Climate change denial: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Ravensfire (talk | contribs) Reverted 1 edit by SakaScotii (talk). (TW) |
SakaScotii (talk | contribs) ←Replaced content with 'Toddy is a lying boy-molester' |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Toddy is a lying boy-molester |
|||
{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-move-indef}} |
|||
'''Climate change denial''' is a term used to describe organized attempts to illegitimately downplay the extent of [[global warming]], its significance, or its connection to human behavior, especially for financial or other sectional interests.<ref name="definition"/> Climate change denial has been associated with the [[energy lobby]], industry advocates and [[free market]] [[think tank]]s, often in the United States.<ref name="G1"> |
|||
{{cite news |
|||
| title=Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' |
|||
| url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1399585,00.html |
|||
| first=David |
|||
| last=Adams |
|||
| publisher=[[The Guardian]] |
|||
| date=2005-01-27 |
|||
| accessdate=2007-08-03 |
|||
| location=London}}</ref><ref name="G2"> |
|||
{{cite news |
|||
| title=Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial |
|||
| url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business |
|||
| first=David |
|||
| last=Adams |
|||
| publisher=[[The Guardian]] |
|||
| date=2006-09-20 |
|||
| accessdate=2007-08-02 | location=London}}</ref><ref name="Gelbspan"> |
|||
{{Cite web |
|||
| title= The heat is on: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial |
|||
| url= http://www.harpers.org/archive/1995/12/0007823 |
|||
| first=Ross |
|||
| last=Gelbspan |
|||
| authorlink=Ross Gelbspan |
|||
| publisher=Harper’s Magazine |
|||
| month=December | year=1995 |
|||
| accessdate=2007-08-02 |
|||
}}</ref><ref name="Michaels">David Michaels (2008) ''[[Doubt is Their Product]]: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health''.</ref><ref name="Hoggan">{{Cite book|title=Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming |url=http://books.google.com/?id=tQYjQzOkYK0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Climate+Cover-Up:+The+Crusade+to+Deny+Global+Warming&cd=1#v=onepage&q=|first1=James |last1=Hoggan |first2=Richard |last2=Littlemore |publisher=Greystone Books |location=Vancouver |isbn=978-1553654858 |year=2009 |accessdate=2010-03-19}} See, e.g., p31 ''ff'', describing industry-based advocacy strategies in the context of climate change denial, and p73 ''ff'', describing involvement of free-market think tanks in climate-change denial.</ref> Some commentators describe climate change denial as a particular form of [[denialism]].<ref name="Newsweek"> |
|||
{{Cite web |
|||
| url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482 |
|||
| title=The Truth About Denial |
|||
| first=Sharon |
|||
| last=Begley. |
|||
| publisher=[[Newsweek]] |
|||
| date=2007-08-07 |
|||
}}</ref><ref name="NewsweekTimeline"> |
|||
{{cite news |
|||
| title=Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers |
|||
| date=13 August 2007 |
|||
| publisher=[[Newsweek]] |
|||
}}</ref><ref name="denial_ind_guardian"> |
|||
{{cite news |
|||
| url=http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 |
|||
| title=The denial industry |
|||
| first=George |
|||
| last=Monbiot |
|||
| authorlink=George Monbiot |
|||
| publisher=[[Guardian Unlimited]] |
|||
| date=2006-09-19 | location=London}}</ref><ref name="goodman">{{cite news |
|||
| url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/ |
|||
| title=No change in political climate |
|||
| author=[[Ellen Goodman]] |
|||
| publisher=[[The Boston Globe]] |
|||
| date=2007-02-09 |
|||
| accessdate=2008-08-30 |
|||
}}</ref><ref name="Christoff">{{cite news |url=http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-is-another-grim-tale-to-be-treated-with-respect/2007/07/08/1183833338608.html |title=Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect - Opinion |first=Peter |last=Christoff |publisher=Theage.com.au |date=July 9, 2007 |accessdate=2010-03-19 | location=Melbourne}}</ref><ref name="ConnellyHarm"> |
|||
{{Cite web |
|||
| url=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/323181_joel11.html |
|||
| title=Deniers of global warming harm us |
|||
| first=Joel |
|||
| last=Connelly |
|||
| publisher=[[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]] |
|||
| date=2007-07-10 |
|||
| accessdate=2009-12-25 |
|||
}}</ref> The term is rarely used by those to whom it is applied.{{Citation needed|date=October 2010}} |
|||
The [[scientific opinion on climate change]] is that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity. However, [[Politics of global warming|political]], [[economics of global warming|economic]], and [[global warming controversy|public debate]] continues regarding the reality and extent of global warming and what actions to take in response. Numerous authors, including several scholars, have asserted that some conservative think tanks, corporations and business groups have engaged in deliberate denial of the science of climate change since the 1990s.<ref name="Michaels"/><ref name="Hoggan"/><ref name="merchants of doubt">{{Cite book|title=Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming |author=Erik Conway |coauthors=Naomi Oreskes |isbn=1596916109 |year=2010 |publisher=Bloomsbury |location=USA}}</ref><ref name="requiem">{{Cite book|title=Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change |pages=103–105 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=YRkkifKboIYC&pg=105 |author=Clive Hamilton |isbn=1742372104 |year=2010 |publisher=Allen & Unwin}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Flannery, Tim; Schneider, Stephen Henry |title=Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate |publisher=National Geographic |location=Washington, D.C |year=2009 |pages= |isbn=1-4262-0540-6 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Wendy Wagner; McGarity, Thomas O. |title=Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research |publisher=Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |year=2010 |pages= |isbn=0-674-04714-1 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|author=Chris Mooney |title=The Republican war on science |publisher=Basic Books |location=New York |year=2005 |pages= |isbn=0-465-04675-4 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref> On the other hand, some commentators have criticized the phrase as an attempt to delegitimize [[skeptic|skeptical]] views and portray them as immoral.<ref>O'Neill, Brendan. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/22/aclimateofcensorship ''A climate of censorship'']. ''The Guardian''. November 22, 2006. Last retrieved 3/18/10.</ref><ref name="NewsweekSimplicities">{{Cite web| url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/32312 | title=Greenhouse Simplicities | first=Robert J. | last=Samuelson | authorlink=Robert J. Samuelson | publisher=[[Newsweek]] | date=2007-08-20 | accessdate=2007-08-16}}</ref><ref name="prager">[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/02/13/on_comparing_global_warming_denial_to_holocaust_denial Townhall.com::On Comparing Global Warming Denial to Holocaust Denial::By Dennis Prager<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> |
|||
The relationships between industry-funded denial and public climate change skepticism have at times been compared to earlier efforts by the tobacco industry to undermine what is now widely accepted scientific evidence relating to the dangers of secondhand smoke, or even linked as a direct continuation of these earlier financial relationships.<ref name="merchants of doubt"/> Aside from private industry groups, climate change denial has also been alleged regarding the statements of elected officials.<ref name="Monbiot royal flush"/> |
|||
==Meanings of the term== |
|||
The August 2007 ''[[Newsweek]]'' cover story "The Truth About Denial" reported that "this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming|contrarian scientists]], [[free-market]] [[think tank]]s, and [[Supermajor|industry]] has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change."<ref name="Newsweek">{{Cite web| first=Sharon | last=Begley | title=The Truth About Denial | url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482/output/print | publisher=[[Newsweek]] | date=2007-08-13 | accessdate=2007-08-06 }}</ref> "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]].<ref name="Newsweek"/> The article went on to say that individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, among others—formed lobbying groups to enlist greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research.<ref name="Newsweek"/> ''Newsweek'' subsequently published a piece by [[Robert J. Samuelson]], who called the article "a vast oversimplification of a messy story" and "fundamentally misleading" because although global warming had already occurred, we "lack the technology" to unwind it, and the best we can hope to do is cut emissions. 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".<ref name="NewsweekSimplicities">{{Cite web|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/32312 | title=Greenhouse Simplicities | first=Robert J. | last=Samuelson | authorlink=Robert J. Samuelson | publisher=[[Newsweek]] | date=2007-08-20 | accessdate=2007-08-16}}</ref> |
|||
Journalists and newspaper columnists including [[George Monbiot]]<ref name="denial_ind_guardian">{{cite news | url=http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 | title=The denial industry | first=George | last=Monbiot | authorlink=George Monbiot | publisher=[[Guardian Unlimited]] | date=2006-09-19 | location=London}}</ref> and [[Ellen Goodman]],<ref name="goodman">{{cite news | url=http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/ | title=No change in political climate | author=[[Ellen Goodman]] | publisher=The Boston Globe | date=2007-02-09 | accessdate=2008-08-30 }}</ref> among others,<ref name="Christoff"/><ref name="ConnellyHarm">Connelly, Joel. (2007–07–10). [http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/323181_joel11.html Deniers of global warming harm us]. [[Seattle Post-Intelligencer]]. Retrieved 2009–12–25.</ref> have described climate change denial as a form of [[denialism]].<ref name="Newsweek">{{Cite web| url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482 | title=The Truth About Denial | first=Sharon | last=Begley. | publisher=[[Newsweek]] | date=2007-08-07 }}</ref><ref name="NewsweekTimeline">{{cite news | title=Timeline, Climate Change and its Naysayers | date=13 August 2007 | publisher=[[Newsweek]] }}</ref> Several commentators, including Monbiot and Goodman, have also compared climate change denial with [[Holocaust denial]],<ref name="goodman" /><ref name="Christoff"/><ref name="ConnellyHarm" /><ref name="monbiot">{{cite news|author=George Monbiot|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1877283,00.html |title=George Monbiot: The threat is from those who accept climate change, not those who deny it | Comment is free |publisher=The Guardian |date=2006-09-21 |accessdate=2010-03-19 | location=London}}</ref> though others, such as conservative radio talk show host [[Dennis Prager]], have decried those comparisons as inappropriate and trivializing Holocaust denial.<ref name="prager">{{Cite web|last=Prager |first=Dennis |url=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2007/02/13/on_comparing_global_warming_denial_to_holocaust_denial |title=On Comparing Global Warming Denial to Holocaust Denial::By Dennis Prager |publisher=Townhall.com |date= |accessdate=2010-03-19}}</ref><ref name="PielkeLanguage">Pielke, Roger Jr. (2006–10–09). [http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000952on_language.html On Language]. Prometheus. Weblog of the ''Center for Science and Technology Policy Research'' at [[University of Colorado at Boulder]].</ref> [[Institute of Economic Affairs]] member [[Richard D. North]] notes that outright denial by climate scientists of the major points of scientific consensus is rare, though scientists are known to dispute certain points. He says, "It is deeply pejorative to call someone a 'climate change denier'. This is because it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust Denial ...". He acknowledges that "there are many varieties of climate change denial", but says that "[s]ome people labeled as 'deniers', aren't."<ref name="north">{{Cite web|last=North |first=Richard D. |url=http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000485.php |title=Web Review: Why do people become climate change deniers? |publisher=The Social Affairs Unit |date=2005-06-30 |accessdate=2010-03-19}}</ref> Peter Christoff also emphasizes the distinction between scepticism and denial, he says "Climate change deniers should be distinguished from climate sceptics. Scepticism is essential to good science."<ref name="Christoff">Christoff, Peter. (2007, July 9). [http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/climate-change-is-another-grim-tale-to-be-treated-with-respect/2007/07/08/1183833338608.html Climate change is another grim tale to be treated with respect]. Opinion page. [[The Age]] Company Ltd.</ref> |
|||
The environmentalist writer and activist [[George Monbiot]] stated in his ''Guardian'' opinion column that he reserves the term for those who attempt to undermine [[scientific opinion on climate change]] due to financial interests. Monbiot often refers to a "denial industry." However, he and other writers have described others as climate change "deniers," including politicians and writers not claimed to be funded by industry groups.<ref name="G1">{{cite news | title=Oil firms fund climate change 'denial' | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1399585,00.html | first=David | last=Adams | publisher=The Guardian | date=2005-01-27 | accessdate=2007-08-03 | location=London}}</ref><ref name="G2">{{cite news | title=Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business | first=David | last=Adams | publisher=The Guardian | date=2006-09-20 | accessdate=2007-08-02 | location=London}}</ref><ref name="Gelbspan">{{Cite web| title= The heat is on: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial | url= http://www.harpers.org/archive/1995/12/0007823 | first=Ross | last=Gelbspan | authorlink=Ross Gelbspan | publisher=Harper’s Magazine | month=December | year=1995 | accessdate=2007-08-02 }}</ref><ref name="Monbiot royal flush">[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10 Guardian.co.uk - Monbiot's royal flush: Top 10 climate change deniers]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change-scepticism Guardian.co.uk - Climate change scepticism portal]</ref><ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-ten-most-important-climate-change-skeptics-2009-7 The Business Insider — The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics]</ref><ref name="Kivalina Complaint">[http://climatelaw.org/cases/country/us/kivalina/Kivalina%20Complaint.pdf Complaint for Damages], Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., Et al. [[Climate Justice]], [[Friends of the Earth International]]. Retrieved 2009–12–25.</ref> |
|||
[[Mark Hoofnagle]] defines denialism as the employment of [[rhetoric]]al arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a [[scientific consensus]] exists.<ref name="definition">{{cite journal |title=Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? |pages=2–4 |author=Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee |journal=European Journal of Public Health |year=2009 |volume=19 |issue=1 |url=http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/19/1/2.pdf |format=pdf |pmid=19158101 |doi=10.1093/eurpub/ckn139}}</ref><ref name="recognizing deniers">{{cite news |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier |title=Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them | Environment | guardian.co.uk |publisher=guardian.co.uk |accessdate=2010-03-21 | location=London | date=2009-03-11 | first=Mark | last=Hoofnagle}}</ref> In recent years the term has been associated with a series of views challenging the scientific consensus on issues including the health effects of smoking and the relationship between HIV and AIDS, along with climate change. |
|||
==History== |
|||
In ''Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change'', [[Clive Hamilton]] describes a campaign to attack the science relating to climate change, originating with the [[astroturfing]] campaigns initiated by the tobacco industry in the 1990s. He documents the establishment of the ''[[Advancement of Sound Science Center|Advancement of Sound Science Coalition]]'' (TASSC) as a 'fake [[front organization|front group]]' set up 'to link concerns about passive smoking with a range of other popular anxieties, including global warming'. The [[public relations]] strategy was to cast doubt on the science, characterizing it as [[junk science]], and therefore to turn public opinion against any calls for government intervention based on the science.<ref name="requiem"/> |
|||
{{quote|As one tobacco company memo 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."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wjh13f00|title=Original "Doubt is our product..." memo|date=21 August 1969|publisher=University of California, San Francisco|accessdate=19 March 2010}}</ref> As the 1990s progressed ... TASSC began receiving donations from Exxon (among other oil companies) and its "junk science" website began to carry material attacking climate change science.|[[Clive Hamilton]]|''Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change''}} |
|||
[[Naomi Oreskes]], co-author of ''[[Merchants of Doubt|Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming]]'',<ref name="merchants of doubt"/> describes how a small group of retired cold-war nuclear physicists, who through their weapons work had become well-connected, well-known and influential people, promoted the idea of 'doubt' in several areas of US public debate. According to Oreskes, they did this, "not for money, but in defense of an ideology of laissez-faire governance and opposition to government regulation". In 1984, [[Robert Jastrow]], [[Frederick Seitz]] and [[William Nierenberg]] were instrumental in founding the ''[[George C. Marshall Institute]]'', initially to defend Ronald Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI) against other scientists' boycott of it. Oreskes said that this first campaign of the Institute's, from 1984 to 1989, involved demanding equal air-time in the media when mainstream physicists and engineers were critical of the SDI, and producing militarily alarmist material such as the article ''America has five years left'', published in 1987 by Jastrow in the ''[[National Review]]''. At the same time, Seitz was employed as a consultant to [[R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company]]. His principal strategy on their behalf, said Oreskes, was to defend their products by doubt-mongering, by insisting that the science was unsettled and therefore that it was always premature for the US government to act to control tobacco use.<ref name="Oreskes_March_2010"/> |
|||
After the [[Cold War]] ended, they continued through the Marshall Institute to campaign against environmental issues from [[acid rain]], the [[Ozone depletion|ozone hole]], [[Passive smoking|second-hand smoke]] and the dangers of [[DDT]] on to a campaign against global warming. In each case their argument was the same: simply that the science was too uncertain to justify any government intervention in the market place. It is only recently, Oreskes said, that historians such as her have been able to 'join the dots': Individual environmental scientists, finding opposition to their warnings about ozone layer depletion or DDT residues, were at the time unaware that the same institute was using the same arguments at the same time against other scientists who were warning about the dangers of smoking, of second-hand smoke, and about climate change itself.<ref name="Oreskes_March_2010">{{Cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0|title=Merchants of Doubt - Video of talk, with slides|last=Oreskes|first=Naomi|date=March 2, 2010|accessdate=19 March 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ecoshock.org/downloads/climate2010/Oreskes%20Naomi%20Climate%20Skeptics.mp3|title=Merchants of Doubt|last=Oreskes|first=Naomi|date=March 2, 2010|accessdate=19 March 2010}}</ref> |
|||
==Private sector== |
|||
{{See also|Business action on climate change}} |
|||
In one of the first attempts by industry to influence public opinion on climate change,<ref>Cox, Robert (2009). ''Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere'' Sage. Pg. 311-312.</ref> a 1998 proposal (later posted online by [[Greenpeace]])<ref>{{Cite web| title=Denial and Deception: A Chronicle of ExxonMobil’s Efforts to Corrupt the Debate on Global Warming | http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/leaked-api-comms-plan-1998 | publisher=[[Greenpeace]] | date=2003-08-14 | accessdate=2007-08-02 }}</ref> was circulated among U.S. opponents of a treaty to fight global warming, including both industry and conservative political groups, in an effort to influence public perception of the extent of the problem. Written by a [[public relations]] specialist for the [[American Petroleum Institute]] and then leaked to ''The New York Times'', the memo described, in the article'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 [[U.S. Congress|Congress]], the media and other key audiences," with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"<ref>Cushman, John, [http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/26/us/industrial-group-plans-to-battle-climate-treaty.html?scp=2&sq=climate%20science%20and%20to%20train%20them%20&st=cse&pagewanted=print "Industrial Group Plans to Battle Climate Treaty"], ''The New York Times'', April 25, 1998. Retrieved March 10, 2010.</ref> |
|||
[[The Guardian]] reported that after the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change|IPCC]] released its February 2007 [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|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 $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is [[Lee Raymond]], former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, "attack the [[UN]]'s panel as 'resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work' and ask for essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs'." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the [[George W. Bush administration]].<ref>{{cite news | title=Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange | first=Ian | last=Sample | publisher=The Guardian | date=2007-02-02 | accessdate=2007-08-16 | location=London}}</ref> Despite her initial conviction that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered," [[United States Democratic Party|Democratic]] Senator [[Barbara Boxer]] said that when she learned of the AEI's offer, "I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."<ref name="Newsweek" /> |
|||
The [[Royal Society]] conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given [[US$]] 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".<ref name="G2" /><ref>{{cite news | url=http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf |format=PDF| title=Letter to Nick Thomas, Director, Corporate affairs, Esso UK Ltd. (ExxonMobil) | publisher=[[Royal Society]] | first=Bob | last=Ward | date=2006-09-04 | accessdate=2007-08-06 | location=London}}</ref> In 2006, the 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."<ref>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/isanewsletter.pdf</ref> |
|||
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." <ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/08/07/gore-exxon.html | title=Gore takes aim at corporately funded climate research | publisher=[[CBC News]] from [[Associated Press]] | date=2007-08-07 | accessdate=2007-08-16 }}</ref> |
|||
==Public sector== |
|||
In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the [[United States Republican Party|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."<ref name="Newsweek">{{cite news | first=Sharon | last=Begley | title=The Truth About Denial | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/ | publisher=[[Newsweek]] | date=2007-08-13 | accessdate=2007-07-06 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070818032949/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-08-18}}</ref> In 2006, Luntz stated that he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but he now agrees with the scientific consensus.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/luntz.html |title=Frontline: Hot Politics: Interviews: Frank Luntz |publisher=PBS |date=13 November 2006 |accessdate=2010-03-19}}</ref> |
|||
In 2005, the ''[[New York Times]]'' reported that [[Philip Cooney]], former [[energy lobby|lobbyist]] and "climate team leader" at the [[American Petroleum Institute]] and President George W. Bush's chief of staff of the [[Council on Environmental Quality]], had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."<ref name="NYT">{{cite news | title=Bush Aide Edited Climate Reports | url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63 | first=Andrew C. | last=Revkin | publisher=New York Times | date=2005-06-08 | accessdate=2007-08-03 }}</ref> 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 [[energy lobby|oil lobbyist]] sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."<ref name="Newsweek" /> Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke,<ref>{{cite news|author=Andrew Revkin|title=Editor of Climate Report Resigns|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/politics/11cooney.long.html|date=10 June 2005|accessdate=2008-04-23 | work=The New York Times}}</ref> but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.<ref>{{cite news|author=Andrew Revkin|title=Ex-Bush Aide Who Edited Climate Reports to Join ExxonMobil|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/science/14cnd-climate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin|date=15 June 2005|accessdate=2008-04-23 | work=The New York Times}}</ref> |
|||
==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, [[Theory of justification|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 [[Altria Group|Philip Morris]], including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.<ref name="denial_ind_guardian" /> |
|||
Former [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] president Dr. [[Frederick Seitz]], who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in ''[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]]'', earned about [[US$]]585,000 in the 1970s and 1980s as a consultant to [[R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company]],<ref name = "HertsgaardSlept">{{cite news | title=While Washington Slept | url=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/05/warming200605 | first=Mark | last=Hertsgaard | publisher=[[Vanity Fair (magazine)|Vanity Fair]] | month=May | year=2006 | accessdate=2007-08-02 }}</ref> 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 Institute and [[Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine]] in opposition to the [[Kyoto protocol]]. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
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.<ref name="denial_ind_guardian" /> |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
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."<ref name="denial_ind_guardian" /> |
|||
==Kivalina v. ExxonMobil== |
|||
{{Main|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 Corporation|Chevron]], [[ConocoPhillips]], and Royal Dutch Shell.<ref name="Kivalina Complaint"/> The complaint sought 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."<ref>{{cite news |title=Flooded Village Files Suit, Citing Corporate Link to Climate Change. |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/us/27alaska.html?_r=1&oref=slogin |publisher=New York Times |date=27 Feb 2008 | first=Felicity | last=Barringer}}</ref> ''Kivalina v. ExxonMobil'' was reported to be the first climate-change lawsuit with "a discretely identifiable victim."<ref name="APKivalina">Associated Press. (2008–2–27). [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-26-alaska-lawsuit_N.htm Alaska town sues over global warming]. USA Today. Retrieved 2009–12–25.</ref> 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.<ref name="Faris">Faris, Stephan. "Conspiracy Theory." ''The Atlantic'', June, 2008, pp. 32–35.</ref> According to Stephan Faris, a writer for ''[[The Atlantic]]'', the Kivalina suit accuses ExxonMobil et al. of |
|||
<blockquote>"... 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."<ref name="Faris" /></blockquote> |
|||
The suit was dismissed by the [[United States district court]] for the Northern District of California on September 30, 2009,<ref>[http://newsroom.law360.com/articlefiles/128820-Kivalina%20Order%20Granting%20Motions%20to%20Dismiss.pdf Order Granting Motions to Dismiss], N.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2009</ref> 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." <ref>[http://www.lawandenvironment.com/tags/kivalina-v-exxonmobil/ Kivalina v. ExxonMobil] at Law and the Environment</ref> An [[appeal]] was filed with the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]] in November 2009.<ref> {{cite web | url = http://content.lawyerlinks.com/library/sec/briefs/environment/actions/kivalina_agw/exxonmobil_agw_notice_appeal_110509_195.pdf | title = Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp. Notice of Appeal | accessdate = 2010-10-23 | date = 2009-11-05 | format = PDF}}</ref> |
|||
==Effect of climate change denial== |
|||
Some journalists attribute the government inaction to the effects of climate change denial. However, a recent Angus Reid poll indicates that global warming skepticism in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom has been rising, apparently continuing a trend that has progressed for "months, even years"<ref name="CorcoranCoolDown">Corcoran, Terence (2010, January 06). [http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=e06924ca-91e0-4a18-8165-126656414605&p=1 The cool down in climate polls]. [[Financial Post]].</ref> There may be multiple causes of this trend, including a focus on economic rather than environmental issues, and a negative perception of the "role the United Nations has played in promoting the global warming issue."<ref name="RasmussenPoll">Rasmussen Reports (2009, December 03). [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming].</ref> |
|||
Another cause may be weariness from overexposure to the topic: secondary polls suggest that "many people were turned off by extremists on both sides,"<ref name="CorcoranCoolDown" /> while others show 54% of U.S. voters believe that "the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is."<ref name = "RasmussenMediaHype">Rasmussen Reports.(2009, February 06). [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/54_say_media_hype_global_warming_dangers 54% Say Media Hype Global Warming Dangers].</ref> A poll in 2009 regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" showed that 59% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely", of which 35% believed it is "very likely".<ref name="RasmussenPoll" /> |
|||
According to former U.S. senator [[Tim Wirth]], the denial effort has affected both public perception and leadership in the United States. "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."<ref name="autogenerated2007">[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/ "Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine." ''Newsweek'' Aug. 13, 2007.] Retrieved 7 Aug 2007 {{Wayback | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/ <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> | date=20070820002929 }}</ref> ''[[Newsweek]]'' reports that whereas "majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases —mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world's economies— are altering climate," as recently as 2006 only one third of Americans considered human activity to play a major role in climate change; 64% believed that scientists disagreed about it "a lot." A 2007 ''Newsweek'' poll found these numbers were declining, although majorities of Americans still believed neither that scientists agree climate change is taking place, nor that scientists agree climate change is caused by human activity, nor that climate change has yet had noticeable effect.<ref name="autogenerated2007"/> Citing the following remarks in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' by physicist and U.S. Representative [[Rush Holt]], the ''Newsweek'' report attributes American policymakers' failure to regulate greenhouse gas emissions to consistent undermining of science by the "denial machine": |
|||
:"...for more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO<sub>2</sub>), 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."<ref>{{cite journal |author=Holt, Rush |title=Trying to Get Us to Change Course" (film review.) |journal=Science |volume=317 |issue=5835 |pages=198–9 |date=13 July 2007 |doi=10.1126/science.1142810 |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/317/5835/198}}</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
{{multicol}} |
|||
* [[Agnotology]] |
|||
* [[Business action on climate change]] |
|||
* [[Climate change alarmism]] |
|||
* [[Climate change consensus]] |
|||
* [[DeSmogBlog]] |
|||
* [[Effects of global warming]] |
|||
* [[Environmental skepticism]] |
|||
* [[Extinction risk from global warming]] |
|||
* [[Global warming conspiracy]] |
|||
* [[Global warming controversy]] |
|||
* [[Individual and political action on climate change]] |
|||
{{multicol-break}} |
|||
* [[Information Council on the Environment]] |
|||
* [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming]] |
|||
* [[Northwest Passage]] |
|||
* [[Propaganda]] |
|||
* [[Scientific skepticism]] |
|||
* [[Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change]] — book by Clive Hamilton |
|||
* [[Standard Oil]] |
|||
* [[The Deniers]] – book by Lawrence Solomon |
|||
{{multicol-end}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist|2}} |
|||
==Further reading== |
|||
* [[Naomi Oreskes]] and Erik M. Conway ''[[Merchants of Doubt]]: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming'' (2010) Bloomsbury Press, ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4 |
|||
* [[Clive Hamilton]], ''Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change'', (2010) Allen and Unwin, ISBN 978-1-84971-081-7 |
|||
* {{Cite book|title=Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming |url=http://books.google.com/?id=tQYjQzOkYK0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Climate+Cover-Up:+The+Crusade+to+Deny+Global+Warming&cd=1#v=onepage&q=|first1=James |last1=Hoggan |first2=Richard |last2=Littlemore |publisher=Greystone Books |location=Vancouver |isbn=978-1553654858 |year=2009 |accessdate=2010-03-19}} |
|||
* Michaels, David (2008). Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-530067-X |
|||
* [[Chris C. Mooney]], ''[[The Republican War on Science]]'', (2005) Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-04675-4 |
|||
* [[Stephen H. Schneider]], ''Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate'', (2009) National Geographic, ISBN 978-1-4262-0540-8 |
|||
* McGarity, Thomas O. (2010). Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-04714-1 |
|||
* Bowen, Mark (2008). Censoring Science: Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. Plume. ISBN 0-452-28962-9 |
|||
* {{Cite journal | title=Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity | first1=J.A. | last1=Curry | first2=P.J. | last2=Webster | first3=G.J. | last3=Holland | url=http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf |format=PDF| year=2006 | journal=[[Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society]] | volume=87 | issue=8 | pages=1025–37 | doi=10.1175/BAMS-87-8-1025 | accessdate=2007-07-14 }} |
|||
* {{Cite journal | first=Aaron M. | last1=McCright | first2=Riley E. | last2=Dunlap | title=Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement’s Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy | url=http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/McCrightDunlap2003.pdf |format=PDF| journal=Social Problems | year=2003 | volume=50 | issue=3 | pages=348–373 | doi=10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348 }} |
|||
* {{Cite journal|last=Jacques|first=P.J.|coauthors=Dunlap, R.E., and Freeman, M.|date=June 2008|title=The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism|journal=Environmental Politics|volume=17|issue=3|pages=349–385|doi=10.1080/09644010802055576}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
* [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122994/site/newsweek/ "Live Talk: Climate Change Deniers." ''Newsweek'' 8 August 2007] |
|||
* [http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/mckibben_introduction.html "Climate of Denial." Bill McKibben, ''Mother Jones'', May/June 2005] |
|||
* [http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html "Some Like It Hot." Chris Mooney, ''Mother Jones'', May/June 2005] |
|||
* [http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/ "The Denial Machine." CBC] |
|||
* [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/ "Hot Politics"] [[PBS Frontline]] |
|||
* [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/etc/cron.html Timeline of the Political and Scientific Responses] |
|||
* U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority). (2007–12–20). [http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007]. Retrieved 2009–12–25. |
|||
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2 "Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate" By Andrew C. Revkin, ''The New York Times'', 23 April 2009] |
|||
* [http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/20/pr_executive_james_hoggan_on_james# PR Executive James Hoggan on "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming"] - video report by ''[[Democracy Now!]]'' |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Climate Change Denial}} |
|||
[[Category:Climate change assessment and attribution]] |
|||
[[Category:Environmental controversies]] |
|||
[[Category:Denialism]] |
|||
[[Category:Environmental skepticism]] |
|||
[[Category:Global warming]] |
|||
[[Category:Fringe science]] |
|||
[[es:Negación del cambio climático]] |
|||
[[ja:地球温暖化に対する懐疑論]] |
|||
[[pt:Ceticismo climático]] |
|||
[[sk:Klimatoskeptik]] |
|||
Revision as of 01:59, 17 November 2010
Toddy is a lying boy-molester