gives no citations as to what or where their graphs or maps are of. They are completely ignoring that 

the very worst quote was: "The sun wont put out more light just because we put out more carbon." 

I cringed the whole time reading this. The worst thing was that the author was a lecturer at a university for SCIENCE COMMUNICATION. 

I won't and don't want to give it a reference like it is a real published piece of literature, but you may follow the link above to take a look.

ON THE BRIGHT SIDE THERE IS A REBUTTAL AVAILABLE!

Cook, J et al. 2010. A Scientific Guide to the ‘Skeptics Handbook’ The evidence that humans are causing global warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/ScientificGuideSkepticsA5.pdf

Fox News Climate Coverage 93% Wrong

Fox News and the Wall Street Journal is wrong about science, how shocking! 

The Union of Concerned Scientists published one of the best (in my opinion) studies looking at how science is portrayed in popular news. The research showd that the main focus was consistently knocking down that there is a concensus and using such words as hoax and myth. It is interesting in that cherry picking data was one of the least popular choices, as mocking the science was the most popular. Sometimes poisoning people's minds and planting doubt is even more powerful than telling straight lies.

Two million people watch Fox news every night, this proves how strong of influence one corporation or even person can have, as Rupert Murdoch's media company owns both... Nonetheless, as an influential participant in American democracy, News Corp. has an obligation to improve its representations of 

climate science" (UCS).

“I thought we were getting warmer. But in the ‘70s, it was, look out, 

we’re all going to freeze” (Fox News Channel, 4/11/12)

It’s been warmer and warmer before there were SUVs 

(Fox News Channel, 4/11/2012). 

It definitely does not help when you have politicians (who went to university for political science, not you know, climate science) announce their error filled opinions. These are very influential figures who have the ability to reach large audiences of public and governmental bodies and misrepresent data or just plain lie. Take former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum or congresswoman Michele Bachmann, whom both don’t understand carbon dioxide and human emissions  and essentially claim all CO2 is good CO2 and "life on planet Earth can't even exist without carbon dioxide

Huertas, A and Adler, D. 2012. Is News Corporation Failing Science?: Representations of Climate Science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal Opinion Pages. Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Is-News-Corp-Failing-Science.pdf



Pappas,S. August 2012.Six Politicians Who got the Science Wrong. Live Science.  Last Accessed Dec 2013. http://www.livescience.com/22640-politicians-science-wrong.html

 

Is Global Warming Taking a Break...The Worst Title for a Video trying to do Good!

The video was put together by Climate Desk at the IPCC conference in Stockholm(a very good organization that publishes good, short videos for the sake of climate science and its effetcs!) They attempted to make the ever popular recent hiatus in atmospheric temperatures understandable, which is a very good cause.

However there a few things i noted:
the title! saying "Global" in the very title denotes that the entire Earth is not warming, which is NOT true as the Oceans are. this is the very reason why the public doesn't understand it and when they watch videos like this that use wording in a confusing manner or one that can be misused by a skeptic it just makes the situation that much worse.



my favorite comment from another reader on the website:
If we scientists were smart enough to start a conspiracy in the 1800's to score grants 120 years later, we are so smart that we *deserve* to be your overlords.
Grovel before us, peon.

At Least People are googling Climate!?

On MotherJones.com, another great website for things from ebvirnonemnt to general social culture,  i found this great image showing the google searches for global warming pause during the time that the 'pause' in atmospheric warming was discussed in the media and published by the IPCC. After the IPCC draft "came out" a bit early in September, 2013, the searches for it jumped dramatically! This begs the question, is at least a good thing that the public is becoming engaged/interested in climate change, even if the internet search may not have/probably not made it clear what the pause was really about. I would assume (but one would hope incorrect) that an average Joe heard that the global warming had stopped and thought "hey I'll look that up!"

www.motherjones.com

I thought it would be interesting to do a more updated look at the searches for Google trends of Global Warming Pause as of today (9 December 2013). The highest points in September of "100" denote that at least 10% of all searches within a geographic region were for your chosen term. Both graphs show a bit different story. The first graph, the last 12 months as actually rather interesting, as it shows that interest in the pause (which is really not a new idea or hypothesis if you are up to date with published scientific literature) began in the beginning of June, before the Economist or IPPC was released. The second one, the last 90 days show that after IPPC was released, the searches were actually rather steady until beginning of November where it gradually went to "60" mid November and as of today, the values are so low as to denote no percent.This is a pretty handy tool i found! my graphs are below. For a run-down in the pause and some explanations for all the confusion on it, a good link is here:

Mooney, C. 2013. Is Global warming really Slowing Down? Mother Jones. http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/08/global-warming-slowdown-ipcc

More People Now Believe in a Warming Climate!...But Not so Fast...

According to the PEW Research Center, the overall percentage (67%) of Americans believe that the climate has warmed. And is going up, up 4 points since 2011, and up 10 points since 2010!

Before you get too excited, This is JUST the belief that "the Earth is warming." Only 42% believe it is because of human activity! While it may be good that more people believe that the climate warming, it is different than understanding it, and that it is due to our activities.

http://www.people-press.org
 

A very large part of the public also is still confused as to whether scientists agree on a consensus of human caused warming. A very fascinating and unique part of the paper was the numbers on elderly populations, as only 28% of people over 65 year old think human activity is linked to climate change, if they believe in warming at all (28%)!

Another interesting part of the paper was the split in political parties. not surprisingly, Democrats are more informed and their numbers of  believers are always over the 50% mark, whereas 51% of conservative liberals dob't think their is ANY evidence that the Earth is warming, regardless of natural or anthropogenic forcings.

http://www.people-press.org

Another downer from the research is that these numbers have actually been higher, as 2006 was the best year for the amount of "believers."

This research actually generated some pretty interesting data, the last few pages of the report give all the answers that the people interviewed answered, separated by political affiliation, seriousness, and other factors. (Though, interestingly, not by sex...?)

Reference:

Keeter, Scott. 2013. More Say There Is Solid Evidence of Global Warming. The Pew Research Center. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-15-12%20Global%20Warming%20Release.pdf

Media Silent About the Scientific EXPLANATION of the Warming Pause they Propogated!

One of the many studies recently being published about the atmospheric warming pause has been ignored by the media. The key there was ATMOSPHERIC pause, not global Earth pause. Rosenthal et al. found that in the last 60 years, the Pacific Ocean has absorbed heat 15 times faster than the previous 10,000 years by suing foraminifera shells found in sediment cores. If this was widely available to the general population by way of popular media outlets, perhaps they would understand that this heat is really just going somewhere else! One of the authors noted that "We're experimenting by putting all this heat in the ocean without quite knowing how it's going to come back out and affect climate."
This is just one of many published material that can explain this momentary pause. Media Matters reported that 41% of media on the UN's IPCC report mentioned the slowdown.  A CBS clip about the report (watch below!) actually called it an "inconvenient truth that the global atmosphere hasn't been warming." Which is technically true, but the heat is just going elsewhere. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50155923n



Wikimedia commons

It is also interesting to point out that the short time period being used (around 15 years) may drastically skew data since most time lines are begun in 1998, a strong El Nino year, it shows a stronger temperature hype. Shindell at NASA points out that if you shift the time period to two years prior (1996-2010) the warming is actually 0.14 Celsius warmer than the long term trend. The fun graphs below could explain bit more...





(Next look for my blog on what the actual media outlets (CBS, FOX said about the pause and how they use their influence to confuse the people that watch the nightly news expecting to receive correct information!)



Rosenthal, Y, Linsley, B, and Oppo, D. Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years.
Science. 1 November 2013: 342 (6158), 617-621. [DOI:10.1126/science.1240837]

Greenberg, Max et al. 2013. Media Sowed Doubt In Coverage Of UN Climate Report. False Balance And "Pause" Dominated IPCC Coverage. http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387

How Do Climate Scientists Know That they Aren't Wrong?

In relation to a previous post including an article describing Naomi Oreskes research on the scientific concensus, I have come across a more recent publication of hers as a chapter in a book about how do we know we aren't wrong about climate change?

She quotes that “There are numerous historical examples where expert opinion turned out to be wrong […]geophysicists were confident that continents could not drift” (Oreskes, N. 2007). She relies heavily on and discusss most of the compiled reports regarding the current climate science consensus: the reports from  IPCC,the National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society and AmericanGeophysical Union. These are obviously not an exhaustive list of the reports available, but being American, Oreskes focused on information from that country. She points out that in today’s scientific peer reviewed world, there are literally thousands of reports published so it is not easy for a scientist, much less and average person, to read all the evidence on a topic, so one must depend on these compiled reports. (through the Institute of Science database, there are over 8,500 journals!).

She also touched on how skeptics and the media can cherry pick information  to make it look like it is supporting something it is not. An example is a 2001  paper titled ‘‘Modeling Climatic Effects of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Unknowns and Uncertainties’’ discusses the use of Global Circulation Models and improvements needed for future predictions. It in no way tries to disprove anthropogenic global warming, as the author’s clearly wrote in the review (page 259), but it has been quoted by many skeptics as a real and legitimate peer reviewed paper that disputes the anthropogenic role (Oreskes, N. 2007). Claiming that climatologist don’t follow THE scientific method is inaccurate, they have to rely on models, not laboratory experiments because the scope of Earth’s atmosphere/oceans is quite difficult to rebuild in a lab!

Oreskes asked why does the public have the impression of disagreement among scientists. She came to several conclusions:

The false association of scientific with political uncertainties.

Uncertainties about the future predictions can be generalized with uncertainties about the current state of scientific knowledge.

Perhaps the most important for a climate scientist: scientists have not managed to widely portray their arguments and evidence beyond the science communities. “Scientists are finely honed specialists trained to create new knowledge, but they have little training in how to communicate to broad audiences and even less in how to defend scientific work against determined and well-financed contrarians” (Oreskes, N. 2007).  

On the use of models:

One of the most useful quotes in basic science understanding/falsification from the author was this: “If I make a prediction, and it comes true, it does not prove that my hypothesis was correct; my prediction may have come true for other reasons”. Karl Popper, probably the scientific philosopher of his day,  in 1959 proposed that one can never really prove something to be (Oreskes, N. 2007). Using CO2 doubling (from pre-industrial) as a parameter in modeling can also be problematic in the results as it may go beyond the doubling amount; the models show that the temperatures will in fact warm but how much? Yes there could be mistakes in the science knowledge of the importance of some parameter of feedback, but even if corrected, the problem could become even worse than expected, not better.

right, but you can prove it to be false! Climate models are designed to forecast future states and until 50-100 plus years into the future, we won’t know if they are correct or not. By this time it will be pointless, so modeling is usually used to report what-ifs or ensembles, with tempo and mode being the underlying question

Science is not about proof, but explanation

“If science does not provide proof, then what is the purpose of induction, hypothesis testing, and falsification?” Oreskes, N. 2007)? The author relates scientists to lawyers in a sense in to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, various pieces of evidence must be presented that holds true. 

I enjoyed reading Oreskes write up, especially the philosophical points, but I felt that since this is a chapter in a main stream book readily available, that she should have put much more citations to scientific papers when she explained facts.  For example, she said “Scientists predicted a long time ago that increasing greenhouse gas emissions could change the climate…” (Oreskes, N. 2007) but no citation! She should have included the citation to where this belief was first published so a normal reader or even skeptic can’t wonder where she got this fact. A person that is fighting for the sake of the communication of climate change needs to back up every single detail (unfortunately) so one can not be disputed! 

American Geophysical Union Council. 2003. Human impacts of

climate. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. hwww.agu

.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.htmli

American Meteorological Society. 2003. Climate change research:Issues for the atmospheric and related sciences. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 84.

National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Science of ClimateChange. 2001. Climate change science: An analysis of some key questions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Oreskes, Naomi, 2007, “The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong?”

Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren, edited by Joseph F. C.

DiMento and Pamela Doughman, MIT Press, pp. 65-99.

Popper, K. R. 1959. The logic of scientific discovery. London:

Hutchinson

Watson, Robert T., ed. 2001. Climate change 2001: Synthesis report.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Global Warming Disinformation Database

The de-smog blog

This online project began in 2006 and was created by Jim Hoggan, a founder of Canada's leading public relation firm. While his PR career isn't only based on climate change, he understood the importance and magnitude that media can play on the public view of the current anthropogenic global warming. His blog is called the de-smog blog: Clearing the PR Pollution That Clouds Climate Science and was named the top 25 “Best Blogs of 2011” by TIME magazine. With the thousands of blogs available on the internet, a positive climate PR blog receiving this honor is extremely impressive.

What I wanted to share was their Global WarmingDisinformation Database. This database lists individuals, companies, trade organization and the others involved in poisoning the public perception on global warming science and the consensus among scientists. (Yes, there is a consensus, read my previous blog!) One will quickly realize that most of the individuals that deny Climate change aren’t climatologists! Most of them are economists or in law or related fields. It is especially frightening when you discover that they are a chair or on the board of a countries climate change coalition or agency while previously working for a petroleum company!

The site is extremely helpful in providing resources and information on media information and links and videos relating to all things climate change

The ruling paradigm of climate science

It is often quoted by climate change skeptics that there is no real scientific consensus that the current state is anthropogenic induced, so I thought it would be interesting to look at the amount of published articles that disptue this. In 2005, Naomi Oreskes published an article in the journal Science entitled Beyond the Ivory Tower, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. In it she analyzed scientific articles published 1993-2003 with the keyword of global climate change. Out of the 928 found, none rejected human-caused global warming. This could actually be considered quite surprising, but the author divided the papers into 6 categories, "explicit endorsement..., evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, palaeo climate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position"  (Oreskes 2005). Three quarters belong in the first 3 categories with the rest dealing with methodology or palaeo climatology. The author herself even pointed out that it is expected that papers related to palaeo or impacts et cetera can understandably argue the natural caused state, but none of her 928 papers did this.

http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html

James Lawrence Powell has updated this research, picking up where Oreskes left off and  looked at peer reviewed articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012. He expanded his key word search to  global warming or global climate change. He found  13,950 articles. Using his perhaps less-rigorous methodology than the affore mentioned article,  24 or .17% clearly reject global warming or deny CO2 emissions as the fault. He pointed out a good thought; if one of the 24 articles had proven human caused global warming is false, it would be the most famous and most cited paper in the history of climate science. The most cited has 17 (Powell, J.L. 2011). One wouldn't have to hunt for it. If interested, his list of "articles that reject global warming is here." 

http://www.jamespowell.org/PieChart/piechart.html

There are a few interesting points I took away from this. Firstly it is very smart and scientifically required in this case that both authors make their methodoly very clear and even give you steps in how to re-create their journal search for these articles. Oreskes expecially had troubles from skeptics attacking her research claiming she was wrong in her conclusion of no papers proving natural variation, but here results can be easily recreated using her parameters! One issue I had was when Powell claimed that when choosing his parameters, using “climate change” without the "global" prefix would make no difference in the number that reject it. I would disagree with this in that a paper may agree with a slight regional cliamte change, but not a general global climate change or warming. 

 "Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public....Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology" (Powell, J.L. 2011).

references:

Oreskes, N. Beyond the Ivory Tower, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science.  December 2004: Vol. 306 no. 5702 p. 1686. DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

Powell, J.L. 2011.  The Inquisition of Climate Science. 2011. Columbia University Press. Also online 

Further and more recent readings on same subject: 

Scientific Assessments of Climate Change Information in News and Entertainment MediaScience Communication. August 2012: 435-459.
The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus Formation.American Sociological Review. December 2010: 817-840.

retweet from @DanielPinchbeck

The primary function of media is not to communicate information but to coordinate behavior.


retweet from @DanielPinchbeck

I Refuse to Believe.....

I hope my fellow Americans will find this amusing! Had to post!

Deny Deny Deny!

Scientific Denial-ism

"Just because some people believe in stupid things, doesn’t make them denialists."

Mark Hoofnagle

Through another class, I came across a paper about "denialism" concerning health issues. However, the essence and tactics of denying something spans pretty much all topics, and the paper and related blogs quoted creationalism, AIDS, tobacco and global warming as being under attack using the same methods.(upon inspection, it looks to me like the tactics may have really been first published relating to climate change anyways on a blog. see Below.)

The general definition of scientific denialism is the "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists" (Diethelm P and McKee M).

Deniers implement five main tactics:  conspiracy, cherry-picking, fake experts, impossible expectations and general fallacies of logic (Diethelm P and McKee M). The journal article touches lightly on them but Mark at Science Blogs goes into each one very nicely in his personal blog. My favorite  trusty ol' website Skeptical Science does as well.)

Denialism is simply about the tactics used to hinder thoughtful and valid communication. Every scientist can not argue with every single person that doesn't believe in climate change (though can lead to some very entertaining and very long blog comments!) However if the common mass, or even better, the media itself can recognize what is being done, a more useful debate can take place.


My favorite point comes from Mark at science blogs. He points out that these denialists have the upper hand by being virtually unlimited by make things up, whereas the scientists are limited by data and have to devalue each error described by the opposer. They aren't interested in the truth or data, just that what they say is the last word (Hoofnagle M).

The general public often believe what is erroneously portrayed because the argument is NOT as wild or frightening, as opposed to hearing you will be under water from X cm of sea level rise, for example. They prey on emotions and are therefore very influential on the mostly uninformed general public

In going, the point is: don't bother arguing with the "cranks" (you will be there all day), but DO discuss data and science with those that really want to have a legitimate conversation and become informed. 


Cook J. Skeptical Science. The Five Characteristics of Scientific Denialism. Accessed 28 October 2013. http://www.skepticalscience.com/5-characteristics-of-scientific-denialism.html

Diethelm P and McKee M. Denialism: What is it and How Should Scientists Respond. European Journal of Public Health. 2009. Vol. 19, No. 1, 2–4.

Hoofnagle M. Denialism Blog. 2007. Accessed 28 October 2013. http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/