The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series

Part 4 of 8:

Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg

Part 1 of 8: Blame Everything On Man-Made Climate Change
Part 2 of 8: Greenpeace and Oxfam Manipulating Science
Part 3 of 8: The Stigma of Being a Climate Denier
Part 4 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Suzanne Goldenberg
Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington
Part 6 of 8: Environmental Journalists - George Monbiot
Part 7 of 8: The False Doctrine
Part 8 of 8: Solutions

By: Shawn Alli
Posted: October 3, 2014

part 4 co2 cult graphic

Full resolution jpg

*All individuals and organizations receive 3 full days of pre-publication notice.


*Disclosure: I am a climate denier, albeit a more rational one. In Part 3 I explain why I'm a climate denier and not a climate skeptic.


*Disclosure: I am NOT funded by any oil, natural gas or coal corporations. I am NOT funded by any private interest groups (NGOs, foundations or political entities).


This article is the fourth instalment of an ongoing series of articles to unpackage the entire man-made CO2 climate change cult.



Environmental journalists are supposedly today's superheroes, fighting against evil energy corporations for the sake of the planet. While these are noble intentions the method or journey in how they get there is all but ethical. To be an environmental journalist you have to tow the party line and subscribe to the CO2 cult. In the eyes of mainstream media outlets, an individual that isn't a CO2 cult believer isn't really an environmental journalist, but rather a journalist with an opinion on environmental issues.


Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6 will focus on three of the big shot environmental journalists in the 21st century. Part 4 is on Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian.


In an email request for comment I ask Goldenberg a few questions to set the stage for the article:

1) Do you believe that all environmental journalists should believe in the man-made CO2 climate change theory?

2) If so, do you believe that this skews objective impartial reporting on environmental issues?

3) Do you believe that objective impartial reporting is even possible in regards to environmental issues?


Goldenberg doesn't respond.


The question of whether objective impartial reporting is possible is significant because many environmental activists lead with their ideologies (which are usually the same for their opponents). In an email request for comment I also ask Goldenberg:

1) Are you aware of your own environmental ideologies?

2) Do you believe that your environmental ideologies are problematic in regards to reporting on all environmental issues?

3) What is your ideology of the Earth in regards to consciousness? Is the Earth a conscious living being that exhibits consciousness, like that of humans, but independent of the Christian god?


The separation of the Christian god from the Gaia theory of the Earth is important because many Republicans believe that the Earth is the product of the Christian god and 6000 years old (a theory that I don't subscribe to).


The reason why the perception of the Earth is so important is because this acts as the unconsciousness (if not conscious) ideological foundation for specific ideologies.


In the interest of honest and fair disclosure, my perception of the Earth is that it does have consciousness similar to that of humans. And no, I don't ascribe this consciousness to the Christian god. I'm actually anti-religion. While the human body is physical, ones consciousness (mind, ideologies, emotions, intelligence and all thoughts) is non-physical and survives death. I apply this concept to the Earth, where the physical planet is the body.


While I highly doubt that the Earth feels pain when something happens to its body (wild fires, cutting down a tree, coal mining, oil wells and extracting natural gas), I believe that a connection exists between the creatures that walks on its body (humans, sea, land and air creatures). Or more specifically, a connection "can" exist. Conditioning (be it religious, spiritual, social, emotional, financial, economic and political), is quite capable of altering this potential connection.


But getting back to Goldenberg's responses...she doesn't respond.


While ideologies can be both positive and negative, individuals are quite capable of skewing/interpreting "objective and impartial data" to fit/justify their paradigms (be it conscious or subconscious).


Despite the lack of responses from Goldenberg I'll begin my analysis of her articles in the Guardian.


Goldenberg begins her environmental journalism with the Guardian in 2009 and continues to this day. Her January 2009 article is an anti-Bush Jr. environmental policy article. [1] And while it's very true that Bush does practically nothing for US or global environmental issues, he also does nothing good for the world either.


While it would be inaccurate to erase any mention of Bush Jr.'s presidency in all global historical records, it would be nonetheless understandable. I would question any god or universe that allows his consciousness to even exist in the first place, let alone hold executive power of the US government. Ah...the unsolved mysteries of life.


But in regards to Goldenberg's January 2009 article, though she gets many individuals to rail against Bush Jr.'s environmental policies, she doesn't interview or get any comments from EPA officials in the Bush era or ones under the Obama administration. [1] While this isn't an example of ideological reporting, it's not a balanced article.


In Goldenberg's March 2009 article her ideological bias is clear:

Unlike Obama, who owed his victory to millions of supporters and donors, the climate change deniers operate within narrow bands of support: the conservative wing of the Republican party and the extreme end of the Christian Right. [2]


I would argue that Goldenberg really wants to say that Obama owes his presidency to honest, selfless and highly educated individuals. And that anyone who elects a climate denier is a stupid selfish religious believer.


Goldenberg's June 2009 article represents the beginning of an ideological action, using peer-reviewed articles to defend her ideological views. In her article she says:

For New Orleans, and other low-lying areas of Louisiana whose vulnerability was exposed by hurricane Katrina, the findings could bring some hard choices about how to defend the coast against the future sea level rises that will be produced by climate change. [3]


The peer-reviewed article she uses is a doomsday one:

We estimate that, in the absence of sediment input, an additional 10,000-13,500 km2 will be submerged by the year 2100 owing to subsidence and sea-level rise. [4]


This is an unfalsifiable claim relative to time.


And though the peer-reviewed article mentions climate change in regards to the IPCC and sea level rise, the authors don't claim that climate change (let alone man-made climate change), is responsible for the doomsday prediction.


In fact, there's no mention of greenhouse gases, CO2 or carbon emissions. In their 2012 peer-reviewed article they mention the expansion of the oceans and the melting of mountain glaciers, [5] but don't mention the cause for that melting.


In September 2009 Goldenberg references another doomsday report where 25 million children will go hungry due to man-made CO2 climate change. [6] While the report does make this claim it comes from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).


The IFPRI has strong connections with Syngenta, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (pro-GMO), Monsanto and DuPont. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] But the study is disingenuous to claim that man-made CO2 climate change is a significant factor in contributing to the starvation of children in the developing world. Please see Part 2 for more information regarding this issue.


In regards to Climategate 2009, Goldenberg's coverage is minimal. [12] [13] [14] But she has no problem reporting on the Heartland Institute's email infiltration in February 2012. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]


In Goldenberg's defense, Heartland has no problem dishing out the dirt on Climategate 2009, so they definitely have no right to complain about their own leaked emails. But all of this isn't impartial objective investigating. It's ideological activist journalism.


In an email request for comment I ask Goldenberg about the coverage of both issues and whether it shows her ideological bias for environmental issues.


She doesn't respond.


Goldenberg's October 2011 story about Starbucks worrying about their supply of coffee beans due to man-made CO2 climate change, [20] is a garbage story. Since there are many competitors to Starbucks it won't matter if they all go out of business (though many will lament the loss of free wifi). Consumers can then look to organic and fair-trade coffee shops instead of the usual fast food garbage that they give to their aching body.


In Goldenberg's November 2011 article about professor Michael Mann wining a lawsuit, she says:

Mann, who is now at Pennsylvania State University, has been regularly targeted by climate science doubters because of his work on the "hockey stick graph". His research, demonstrating a recent sharp rise in warming, is one of the most easily understood representations of climate change - and has infuriated those opposing action on global warming. [21]


Goldenberg is presenting the view that "the truth" is just too much for climate skeptics and deniers to handle. As a climate denier, I can say that this is definitely not the case. While the CO2 cult praises the hockey stick graph as objective and impartial science, in reality it's not the case.


In another November 2011 article Goldenberg talks about the dire effects of climate change on New York City (NYC) from a NY state commissioned report. [22] But the report definitely exaggerates the threat:

Sea level rise projections for the coast and tidal Hudson River based on climate models (which do not include increased melting of polar ice sheets) are 1-5 inches by the 2020s, 5-12 inches by the 2050s, and 8-23 inches by the 2080s.

If the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets continues to accelerate, sea level rise would exceed projections based on climate models. A rapid ice melt scenario, based on observed rates of melting and paleoclimate records, yields sea level rise of 37-55 inches by the 2080s. [23]


I'll take the worst case scenario into account. 10 inches of sea level rise in the 2020s will not lead to the destruction of NYC. However, 55 inches (1.39 m) will cripple NYC beyond measure. The reason is because the past NYC municipal governments are quite stupid.


Building infrastructure at sea level is one of the dumbest things a municipal government can do. Building subways below sea level near the coast is beyond stupidity.


While this is the case for several coastal cities such as LA, Boston, San Francisco and San Diego, the solution is simple. Build higher. Move the existing coastal residential structures, use artificial materials (concrete) to raise the land to at least 10 metres above sea level, and then move the structure back onto the raised land. While the logistics will be a nightmare, this solution will ensure that future generations that live in coastal cities won't have to worry about sea level rise for the next 1000 years (more or less).


And the best part is that there's a lot of time to get it done. There's no reason why anyone should be panicking about coastal cities and sea level rise as long as rationality exists.


But that's the thing about environmental journalists like Goldenberg. They believe that everything is going to hell in a hand basket right now if the global general public and governments don't act this very second. This is artificially created fear from environmental ideological beliefs.


In Goldenberg's March 2012 article she references a peer-reviewed article about outdoor ice-hockey becoming extinct in Canada within a few decades. [24] As a Canadian, I can definitely say that such a scenario is powerfully unlikely. Not with the past 2013 winter season in the Northeast as an example. But you're confusing weather with climate. Ah yes, the defensive claim that many CO2 cult believers cling to. I'll deal with this claim in Part 6.


But getting back to the article, I argue that a bias exists in the funding model. The article is funded partly by the Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre Scholarship. [25] This isn't objective impartial science. It's science that's justifying an ideological environmental belief.


In Goldenberg's April 2012 article she references a peer-reviewed article that recommends reducing meat consumption:

Stabilizing atmospheric N2O by 2050, consistent with the most aggressive of the RCP mitigation scenarios, would require about 50% reductions in emission factors in all sectors and about a 50% reduction in mean per capita meat consumption in the developed world. [26]


The idea that by eating smaller portions of meat an individual is helping to reduce climate change is completely nonsensical. It's like a child not eating scraps on their dinner plate with a parent lecturing them about starving children. It's like a child letting the faucet run while brushing their teeth and a parent scolding them about wasting precious drinking water that developing nations don't have.


Whether CO2 cult believers should all be vegetarians or vegans opens a can of worms. This is a debate that die hard CO2 cult believers don't want to have with the global general public because they know they'll most likely lose the support of the majority of potential CO2 cult believers.


But Goldenberg's style of not properly researching peer-reviewed climate change articles and/or manipulating it is evident in this article as well. In the last paragraph she says:

Davidson is not suggesting people give up meat entirely. "The solution isn't that everyone needs to become a vegetarian or a vegan. Simply reducing portion sizes and frequency would go a long way," he said. So would switching from beef and pork, which have a high carbon foot print, to chicken or fish. [27]


Looking at the peer-reviewed article, this statement is contradictory:

This analysis does not include shifting meat consumption from beef to pork, poultry or fish, which have lower N footprints...It is possible that manure production and concomitant N2O emissions could decrease while per capita meat consumption remained relatively constant if dietary preferences shifted away from red meat. [28]


In an email request for comment I ask Goldenberg about this small discrepancy. She doesn't respond. I also ask her whether she reads all of the peer-reviewed articles that she references in her Guardian articles.


She doesn't respond.


In her July 2012 article Goldenberg repeats the usual CO2 cult belief that all heat waves, droughts, floods, wildfires and thunder storms are due to man-made CO2 climate change, and uses CO2 cult believer scientists to back up the claims:

The bizarre weather of early summer in the US - from heatwave, wildfires, drought to freak storms - is just a sampling of what is to come for 2012 and a window to the future under climate change, scientists have said.

Scientists are wary of linking specific weather events to climate change, and this year's punishing heat and deadly thunder storms have been confined to the Americas. Europe, Asia and Africa haven't experienced severe weather this year - though they have in past years.

But the run of extreme weather offers real-time proof of the consequences of climate change, said Kevin Trenberth, who heads climate research at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Colorado - itself the scene of devastating wildfires.

He added: "This is just the beginning."

"Watch out for a long hot summer," said Trenberth. [29]


Like the Starbucks article, this is a garbage article.


In Goldenberg's January 2013 article she references a peer-reviewed article that claims a link between energy consumption of major cities and warmer winters:

Although energy consumption is sparsely distributed over the vast Earth surface and is only about 0.3% of the total energy transport to the extratropics by atmospheric and oceanic circulations, this anthropogenic heating could disrupt the normal atmospheric circulation pattern and produce a far-reaching effect on surface air temperature. We identify the plausible climate impacts of energy consumption using a global climate model...These regions correspond well to areas with large differences in surface temperature trends between observations and global warming simulations forced by all natural and anthropogenic forcings. We conclude that energy consumption is probably a missing forcing for the additional winter warming trends in observations. [30]


Unfortunately, reality proves Goldenberg and the scientists wrong. The 2013 winter season is one of the worst winters in recent history. And this is where the ideology factor shows up in the scientific domain.


Whether the winter season is too warm or too cold there will always be a peer-reviewed article to explain that it's due to man-made CO2 climate change. This isn't evidence-based impartial research. These are scientists justifying their environmental ideological beliefs.


In her April 2013 article Goldenberg references a peer-reviewed article that claims wine vineyards will be affected by man-made climate change:

Climate change may cause establishment of vineyards at higher elevations that will increase impacts on upland ecosystems and may lead to conversion of natural vegetation as production shifts to higher latitudes in areas such as western North America. Attempts to maintain wine grape productivity and quality in the face of warming may be associated with increased water use for irrigation and to cool grapes through misting or sprinkling, creating potential for freshwater conservation impacts. Agricultural adaptation and conservation efforts are needed that anticipate these multiple possible indirect effects. [31]


Grapes are one of the easiest and most abundant crops to grow. Almost every jug of fruit juice in Western-European grocery stores contains grape juice as a filler because they're so cheap and abundant. The idea that man-made CO2 climate change is going to change that is nonsensical.


Like the Starbucks and the extreme weather article, this is a garbage article.


In Goldenberg's May 2013 article she references a peer-reviewed article that claims unbelievable temperature deaths due to man-made CO2 climate change:

22.2% increase of heat related death - 2020s
49.4% increase of heat related death - 2050s
91% increase of heat related death - 2080s
. [32]


Aside from the correlation and causation issue, the most obvious problem is that the claim is unfalsifiable relative to time.


The second problem is that Goldenberg doesn't point out the limitations of the study:

We did not take into account the possible effects of future adaptation to warmer temperatures by the at-risk population...By ignoring these adaptation phenomena, we may have overestimated both heat related increases and cold-related decreases under future climates, with uncertain net effects. Other factors not considered here because they are considered more uncertain than temperature projections include possible changes in humidity (which together with temperature defines heat stress indices), and how air quality may be affected by climatic factors including warming and changes in atmospheric circulation. [33]


In Goldenberg's July 2013 article she attempts to shame Google when they throw a fundraiser to support Senator Jim Inhofe (a staunch climate denier). [34] Shaming is one tactic that CO2 cult believers regularly utilize to turn public opinion in their favor.


Hypocritically, in another July 2013 article Goldenberg criticizes Reuters managing editor Paul Ingrassia for being ideologically against man-made CO2 climate change.

Charges of an ideological component to Reuters' declining coverage - related to Ingrassia's personal doubts about established climate science - have sharpened concern in media and environmental as well as business circles, because of the agency's focus on financial news. [35]


Goldenberg uses liberal non-profits, blogs and individuals (all CO2 cult believers), to support her argument, along with quoting David Fogarty, a former Reuters journalist:

Progressively, getting any climate change-themed story published got harder. It was a lottery. Some desk editors happily subbed and pushed the button. Others agonised and asked a million questions. Debate on some story ideas generated endless bureaucracy by editors frightened to take a decision, reflecting a different type of climate within Reuters - the climate of fear. [35]


A climate of fear?


I can't help but laugh at the irony since the CO2 cult creates a climate of fear everyday.


It's good to know that hard-nosed editors still exist and won't jump at a few centimetres of sea level rise and decimal points of temperature increases.


Ironically enough, a few days after the climate of fear Reuters article Goldenberg references a peer-reviewed article about coastal cities going under water even if global carbon emission are stopped:

Because of the inertia built into the climate system, even if all carbon emissions stopped immediately, it would take some time for the related global temperature rises to ease off. That means the fate of some cities is already sealed, the study says.

"Even if we could just stop global emissions tomorrow on a dime, Fort Lauderdale, Miami Gardens, Hoboken, New Jersey will be under sea level," said Benjamin Strauss, a researcher at Climate Central, and author of the paper. Dramatic cuts in emissions - much greater than Barack Obama and other world leaders have so far agreed - could save nearly 1,000 of those towns, by averting the sea-level rise, the study found. "Hundreds of American cities are already locked into watery futures and we are growing that group very rapidly," Strauss said. "We are locking in hundreds more as we continue to emit carbon into the atmosphere." [36]


Talk about a climate of fear. This is pure junk science. These are scientists justifying their environmental ideological beliefs.


In her December 2013 article Goldenberg references a peer-reviewed article about Perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA) being a potent greenhouse gas emission. [37] There are two problems with the peer-reviewed article.


The fact that Western-European scientists are only now measuring PFTBA in the atmosphere is problematic because it's a highly toxic fluoride compound.


The fact that it's been in the air for decades and people are unknowingly breathing it in is quite problematic. An MSDS safety sheet about PFTBA says:

Long-Term (Chronic) Health Effects:
Carcinogenicity: No data.

Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity: No data available to indicate product or any components present at greater than 0.1% may cause birth defects.

Inhalation: Upon prolonged and/or repeated exposure, can cause minor respiratory irritation, dizziness, weakness, fatigue, nausea, and headache.

Skin Contact: Upon prolonged or repeated contact, can cause minor skin irritation, defatting, and dermatitis.

Hazardous Decomposition Products: Carbon dioxide Carbon monoxide. [38]


Forget about the heat-trapping effects. This is an industrial toxic pollutant already in the atmosphere with no regulations.


I recommend that environmental journalists stop thinking about man-made CO2 climate change and stick to enforcing regulations for real industrial air pollutants.


Clearly, there's a problem in defining air pollution. And Obama's statement in June 2014 at the League of Conservation Voters exemplifies it:

Today, about 40 percent of America's carbon pollution comes from our power plants. There are no federal limits to the amount those plants can pump into the air. None. We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, and sulfur, and arsenic in our air and water, but power plants can dump as much carbon pollution into our atmosphere as they want. It's not smart, it's not right, it's not safe, and I determined it needs to stop. [39]


Carbon pollution is not a significant problem now and never will be in the future. The fact that the CO2 cult is incapable of realizing this is why they're losing the battle.


In Goldenberg's May 2014 article she references two peer-reviewed articles about man-made climate change causing Arctic ice to melt. In the second paragraph Goldenberg says:

The glaciers' retreat is being driven by climate change and is already causing sea-level rise at a much faster rate than scientists had anticipated. [40]


The problem is that both articles don't mention anything about man-made CO2 climate change, carbon emissions or greenhouse gases. This is the third time Goldenberg manipulates a peer-reviewed study for the benefit of the CO2 cult.


In an email request for comment I ask Goldenberg whether she believes this is a manipulative tactic.


She doesn't respond.


In another May 2014 article Goldenberg points out the "aggressive grilling" of EPA officials by the House of Representatives oversight committee. [41] Goldenberg is definitely playing the sympathy card for the global general public: Look at the beating that the EPA is getting at the hands of politician climate deniers. You should feel sorry for us. The EPA is definitely broken with their minor infractions to polluters, their animosity to the oil industry and their prominent climatologist posing as a CIA spy.


In regards to the John Beale EPA scandal, the Guardian's coverage is minimal, with only one article by Goldenberg. [42] In an email request for comment I ask Guardian Environment Editor John Vidal and Guardian Editor-in-Chief Alan Rusbridger why this is the case. They don't respond. I believe that the coverage is slim because of their environmental CO2 ideologies. Anything that detracts from such ideological beliefs will most likely receive little coverage. And whatever coverage it does get will be downplayed.


This is a much larger issue than one thinks. The idea that journalists merely report the news (aside from investigative journalism), in an objective manner, is ignorant of perception and ideology.


On the surface though it looks simple. An event happens and a journalist writes a story about it. 'Nuff said.


The reason why it's not that simple is because millions of interesting events happen every day. By interesting I mean events that differ from the norm. Due to the shear volume of interesting events locally, nationally and internationally, journalists have to choose what they cover. By choosing what they cover, they're also making a choice in what not to cover.


A journalist's ideologies can sway coverage by taking a stance on a particular issue; and anything that goes against that stance will be downplayed or ignored.


Though climate skeptics and deniers do receive a decent amount of coverage in liberal newspapers (the New York Times (NYT) and the Guardian), the coverage is skewed by the individual ideology of environmental journalists and the collective ideology of their editors.


In regards to environmental journalism, this isn't objective impartial journalism, it's ideological. But don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that ideological journalism is bad. Quite the opposite. I'm actually in favor of it, more so than objective impartial journalism.


Goldenberg's December 2010 article about Fox News' ideological bias to man-made CO2 climate change, [43] is a flop. The Western-European public is very much aware of Fox News' ideological conservative bias. The reason why they have the highest rated news program on TV is because they don't hide it. The global general public respects various ideological viewpoints rather than manipulative tactics in hiding it.


My issue is with the ethics of journalists and MM outlets manipulating their readers. In general, the NYT and the Guardian both advocate objective impartial journalism. This is definitely not the case for man-made CO2 climate change.


By claiming impartial journalism while practicing ideological journalism, journalists are intentionally manipulating their readers. And in my mind that's problematic.


The CO2 Climate Change Cult Series will continue on October 10, 2014 with Part 5 of 8: Environmental Journalists - Damian Carrington.




[1] Goldenberg, Suzanne. The environment by Suzanne Goldenberg. Guardian. January 17, 2009.

[2] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Meet the skeptics. Guardian. March 12, 2009.

[3] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Rising sea level to submerge Louisiana coastline by 2100, study warns. Guardian. June 29, 2009.

[4] Blum, Michael D. and Roberts, Harry H. Drowning of the Mississippi Delta due to insufficient sediment supply and global sea-level rise. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 2, July 2009. p. 488.

[5] Blum, Michael D. and Roberts, Harry H. The Mississippi Delta Region: Past, Present, and Future. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 40, May 2012. p. 672.

[6] Goldenberg, Suzanne. By 2050, 25m more children will go hungry as climate change leads to food crisis. Guardian. September 30, 2009.

[7] Public-Private Partnerships in Agricultural Research Towards best practice and replicable models. International Food Policy Research Institute and Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture.

[8] Pingali, Prabhu. Scaling up in Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition. International Food Policy Research Institute, Focus 19, Brief 16, June 2012.

[9] Sylvia Mathews Burwell: International Food Policy. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. February 2, 2011.

[10] Is Bt or GMO Cotton the Reason for Indian Farmer Suicides. Monsanto.

[11] DuPont Agriculture Development Roundtable Series. International Food Policy Research Institute.

[12] Hickman, Leo, et al. Climate change email hacking to be looked into by University of East Anglia. Guardian. November 23, 2009.

[13] Davies, Caroline and Goldenberg, Suzanne. The voices of climate change skeptics. Guardian. November 24, 2009.

[14] Goldenberg, Suzanne. 'Hockey stick' graph creator Michael Mann cleared of academic misconduct. Guardian. February 3, 2010.

[15] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science. Guardian. February 15, 2012.

[16] Goldenberg, Suzanne and Rushe, Dominic. Climate science attack machine took donations from major corporations. Guardian. February 16, 2012.

[17] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Heartland Institute 'fights back' over publication of confidential documents. Guardian. February 16, 2012.

[18] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax status. Guardian. February 17, 2012.

[19] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Heartland emails show ease in which Gleick accessed sensitive files. Guardian. February 24, 2012.

[20] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Starbucks concerned world coffee supply is threatened by climate change. Guardian. October 13, 2011.

[21] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Climate change scientist Michael Mann fends off sceptic group's raid on emails. Guardian. November 2, 2011.

[22] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Major storms could submerge New York City in next decade. Guardian. November 16, 2011.

[23] Rosenzweig, C, et al. Responding to Climate Change in New York State: Synthesis Report. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. 2011. p. 49.

[24] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Climate change could make Canada's traditional ice hockey extinct. Guardian. March 5, 2012.

[25] Damyanov, Nikolay N., et al. Observed decreases in the Canadian outdoor skating season due to recent winter warming. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 7, March 5, 2012. p. 8.

[26] Davidson, Eric A. Representative concentration pathways and mitigation scenarios for nitrous oxide. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 7, April 12, 2012. p. 1.

[27] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Eat less meat to prevent climate disaster, study warns. Guardian. April 13, 2012.

[28] Representative concentration pathways and mitigation scenarios for nitrous oxide. Environmental Research Letters, April 12, 2012. p. 5.

[29] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Scientists say ongoing weather extremes offer proof of climate change. Guardian. July 3, 2012.

[30] Zhang, Guang, J., et al. Energy consumption and the unexplained winter warming over northern Asia and North America. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3, May 2013. p. 466.

[31] Hannah, Lee, et al. Climate change, wine, and conservation. PNAS, Vol. 110, No. 17, April 23, 2013. p. 6907.

[32] Li, Tiantian, et al. Projections of seasonal patterns in temperature related deaths for Manhattan, New York. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3, August 2013. p. 718.

[33] Ibid. p. 720.

[34] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Google hosts fundraiser for climate change denying US senator. Guardian. July 9, 2013.

[35] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Reuters' climate-change coverage 'fell by nearly 50% with sceptic as editor.' Guardian. July 26, 2013.

[36] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Climate study predicts a watery future for New York, Boston and Miami. Guardian. July 30, 2013.

[37] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Newly discovered greenhouse gas '7,000 times more powerful than CO2.' Guardian. December 10, 2013.

[38] Restek Safety Data Sheet: 30482 / PFTBA MS TUNING. Restek. April 22, 2014. p. 3.

[39] Remarks by the President at League of Conservation Voters Capital Dinner. White House, Office of the Press Secretary. June 25, 2014.

[40] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn. Guardian. May 12, 2014.

[41] Goldenberg, Suzanne. GOP targets 'workplace improprieties' at Environmental Protection Agency. Guardian. May 7, 2014.

[42] Goldenberg, Suzanne. EPA reels as climate-change expert awaits sentencing for $1m CIA fraud. Guardian. December 16, 2013.

[43] Goldenberg, Suzanne. Fox News chief enforced climate change scepticism - leaked email. Guardian. December 15, 2010.