Zakary Hahn

ENG 1201
Professor Hunter
25 October 2019
Annotated Bibliography
My paper will answer why the scientific consensus on climate change became a political

debate. When and why did the counter movement of climate change begin? What are the

principal motivations at the core of this movement? What factors contribute to social perception

and disagreement over facts?

Brulle, Robert J. “Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of U.S. Climate

Change Counter-Movement Organizations.” Climatic Change, vol. 122, no. 4, 21 Jan.

2013, pp. 681–694., doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7.

Robert Brulle’s investigation in “Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the

Creation of U.S. Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations,” finds the entities behind

the climate change counter movement (CCCM). Big oil and gas profit from a lack of carbon

emissions regulation, and foundations and organizations founded by, funded by, or both make up

a large share of total funds to the overall movement. The biggest rise and push forward in the

CCCM was 1989, and this study analyzes the available information from the IRS from 2003 to

2010. The money flows from individual or corporate donors to foundations, trade associations,

and think tanks as well as between the organizations. Groups such as ExxonMobil and the Koch

Enterprises had significant donations until they came under public scrutiny, at which point their

donations declined and private undisclosed donations increased sharply. Though companies like

ExxonMobil now acknowledge climate change, the legacy of their efforts to deny it still stand.
 The intention of the data is to show how distribution network of misinformation by the

CCCM is the agenda of the individuals and organizations who are the economic forces behind

them. Based on the interconnection of the organizations, the members of their boards, the

institutions the found and fund them, and the outcome of their efforts, an association can be

drawn to the motivations of the donors being the driving force of the CCCM. The article shows

where the money comes from, and therefore who’s most responsible for the movement.

The academic article was made available by the Smithsonian website and was originally

published in Springer Science + Business in 2013. The author, Robert Brulle, is an American

environmental sociologist and professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel

University. The article is well cited, and though not extremely current, is relevant to the time

period I am exploring in my paper. There is marginal bias expressed against the CCCM, but the

content is mostly factual financial information.

I will use this information to show how groups like ExxonMobil and Koch Enterprises

made an organized effort to sway public opinion, lobby political figures, and prevent or stale the

social movement to combat the effects and our impact on anthropogenic climate change. It

answers when this part of the movement began, and what a major motivation for the movement

was, the finical interests of major energy industries.

Childress, Sarah. “Timeline: The Politics of Climate Change.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service,

23 Oct. 2012, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/timeline-the-politics-of-

climate-change/. Accessed 10 Oct. 2019.

Sarah Childress’ article “Timeline: The Politics of Climate Change,” shows the

significant events in the climate change debate in America as they evolved over time. As

scientists began raising awareness of global warming, people were already familiar with the
ozone hole and its significance, and that created some public concern. Public concern lead to

politician’s acknowledgment, but concerns are fleeting, and the medias coverage of events shifts

rapidly deflecting attention. Over time, the science of the issue was mixed with the

misinformation of organizations whose goal was to create uncertainty. Some spans of years

science prevailed, and people believed, and others the counter movement captivated audiences.

Public opinion has swayed back in forth on belief in climate change as a result of medias

presentation. As a result, politicians also swung back and forth on the issue.

The information wants to convey that climate change started a partisan issue, but as

public belief overall declined, political discussion and pursuit of policy change did too, even

among democrats. The scientific consensus, the world’s majority of nations pursuing action in

acceptance of its existence, and increasing understanding of the urgency sway over public

opinion only at times the media’s coverage was significant. The unified campaigns of

conservative organizations with a stated goal to make uncertainty a part of conventional wisdom

appears to have been successful.

The article was made available by PBS and originally published by the Frontline

Journalism Fund, 2012. The author, Sarah Childress is a senior reporter with a B.A. in English

and a concentration in Journalism, Ethics and Democracy from the University of Notre Dame.

The content could seem biased against the countermovement, but you have to consider

representation of scientific facts is only biased against ignorance.

I plan to use this in my paper for reference points in time where scientific conferences,

countermovement efforts, and media attentions, swayed public opinion, which in turn caused

attitudes in politics to shift. It answers when and why the movement began, and shows other

factors that lead to the disagreement in society over climate change.

Collomb, Jean-Daniel. “The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United States.” European

Journal of American Studies, vol. 9, no. 1, Feb. 2014, doi:10.4000/ejas.10305,

https://journals.openedition.org/ejas/10305#abstract. Accessed 10 Oct. 2019.

Jean-Daniel Collomb’s take in “The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United

States,” examines three major points of contention. First is the economic motivation and pressure

from industries effected by regulation, like oil and gas. It is clear why reform would affect profits

and their reasoning for wanting to stall or prevent it, but Collomb puts more emphasis on the

other influencers. Libertarian and fiscally conservative ideology promote the sanctity of the free-

market and the theory that it will make the best ethical and environmental decisions possible in

the interest of self-preservation. Acknowledging the existence of man-mand climate change

undermines this principal, as they have failed to act ethically. The last defining influence on

denial is the American way of life, where even nondenial deniers (those who accept global

warming but suggest taking action is unnecessary or pointless) suggest the impact to the

economy and day to day life would be too severe for action to be viable.

Collomb’s efforts to express these points seem most poised at shaping an understanding

of the mindsets, attitudes, history’s, and beliefs of the opposition groups that facilitate an

acceptance of denial. It is not about casting blame or shunning the uninformed, but instead about

bridging the philosophical differences between the mind of a believer and a denier. Some

ideology seems deep routed in paranoia suggesting environmentalism is the end of freedom, a

socialist monster in disguise. Collomb shows the motivations of the denial movement as it relates

to economic and political fears and humanizes their perspectives.

The scholarly article was made available by the Directory of Open Access Journals and

published to the European Journal of American Studies in 2014. The author, Jean-Daniel
Collomb, is an associate professor at Jean Moulin Lyon 3 University in France. The article

provides ample evidence and citation for its claims, and is particular unbiased.

This article will be fundamental to my research paper, as it expands beyond the obvious

financial motivations and influence of industries and groups into how long-standing political

dogma is itself a driving force in the philosophy and validation of denial. Its justifications for the

motivation and logical deductions made by the counter movement are well represented, and will

allow me to give a balanced view of the issue in my paper.

“History of Climate Change Debate - ProCon.org.” Climate Change, ProCon, 20 Sept. 2019,

https://climatechange.procon.org/history-of-climate-change-debate/. Accessed 10 Oct.

2019.

ProCon’s article “History of Climate Change Debate - ProCon.org,” debate focuses the

published data points and influential stances taken from particular organizations that impacted

societal understanding. Though the greenhouse effect has been discussed since 1859, it would be

almost a hundred years before the gravity of the effects would start to sink in. As it was initially

still being studied and not well understood, there was a debate among scientists about the actual

implications and projections of the greenhouse effect. As studies continued, more data was

gathered, and the counter ideas disproved, the scientific consensus on its reality was settling in,

and organizations that opposed emissions restrictions had to find other means of sowing doubt,

which was largely focused in media campaigns that have been widely active over the last three

decades.

The overall intention is to present the information being offered from both sides along

with the time periods these studies, theories, and strategies were introduced. It takes no solid

stance for either side as it represents the information it group has presented over the years.
 Published to the ProCon website in 2019, it lists no author, but is very well cited, and

presents ample perspective from nearly 200 sources. It is particularly unbiased, presenting the

claims of each side without taken a stance of its own.

This will help in my paper in conjunction with Childress’ article on notable points of time

in the climate change debate, since the emphasis here is on the specific research or claims being

made. It doesn’t say much on motivations and social factors, but it does answer when things

happened.

Jaffe, Cale. “Melting the Polarization Around Climate Change Politics.” Environmental Law

Review, Georgetown Law, 18 Sept. 2018,

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/environmental-law-review/wp-

content/uploads/sites/18/2018/07/melting-_GT-GELR180017.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct.

2019.

Cale Jffe’s paper “Melting the Polarization Around Climate Change Politics,” discusses

the approach taken and impact of lobbying agencies on political action. Most notably,

environmental organizations pulling back from Republican candidates, and failing to associate

climate change with conservative values such as the economic impacts it will bring, was

fundamental in the staunch shift to partisan dispute over the last decade. Republicans like

Senator McCain that once had a working relationship with environmentalist groups and

supported green initiatives now are overwhelmingly in opposition to them.

The intention of the article is to address what has happened in American politics over that

decade in relation to environmental policy, the shortcomings and missed opportunities, and to

then address strategies for success. The divide in political attitudes from environmental activism
pulling away from conservative relations has a remedy in the author’s conclusions. Efforts need

to be made to reach across the aisle and find common ties.

The work was made available by Georgetown Law and published in the Georgetown

Environmental Law Review, 2018. The author, Cale Jaffe, is an Assistant Professor and Director

of the Environmental and Regulatory Law Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law. He

previously served as an attorney and director of the Virginia office of the Southern

Environmental Law Center. The document is current, well cited, and a little biased against the

social left’s efforts, but supports the overall goal.

The information outlines another unique perspective in the political divide of climate

change, showing another major player in creating the debate. Not focusing on the denial

movement, instead it shows how the actions of the organizations working for reform have

themselves impacted the polarization of the issue. This will be a great contrast for my paper,

showing how those working to resolve the issue were also responsible for the division.

Nasiritousi, Naghmeh. “Fossil Fuel Emitters and Climate Change: Unpacking the Governance

Activities of Large Oil and Gas Companies.” Environmental Politics, vol. 26, no. 4, Nov.

2017, pp. 621–647., doi:10.1080/09644016.2017.1320832.

Naghmeh Nasiritousi’s work in “Fossil Fuel Emitters and Climate Change: Unpacking

the Governance Activities of Large Oil and Gas Companies,” analyzed the oil, natural gas, coal,

and cement industries that collectively produce 63% of world emissions. The top ten producers

in these industries, all in oil and natural gas, each have their public stance and actions they take

towards climate change. Their reactions differed based on being private or state owned as well as

being in a developed or developing nation. In recent years these companies have all taken an

open stance that climate change is real and they are willing to work towards solutions. They
make suggestions for technologies to lower emission rates, carbon scribing solutions, and social

awareness campaigns that can limit the impact. Though most of this seems ceremonial as little

impact has been made. ExxonMobil went so far as to say that regulations would deny the

impoverished access to energy, that they themselves were the humanitarians.

The intention of the article is to outline the public face the companies present to a world

more demanding of environmental action. It shows that while they are willing to tell the world

they are here to help, their actual efforts in developing lower emission solutions are ineffective,

and their attitudes towards government and regulatory committees is about presenting the

economical need for their industry.

The article was made available through EBSCOhost and published in Environmental

Politics, 2017, Vol. 26 and was written by Naghmeh Nasiritousi, a postdoctoral research fellow

at the Department of Political Science, Stockholm University, Sweden. It is recent, well cited,

and unbiased.

The article will be used in my paper to show the migration in organization opinion by the

oil and gas industry over time from outright denial to acceptance and deflection. It shows the

saving face response to growing social pressure while the disinformation collectives they

founded continue to undermine political action, thus shedding light on current factors for the

discussion on climate change.

Weart, Spencer. “The Public and Climate Change.” American Institute of Physics, Feb. 2019,

https://history.aip.org/climate/public2.htm. Accessed 10 Oct. 2019.

Spencer Weart’s work in “The Public and Climate Change,” addresses the evolution of

social attitudes and perception of global warming. The denial movement had a strong role in
shaping social understanding, but even prior to its awakening there was a debate among

scientists and medias presentation of the issue varied greatly over time. Major weather events,

popularized movies and books, and scientific committees’ publications all played a role in the

public’s attitudes. Scientists were not as adept at the media game as the countermovement, and

the science had the facts to back them up, the deniers were more practiced and effective at

spinning truth and influencing public opinion. The same groups that fought science to tell the

world cigarettes were not bad were used to blur the truth of climate change.

The intention of the article is to show how science is absorbed by the public within the

context of other media and current affairs. The change in the scientific attitude from ‘this might

be an issue eventually, but there is much we are uncertain about’, to ‘this is a severe issue that is

affecting us presently and we are certain about that’ evolved alongside research and evidence,

while public opinion evolved alongside sensationalized news, disinformation, political ideology,

and mainstream media. The efforts of the article are to show how all these systems have a more

relevant hold on public knowledge than science.

The article was made available by and published to the American Institute of Physics

history page on global climate change. The author, Spencer R. Weart, was the director of the

Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics from 1971 to 2009. The

information has been updated as recently as February 2019, and while much of the information is

historical, it covers events as recently as last year. It is a bit biased on the stances it takes, but the

information is factual and, setting conjecture aside, is very informative.

I believe the information here will be very beneficial in my article, because its focus is

more on the relationship between the public’s awareness of social issues and how it is shaped.

This will be complimentary to the timeline of major events, the impact of the denial movement,
and the evolution of scientific understanding. It certainly answers my question on factors that

created the divide in belief.