If you find Red Hot Lies in an airport bookstore or online bookseller, don’t expect a juicy account of a political sex scandal cover-up. The book’s target is climate science and scientists. Its premise: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed.
It is one of a growing number of climate-change-denial books in the US and abroad, most of which have “a strong link” to influential conservative think tanks, according to a new study by Riley E. Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Peter J. Jacques of the University of Central Florida. Their analysis found 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.
The books help think tanks and others promote conservative causes, raise uncertainty about the threat of man-made greenhouse gas emissions, and downplay the need for reducing carbon emissions, Dunlap said in an interview. They are a perfect vehicle for the “top-down diffusion of climate-science denial from elites and conservative think tanks in this country to rank-and-file Republicans and Tea Party members,” he said.
In addition, the books help conservative think tanks in the US “spread the seeds of climate denial to other countries,” including the UK, Canada, and Australia, as well as a number of European nations, said Dunlap.
Climate skepticism books “are especially important for reaching the conservative movement’s core constituency, wider segments of the public, and critical sectors of society such as corporate, political and media leaders,” Dunlap and Jacques wrote in their paper, published online in February by the journal American Behavioral Scientist. “They are clearly a vital weapon in the conservative movement’s war on climate science, and one of the key means by which it diffuses climate change denial throughout American society and into other nations.”
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.
Dunlap said that climate skeptics’ books tend to recycle “zombie arguments that 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.
Regardless of whether or not they have scientific credentials, the authors, in turn, are often treated as “climate experts” who may be interviewed on television and radio and quoted by sympathetic columnists, bloggers, and conservative politicians, said Dunlap. While they often preach to the converted and are sold by think tanks and conservative book clubs, the books may also be sold by online retailers and chain book stores, often positioned as science books alongside books by climate scientists. Dunlap said that several of the books have been bestsellers among climate change books on Amazon and are, not surprisingly, sold by the Conservative Book Club.
Dunlap has been a leader in sociological studies of climate change. His earlier work focused on defining what he calls the “organized climate-denial machine.” He received considerable media attention for a 2011 paper, with Aaron McCright, published in Global Environment Change, called “Cool Dudes: The Denial of Climate Change among Conservative White Males in the United States.”
For the recent study, Dunlap and Jacques searched for English-language books that reject the strong scientific evidence that global warming is occurring, that human activities are the predominant cause, and that negative impacts to humans and natural systems may occur. They found 108 books published between 1982 (Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe) and 2010, half of them between 2005 and 2010, and 15 of them in 2010 alone.

" ... Dunlap said that climate skeptics’ books tend to recycle “zombie arguments that are disproven over and over ... "
Right. And Dunlap has exactly what climate science expertise to make this assessment?
What's more entertaining for me is Dunlap's enslavement to the idea that man-caused global warming is settled science, more or less because skeptic climate scientists are tools of the fossil fuel industry. And as it turns out, people like him make the latter assertion while relying unquestioningly on a single highly questionable source. I detailed that problem here: "The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar 'skeptic' motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation" http://ow.ly/hEEB5
#1 Posted by Russell C, CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 02:01 PM
"people like him make the latter assertion while relying unquestioningly on a single highly questionable source"
So, the entirety of peer reviewed climate science and all the branches like physics and chemistry which agree with it and support it count as "one source"?
To everybodye else: don't bother clicking on his link. It links to wattsupwiththat
#2 Posted by R. Dash, CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 05:43 PM
Today's warmers are yesterdays Flatearthers. Todays skeptics are yesterdays Galileos. BTW Christine, Galileo was a scientist and inventor. Global warming is a hoax and that was proven by the IPCC and the science clowns involved in ClimateGate. Did you cover ClimateGate Christine?
#3 Posted by murf, CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 06:06 PM
Professors Dunlap and Jacques report the obvious, virtually all publications of climate-change-denial themes are supported by conservative organizations. What would be insightful would be their analysis of climate-change-denial themes supported by the EPA, National Science Foundation, DoE, PBS, or other tax payer funded organizations. One must conclude that there is not a thin dime of public money to support a balanced debate on this scientific conflict. I find that odd as I have a statement signed by 77 world class scientists which state that man's combustion of carbon is not a serious threat.
I can only conclude that US science funding policy is gerrymandered, that is, political. We now have EPA science, and Exxon science, which fundamentally violates the meaning of science, to know.
As a non scientist, I have no position on this conflict. Like the professors, and most commentators, I am a dummy on the subject. My expertise is forty years of energy engineering, a score of nukes, two score fossil fueled power plants and decades assessing advanced technologies in this field. I am absolutely certain that without cheap, ubiquitous carbon combustion, our national economy will collapse. All the green technologies cost too much for base loaded supply. I also know that our energy infrastructure is worn out.
#4 Posted by R. L. Hails Sr. P. E., CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 07:06 PM
I wasn't skeptical in the 1950/60s when people said testing the atom bomb was changing the weather. I wasn't skeptical in the 1970s when they were predicting global cooling. Now the global warming theories seem pretty reasonable to me. I'm pretty sure that sometime before I die, I'll think the new global cooling theory is reasonable too. How can anybody be skeptical of science, it's so....scientific, why would anybody ever question it?
#5 Posted by John Lennon, CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 07:51 PM
Regardless of what you believe about the conclusions of the science and its connecting of the dots to anthropogenic causes,.what's the answer to the reality-based, factual climate change dilemma?
I read: Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes, Erik Conway. This book thoroughly documented the industry-wide effort to intentionally obfuscate conclusions and covertly distort data surrounding tobacco as a pandemic health problem. I think the same forces are at work here again,
#6 Posted by Lary9, CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 08:04 PM
Commenter "Lary9" above may say "I think the same forces are at work here again" all he wishes, in an insinuation that skeptic climate scientists operate like the 'big tobacco shill experts', but such an insinuation is worthless without evidence to prove it. His mission, should he choose to accept it, is to go out and find anything at all in the way of document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, or money-transfer receipts corresponding to instructions for skeptics to lie about specific science points.
If commenter "Lary9" were to accomplish that, he would be the first to do so in the 20-year history of the accusation.
#7 Posted by Russell C, CJR on Wed 13 Mar 2013 at 10:26 PM
Just wondering, what are Miss Cristine Russel's scientific qualifications that we should take her seriously when she writes about disputes over climate science? Her bio above does not mention whether she has a degree in science.
#8 Posted by Douglas6, CJR on Thu 14 Mar 2013 at 02:52 AM
The micro second I see the word "deny" I know I'm dealing with an intellectually dishonest misinformation campaign. The honest word of course is skepticism. It made no sense to speak of "denying". And in these days of fraud and deceit from the anthropogenic global warming camp, accompanied by a complete lack of actual data to support their claims, it is reasonable to be skeptical. If you want to be taken seriously, start by dropping that emotionally charged word "deny".
#9 Posted by Marc Desmarais, CJR on Thu 14 Mar 2013 at 03:15 AM
I'm happy to find out there is a "growing number of climate-change-denial books in the US and abroad". That's very good news. It shows that many people are interested in looking beyond the media's normally biased coverage of climate issues.
#10 Posted by Davis Hurt, CJR on Thu 14 Mar 2013 at 04:20 AM
I see this article hit a nerve and the "skeptics" are out in force to "skeptic" it. I've been intrigued for years at how the roles have been changed. Nowadays the reactionary deniers of threatening science brazenly take on the mantle of Galileo even as they follow the road used by Galileo's attackers. It's odd how reactionaries seem always to be professional victims in any culture, at any time and any place. Those of us who actually look at the world (biologists as well as climatologists) know perfectly well that the Earth is warming. All the signs point in the same direction - earlier migration dates, northward range shifts, changes in hatching times, in addition to melting glaciers and sea ice. The "skeptics"' response is to "skeptic" that any of this is happening, which amounts to closing their eyes and saying "It isn't happening, because I can't see it." Or else they trot out meaningless criticisms ("science qualifications"?!) and then congratulate themselves that they have somehow scored a point. Oy. At least Nero fiddled; these guys just fiddle around.
#11 Posted by JohnR, CJR on Thu 14 Mar 2013 at 03:41 PM
Readers here will wonder if commenter "JohnR" 's effort is the best available when it comes to defending the idea of man-caused global warming, considering how skeptic scientists and other skeptic speakers don't actually deny anything we see but instead question whether what we see is anywhere close to being extreme, unprecedented, or even proof of the situation being man-caused. And notice that commenter "JohnR" doesn't even attempt to address what I spoke about in my two prior comments about the accusation that skeptic scientists are corrupted by industry funding.
Rather than being convincing or remotely scoring a "point" for his side, what he says looks more like a person whistling past the graveyard.
#12 Posted by Russell C, CJR on Fri 15 Mar 2013 at 06:29 PM
Since we are still coming out of the last ice age, it is perfectly natural that each decade should be "warmer" than previous ones since before the last ice age.
Ice ages create drought and deserts because so much H20 is locked up in ice caps. The more liquid H20 there is on the planet, the moister it will be. Rain comes from evaporation of bodies of water; the larger the area covered by water, the more rain. So what exactly is the mechanism by which global warming causes drought? Droughts are predicted, but a warmer world will be a wetter world.
As you go over land masses from the poles to the equator, human populations and in fact all life, plant and animal, increase in density and diversity. It looks like life has evolved here to live on a nice warm planet. What we have now is a cold planet; millions of acres locked up in tundra will be liberated for increased plant diversity and human settlement. Canada and Russia are underpopulated and can welcome people displaced by rising sea levels. Why do Minnesotans retire to Florida, while Floridians do not retire to Minnesota? This senior citizen is beginning to think Los Angeles is too cold. In the Northern Hemisphere, more people die from winter conditions than from summer conditions.
How did it come about that before "global warming" caused by humans (1700? 1800? 1900?) the earth's temperature was just right, just perfect? Were we just lucky? And how did humanity survive all the changes in climate that did occur in earlier centuries? It is not enough to argue that global warming is happening. Four other premises must be proved:
1. It is caused by humans.
2. Balancing the good and bad outcomes (and if you deny some good, you lose all credibility), the net result is bad. (My personal view is that the good, a warmer planet, will outweigh the bad.)
3. The badness is serious enough to require massive investment to avert it. (Lowering the expected rise by half a degree by 2100 doesn't cut it)
4. We are actually capable of "stabilizing" the climate, a hypothesis that in my opinion is as far beyond our present capabilities as terraforming the moon.
If human life is so climate-sensitive, how do explain the fact that modern civilization exists and thrives from Winnipeg to Miami, from Moscow to Macao? The temperature differences among existing human societies are much greater than any proposed change in world average temperature. This is really about the hatred of academics living in woodsy Northern California suburbs for the bourgeoisie liberated by the automobile and made prosperous by those dark satanic mills. Eloi indeed!
#13 Posted by J Levin, CJR on Fri 15 Mar 2013 at 07:24 PM
Denialism is not an "emotional" word -- It's called science "denialism" because most of the people who are 'skeptical' of Climate Science (or some related field, by proxy) have no direct literacy in the subject of their criticism. They trot out these lists of carbon-copied arguments fed to them by others. The items on this list: -- "it's warmed before" -- "CO2 is good for plants" - -"mars is heating up too" -- "it's the sun" -- "they predicted cooling in the 1970's" -- "there weren't SUV's during the ice age" -- and so on...
These are arguments, repeated ad nauseum in one form or another, represent arguments which anyone who actually does have a subject interest/education in Geoscience would see as suspicious or flawed at face value. Accordingly, these arguments have been debunked by members of the Science community repeatedly, but far too often these debunkings fall on deaf ears, sometimes for lack of exposure to them, but often because of pure political prejudices/obstinance.
Prudent, informed, tactful critique comes form a place of subject literacy. Commenting in the darkness of ignorant politics relegates the entire discussion to "he said" / "she said" opinion ping-pong. We needn't have such unserious discussions when facts are involved. The sciences here revolve around information - there is lots of prerequisite information to these subjects, and so to have any meaningful input on Climate Science, or any of the Geosciences for that matter, one must be interested firsthand and literate in the subjects...
If you are criticizing against an academic subject, parroting the same list of contrarian talking points over & over, without having sought any basic systemic understanding of the subject for yourself -- well, that's precisely what the word "denialism" is reserved for. That's what I use it for. If you don't like the word, don't use it -- but you also can't disregard everything surrounding this subject purely on semantics.
#14 Posted by Timothy, CJR on Tue 19 Mar 2013 at 02:42 PM
The biggest blows to the argument of "settled science" come in the form of one statistician in Canada, Steve McIntyre, of climateaudit.org.
No...he's not a scientist, but what he IS is a statistician, and a very good one at that. Educate yourself, and go read some of his analysis.
What Dunlap and Jacques fail to address is growing body of evidence against the AGW claim, while simply regurgitating meaningless stats that have already been falsified like "97% of climate scientists agree..." If you read the article on where that number came from, you'd likely cry foul.
Go ahead...give it a shot. Isn't journalism similar to science in that the object is to seek the truth? Would any of you walk away from a news story that you thought had a different twist than what was being reported by all the other sources?
Be journalists. When someone publishes a story with "facts" in it...figure out where those came from. Have they been independently verified? Most, if not all climate stats have not. The basic premise of science is that others can replicate your results. When other scientists ask for the data to perform their own calculations, the data is given, but the methodology is not. And without the methodology, the data is worthless, because in all of the models, "adjustments" are made to the data. So tell us how you adjusted the data?...No...can't do that. You'll try and poke holes in my theory. Well yeah, that's what science is, and journalism should help to ferret that sort of thing out...not help mask it.
Dig into it...find the stories. That's what's needed today.
Jim
#15 Posted by Jim from Maine, CJR on Tue 19 Mar 2013 at 03:49 PM
Head on over to Skeptical Science and read their "myth at a time" debunking of the deniers arguments. At least then, if you're going to insist on being a denier, you might come up with something new.
#16 Posted by Gar highway, CJR on Tue 19 Mar 2013 at 06:21 PM