Climate change denial

Climate change denial is a term, often used as a pejorative, used to describe views that attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to hidden financial, political or personal interests. Sometimes the term is used more broadly for any views that dispute the risks associated with climate change, or for the view that climate change is not the result of human behavior.

Denial campaigns have been attributed to individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups whose financial interests are challenged by efforts to combat climate change, and have in particular been attributed to those associated with the energy lobby. Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, have described climate change denial as a form of denialism. As a pejorative, other commentators have criticized the term as an attempt to delegitimize skeptical views, and for injecting morality into the discussion about climate change.

Overview

Main article: Global warming controversy

"As soon as the scientific community began to come together on the science of climate change, the pushback began," according to University of California, San Diego historian Naomi Oreskes. Claims that business groups have engaged in "denial" of the current science on climate change have been discussed since at least 2000.

The August 2007 Newsweek cover story "The Truth About Denial" reported that "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." Newsweek published a rebuttal piece by contributing editor Robert J. Samuelson, calling it "a vast oversimplification of a messy story" and "fundamentally misleading". He argues that "journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale... in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed".

Several commentators have compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, though others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.

Private Sector

See also: Business action on climate change

In his book, Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere, Robert Cox states that an early effort by industry "to influence public perception of environmental science" was uncovered in 1998 by John Cushman of the New York Times, who reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described, in Cushman's words, a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Cushman quoted the document as proposing a US$ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"

The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, "attack the UN's panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees have worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

The British Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."

ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming. A spokesman, Gantt Walton, has stated that ExxonMobil's funding of research does not mean that it acts to influence the research, and that ExxonMobil supports taking action to curb the output of greenhouse gasses. Gannt stated, "The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

A survey carried out by the Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

Public sector

In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the influential Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view." In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he now agrees with the scientific consensus.

In 2005, the New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, a former lobbyist and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute, had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents." Sharon Begley reported in Newsweek that Cooney "edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as 'lack of understanding' and 'considerable uncertainty.'" Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job." Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke, but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.

Connections to the tobacco lobby

Several journalists have argued that efforts to downplay the significance of climate change resemble the campaign by tobacco lobbyists, after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer, to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian discussed similarities in the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.

One figure who has been associated with tobacco lobbying and global warming skepticism is former National Academy of Sciences president Dr.Frederick Seitz who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned approximately US$ 585,000 in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. During that time R.J. Reynolds contributed $45 million to the medical research co-ordinated by Seitz and others at Rockefeller University. Although the research did not touch upon the health effects of tobacco smoking, Hertsgaard writes that the tobacco industry frequently cited these grants as showing its commitment to science, while claiming that scientific views on the health effects of smoking were mixed.

Seitz went on to chair groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute alleged to have made efforts to "downplay" global warming. Seitz stated in the 1980s that "Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate." Seitz authored the Oregon Petition, a document published jointly by the Marshall and Oregon Institutes in opposition to the Kyoto protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ... We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian that this petition, which he criticizes as misleading and tied to industry funding, "has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth." Monbiot has written about another group founded by the tobacco lobby, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), that now campaigns against measures to combat global warming. In again trying to manufacture the appearance of a grass-roots movement against "unfounded fear" and "over-regulation," Monbiot states that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to halt [climate change] than any other body."

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil

Main article: Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Et al.

On February 26, 2008, attorneys for the Native American Rights Fund and the Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment brought suit against ExxonMobil Corporation and two dozen other members of the energy lobby, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Royal Dutch Shell. The complaint seeks to recover damages for the destruction of Kivalina, Alaska, a village which "is being forced to relocate because of flooding caused by the changing Arctic climate." Kivalina v. ExxonMobil is reported to be the first climate-change lawsuit with "a discretely identifiable victim." The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers determined in 2006 that Kivalina residents would be forced to relocate, at a minimum cost of US$95m, as soon as 2016. According to Stephan Faris, a writer for The Atlantic, the Kivalina suit accuses ExxonMobil et al. of

"... conspiring to cover up the threat of man-made climate change, in much the same way the tobacco industry tried to conceal the risks of smoking — by using a series of think tanks and other organizations to falsely sow public doubt in an emerging scientific consensus."

The suit was dismissed by the United States district court for the Northern District of California on September 30, 2009, on grounds that "the law suit raised non-justiciable political questions and that the plaintiffs did not have standing, because their harm was not fairly traceable to the defendants’ conduct." An appeal is considered likely.

Possible effects of climate change denial

See also: Individual and political action on climate change

Former Democratic Senator Tim Wirth has claimed that the denial effort affected both the Congressional political climate as well as the general public opinion. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. [...] Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress." In an interview with the journal Science, physicist and U.S. Representative Rush Holt called the opposition in the climate debate a "denial machine":

"...for more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO₂), is probably altering Earth's climate in ways that will be expensive and even deadly. The American public yawned and bought bigger cars. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored the warnings and called for new government policies to deal with climate change. Politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing."

Sharon Begley cites poll data to show that popular opinion is out of step with the views of the scientific community on climate change, as an indicator of the effects of what she terms the "denial machine." A 2006 Newsweek poll reported that only one third of Americans believed climate change is "mainly caused by things people do" and 64 percent believed scientists disagree "a lot" about it. A 2007 Newsweek poll found 42 percent of the general public believed scientists disagree "a lot" that "human activities are a major cause of global warming." A May 2007 CNN poll, in contrast, found a 54 percent majority agree with the IPCC that "Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories." A 2007 CBS News poll found that 49 percent think "global warming is having a serious impact now" and 36 percent think it "will in the future". It also reported that 78 percent of Americans "think that it is necessary to take steps to counter global warming right away".

Robert J. Samuelson in Newsweek has argued that "Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it." Samuelson contests the idea that a "cabal" of industry funded deniers have had much effect, to the extent they exist, arguing that the media and the public nevertheless both see global warming as a serious threat. Samuelson cites Gallup polls suggesting that public concern over global warming has increased marginally since 1989, despite any denial campaigns, and argues that the real difficulties arise in determining what policies might address the problem.

Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard has asserted that "human ingenuity, directed towards clean technology and wise institutional design, remains our best weapon against climate change." Alexander Cockburn of The Nation accused "climate spokesmen" such as Al Gore of being "shills" for nuclear energy, arguing that "the best documented conspiracy of interest is between the fearmongers and the nuclear industry" and "Hysteria rules the day, drowning useful initiatives such as environmental cleanup, while smoothing the way for the nuclear industry to reap its global rewards." Carbon taxes such as the one advocated by Al Gore as Vice President have faced bipartisan Congressional opposition. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat, stated that "That's going to be passed on; the consumer would end up paying for that."

American public opinion is relatively split on possible measures to combat global warming. A March 2006 ABC News poll found that "Six in 10 think much can be done to reduce both the amount of global warming", but it also found that only 45 percent think that government should require "Cars that use less gasoline" and only 42 percent think it should require "Appliances that use less electricity". However, the poll's opinions regarding voluntary measures are far more positive, even though 56 percent "oppose giving companies tax breaks to build nuclear power plants". A CBS News poll reported that Americans support some compulsory regulations, for example, 64 percent would be willing to pay higher gasoline taxes if the money is used for renewable energy research. Peter Aldhous at New Scientist has argued that "policies to combat global warming can command majority public support in the US, as long as they don't hit people's pockets too hard."

See also

• Business action on climate change
• Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
• Denialism
• Global warming
• Global warming skepticism
• Global warming controversy
• Scientific opinion on climate change

References

• Curry, J.A.; Webster, P.J.; Holland, G.J. (2006), "Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity" (PDF), Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87 (8): 1025–1037, doi:10.1175/BAMS-87-8-1025, retrieved 2007-07-14
• McCright, Aaron M.; Dunlap, Riley E. (2003), "Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy" (PDF), Social Problems, 50 (3): 348–373, doi:10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348

External links

• "Live Talk: Climate Change Deniers." Newsweek 8 August 2007
• "Climate of Denial." Bill McKibben, Mother Jones, May/June 2005
• "Some Like It Hot." Chris Mooney, Mother Jones, May/June 2005
• "The Denial Machine." CBC
• "Hot Politics" PBS Frontline
• Timeline of the Political and Scientific Responses
• U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority). (2007–12–20). U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. Retrieved 2009–12–25.
• "Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate" By Andrew C. Revkin, The New York Times, 23 April 2009
• PR Executive James Hoggan on "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming" - video report by Democracy Now!