IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

®

Feature

The Serengeti strategy:How special interests try tointimidate scientists, andhow best to fight back

Michael E. Mann

AbstractMuch as lions on the Serengeti seek out vulnerable zebras at the edge of a herd, special interests faced withadverse scientific evidence often target individual scientists rather than take on an entire scientific field at once.Part of the reasoning behind this approach is that it is easier to bring down individuals than an entire group ofscientists, and it still serves the larger aim: to dismiss, obscure, and misrepresent well-established science andits implications. In addition, such highly visible tactics create an atmosphere of intimidation that discouragesother scientists from conveying their researchÕs implications to the public. This ÒSerengeti strategyÓ is oftenemployed wherever there is a strong and widespread consensus among the worldÕs scientists about the under-lying cold, hard facts of a field, whether the subject be evolution, ozone depletion, the environmental impacts ofDDT, the health effects of smoking, or human-caused climate change. The goal is to attack those researcherswhose findings are inconvenient, rather than debate the findings themselves. This article draws upon theauthorÕs own experience to examine the ÒSerengeti strategy,Ó and offers possible countermeasures to suchorchestrated campaigns. It examines what responses by scientists have been most successful, and how tocombat the doubt-sowing that industry has done regarding the science behind climate change and other fields.

Photo credit: Brocken Inaglory.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists2015, Vol. 71(1) 33–45! The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0096340214563674http://thebulletin.sagepub.com

Keywordsclimate change, communication, global warming, hockey stick, modeling, propaganda, science disinformation

Critics of science frequently pre-sent scientific knowledge as ifall our understanding of a given

field hinges on the work of just one scien-tist. Forget the thousands of evolutionarybiologists whose work over more than acentury has repeatedly confirmed thetheory of evolution; to creationists, itis just ÒDarwinismÓÑthe conclusions ofone ostensibly suspect individual namedCharles Darwin.

And it is labeled as Òjust a theory,Ó as ifthat somehow diminishes its validity.(For that matter, gravity is Òjust a theoryÓas well. Yet no one steps off a tall build-ing to test it.)

This reflects a popular misconceptionof what a theory is to scientists. While incommon parlance the word ÒtheoryÓ con-veys something speculative, tentative, oruncertain, in the field of science the wordrefers to an understanding of an aspect ofthe natural world that has held up repeat-edly to scrutiny and testing over time.

Industry-funded front groups andtheir hired guns have learned that theycan use this confusion over terminologyto their benefit. Rather than admit thatdecades of research has revealed danger-ous effects of DDT on our environment,these organizations try to lead the publicinto believing that concerns about thesechemical contaminants are just the hys-terical speculations of one scientistnamed Rachel Carson. For example, theCompetitive Enterprise Institute (http://www.cei.org)Ñan advocacy group fundedby fossil fuel and chemical industry con-cerns and conservative private interestsÑmaintains a website, RachelWasWrong

(http://www.rachelwaswrong.org), dedi-cated to discrediting Carson and herlegacy as a way of casting doubt upon allenvironmental concerns.

This is a classic ad hominem attack,consisting of innuendo and obfuscation,often focusing on irrelevant items,whose net effect is to direct attentionaway from the merits of an argumentand instead to the character of theperson making it. This approach appealsto feelings, emotions, and prejudicesrather than intellectÑexactly the pointwhen the attacker is on the wrong sideof the facts. This approach is not held inhigh regard by those interested in reasonand rationalism, based as it is upon tenetsthat are the opposite of science.

But it is effective, for a number of rea-sons. By singling out a sole scientist, it ispossible for the forces of Òanti-scienceÓto bring many more resources to bear onone individual, exerting enormous pres-sure from multiple directions at once,making defense difficult. It is similar towhat happens when a group of lions onthe Serengeti seek out a vulnerable indi-vidual zebra at the edge of a herd, whichis why I call it the ÒSerengeti strategyÓ inmy book The Hockey Stick and the Cli-mate Wars (Mann, 2012).

An additional part of the motivationbehind the targeting of individuals: It isdifficult to take on an entire group of sci-entists at once. But bringing down indi-viduals is easier, and it serves the largereffort of dismissing, obscuring, andmisrepresenting well-established sci-ence and its implications. WhatÕs more,these highly visible tactics create such a

34 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

negative atmosphere that other scientistsare discouraged from conveying theirresearchÕs implications to the public.

This strategy falls under the umbrellaof a larger, overall conception, whichsome researchers refer to as the ÒtobaccostrategyÓ because it characterizes theway that tobacco interests sought to dis-credit research that linked their productsto lung cancer (Oreskes and Conway,2010). Whatever it is called, it has repeat-edly been adopted by the chemicalindustry, big agriculture, the pharma-ceutical industry, and just about anycorporate interest that has found itselfon a collision course with scientificresearchÑparticularly research that re-veals specific potential damages orthreats caused by their product.

It is educational to see how long theuse of these tactics has been around,and how it was applied on a massive,wide-reaching scale to make a memeÑacultural idea or belief system, similar insome ways to a catchphraseÑgo viral,long before the social media era. And ofcourse, this technique has now beenrefined and expanded upon, to include abarrage of messages from authoritativelynamed pseudo-news outlets, an alpha-bet soup of legitimate-sounding frontgroups, and a bevy of experts-for-hirewith impressiveÑor at least impressive-soundingÑcredentials, who togetherform a ÒPotemkin VillageÓ (Oreskes andConway, 2010) of antiscientific disinfor-mation. One can observe this strategywrit large in the current public discoursein the United States over whether or nothuman-caused climate change existsÑadebate that has been largely settled inother parts of the world, such as theEuropean countries whose citizenshave overwhelmingly accepted the evi-dence for it.

Indeed, when overseas Americansencounter the widespread acceptanceof anthropogenic climate change, theyare often surprised. ÒAfter my climatechange book came out, I had dinnerwith a Dutch minister from a right-wing,conservative partyÑand he sounded likea Greenpeace guy,Ó commented authorElizabeth Kolbert (The Bulletin of theAtomic Scientists, 2014) about the Euro-pean reception to her book The SixthExtinction: An Unnatural History (Kol-bert, 2014).

Climate change: A quick recap

A quick refresher about the present stateof the discourse in the United States aboutclimate change: Despite first impressions,only a minority of our populace clings to awholesale rejection of all the establishedevidence for anthropogenic climatechange. Yet this rejection can be powerful(and backed by powerful interests), as Iwrote in The New York Times:

This virulent strain of anti-science infects thehalls of Congress, the pages of leading news-papers, and what we see on TV, leading to theappearance of a debate where none shouldexist. In fact, there is broad agreement amongclimate scientists not only that climate changeis real (a survey and a review of the scientificliterature published say about 97 percentagree), but that we must respond to the dan-gers of a warming planet. If one is looking forreal differences among mainstream scientists,they can be found on two fronts: the preciseimplications of those higher temperatures,and which technologies and policies offer thebest solution to reducing, on a global scale, theemission of greenhouse gases. (Mann, 2014a)

Such a high level of agreement amongany group of people is extraordinary;just try to get 97 percent of Americansto agree about favorite pizza toppings.Nothing in the field of science ever gets

Mann 35

100 percent agreementÑthereÕs still aFlat Earth Society that holds monthlymeetingsÑbut the fact that a few con-trarians still exist around the topic of cli-mate change may be one reason why thepublic gets confused when hearing aboutthe issue. They expect all experts every-where to be in complete agreement, allthe time.

There is no longer any reasonabledoubt among mainstream researchersabout the fact that climate change is real,caused by human activity, and a potentialthreat to civilization. That is the conclu-sion of every major scientific organizationthat deals in any of the underlying areas ofscience, including the American PhysicalSociety, the American MeteorologicalSociety, the American Chemical Society,the Geological Society of America, theAmerican Geophysical Union, and severaldozen more. Indeed, it is the conclusionof the national academies of every majorindustrial nation on the planet.1

But faced with this overwhelming sci-entific consensus about the threat ofhuman-caused climate changeÑand, byimplication, the necessity to reduceglobal carbon emissionsÑfossil fuelinterests have in many cases chosen notto accept the evidence, nor to engage ingood-faith discussion about possiblesolutions. Instead, they have opted todeny the problem exists.

For more than two decades now, lead-ing fossil fuel companies like ExxonMo-bil, as well as privately held fossil fuelinterests like Koch Industries, havebeen orchestrating attacks on the sci-ence of climate change through theirvarious front groups (Mann, 2012;Oreskes and Conway, 2010). As the evi-dence has grown stronger and the scien-tific case more firm, they have simplydoubled down on the assault.

Many of the attacks have been aimedat undermining one of the scientific com-munityÕs great strengthsÑthe trust thatthe public has in scientists as communi-cators and messengers. A poll conductedby Yale University and George MasonUniversity indicated that climatescientists are the most trusted source ofinformation about global warming forvoting-age Americans (Yale Project,2012). This is in line with a number ofpolls regarding science that have beenconducted over the years, which consist-ently show that the public ranks scien-tists near the top for trustworthiness(Pew Research Center, 2009)Ñwhilethey put members of Congress, TV repor-ters, and used-car salesmen near thebottom. (At the very bottom are lobbyists,who have only a 6 percent approval ratingfor honesty and ethics (Gallup, 2014)).

In their effort to discredit the genuinescience behind climate change, fossilfuel interests and their front groupshave sought to undermine that trust inscience and scientists.

Swiftboating comes to climatescience

The earliest attacks on climate scientistswere aimed at physicist-turned-climatescientist Stephen Schneider of StanfordUniversity, a particularly effectivemessenger at communicating climatechange risk to the public. Climatechange deniers found an opening inSchneiderÕs use of loosely phrased, off-the-cuff comments that could be takenout of context. For example, 25 yearsago Schneider did an interview for Dis-cover magazine in which he stated:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethicallybound to the scientific method, in effect

36 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, andnothing butÑwhich means that we mustinclude all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs,ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are notjust scientists but human beings as well. Andlike most people weÕd like to see the world abetter place, which in this context translatesinto our working to reduce the risk of poten-tially disastrous climatic change. To do that weneed to get some broad-based support, to cap-ture the publicÕs imagination. That, of course,entails getting loads of media coverage. So wehave to offer up scary scenarios, make simpli-fied, dramatic statements, and make little men-tion of any doubts we might have. This Òdoubleethical bindÓ we frequently find ourselves incannot be solved by any formula. Each of ushas to decide what the right balance is betweenbeing effective and being honest. I hope thatmeans being both. (Schneider, 1989: 47)

Climate change critics2 have frequentlytaken this statement completely out ofcontext, editing it down to the snippetÒwe have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statements,and make little mention of any doubtswe might have.Ó By cutting out the sen-tences that follow, and not providing thefull context, SchneiderÕs detractors mis-represented the point Schneider wasactually making: that we can, andshould, be both effective and honest incommunicating the science and its impli-cations to the public.

The critics ratcheted up their cam-paign in the mid-1990s. In December1995, just as I was finalizing my disserta-tion on the topic of natural climatevariabilityÑresearch that had little ifanything to do with the topic of human-caused climate changeÑa group of hun-dreds of leading climate experts fromaround the world were assessing thestate of the science of climate change.Known as the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change, or IPCC, the groupissued a report that concluded that therewas now a Òdiscernible human influence

on climateÓ (Mann, 2012). This wasthe first time such a statement hadbeen made.

Ben Santer, a relatively young scien-tist at the time, was the lead author ofthe key chapter on the Òdetection andattributionÓ of climate changeÑwhichdemonstrated that the ÒsignalÓ of an-thropogenic climate change and globalwarming was now discernible from thebackground ÒnoiseÓ of natural climatevariability. SanterÕs own scientific workwas critical to that conclusion; as aresult, he found himself at the center ofa campaign in which his integrity wasimpugned by industry affiliates, alongwith charges of Òscientific cleansingÓsimilar to ethnic cleansing in WallStreet Journal op-eds. His job and evenhis life were threatened (Mann, 2012).The assaults against Santer were just asign of what was to come.

The hockey stick and theSerengeti strategy

From the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, scientists like Schneider andSanter were subject to ÒswiftboatÓ-like3

attacks, owing to the prominence of theirwork in raising awareness of the threat ofclimate change. I was the involuntarynext member in this lineage.

My work as a postdoctoral researcherin the late 1990s reconstructing past tem-perature changes led my colleagues andme to publish the now well-knownÒhockey stickÓ4 curve depicting tem-perature changes over the past thousandyears. Looking much like a hockey sticklying on its sideÑwhich is why it got itsnameÑthis curve graphically illustratedin easy-to-understand terms the pastcenturyÕs warming spike (the ÒbladeÓ),as it rose above the range of natural

Mann 37

variation over the past millennium (theÒhandleÓ). As it sloped downward fromleft to right, the lengthy handle indicatedthat there were only relatively modestchanges in Northern Hemisphere tem-peratures for almost 1,000 yearsÑas farback as our data went at the time of pub-lication. (In its September 2013 report,the IPCC extended the stick fartherback in time, reflecting their conclusionthat the recent warming was unprece-dented for at least 1,400 years.) In con-trast, the short and abruptly upturnedblade, at the extreme right of the graph,indicated the abrupt rise in temperaturessince the mid-1800sÑwhich roughly cor-responded to the arrival of the IndustrialRevolution in the Northern Hemisphereand the emission of much more carboninto the atmosphere (see Figure 1).

The hockey stick was featured in thesummary for policy makers of the IPCCFourth Assessment Report of 2001. It

emerged as an iconic image of human-caused climate change, conveying asimple, straightforward message aboutthe reality of global warming. To mixmetaphors, this graph became a lightningrod of debateÑand its publication turnedme into a reluctant public figure. Someyears after his own experiences, BenSanter stated: ÒThere are people whobelieve that if they bring down MikeMann, they can bring down the IPCCÓ(Pearce, 2006).

I recount my experiences in full in mybook The Hockey Stick and the ClimateWars (Mann, 2012), but include a briefsummary of a few highlights here.I was vilified in the editorial pages ofThe Wall Street Journal and on FoxNews. I was in the sights now of power-ful, well-heeled interests such as theScaife Foundations and the Koch broth-ers (Mann, 2012). A Scaife-funded frontgroup known as the Commonwealth

Figure 1. “Hockey stick graph” of rising global temperatures

1000

1.01000 years of global temperature and CO2 change

370

350

330

310

290 CO

2 (p

pm)

270

250

230

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

–0.2

Tem

pera

ture

cha

nge

°F

–0.4

–0.6

1045

1090

1135

1180

1225

1270

1315

1360

1405

1450

1495

1540

1585

1630

1675

1720

1765

1810

1855

1900

1945

1990

38 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

Foundation unsuccessfully pressuredPenn State University to fire me, whilethe Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review frequently published attacksupon me personally. IÕve stopped count-ing the number of attacks by individuals,organizations, and front groups con-nected to the Koch brothersÑconserva-tive activists who are heavily invested infossil fuel extraction and transportation(see, e.g., Mayer, 2010).

I was subject to what The WashingtonPost and The New York Times denouncedas an ÒinquisitionÓ and a Òwitch huntÓ5 bypoliticians in the pay of fossil fuel inter-ests (Mann, 2012), looking to discreditmy work.6

The former chair of the House Energyand Commerce Committee, Texas Repub-lican Joe Barton, attempted in 2005 to sub-poena all of my personal records and thoseof my two Òhockey stickÓ co-authors, eventhough the vast majority of what he wasdemanding was already in the publicdomain. (Among the fiercest critics ofBartonÕs behavior were two powerfulsenior members of his own partyÑthechair of the House Science Committee,Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York,and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.)

Subsequently, Ken Cuccinelli, thenewly minted attorney general of Virginia,whoÕd received significant Koch brotherssupport (see Blumenthal, 2013; Cramer,2013; and Vogel, 2011), attempted toobtain all of my personal e-mails withmore than 30 scientists around the worldfrom the 1999 to 2005 time period, duringwhich I was a professor at the Universityof Virginia, under the aegis of a civilsubpoena designed to root out state Medi-care fraud. After Cuccinelli was repeat-edly rebuffed by the courts all the way tothe state Supreme Court, a Koch-fundedgroup called the American Tradition

Institute (ATI) sought to demand thesame e-mails through misuse of stateopen-records laws. The ATI too wasrebuffed all the way to the state SupremeCourt, which ultimately demanded thatthey pay both the University of Virginiaand me damages for their frivolous peti-tioning of the court (Sturgis, 2014).

Many of the attacks claimed that thehockey stick was simply wrong, or badscience, or that it was debunked or dis-credited, despite all evidence to thecontraryÑsuch as the reaffirmation ofour findings by the National Academyof Sciences,7 the subsequent reports ofthe IPCC,8 and the most recent peer-reviewed research.9

Others were challenges to my integrityand honesty. Most worrisome were thinlyveiled threats leveled against my familyand me. (And some not so veiled, suchas letters and e-mails threatening my lifeand my familyÕs lives, including an enve-lope sent in the mail that contained awhite powder, subsequently investigatedby the FBI (Mann, 2012: Chapter 14.))

Then came the manufactured, so-called ÒclimategateÓ controversy (Mann,2012: Chapter 14), in which climate changedeniers stole thousands of e-mails andmined them for words and phrases thatcould be taken out of context and madeto sound as if scientists had been doctor-ing data or otherwise engaged in misbe-havior. Nine investigations later,10 weknow that the only wrongdoing wasthe criminal theft of the e-mails in thefirst place.

Fighting back against thedoubt-sowers

In this poisonous environment, we areeach faced with a choice. Should weavoid the fray? Should we simply don

Mann 39

our lab coats, perform our research, pub-lish it in peer-reviewed literature, pre-sent our results at scientific meetings,and leave it to others to translate themfor consumption by the public andpolicy makers? Do we not owe it to soci-ety to explain the potential implicationsof our work?

I was not given the choice of remain-ing outside the public arena. Arguably,I could have tried to ignore the attacksin the hope they would eventually goaway. But retreating into my lab andsimply focusing on my work did notfeel like a responsible option. For one, itwould signal the success of the Serengetistrategy, and it would encourage similarbehavior against other climate scientists.It would set a poor example for youngerscientists just entering the field, showingthem that it is unsafe to participate inpublic outreach about the implicationsof their scientific research. What if thetobacco interests had ultimately beensuccessful in intimidating health re-searchers out of studying and reportingon the link between tobacco productsand lung cancer and other smoking-related ailments? The cost would havebeen measured in millions more humanlives lost. Unchecked climate changecould take an even greater toll. That iswhy some (Hansen, 2008) have character-ized bad-faith attacks on the science of cli-mate change a Òcrime against humanity.Ó

Perhaps it is because of my experi-ences in the center of the battle over cli-mate change that I have become apassionate believer in the role of theÒscientist-advocateÓ (Schneider, 1993).I think that it is indeed our responsibilitycollectively, as scientists, to convey thesocietal implications of our work (Mann,2014a). Just because we are scientistsdoes not mean that we should check

our citizenship at the door of a publicmeeting. There is nothing inappropriateabout drawing on our scientific know-ledge to speak out about the very realimplications of our research. As StephenSchneider used to say, being a scientist-advocate is not an oxymoron. If scien-tists choose not to engage on matters ofpolicy-relevant science, then we leave avoid that will be filled by industry-funded disinformation.

While this is not what I signed upforÑI majored in physics and mathemat-ics, obtained a masterÕs degree in phys-ics, and earned a doctorate in theDepartment of Geology and Geophysicsat Yale UniversityÑin my view, there isnothing that could be more noble thanstriving to communicate, in terms thatare simultaneously accurate and access-ible, the implications of our scientificknowledge. When it comes to fightingagainst disinformation, the old adageÒthe best defense is a good offenseÓrings true. Consequently, I have devotedan increasing part of my career to com-municating the science and its implica-tions to the larger public, to the best ofmy abilities.

Successful responses

While engaged in a full-time round ofteaching, advising students, performingand publishing research, and attemptingto meet all my other obligations as a uni-versity professor, I spend a good deal ofmy time these days engaged in outreachand communication. This takes the formof more than 50 public lectures, paneldiscussions, and other public-speakingengagements per year; hundreds ofnewspaper, magazine, television, andradio interviews; and dozens of op-eds,commentaries, and letters to the editor.

40 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

In addition, I co-founded a popular sci-ence blog known as RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org) nearly a decadeagoÑin part as a reaction to the fact thatif one did a web search on terms like Òglo-bal warmingÓ or Òclimate changeÓ whatone mostly got back were links to indus-try-funded, antiscientific propaganda. Ihave also chosen to embrace newermodes of communication, includingsocial media vehicles such as Facebookand Twitter (where IÕm @MichaelEMann).Because an increasingly large share ofthe publicÑyounger audiences in particu-larÑno longer gets its news from Òtrad-itionalÓ media sources, scientists mustincreasingly leave their Òcomfort zoneÓand take the social media plunge if theyaretoreachthebroadestpossibleaudience.

There is also something very satisfyingabout being able to communicate infor-mation directly to the public, withoutthe ÒmiddlemanÓ of journalists or mediaorganizations. That is not to say that jour-nalists and traditional media donÕt remainvital sources of information for thepublic, but that scientists now find them-selves in a more complex new-mediaÒecosystemÓ where they risk limitingtheir reach if they donÕt embrace the fullrange of informational vehicles available.

The message I convey, naturally,depends on the venue and the audience,but if there is a common theme it is thatclimate change is real, it is caused by us,and it remains a grave threat if we donÕtdo something about it. When it comes tothe issue of uncertainty, which is some-times used as a crutch by those arguingagainst action, I strive to convey the ideathat uncertainty is not a reason for inac-tion but a reason for even more immedi-ate and greater action, because of thepossibility that the impacts will be sub-stantially worse than scientists currently

predict. (This is the same principleunderlying why we purchase fire insur-anceÑit isnÕt because we think it likelythat our house will burn down, butbecause the damages would be so greatif it did occur that it makes sense toinvest now to hedge against this cata-strophic outcome).

As for climate change denial and dis-information, I find it useful to let thewords and actions of the critics speakfor themselves. It can provide momentsof levity, and IÕm a firm believer in theprinciple that scientists must retain asense of humor, even when discussing arather dour topic like climate change. Acase in point is the way that climatechange contrarians like to present them-selves as modern-day Galileos, fightingagainst the hegemony of mainstream sci-entific thinking. The phenomenon evenhas a nameÑthe Galileo gambit. Butdenial for the sake of denial, without pre-senting any supporting evidence, is nottrue scientific skepticism. In fact, it isquite the opposite. When climatechange deniers attempt to play theÒThey laughed at Galileo tooÓ card, IÕmfond of citing Carl SaganÕs retort: ÒTheyalso laughed at Bozo the Clown.Ó11

Where skeptics express doubt in whatappears to be good faith, scientistsshould attempt to engage with themconstructively. There may well be anopportunity to disabuse them of miscon-ceptions, inform them of the facts, andarm them with helpful resources theycan rely upon in the future. My favoriteis the smartphone app offered by the siteSkeptical Science (http://www.skepti-calscience.com) which provides, at thetouch of a finger, the responsesÑat thebeginner, intermediate, and advancedlevelÑto more than a hundred commondenialist myths.

Mann 41

Yet where good faith is not evidentand when critics appear more interestedin personal insults, inflammatory rhet-oric, and argument purely for its ownsake, another quote, this time fromMark Twain, is apropos: ÒNever arguewith a fool; onlookers may not be ableto tell the difference.Ó Translating to21st-century Internet-speak: ÒDonÕt feedthe trolls.Ó It is far better to expendyour time and effort engaging withthose individuals who display a capacityto reconsider their viewpointsÑwho arereceptive to new information and evi-denceÑthan waste it on those who arenot. It is also better for your emotionalhealth (and blood pressure).

Looking forward

There is some evidence that flat-out cli-mate change denial has lost favor overthe past few years. With authoritativereports coming in from not just the sci-entific community but the businesscommunity, the national security com-munity, and even some conservativegroups that climate change is a veryreal and existential threat to society, anew breed of climate change contrar-ianÑthe delayerÑhas now emerged.

Examples of individuals occupyingthat niche in the media today are folkslike Judith Curry of the Georgia TechSchool of Earth and AtmosphericSciences, former UC Berkeley astro-physicist Richard Muller, and ÒskepticalenvironmentalistÓ Bjorn Lomborg.Rather than flat-out denying the exist-ence of human-caused climate change,delayers claim to accept the science, butdownplay the seriousness of the threat orthe need to act. The end result is an asser-tion that we should delay or resist entirelyany efforts to mitigate the climate change

threat through a reduction of fossil fuelburning and carbon emissions. Despiteclaiming to assent to the scientific evi-dence, delayers tend to downplay the cli-mate change threat by assumingunrealistic, low-end projections of cli-mate change, denying the reality of keyclimate change effects, and employinglowball estimates of the costs of thoseimpacts. When the cost-benefit analysisof taking action is skewed by a down-wardly biased estimate of the cost of inac-tion, it is far easier to make the Pollyanna-ish argument that technology and the freemarket will simply solve the problem ontheir own. It is a backdoor way of sayingthat we do not need to pursue clean, non-fossil fuel energy sources, which are argu-ably the only real ways to avoid locking indangerous climate change.

So while the battle is far from over, thetide does appear to be turning. We areseeing the slow but steady retreat of cli-mate change contrarians down the Òlad-der of denialÓ (Mann, 2012). The windowof public discourse appears to be shiftingaway from the false debate over whetherthere is a problem toward the worthydebate about what to do about it. Thatis reason for optimism. And optimism isimportant, for people respond poorly tomessages of doom and gloom that lackany sign of hope. Defeatism is indeedself-fulfilling. People must see a way for-ward, and fortunately it exists. There isstill time to act so that we avert leaving afundamentally degraded planet forfuture generations. But time is runningout, and there is unprecedented urgencynow in taking action (Mann, 2014a).12

That brings us back, finally, to the roleof the scientist in the public arena, and Ifind myself compelled to return to theÒdouble ethical bindÓ that Schneiderspoke so eloquently about. We scientists

42 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

must hold ourselves to a higher standardthan the deniers-for-hire. We must behonest as we convey the threat posedby climate change to the public. But wemust also be effective. The stakes aresimply too great for us to fail to commu-nicate the risks of inaction.

The good news is that scientistshave truth on their side, and truth willultimately win out. That too is reasonfor optimism.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to acknowledge very helpfulconversations over the years about the broad topicsexplored here with folks such as Steve Schneider,Naomi Oreskes, Susan Joy-Hassol, Stefan Rahmstorf,Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, Ben Santer, RichardSomerville, and Gavin Schmidt. The author wouldalso like to thank Pete Fontaine, Scott Mandia, andJosh Wolfe and the Climate Science Legal DefenseFund for their efforts.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from anyfunding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

1. Lists of scientific societies and organizationsand national academies that have issuedstatements endorsing the scientific consen-sus, and links to their statements, are avail-able at: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html, and http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warm-ing-scientific-consensus-intermediate. htm.

2. One example is Martin Durkin of the UnitedKingdom. He produced the ironically titleddocumentary ÒThe Great Global WarmingSwindle.Ó As reported by BBC News, Britishmedia regulator Ofcom found that the filmÒdid not fulfil obligations to be impartialand to reflect a range of views on controver-sial issuesÓ and that it Òtreated intervieweesunfairlyÓ (Black, 2008).

3. ÒSwiftboatingÓ has been described as Òthenastiest of campaign smearsÓ (Zernike,2008). The term originated with the attacksagainst Sen. John Kerry during the run-up tothe 2004 presidential election. The intentwas to take one of his perceived strengthsÑhis service in VietnamÑand turn it insteadinto a liability (false claims of dishonorableactions). Some of the same organizations andeven some of the same individuals who wereinstrumental in this deceitful practice areworking today to attack and discredit climatescientists. For example, as discussed in Chap-ter 5 of The Hockey Stick and the ClimateWars (Mann, 2012), Marc Morano got hisstart working for radio commentator RushLimbaugh before moving on to work for theExxonMobil and Richard Mellon Scaife-financed Conservative News Service (nowthe Cybercast News Service). In this cap-acity, Morano was directly involved in theoriginal swiftboat campaign against Kerry.Morano was subsequently appointed to Sen.James InhofeÕs staff, in that capacity launch-ing swiftboat-like attacks on scientists. Forexample, he called NASAÕs James Hansen aÒwannabe UnabomberÓ and a Òpotential ter-roristÓ in an interview with the ABC Newsprogram Nightline. For more detail, see thetranscript available at ClimateDepot.com(2010).

4. The term Òhockey stickÓ was first used todescribe the curve by Jerry Mahlman, theformer head of the National Oceanic andAtmospheric AdministrationÕs GeophysicalFluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton,New Jersey.

5. The Washington Post (2005) published aneditorial denouncing the attack on me byRep. Joe Barton entitled ÒHunting WitchesÓ;while The New York Times (2005) wrote aneditorial characterizing it as an ÒinquisitionÓ.The Washington Post (2010) also wrote aneditorial about Virginia Attorney GeneralKen CuccinelliÕs attempt to subpoena mypersonal e-mails entitled ÒA Judge Puts aDamper on Mr. CuccinelliÕs U-Va. WitchHuntÓ.

6. Documentation that these politicians wereleading recipients of fossil fuel funding inthe US House and Senate is in the book.

Mann 43

7. See North et al. (2006). The report statedthat Òthe basic conclusion of Mann et al.(1998, 1999) . . . that the late 20th centurywarmth in the Northern Hemisphere wasunprecedented during at least the last1,000 years . . . has subsequently been sup-ported by an array of evidence that includesthe additional large-scale surface tempera-ture reconstructions and documentation ofthe spatial coherence of recent warming . . .

and also the pronounced changes in a varietyof local proxy indicatorsÓ (p. 3). Further-more, the report concluded that Òbased onthe analyses presented in the original papersby Mann et al. and this newer supportingevidence, the committee finds it plausiblethat the Northern Hemisphere was warmerduring the last few decades of the 20th cen-tury than during any comparable periodover the preceding millenniumÓ (p. 19).

8. The IPCC (2007: 9) Fourth AssessmentReport concluded that Òpalaeoclimaticinformation supports the interpretationthat the warmth of the last half century isunusual in at least the previous 1,300 years,Ówhile the IPCC (2013: 3) Fifth AssessmentReport concluded that Òin the NorthernHemisphere, the period 1983”2012 waslikely the warmest 30-year period of thelast 1400 years (medium confidence).Ó

9. The most comprehensive analysis to date,by a team of nearly 80 paleoclimateresearchers representing more than 40institutions and employing the most wide-spread set of proxy climate data yet, deter-mined that current warmth in the NorthernHemisphere is unprecedented over at leastthe past 1,400 years. See Ahmed et al. (2013).

10. A list of the various investigations and gov-ernment agency reviews clearing scientistsof any misconduct or wrongdoing is pro-vided by the Union of Concerned Scientists(2009).

11. The full quote is ÒThey laughed at Colum-bus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed atthe Wright Brothers. But they also laughed atBozo the ClownÓ (Sagan, 1979: 64).

12. See my recent article in Scientific American(Mann, 2014b).

References

Ahmed M, Anchukaitis KJ, Asrat A et al. (2013) Con-tinental-scale temperature variability during thepast two millennia. Nature Geoscience 6:339”346. Available at: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1797.html.

Black R (2008) Climate documentary Ôbroke rules.ÕBBC News, July 21. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7517509.stm.

Blumenthal P (2013) Ken Cuccinelli receives $50,000Koch brothers contribution. Huffington Post, Janu-ary 15. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/ken-cuccinelli-koch-brothers_n_2482708.html.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2014) Elizabeth Kol-bert: Covering the hot topic of climate change bygoing to the ends of the Earth. Bulletin of theAtomic Scientists 70(4): 1”9. Available at: http://thebulletin.org/2014/july/elizabeth-kolbert-cov-ering-hot-topic-climate-change-going-ends-earth7277.

ClimateDepot.com (2010) Watch now: Rare ABCNews TV climate debateÑClimate Depot vs.Center for American Progress: Morano: ÔThe cli-mate con is endingÕ. July 13. Available at: http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/07/13/watch-now-rare-abc-news-tv-climate-debate-climate-depot-vs-center-for-am-progress-morano-the-climate-con-is-ending.

Cramer R (2013) Koch brother to host a fundraiser forKen Cuccinelli. BuzzFeed, May 22. Available at:http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/koch-brother-to-host-a-fundraiser-ken-cuccinelli.

Gallup (2014) Honesty/ethics in professions. Survey,December 5”8. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx.

Hansen J (2008) Twenty years later: Tipping pointsnear on global warming. Huffington Post, June 23.Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-hansen/twenty-years-later-tippin_b_108766.html.

IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: The physical sci-ence basis. Contribution of Working Group I tothe Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: The physical sci-ence basis. Contribution of Working Group I tothe Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/.

44 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 71(1)

Kolbert E (2014) The Sixth Extinction: An UnnaturalHistory. New York: Henry Holt.

Mann ME (2012) The Hockey Stick and the ClimateWars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Mann ME (2014a) If you see something, say some-thing. New York Times, January 17. Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html.

Mann ME (2014b) False hope: Earth will cross the cli-mate danger threshold by 2036. Scientific Ameri-can, April. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/.

Mayer J (2010) Covert operations: The billionairebrothers who are waging a war against Obama.New Yorker, August 30. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/08/30/covert-operations.

New York Times (2005) Houses divided on warming.Editorial, July 23. Available at: http://www.nyti-mes.com/2005/07/23/opinion/23sat1.html.

North GR, Biondi F, Bloomfield P et al. (2006) SurfaceTemperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000Years. Washington, DC: National AcademiesPress. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id¼11676.

Oreskes N and Conway EM (2010) Merchants ofDoubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured theTruth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to GlobalWarming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Pearce F (2006) Climate change special: State ofdenial. New Scientist, November. Available at:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10445 -climate-change-special-state-of-denial.html.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press(2009) Public praises science; scientists faultpublic, media. Available at: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/.

Sagan C (1979) BrocaÕs Brain: Reflections on theRomance of Science. New York: Coronet, 79.

Schneider S (1989) Interview. Discover, October,pp. 45”48.

Schneider S (1993) Is the Ôscientist-advocateÕ an oxy-moron? Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Association for the Advancement ofScience, Boston, MA, USA, February 12.

Sturgis S (2014) Climate science denier group mustpay damages for frivolous lawsuit against UVA,

scientist. Facing South, July 8. Available at:http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/07/climate-science-denier-group-must-pay-damages-for-.html.

Union of Concerned Scientists (2009) Debunkingmisinformation about stolen climate emails inthe ÒClimategateÓ manufactured controversy.Available at: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html.

Vogel KP (2011) McDonnell, Cuccinelli attend Kochsummit in Colorado. Politico, June 28. Available at:http://hamptonroads.com/2011/06/mcdonnell-cuccinelli-attend-koch-summit-colorado.

Washington Post (2005) Hunting witches. Editorial,July 23. Available at: http://www.washington-post.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201658.html.

Washington Post (2010) A judge puts a damper on Mr.CuccinelliÕs U-Va. witch hunt. Editorial, August 31.Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083004405.html.

Yale Project on Climate Change Communication/George Mason University Center for ClimateChange Communication (2012) Climate change inthe American mind: AmericansÕ global warmingbeliefs and attitudes in September 2012. Available at:http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communi-cation/files/Climate-Beliefs-September-2012. pdf.

Zernike K (2008) Veterans long to reclaim the nameÔSwift Boat.Õ New York Times, June 30. Available at:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/us/poli-tics/30swift.html.

Author biography

Michael E. Mann is distinguished professor ofmeteorology and director of the Earth SystemScience Center at Pennsylvania State Univer-sity, USA. Among numerous other awards andcommendations, he contributed to the work ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange that received the 2007 Nobel PeacePrize. He is the author of The Hockey Stick andthe Climate Wars: Dispatches from the FrontLines (Columbia University Press, 2012).

Mann 45