Climate change denial describes efforts to counter all or part of the theory of global climate change. The term "Climate change denier" is often used to refer to people acting in bad faith; the term "climate sceptic" generally refers to an individual scientist who has taken a good faith position on the global warming controversy. Some denials and disinformation campaigns have been promoted by individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly those with ties to companies like ExxonMobil or the energy lobby. Newsweek , as well as numerous journalists, including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, describe climate change denial as a form of denialism. The United Kingdom identified the issue of climate change denial as a major topic on its agenda while chair of the G8 group of wealthy countries in 2005.
Denial vs. skepticism
Main article: Global warming controversy"Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic , "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement." Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus. Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."
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, whereas others have decried those comparisons as inappropriate.
Denial industry
See also: Business action on climate change"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. Newsweek has reported that:
Individual companies and industry associations — representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance — formed lobbying groups with names like the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment. ICE's game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact".
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 leaked memo described 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 mentioned:
A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 "respected climate scientists" recruited expressly "to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom.'"
Several journalists have argued that the strategy resembles the one adopted by tobacco lobbyists after being confronted with new data linking cigarettes to cancer — to shift public perception of the discoveries toward that of a myth, unwarranted claim, or exaggeration rather than mainstream scientific theory. In 2006, The Guardian reported:
There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. "Junk science" meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. "Sound science" meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive. Both lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown and Williamson noted, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."
Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr.Frederick Seitz earned "approximately US$ 585,000" in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company while continuing "to draw a salary as 'president emeritus' at Rockefeller University". R.J. Reynolds contributed $45 million to the medical research co-ordinated by Seitz and others. Although the research did not touch upon the health effects of tobacco smoking, "the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was 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." He stated in an April 2006 interview that he believes "we're having a natural change, whatever that means, due to natural causes as yet unexplored." He elaborated by saying that "I would say it's unlikely that we face serious danger from global warming" and "Any good scientist would recognize that it cannot be ignored, but I think, under present circumstances, the only thing we can do is proceed as we are and wait to see what the result is." 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.
The Guardian has reported that, in 1993, Philip Morris established the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) in conjunction with the APCO public relations firm 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 such as 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.
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".
Instances of climate change denial
Public sec
awea.org | Newsroom
WIND BIG PART OF SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING: TRADE GROUP, ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS . Beyond Ability to Cut Emissions, Wind Energy Industry Has High
Think Progress » New Ads Funded by Big Oil Portray Global ...
New Ads Funded by Big Oil Portray Global Warming Science as Smear Campaign Against Carbon Dioxide . Yesterday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute – a front group funded by ...
Peak Energy
Inelastic Russian Oil Posted by Big Gav in peak oil, russia, stuart ... has a post on the effectiveness of nuclear power for mitigating global warming ...
Sue Big Oil Over Global Warming? Court Tells Katrina Victims, Yes You ...
Landowners along the Mississippi Gulf Coast are blaming a mishmosh of oil, coal and chemical companies for property damage caused by Hurricane Katrin
Big Oil Spends Big to Spread its Message
The oil industry special interests groups have spent nearly $200 million dollars for TV ads since Barack Obama took office on January 20th, according to Politico.com
Sue Big Oil Over Global Warming? Court Tells Katrina Victims, Yes You ...
Sue Big Oil Over Global Warming? Court Tells Katrina Victims, Yes You Can! – BNET October 22, 2009 · Leave a Comment
Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com » Oil Companies Support Global ...
Oil Companies Support Global Warming Alarmists, Not Skeptics ... 112 Responses to “Oil Companies Support Global Warming Alarmists, Not Skeptics” Big Sully Says:
The Truth About Big Oil and Global Warming, Political Blog ...
Townhall features The Truth About Big Oil and Global Warming by The Truth About, Political Blogs, Conservative Bloggers, The Republican Blogspot ...
Steven Milloy on Jim Manzi, Big Oil, & Global Warming
We find Steven Milloy at JunkScience.com to be consistently entertaining, and almost always right. So it's our duty to critique his critique of Jim Manzi's (of the partisan ...
Rockefellers - Big Oil, Ethanol And Big Global Warming
Our Advertisers Represent Some Of The Most Unique Products & Services On Earth! Rockefellers - Big Oil, Ethanol And Big Global Warming The Rockefellers are a BIG OIL and BIG ...