Climate change denial

Climate change denial is a term used to describe the denial of all or part of the theory of global warming. Those who believe anthropogenic climate change to be real and skeptics alike recognise that climate change has been a permanent feature of Earth's history. Skeptics question the extent and causes of recent changes in the earth's climate. The term “climate change denial” generally refers to disinformation campaigns thought to be promoted and funded by groups interested in undermining the scientific consensus, particularly by groups with ties to the energy lobby.

Denial vs. skepticism

Main article: Global warming controversy

Climate change denial differs from environmental skepticism mainly in that skeptics base their arguments on established scientific practice and methodology such as the use of falsifiable hypotheses, which is the standard framework by which disputes are resolved in the natural sciences. Climate change denial does not employ such methods. Whereas skeptics are motivated primarily to understand and explain the issue, what has been called the "denial industry" is motivated to promote controversy and doubt. In an article in The Guardian on September 21, 2006, George Monbiot wrote "Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial."

Origins of the "denial industry"

Organized climate change denial efforts began to make headlines shortly after the Kyoto Protocol was opened for signature in 1997. In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute; the memo contained a detailed description of 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." As part of a US $5,000,000 strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences," the document included

"A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, [that] would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"

Various reports have pointed out the resemblance of this strategy to one adopted by the tobacco lobby after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer: namely, to shift public perception of the discovery toward that of a myth or unwarranted claim rather than an accepted scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian reported:

"There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. 'Junk science' meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. 'Sound science' meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, 'Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.'"

Frederick Seitz earned more than US $500,000 in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, then went on to become chairman of groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute, known for their efforts to "downplay" global warming. Seitz also 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."

In 1993, according to the Guardian, Phillip Morris, in conjunction with the APCO public relations firm, established the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TAASC) as part of a plan to combat proposed regulation of secondhand smoke: "Philip Morris, APCO said, needed to create the impression of a 'grassroots' movement - one that had been formed spontaneously by concerned citizens to fight 'overregulation'. It should portray the danger of tobacco smoke as just one 'unfounded fear' among others, such as concerns about pesticides and cellphones." Within ten years, the group was also receiving funds from Exxon:

"TASSC, the ‘coalition’ created by Philip Morris, was the first and most important of the corporate-funded organisations denying that climate change is taking place. It has done more damage to the campaign to halt it than any other body."

Several think tanks funded by Exxon or, later, ExxonMobil to contest climate change have also reputedly received funding from Philip Morris, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation, George Mason University's Law and Economics Center, and the Independent Institute.

Recent instances of climate change denial

Public sector

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." The George W. Bush administration had hired Cooney in 2001 as chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, "the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues." As the Times reported,

"Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions."

The newspaper also claimed that "[e]fforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home."

In 2007, the Washington Post's four-part examination of Dick Cheney's powerful role in the White House alleged that the Vice President's "unwavering ideological positions" prioritizing economic over environmental interests had led to significant conflict regarding greenhouse gas emissions standards:

"It was Cheney's insistence on easing air pollution controls, not the personal reasons she cited at the time, that led Christine Todd Whitman to resign as administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, she said in an interview that provides the most detailed account so far of her departure. ... And in April, the Supreme Court rejected two other policies closely associated with Cheney. It rebuffed the effort, ongoing since Whitman's resignation, to loosen some rules under the Clean Air Act. The court also rebuked the administration for not regulating greenhouse gases associated with global warming, issuing its ruling less than two months after Cheney declared that 'conflicting viewpoints' remain about the extent of the human contribution to the problem."

The Government Accountability Project's "Climate Science Watch" has questioned the administration's appointment of officials with private-sector ties to climate change denial:

"Jeffrey Salmon is the Associate Under Secretary for Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. Prior to moving to DOE, from 1991-2001 he was Executive Director of the George C. Marshall Institute, a key actor in the global warming disinformation campaign. In 1998 he participated in the development of a now-notorious oil industry-sponsored plan to wage a campaign against the mainstream science community on global warming. Before that, he was senior speechwriter for Dick Cheney, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense. The Office of Science oversees roughly $4 billion a year in DOE-supported research, including a roughly $140 million climate change research budget. What does Salmon do in this position—for example, on matters of climate change research, assessment, and communication?"

ExxonMobil

In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The 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".

Mother Jones magazine listed the following groups and individuals who received funding from ExxonMobil to "preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe":

• Acton Institute for the Study of Religious Liberty
• Advancement of Sound Science Center
• American Council for Capital Formation
• American Council on Science and Health
• American Enterprise Institute (Contested: see American Enterprise Institute#Global Warming)
• American Legislative Exchange Council
• Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy
• Arizona State University Office of Climatology
• Atlas Economic Research Foundation
• Cato Institute
• Capital Research Center
• Centre for the New Europe
• Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
• Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
• Citizens for a Sound Economy
• Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• Congress of Racial Equality
• Consumer Alert
• Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
• Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
• Fraser Institute
• Free Enterprise Action Institute
• Frontiers of Freedom
• George C. Marshall Institute
• Heartland Institute
• Heritage Foundation
• Hoover Institution
• Hudson Institute
• Independent Institute
• Institute for Energy Research
• International Policy Network
• Mackinac Center for Public Policy
• Media Research Center
• Mercatus Center
• National Black Chamber of Commerce
• National Center for Policy Analysis
• National Center for Public Policy Research
• Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
• Pacific Legal Foundation
• Property and Environment Research Center
• Reason Public Policy Institute
• Science and Environmental Policy
• Tech Central Science Foundation
• Sallie Baliunas
• Paul Dreissen
• Patrick Michaels
• Stephen Milloy
• Frederick Seitz
• S. Fred Singer
• Willie Soon

See also

• disinformation
• global warming controversy
• scientific opinion on climate change

External links

• "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
• ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science - the Union of Concerned Scientists