top of page

Spotting Pseudoscience

Global Warming Denialism: Manufacturing a Climate of Uncertainty

by Alex J. Sobotka, Alister R. Olson, Michael P. Clough, and Benjamin C. Herman

This story highlights three tactics of science misinformation and disinformation efforts: fabrication of a fake scientific controversy, lack of necessary science expertise, and fabrication of a wide support in the scientific community. See Features of Science Misinformation/Disinformation Efforts: Understand how to detect false information for more information regarding these tactics.

Story Supplements










"Human beings are carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be repeated in the future." ~Roger Revelle

The Republic of the Marshall Islands is a country situated between Australia and Hawaii with approximately 60,000 citizens on five islands and 29 atolls that sit about 6-7 feet above sea level. Exceptionally high tides, called “king tides”, occur several times a year and inundate the shores of the Marshall Islands with increasing intensity. With those tides come debris that remains on the land, and saltwater that seeps into soil. Rising sea levels claim more and more houses with each passing year, and the nation’s inhabitants are left with nowhere to go. To make matters worse, physically and emotionally draining episodes of drought, health emergencies, and graves washing into the sea are interspersed between the incidents of tidal destruction. The residents of this country do not have to be told that sea levels are rising — they see and experience its impact that threatens the very existence of their country and culture [1].


The science of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change has long been established (See The Realization of Global Warming). By the mid-20th century, scientists widely accepted that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a greenhouse gas, that burning of fossil fuels was significantly contributing to CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and that CO2 released into the atmosphere would remain there longer than most researchers had initially thought. Most people are unaware that as early as the 1960s many business and political entities acknowledged the serious reality of anthropogenic climate, and the United States military has for some time been planning for climate change and its inevitable geopolitical impacts.


In the 1960s, efforts grew to understand the impact of technology on the environment [2] [3]. Around the same time, fossil fuel companies began to increasingly invest in their own research to assess the industry’s potential long-term effects on the environment. The results of that research supported the emerging scientific consensus regarding the implications of fossil fuel combustion.


Jenrok village, Majuro atoll. Marshall Islands. image source

Nature of science connections

The research described above has been labeled impact science, reflecting its purpose to investigate the effect of technology and human population on the natural world and human health. This is a different rationale for research compared to the more traditional view of production science which places great value on the creation of knowledge for technological advancement and economic growth. Multiple motivations exist for doing science. For instance, two broad categories of science are basic science and applied science. Applied scientific research is done because of the likely benefit it may have in helping address a societal purpose, while scientists conducting basic science often do not even consider what societal use may come from their work. Instead, basic science focuses on understanding the natural world for its own sake—akin to playing a game for the love of the sport. However, basic research is responsible for most of the fundamental breakthroughs in our understanding of the natural world. The knowledge that comes from basic research often has unanticipated practical outcomes that significantly impact society, solving problems that applied science alone could not.

Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels [4, p. 643] – Production Research Division, Humble Oil and Refining Company memorandum


Although there are other possible sources for the additional CO2 now being observed in the atmosphere, none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory [5, p. 109] – Report prepared for the American Petroleum Institute


The Humble Oil and Refining Company emerged from the prosperous Texas oil rush beginning at the turn of the 20th century [6], and later became a part of Exxon in 1972, and ExxonMobil in 1999. ExxonMobil and its precursors have a long history of membership with the American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade association representing the larger oil and natural gas industry. The statements above summarize the industry’s own internal research that was in agreement with the emerging scientific consensus regarding fossil fuel combustion as the primary source of atmospheric CO2.


Petroleum Industry Reaction

Despite these documented acknowledgments occurring as early as 1957, for decades ExxonMobil and its predecessors publicly denied the veracity of climate change and its anthropogenic sources. With financial interests to protect, ExxonMobil and the API chose to pursue a public campaign of generating doubt or outright denial of climate science.


For instance, significant attention was given to a legitimate 1967 scientific paper published in the journal Nature [7] that raised the possibility that the emissions of long-lived pollutants into the atmosphere might account for the decrease in worldwide air temperatures from the 1940s to the 60s (Figure 1). The authors cautiously ended their article as follows:

The emissions of long-lived aerosol, keeping pace with the accelerated worldwide production of CO2 may well be leading to the decrease in worldwide air temperature in spite of the apparent buildup of CO2. In any case, it is clear that in this “large-scale geophysical experiment” in which human beings are engaged, the course of atmospheric turbidity must be documented with concern. (p. 1359)

Journalistic sources like Time's “Another Ice Age?” [8] and Newsweek's “The Cooling World” [9] aided early efforts to manufacture public doubt about global temperature changes. Despite some media sources and a minority of scientists falsely portraying the scientific community as divided over the possibility of aerosol-driven global cooling, consensus was growing on CO2-driven warming [10]. Existing disagreement among climate scientists was whether a climate disaster was imminent within the next 25 years or if it would take a century or more [11].


Figure 1. Average Global Temperatures from 1880-2020.

By 1980, the general consensus of the scientific community regarding climate implications of CO2 emissions would be recognized by the API [12]. A summer intern with the Exxon Engineering Petroleum Department in 1979 conducted company-funded research on the potential connections between fossil fuel use, the atmosphere, and climate impacts [13]. While noting uncertainties and the need for further research, the following conclusions appeared in Ferrall’s internal memorandum:

  • Increasing atmospheric CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels

  • The increase in atmospheric CO2 will result in global warming

  • The fossil fuel consumption trend and resulting increase in atmospheric CO2 levels will, by 2050, cause severe environmental effects

  • Because atmospheric CO2 is a worldwide problem, U.S. efforts to restrict CO2 emissions would, without cooperation from other nations, only delay climate change and the resulting impacts

  • Warming trends may be beneficial for some nations (e.g., the USSR) and detrimental for others, making global cooperation on the issue potentially difficult to achieve.


In the 1980s, API researchers and funding efforts significantly advanced climate science through improved ocean sampling and the development of mathematical models [12]. Exxon researchers published findings in peer-reviewed journals and even rebutted a 1979 paper that projected climate change effects would not be as severe as most scientists had predicted. Martin Hoffert, a climate modeling consultant for Exxon, even stated:


Exxon should be taking credit for their role in developing useful model predictions of the pattern of global warming by their research guys, as opposed to their denialist lobbyists saying global warming from fossil fuel burning doesn’t exist or is at best ‘unproven.’ [12, p. 6]

Either in spite of or because of the near unanimous scientific consensus and simultaneous internal acknowledgement by Exxon and the API that climate change is primarily caused by human fossil fuel combustion, the work of the denialist lobbyists referenced by Hoffert notably accelerated.

Nature of science connections

Research studies supporting anthropogenic climate change are overwhelming and come from a variety of scientific disciplines. As studies converge to support a scientific idea, confidence in it increases. That is particularly the case when the research utilizes different study designs and methods, and comes from several scientific disciplines. As an analogy, think about how your confidence in solving a jigsaw puzzle grows as the pieces come together and support a coherent picture.

Question 1

What accounts for the public and policymakers being so susceptible to misinformation/ disinformation efforts?

Earlier research highlighted the need for a united global effort to slow down, stop, and reverse the course of climate change [13] [14, p. 84]. Based on research that was already well-established at the time, NASA scientist James Hansen testified to Congress in 1988, “with 99% certainty” that greenhouse-induced global warming had already begun [15] [16]. That same year marked the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) aimed at providing climate science expertise to international policymakers. The fossil fuel and automobile industries had the most to lose from proposed IPCC recommendations, and thus, major corporations from both industries formed the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) to counter policy efforts aimed at reducing CO2 emissions [17]. While Exxon, the API, and the GCC continued to spread public doubt about climate change, they were privately preparing for the potential impacts of a warming Earth.


Red Flag  |  Pretense of larger support in science

Misinformation/disinformation efforts often create organizations that sound like official research entities in order to boost the legitimacy of their arguments and to sow confusion among the public. Those seeking to manufacture doubt regarding climate change science adopted many of the same tactics as the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry created what appeared to be legitimate research bodies such as the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC)—later renamed the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), the Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), and the Tobacco Institute (TI). For further information regarding the similar misinformation/disinformation tactics used by the tobacco industry, see Smoking: The sordid history of manipulating public perceptions of science.

Industry's Jekyll and Hyde Approach

The fossil fuel industry’s two-faced approach (internally acknowledging scientific consensus while publicly fostering doubt and uncertainty) was aided by the GCC throughout the 1990s and 2000s [18]. On one hand, the industry published advertorials (i.e., an advertisement providing information about a product in the form of an article) in the New York Times and even propagated claims that higher levels of CO2 were beneficial for crop production and could assist in conquering world hunger [16]. On the other hand, members of the API relied on the scientific consensus to protect their own investments by increasing the heights of the offshore oil rigs to guard against intensifying storms and rising ocean levels. When pressed on the contradictory nature of their words and actions, an ExxonMobil spokesperson claimed that no conflict existed, but rather that they were just engaging in sound business practices to protect company interests from climate change predictions and federal regulations [16].

During planning and construction of major engineering and infrastructure projects, it is standard practice to take into account many types of risks both short-term and long-term, likely and unlikely. These risks would naturally include a range of environmental conditions, some of which could be associated with climate change. – Alan Jeffers, ExxonMobil spokesperson [16]


How “unlikely” were the risks referenced by Jeffers? Based on published climate research from 1991 to 2011, 97% is a conservative estimate of the level of agreement among scientists [19], with others arguing that near unanimity existed [20] [21]. In their studies, both Oresekes [20] and Powell [21] employed a method for measuring scientific consensus by examining the number of climate science publications that rejected the theory. Between 1991 and 2015, of the 54,195 scientific articles published regarding anthropogenic climate change, only 31 expressed a position of rejection [21]. The other 99.94% of climate science publications represent an overwhelming consensus position among the diverse global scientific community that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

Nature of science connections

The diverse members of a scientific field share a framework of previously established knowledge and methods. The framework contributes to scientific progress as issues, inconsistencies, or anomalies make their way to the edge of research. Scientists debate and investigate these issues, reporting their work in peer-reviewed publications. Once debate settles surrounding the body of evidence, the scientific community has no need to continually reaffirm the dominant position within the field. The burden of proof falls on any competing development, and therefore rejection as the criterion of consensus makes a great deal of sense in the context of scientific discord.

Nature of science connections

The scientific community consists of a wide range of individuals from around the world. That diversity includes, but is not limited to, males and females, different cultures, religious views, and political affiliations. A diverse community of highly qualified scientists is more likely to question unfounded assumptions, spot methodological issues, and errors that may otherwise go unnoticed. The overwhelming consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change comes from this diversity of scientists.

Question 2

How does the overwhelming consensus of the diverse worldwide scientific community rebuff the claim that climate change science is politically motivated?

False Balance is Not Fair

Misinformation/disinformation efforts thrive on false narratives of science uncertainty and two-sides of an issue. Efforts to convey a fake science controversy and false balance plays out in political and educational spheres. For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is an “organization of state legislators dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism” [22]. ALEC, which has received considerable support from corporations, including energy companies [23], crafts model bills that may be customized and introduced in state legislatures across the nation [24]. One such model bill is the Environmental Literacy Improvement Act (ELIA) to “enhance and improve the environmental literacy of students and citizens in the state” [25]. By 2012, four states had adopted legislation based on this model bill [26] that requires all environmental education programs and activities conducted by schools, universities, and agencies to adhere to a list of outcomes. Some requirements included in ELIA are appropriate (e.g., environmental education should be educative rather than propagandizing, and based on current scientific principles, concepts and facts). Other requirements, like the following [25], are unjustifiable when scientific consensus exists and no real scientific controversy exists:

  • provide a range of perspectives presented in a balanced manner;

  • encourage students to explore different perspectives and form their own opinions


When enacted as policy, such requirements promote the illusion of controversy and competing ideas.


Red Flag  |  Fabrication of a fake science controversy

Misinformation/disinformation efforts often create the illusion of a scientific controversy to confuse the public. Note how overwhelming scientific consensus had been reached during this era regarding the reality of climate change, yet the petroleum industry was actively working to portray the scientific community as divided—a deception that was finally abandoned in the mid-2000s. Today, all major oil and gas companies publicly acknowledge the risks of climate change. The fabrication of a fake science controversy is effective because most everyone believes strongly in fairness. But fairness doesn't mean giving credibility to every idea. We do not permit discredited views such as a flat-earth, astrology, and an earth-centered “solar” system into our science curriculum simply because a significant number of citizens may believe these ideas. 

The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community regarding anthropogenic climate change, has (like other science disinformation efforts) resulted in denialist efforts skirting peer review. They instead distribute their claims outside of scholarly venues, and those falsehoods then tend to be perpetually repeated in the face of refuting evidence [27] [28]. The Global Warming Petition Project stands out among such efforts. Beginning in 1997, the Project, also referred to as the Oregon Petition, sought to consolidate names of scientists who deny climate change to give the perception of controversy within the scientific community. Fewer than 1% of its signers possessed specialized expertise regarding climate change science [29], but the legitimacy of signatories is frequently left out by those seeking to cast doubt on the state of climate change consensus.


Red Flag  |  Lack of disciplinary expertise

Statements from individuals lacking the requisite climate science subject-matter experience are often used to convey a pretense of larger support against climate change. While scientists do draw from other disciplines, research has become so complex and focused that scientists often possess little authority outside their respective sub-disciplines. On scientific matters, the consensus view among the appropriate specialists provides the best odds regarding the veracity of a claim about nature. This pretense of larger support than actually exists among the appropriate experts takes on a life of its own, because refuting information is neglected by those spreading science disinformation.

A number of politicians, policymakers, and think tanks also seek to discredit well-established science. For example, Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma compiled a list of international scientists refuting climate change or its anthropogenic sources so that he could claim uncertainty regarding the validity of climate science in Senate committees. Inhofe’s list, like the Oregon Petition, is riddled with individuals lacking climate science expertise [30]. In Inhofe’s most theatrical effort to sow unwarranted uncertainty in climate science, he presented a snowball on the Senate floor on February 26, 2015, that had been collected that same day from outside the U.S. Capitol building [31]. Snowfall, particularly in Washington D.C. during the month of February, reflects weather, not climate, a persistent confusion among the public and those who sow climate science misinformation and disinformation.

Nature of science connections

Scientists recognize that individual extreme weather events cannot be attributed solely to anthropogenic climate change due to their natural variability [32]. However, the increasing frequency and severity of these events align with predicted impacts of climate change. Scientists create computer models using information from natural records (e.g., tree rings, ice cores) that extend much further into the past than human records. The evidence across multiple sources (e.g., recorded history, natural records, current data of climate warming, and scientific models) fit together and provide overwhelming support for anthropogenic climate change. Some of the early models pioneered by researchers at Exxon made predictions in the late 70s that have proven remarkably accurate over 40 years later. As the human records, natural records, and scientific models incorporating increasingly complex factors and interactions cohere together, confidence in the converging interpretations increases.

Climate models, despite their established and increasing validity, have been the target of much misinformation and disinformation that emphasizes perceived inaccuracies, methodological flaws, and limitations. For instance, the claim that climate models possess compounding errors and/or omit important factors have been repeated numerous times.


As New Scientist puts it, ‘climate is too complex for accurate predictions.’ It is evident that the climate system is operating in a regime in which small uncertainties in feedbacks are highly amplified in the resulting climate sensitivity. [33]”


Another problem that bedevils climate modeling, too, which is that as you stretch out the models across time, the errors increase radically. [34]


The impact of the quotes is amplified by the enormous audiences – 13.5 million listeners per week [35, p. 765] and 11 million viewers per episode [36] respectively. The same message shared over a decade apart ignores fundamental aspects of scientific models including that models do not attempt to account for every possible variable. Scientific models are often used without controversy. For instance, population growth and regional energy demand are commonly projected with great accuracy.

Nature of science connections

Perceived flaws in methodology undoubtedly stem from pervasive misconceptions regarding how science is actually done. Many science teachers wrongly convey that scientists follow a universal step-by-step scientific method resembling the randomized controlled trials considered to be the gold standard in medical research. That process is often inappropriate for understanding nature. Methodological approaches vary widely within and across scientific fields and include observational, mathematical, correlational, and experimental forms.

Question 3

How does the misconception that good science must be entirely experimental bolster misinformation/disinformation efforts?

A Climate Contrarian Network

Efforts to cast doubt on climate change research have been aided by a network of denialists from outside the fossil fuel industry. In 1984, the George C. Marshall Institute was founded by Frederick Seitz, Robert Jastrow, and William Nierenberg. Many individuals and strategies employed by the Marshall Institute were also part of the tobacco industry’s campaign to create public confusion and doubt regarding the dangers of smoking [37]. Additional organizations have had their hands in climate denialism including the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Heartland Institute, and Cato Institute. These groups possess strong political connections motivated by a shared belief in resisting or reducing government regulation of products. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the contrarian organizations share funding, leadership, and history (Table 1).


What Begley [38] calls “the denial machine” has thrived from the funding and elevation of selected studies and scientists despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Manufactured discussions denying consensus and leveraging pervasive misconceptions about science and its nature have been used for sowing doubt [39]. Climate change denialists move fluidly between attacks against climate change, its anthropogenic sources, or its seriousness, in an effort to create a perception of uncertainty that is not held by the scientific community [2] [40]. At times, they evoke arguments that contradict their previous claims, they often carry ideological and other non-scientific motivations (e.g., financial) as they ignore large communities of experts, and they seek to hinder the advance of informed societal decision-making based on the knowledge generated by those experts.


Despite the ongoing misinformation/disinformation, evidence grows in support of the overwhelming consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change. Physicist Richard Muller, a long-time climate science skeptic, directed a Koch-funded project to assess the validity of climate change [41]. He concluded that “global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct” [42]. He went further, stating that “Humans are almost entirely the cause.” His admission received much attention, but it is only an incredibly small part of the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change. More than 99.9% of published scientific research supports the conclusion that Earth’s climate is warming at an unprecedented rate. Internal research conducted by petroleum companies acknowledge the veracity of climate science, and the U.S. Department of Defense and most businesses have been persuaded by the science and are preparing for the impacts of climate change. In light of this overwhelming consensus, climate change skepticism is more aptly described as denialism.

Question 4

How does science denialism differ from rational skepticism?

Story Supplements











[1] Milne, N. (2020). ‘We can’t close our eyes’ to climate change, says Marshall Isles ex-president. Reuters.

[2] Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2010). 14 Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies. Routledge handbook of climate change and society, 240.

[3] Douglas, R. (2007). Growthism and the green backlash. The Political Quarterly, 78(4), 547-555.

[4] Brannon Jr, H. R., Daughtry, A. C., Perry, D., Whitaker, W. W., & Williams, M. (1957). Radiocarbon evidence on the dilution of atmospheric and oceanic carbon by carbon from fossil fuels. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 38(5), 643-650.

[5] Robinson, E., & Robbins, R. C. (1968). Sources, abundance, and fate of gaseous atmospheric pollutants. Final report and supplement.

[6] Blum, J. (2016). The march from Humble Oil to Exxon dates back more than a century. Chron.

[7] McCormick, R. A., & Ludwig, J. H. (1967). Climate modification by atmospheric aerosols. Science, 156(3780), 1358-1359.

[8] Time. (1974, June 24). Another Ice Age?. Time

[9] Gwynne, P. (1975, April 28). The Cooling World. Newsweek, 64.

[10] Peterson, T. C., Connolley, W. M., & Fleck, J. (2008). The myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(9), 1325-1338.

[11] Terra, S. (1978). CO2 and Spaceship Earth. Electric Power Research Institute, 3(6), 22-27.

[12] Song, L., Banerjee, N., & Hasemyer, D. (2015). Exxon confirmed global warming consensus in 1982 with in-house climate models. Inside Climate News.

[13] Ferrall, W. L. (1979, October 16). Controlling atmospheric CO2 [Memorandum]. Exxon Engineering Petroleum Department, Planning Engineering Division.

[14] Skolnikoff, E. B. (1990). The policy gridlock on global warming. Foreign Policy, (79), 77-93.

[15] Holthaus, E. (2018). James Hansen’s legacy: Scientists reflect on climate change in 1988, 2018, and 2048. In Grist.

[16] Lieberman, A., & Rust, S. (2015). Big oil braced for global warming while it fought regulations. Los Angeles Times, 31.

[17] Hasemyer, D., & Cushman Jr, J. H. (2015). Exxon sowed doubt about climate science for decades by stressing uncertainty. Inside Climate News.

[18] Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2017). Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014). Environmental Research Letters, 12(8), 084019.

[19] Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., ... & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental research letters, 8(2), 024024.

[20] Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686-1686.

[21] Powell, J. L. (2016). The consensus on anthropogenic global warming matters. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(3), 157-163.

[22] [ALEC] American Legislative Exchange Council (2022). About ALEC. ALEC.

[23] Riestenberg, J. (2015, March 24). Who Still Funds ALEC? [Blog post]. Common Cause.

[24] Greenblatt, A. (2011). ALEC enjoys a new wave of influence and criticism. Governing.

[25] [ALEC] American Legislative Exchange Council (2013). Environmental literacy improvement act. ALEC.

[26] Horn, S. (2012). ALEC climate change denial model bill passes in Tennessee. DeSmog.

[27] Dunlap, R. E. (2013). Climate change skepticism and denial: An introduction. American behavioral scientist, 57(6), 691-698.

[28] Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological science in the public interest, 13(3), 106-131.

[29] van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008.

[30] Jordan, S. (2009, September). Can a reasonable skeptic support climate change legislation? Skeptical Inquirer, 33(5). 16-17.

[31] Barrett, T. (2015). Inhofe brings a snowball on Senate floor as evidence globe is not warming. CNN Politics.

[32] Stott, P. A., Hegerl, G. C., Herring, S. C., Hoerling, M. P., Peterson, T. C., Zhang, X., & Zwiers, F., W. (2014): Introduction to explaining extreme events of 2013 from a climatic perspective [in “Explaining extreme events of 2013 from a climate perspective”]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 95(9), S1-S2.

[33] Limbaugh, R. (2007, October 29). Global warming update: Hurricane forecasters wrong [Radio broadcast transcript]. The Rush Limbaugh Show.

[34] Peterson, J. B. (Guest). (2022, January 25). #1769 – Jordan Peterson: The Joe Rogan Experience [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from

[35] Berry, J. M., & Sobieraj, S. (2011). Understanding the rise of talk radio. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(4), 762-767.

[36] Parker, L. (2022). Spotify backlash continues after Neil Young's boycott: 'If you support Spotify, you are destroying an art form'. Yahoo! Entertainment.

[37] Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

[38] Begley, S. (2007). The truth about denial. Newsweek, 150(7), 20-27.

[39] Michaels, D. (2008). Doubt is their product: how industry's assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University Press.

[40] Gelbspan, R. (1997). The heat is on: The high stakes battle over Earth's threatened climate. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

bottom of page