Newsweek Takes On Global Warming “Deniers”
Imagine my shock when I opened my mailbox to find the latest issue of Newsweek sporting a fire-glowing orb and the headline "Global Warming is a Hoax.*" It’s hard to believe (particularly for the GO family) that there are still people who deny that climate change is happening and caused by humans. With the influx of pro-green exposure in the media, many greens saw this past year as the tipping point in awareness and activism on global warming. Yet, "deniers" still exist, and Newsweek’s cover story (complete with tongue-in-cheek headline) aims to track the foundations of the denial movement, the major players behind it, and the motivations behind the well-coordinated effort to keep the American public doubting that global warming is real. (That asterisk? It noted "Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change.")
"They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Worth, quoted early in the article. The key tactic? Creating doubt in the minds of both policymakers and the public by disputing the science behind global warming. As soon as then-senator Al Gore brought global warming to Washington’s attention in 1988, groups with benign names such as the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment, which were actually lobbyist groups from the petroleum, steel, auto, and utilities companies, began an all-out war to contradict the overwhelming body of science that supported global warming.
The rhetoric changed as the science supporting global warming grew more and more conclusive. It started with "the science behind global warming is wrong", moved to "global warming is happening, but it is not the fault of humans", and ended with the current denier mantra, "global warming is happening, and we may be causing it, but it’s effects are hardly anything to worry about."
Also impossible to ignore in the article is the amount of money and power changing hands between lobbying groups, policymakers, and scientists. One Exxon-Mobil-backed group has offered $10,000 to scientists willing to speak out against global warming. And that might be what’s so depressing about the "deniers": it seems that from day one, their motives were entirely based on the acquisition or preservation of money and power. As Gore demonstrated in a graphic in An Inconvenient Truth
The article is fascinating and puts a face (and clear strategy) on the campaign against the planet. This issue of Newsweek is on newsstands now, and the entire article can be found on Newsweek’s website.
August 9th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
I still think particulate reduction is a much better explanation than CO2 for the spike since the 70’s that all the computer models seem to be using for their trend-lines.
August 9th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Excellent find, Kelli. That’s a great article. Jimmy, what do you mean by "particulate reduction"? I’m not familiar with that term.
August 9th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Nevermind, Jimmy. I see now that you are talking about a reduction in global dimming.
As to that theory, I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. CO2 concentrations have increased exponentially over the past 150 years or so. Also, aerosol emissions have increased, especially since the 40’s, which explains much of the short cooling fit of that time. There is definitely a much larger warming effect due to greenhouse gases, which is being masked by aerosols. So, even if there is a reduction in aerosols, and therefore a reduction in the masking effect, is not the warming still occurring due to greenhouse gases? I’m not sure what the point of emphasizing a possible reduction in the masking effect is. It seems that it would make more sense to fix the problem at the source. How does this change the way in which you would propose to deal with the problem? Would you rather we increased our aerosol emissions in an effort to increase the masking effect? That’d be kind of like crimping a running garden hose tighter, rather than simply turning it off at the valve.
That was only an exercise in logic, addressing the implications of your theory. I have not yet addressed its merit. Do you have any sources that take your theory to the next level of a real scientific evaluation? There is plenty of data available on aerosol and greenhouse gas emissions. I’m a bit skeptical initially, because I know that CO2 emissions have increased and that scientists have calculated the warming effect of a doubling of its concentration. From this, they’ve quantified it’s effect in global warming. The latest IPCC report has a great chart, which shows these forcing values, on page 4 of the WG1 SPM. I can provide a link if you like.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Hopefully the article covers the other planets warming too!
August 11th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Bubba,
The other planets’ warming is irrelevant. The obvious implication there is that other planets are being warmed by the Sun and therefore, Earth’s warming must also be due to the Sun. The problem with that idea is that the various planets that have shown signs of warming, are doing so for differing reasons, none of which are due to the Sun. Secondly, we know that the Sun’s energy output has actually decreased in recent decades anyway, making this much less likely. So, if you want some truth on other planets’ warming, I’d be glad to provide you with some sources, but you’re probably not going to find anything in this article, and rightly so.
August 12th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Kelli, you missed the boat on this, as did Newsweek. So some people were offered $10k to write an original research paper. That’s peanuts compared to the billions going to those who are willing to promote the warming side.
The IPCC itself is not about evenhanded perspective — its very purpose is to promote a particular viewpoint: information about “risk of human-induced climate change”. Not climate change in general, only human-induced.
In various surveys one third or more of scientists have been skeptical about the “A” (Anthropogenic) aspect. It’s likely to rapidly increase now that so much shoddy data collection and analysis is being exposed.
This isn’t a settled issue by any means. If it were, there would be zero defensiveness about publication of data, methods and analysis.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:22 am
MrPete,
You’ve provided some very questionable claims without an single source for any of it. Many contrarians do not understand the IPCC, and therefore, imagine it to be a gargantuan institution that pushes an agenda and funds scientists. The reality is that the IPCC only puts together reports in an attempt to explain the state of climate science, as it is presented in the latest research.
There is no IPCC conspiracy, major climate debate, shoddy data, or defensiveness. If you would like to substantiate your claims with some sources, I’d be glad to address them with sources of my own. Until then, you’re claims will remain as unsubstantiated conjecture.