Climate Change 1.2.3

Climate Change and the American Public

Ignorance is not an option

by Amandilo M. Cuzan

June 2007

A simple presentation on the basics of Climate Change. What it is. What it does. And how to wade through all the hysteria and become an informed participant in the escalating struggle to confront this issue.

Ignorance is Not an Option 3

Climate Change and the American Public:Ignorance is Not an Option

Amandilo M. CuzanCopyright © 2007

www.jazzinthealley.orgwww.bronzevillealliance.org

This paper may be copied and distributed for educational purposes with the written consent of the author.

Climate Change and the American Public:4

Table of Contents

Preface ..........................................................................................................................................5Introduction ..................................................................................................................................6What is Global Warming? ............................................................................................................7The Hole in the Ozone Layer .....................................................................................................11The Greenhouse Effect ...............................................................................................................14Debates and Rumors of Debates.................................................................................................17The Kyoto Protocol ....................................................................................................................21Al Gore and the IPCC.................................................................................................................23The Inconvenient Truth ..............................................................................................................26Defeat and Redemption ..............................................................................................................29Science and the American Public ...............................................................................................31Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................34


Preface

I originally wrote this paper as a school project in 2007. As a media specialist for over forty years I wanted to explore how scientific information is communicated to the American public. My advisor at the University of Minnesota suggested that I write about global warming, since there is a lot of confusion about the subject.

The idea intrigued me. I enjoy scientific inquiry and global warming was at the center of an intense debate about how the world should respond to the alledged increase of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. I heard many people scoff at the idea that global warming was a serious concern.

One thing I discovered right away was that black people were on the margins of the discussion. It seemed like another "white man's" issue that had little to do with the price of tea in Bronzeville. Since that time, dozens of grassroots organizations have targeted Bronzeville and similar inner city communities with green initiatives and environmental programs. The growing consensus is that in a global community where social, cultural and economic interests are woven together as never before, we must all be involved in stewardship of our limited natural resources.

From the Great Lakes to the cities beautiful parks and boulevards, we are responsible for the environmental legacy we leave our children and grandchildren. Our greatest weapon in this battle is information. This paper provides you with a basic understanding of the climate change story. Ignorance is not an option. Enjoy.


Introduction

No matter what your political beliefs, your house of worship, your economic status, your genetic pedigree, what school you attend, what car you drive, where you live, work or play, we humans face one undeniable truth. We share one planet. Earth is the only planet within our reach that can sustain human life. Perhaps that is why the issue of global warming and its potential to spark worldwide catastrophe is finally hitting a nerve with the American public. Worldwide disasters are not new to the popular imagination. The possibility of a large asteroid smashing into the Earth, the ever present threat of nuclear war, or a super-plague run amok are all potential candidates to destroy life as we know it.

Global warming, however, is prompting a growing concern that we must do something—and do it now! Average citizens are being called upon to curb their wasteful consumer habits and help the nation and the world to lessen dependence on unsustainable energy sources such as fossil fuels. Like it or not, we are all in this together.

In this paper, I will explore the science behind global warming and how that science is presented to the American public. I will also examine the “debate” between the many scientists who insist that climate change is an urgent concern, and those few well funded“experts” who insist the science is flawed and our economy cannot sustain the “hysterical” fixes being proposed.

In conclusion, I will discuss the impact of this controversy on public policy decisions.


What is Global Warming?

Many people find it hard to grasp the danger of global warming. Most of us think of the local weather forecast when we consider the concept. Trudging through a winter blizzard, or experiencing below zero weather, we ask ourselves why all the fuss over a degree or two of warmer weather. Isn’t that a good thing? Such ill-informed attitudes are widespread. When scientists speak of climate change, they are not referring to daily temperature changes but “average weather, including weather’s variability over much longer time horizons.”1 Climate is measured more in centuries and eons rather than in days, months, or even years.

Earth’s eco-system is a complex web of inter-related phenomena. What impacts one part of the planet will eventually affect other regions as well. It is predicted that a few degrees increase in climate over time can produce major negative consequences for human existence. These negative consequences may be all the more severe because it is now widely accepted that anthropogenic or human activity is largely responsible for an unprecedented warming of Earth’s climate.2 This is the key question. What impact does human activity have on climate change? Carbon levels have been higher in Earth’s distant past, and our climate goes through naturally recurring cycles of warm and cold spells, but there is increasing evidence that current human activity is pushing the rate of change to dangerous, irreversible levels.

The rate of climate change is the next critical question. There is growing concern that many species will become extinct because they will not have sufficient time to adapt to abrupt changes (measured in mere decades) in global climate. Scientists warn that only a few degrees increase in climate over time can trigger grim consequences.3

Though some areas of our planet may even see positive change, the majority of the predictions are dire. Frequent heat waves like the one that hit Europe in 2003 and killed 35,000 people would likely damage crops, increase droughts and worsen industrial pollution. Warm, dry conditions will likely increase forest fires which will exacerbate the greenhouse effect. Already fragile water and food resources would be threatened. Tropical diseases may spread further north along with the spread of warmer temperatures. These same warmer temperatures could prompt an intensified hydrological cycle of evaporation and precipitation that could produce exceptionally violent and damaging storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. Many scientists and interested observers feel this is already happening and will only get worse. Melting icecaps and glaciers would likely cause sea levels to rise, inundating coastal areas and

1 Global Warming and Our Changing Climate: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Environmental Protection Agency Publication, www.epa.gov, Retrieved on 7/12/20072

Rosenthal, Elizabeth, U.N. Report on Climate Details Risk of Inaction: Scientists’ FinalAccounting is Forceful on Temperatures and Sea Levels New York Times (November 17, 2007)

3According to the EPA, Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.32ºF/decade or 3.2°F/century.

The five warmest years over the last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1990. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html


possibly causing major alterations to ocean currents. Not only would selected species be threatened, but also life as we know it could become extinct.4

Pretty scary—or is it? Could global warming be a hoax? Could all this doomsday talk be part of a global conspiracy to undermine the American economy? At the very least are we dealing with a bunch of misled environmentalists relying on junk science?

In the popular movie, The Day After Tomorrow, which was released by 20th Century Fox in 2004, viewers are presented with a severe climate change scenario. Large areas of Antarctic glaciers break away and melt into the Atlantic Ocean. This huge influx of fresh water dilutes the salt water of the Atlantic Ocean and disrupts the THC.

What is THC you ask? No, it is has nothing to do with marijuana.5 In this case, THC stands for thermohaline circulation. Thermohaline circulation is the part of the ocean’s circulatory system which is driven by differences in temperature and salt content. This huge worldwide system of ocean currents operates like a conveyer belt moving water around the globe.

This conveyor belt passes through the warm waters off the Cape of Africa and travels north through the Atlantic Ocean toward the North Pole. The part of the THC known as the Gulf Stream carries large amounts of warm water in its wake that helps to maintain warmer temperatures in Europe. Without this generous gift flowing north off the West Coast of Africa, Europe would likely be much colder.

The Day After Tomorrow depicts a situation where the change in the salinity of the Gulf Stream disrupts this heat transfer and eventually triggers three massive hurricanes across the globe. The eyes of the hurricanes have such low pressure that cold air from the upper troposphere is sucked downward into the unsuspecting cities of Europe and North America. Anything in the path of this extremely cold air, so the movie portrays, is instantly frozen in place.

The Day After Tomorrow went on to generate over a half-billion dollars in revenue. Its high-end special effects and all-star cast made the movie an enjoyable viewing experience for many people. However, a wide cross-section of politicians, scientists and environmental groups strongly criticized the film for depicting a climate change scenario that has no basis in fact.6

Though the melting of glaciers, the rise in sea levels, and the initial impact on the THC is predicted by global warming, the subsequent climatic effects shown in the movie are considered absurd. Even if such a cooling effect did take place, it would hardly happen within the few days suggested by the movie, and certainly without the severity that would cause helicopters to freeze in mid-air.

4 Tennesen, Michael (2004) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Warming, Alpha Books/Indiana pg. 4-155 THC can also refer to tetrahydrocannabinol the main chemical in marijuana that gets you high. 6 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow, Retrieved 8/7/2007


Advocates who demand that America take the lead in confronting the potential consequences of climate change are very concerned about providing accurate information to the American public. Environmental journalist, Eugene Linden states,


“Any look at present-day climate change must take into account how information about the issue has been received by politicians and the public…I have watched with frustration as the story presented to the general public has diverged ever more markedly from the story as it is seen by scientists studying the phenomenon.”7

The American electorate is perhaps the most influential voting block in the world. Our votes, though often dismissed by cynics as irrelevant can and do drive much of American public policy. An informed electorate is still the most powerful weapon in a democracy. The key word here is informed.

7 Linden, Eugene (2006) The Winds of Change: Climate Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations. (pg.220)


The Hole in the Ozone Layer

Most baby boomers remember the intense media coverage of the hole in the ozone layer during the 1970’s and 80’s. Ozone is a form of oxygen that exists in the upper atmosphere. It protects the Earth against harmful ultraviolet radiation by intercepting the sun’s UV rays before they reach the surface of our planet. Systematic observations of the gas began in 1930. Over forty years later two chemists discovered that a family of industrial chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs was depleting the protective ozone layer.

CFCs were mainly used in refrigeration and air conditioners. These extremely stable chemicals made up of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon atoms were also used in aerosol sprays and as fillers in insulation. Before 1970, CFCs were thought to be harmless. Then F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, two chemists working out of the University of California Irvine found that chlorine atoms produced by the decomposition of CFCs could destroy the protective ozone layer that shields us from too much UV radiation. On June 28, 1974, Nature magazine published Rowland and Molina's findings.

Scientists tend to be natural skeptics. Debating research results are a vital part of refining scientific data. This spirited intellectual process, though effective for scientific exploration, can be agonizingly ineffective for sparking needed changes in public policy.

Determined to make sure that their critical discovery did not stagnate within the scientific community, Molina and Rowland went on an unprecedented personal crusade to spread their message to policy makers and the news media. The two chemists were often maligned for what industry analysts insisted was questionable data. Based on the available information many scientists predicted that ultraviolet radiation passing through the hole in the ozone layer would result in rising skin cancer rates, increased cases of cataracts, and other environmental damage. A contentious debate ensued where representatives of the chemical industry led by DuPont, strongly challenged the connection between the depletion of the ozone layer and CFCs. The debate raged for over a decade. As long as there was no “smoking gun” the chemical industry could resist any costly fixes proposed by the scientific community and government regulators.

Then in 1985, a British team led by Joseph Farman actually discovered a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica.

“When the team first measured ozone above the [Halley Bay Station in Antarctica], they assumed the spectrophotometer they were using must bebroken and sent the device back to England to be repaired. But the spectrophotometer worked just fine.”8

8 Tennesen, Michael (2004) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Warming, Alpha Books/Indiana pg. 46


A year later in 1986, Susan Solomon led a team of sixteen NASA scientists to the Antarctic region to further investigate the depletion of the ozone. NASA soon published widely circulated satellite photos of the Antarctic Ozone Hole.

“For the public, the Antarctic Ozone Hole was the smoking gun. It was the first time anyone had ever presented solid, scientific, irrefutable evidence of a connection between CFC’s and ozone depletion. The public began to realize man’s enormous capacity to effect his environment.”9

Further studies followed and the world began to take notice. In 1987, a meeting of 25 industrial nations took place in Montreal, Canada, which led to an agreement to gradually phase-out CFCs and other ozone-depleting materials. The agreement was called a “monumental achievement” by then-president Ronald Reagan. But not everyone accepted Reagan's statement as sincere . Eugene Linden points out that,

“DuPont, the world’s largest producer of CFCs successfully lobbied the Reagan administration to halt steps [to ban CFCs] that had been underway since the previous Carter administration. Only when the evidence of damage had become overwhelming in the late 1980s did DuPont reverse position, and even then skeptics noted that its motives were suspect.”10

According to Linden, by the mid 1980s DuPont had a substantial industry lead on the production of CFC alternatives. Mandates from the outgoing Carter administration had forced DuPont to explore alternatives to these harmful chemicals. Ironically, Ronald Reagan tabled these same mandates when he took power in 1981. Now DuPont stood to gain big from its intransigence. The phasing-out of CFCs would give DuPont a virtual lock on the market of CFC alternatives—a market with much higher profit returns than the production of the chemicals that were depleting the ozone layer.

Linden’s analysis highlights an important principle. The prime directive of corporations is to make a profit, or failing that, minimize losses. Any attempts to confront climate change must account for this prime directive. The profit motive transformed chemical giant DuPont from a major industrial polluter into a champion of the environment; and cleared the way for most CFCs to be banned by 1996.

Scientists predicted at the time that banning CFCs would cause the hole in the ozone to disappear altogether by 2050.11 Molina and Rowland must have especially enjoyed the personal vindication brought about by these developments. The two chemists, whose unprecedented crusade helped to launch the Montreal Conference in 1987, won a Nobel Prize in 1995 for their work in discovering the depletion of the ozone layer.

9 ibid.10 Linden, Eugene (2006) The Winds of Change: Climate Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations. pg.20411 A conference was recently held in Canada where an agreement was worked out to speed the elimination of ozone depleting gases. “Developing countries have agreed to cut production and consumption by 10 percent in 2015; by 35 percent by 2020 and by 67.5 percent by 2025 with a final phase-out in 2030.” That is 20 years sooner than originally agreed upon by the Montreal Protocol.Norohona, Charmaine Nations to Speed Elimination of Destructive Gas, Seattle Times 9/23/2007


After such a promising success story, there was hope that the world would now focus on the growing evidence pointing to a new environmental threat—climate change. Unfortunately, that was not to be the case. With limited scientific evidence to verify global warming, the political will was lacking to confront what many considered a non-problem.

Unlike the circumstances surrounding the ozone battle, climate change involved dozens of industries and complex, often conflicting variables. It took years of debate, conferences and political gamesmanship before affected industries would even acknowledge the existence of the greenhouse effect. Today, despite well established data to the contrary, there are still deeply entrenched holdouts that challenge the prevailing science regarding greenhouse emissions and their relationship to global climate change.


The Greenhouse Effect

The Earth’s atmosphere is sometimes referred to as a blanket. We can intuitively infer that the heavier the blanket, the warmer the planet. When rays from the sun hit the atmosphere of the Earth, much of the radiant energy is reflected back into space or intercepted by the ozone layer. Additional energy is reflected off the surface of the Earth as the sun’s rays hit bright surfaces such as water, snow, or ice. The rest of the solar energy is absorbed at the Earth’s surface and released in the form of heat. Some of this heat escapes back into space. A substantial amount, however, is trapped by the atmosphere and emitted back to Earth.

The gasses that trap heat like a blanket are called greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas. Water vapor manifests as clouds and is part of the natural greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth warm enough for human habitation. Other naturally occurring gasses in the atmosphere include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.

Of these, the second most abundant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2). Scientists have determined that CO2 has the greatest impact on climate change. When the climate system is in balance carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere by natural processes and regulated by two naturally occurring phenomena; absorption by the oceans, and photosynthesis12, occurring most abundantly in rainforests. With the aid of this natural regulation, carbon levels stay fairly constant under normal conditions.

Because the Earth’s ecosystem is a complex web involving the interaction of many forces, one part of the system can affect other parts of the system in unpredictable ways. Scientists estimate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has remained at about 280 parts per million for most of the past 10,000 years. With the birth of the industrial revolution in the 1700s, the balance of CO2 concentration has been tipped out of balance by two major human endeavors. Large quantities of carbon dioxide are being released into the atmosphere each year by the burning of carbon-rich fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. Added to this, humans have cut down nearly half of the Earth’s forests. Forests are a major vehicle for the absorption of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis.

The result of this one-two punch is not hard to calculate. Today, carbon levels have increased 31% to about 380 ppm and rising. Educators and environmentalists, Tim Grant and Gail Littlejohn report that,

“In the past decade, almost seven billion tonnes of carbon were released every year by the burning of fossil fuels and destruction of forest. About half of it dissolved in the oceans or was taken up by plants; the other half, about 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon, was added to the atmosphere and will remain there for 50 to 200 years.”13

12 Photosynthesis is a chemical process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars, using the energy from sunlight.13 Comeau, Louise and Grant, Tim, The Greenhouse Effect, Grant, Tim and Littlejohn, Gail (2001) Teaching About Climate Change: Cool Schools Tackle Global Warming. New Society Publishers/Canada pg 9.


The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more heat radiation is trapped and emitted back to Earth. Carbon dioxide has a life span in the atmosphere of over 100 years. Therefore, even an immediate halt of fossil fuel burning would not be felt for a century.14 Newsweek environmental reporter Sharon Begley paints a sobering picture, “carbon dioxide molecules belched out by Model Ts are still up there.”15 For many observers, such assessments indicate the need for urgent action.

On the contrary, top representatives of the oil and gas industry resisted any suggestion that climate change was real. As DuPont did in the 1980s when faced with mounting evidence that its products were depleting the ozone layer, the energy, automotive, and chemical industries launched a major offensive to counter the growing evidence of man’s contribution to global warming and the impact this warming could have on the Earth.

The direct involvement of industry bigwigs in the PR offensive indicated how serious they took the threat. Executives would publicly refute any hint that climate change was a serious concern. As long as no smoking gun existed, such as the Arctic Ozone Hole, corporate leaders reasoned that no immediate (or expensive) action would be demanded of them. The strategy was effective in the early going of the debate. Dealing with phenomena that manifests over dozens, perhaps hundreds of years, makes it difficult to find a smoking gun.

Added to this, the economic costs were presented to the public as more damaging than any possible cure. Cost is indeed a very important part of the climate change equation and is often hard to conceptualize. Michael Tennesen writes,

“Fixing Global warming is not going to be cheap…This is likely to be hugely expensive, requiring major reductions in the use of gasoline, fuel oil, natural gas, and coal.”16

Industry leaders presented themselves as good stewards of the American economy resisting unreasonable efforts to slow vital economic growth.

They in turn cast their opponents as “Chicken Littles” duped by a United Nation’s-led movement of socialists and liberal hacks determined to undermine the American economy. Despite such characterizations, scientists and environmentalists across the globe were determined to get their story to the public. Tennesen goes on to present an apt analogy.

“Doing something now about global warming is like taking out insurance. We take out insurance on our cars and our homes in the event of major catastrophes. We don’t expect them, but we want to be prepared. Maybe it’s time to contact an agent.”17

14 Tennesen, Michael (2004) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Warming, Alpha Books/Indiana pg. 4615 Begley, Sharon (2007) Curbing Emissions Won’t Be Enough Newsweek April 16, 2007 pg. 6516 Tennesen, Michael (2004) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Warming, Alpha Books/Indiana pg. 24917 ibid


As the debate intensified, industry representatives received increasingly negative PR for promoting positions sharply at odds with the scientific consensus on global warming. Defiantly they raged on about free enterprise and American ingenuity. Behind this patriotic veneer lurked the ever-dominant profit motive. Like big tobacco before them, industry did their best to play both sides against the middle, financing trade associations and think tanks to sow doubt, while publicly and reluctantly admitting that global climate change might indeed be a problem.18

18 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition Retrieved 9/9/2007


Debates and Rumors of Debates

Item: Record Heat Wave in Europe Takes 35,000 Lives19

Item: U.N. Report: Global Warming Could Be ‘Abrupt, Irreversible’20

Item: Study: Global Warming Will Kill More Americans21

Item: Groundwater lost to rising sea levels greater than thought: study22

Item: Artic Melt Unnerves the Experts23

Everyday new evidence surfaces that appears to reinforce the primary predictions of global climate change. Dramatic melting of ice caps and glaciers, record-setting warmth throughout the globe, deadly weather events, and increased CO2 emissions seem to indicate that the problem is real and demands urgent attention. Nevertheless, advocates of swift and sustained action find themselves up against formidable obstacles. Despite the growing public awareness of the term “global warming” many people still have minimal understanding of the facts underlying the concept. Environmental activists Tim Grant and Gail Littlejohn discuss the problems faced when teaching about climate change.

“The topic is complex because the Earth’s systems are complex, and scientists themselves are not at all certain of the potential ramifications of our interference with these systems. Equally formidable from an educator’s point of view is the intangibility of climate change: its global scale and seemingly slow progression make it a phenomenon that does not easily lend itself to classroom demonstration.”24

Affected industries, already struggling with intense global competition and geopolitical upheaval in oil producing states have come down forcibly on the side of denying climate change. Indeed, the economic stakes are high and there is much uncertainty on how to best calculate the costs of any meaningful solution. Instead of taking the lead on this critical issue, many industry insiders have chosen instead to aggressively exploit the uncertainties in the climate change story and stall any serious effort to reduce greenhouse gases.

Sharon Begley writing in Newsweek exposes what many have termed the global warming denier's movement.

“If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize the game is over, think again. Yes, 19 million people watched the “Live Earth” concerts last month, titans of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts,

19 Larsen, Janet, (2003) Record Heat Wave in Europe Takes 35,000 Lives, www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update29.html, Retrieved 11/20/200720 www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,311953,00.html November 16, 200721 Fiore, Marrecca, www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,287915,00.html Retrieved 7/4/200722 Oberman, Mira, http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071117/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingresourceswater_0711

Retrieved 11/17/200723 Revkin, Andrew C., New York Times, Tuesday, October 2, 200724 Grant, Tim and Littlejohn, Gail (2001) Teaching About Climate Change: Cool Schools Tackle Global Warming. New Society Publishers/Canada pg 1.


‘green’ magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore’s best selling book, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ won an Oscar. But outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.”25

According to many analysts, the skeptics have used an evolving set of rationale to aggressively, and at times deceptively cast doubt on any pronouncements regarding the severity of climate change and man’s role in causing global warming. Steven Milloy states in his foxnews.com column,

“Putting aside that weather-related events can’t be tied to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)…the real climate-related threats to business (are): the alarmism itself and attendant government regulation.”26

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) ran by non-scientist, Myron Ebell says on its website,

“There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.”27

Rush Limbaugh in his trademark condescending sarcasm has been one of the leading voices against recognizing climate change as a serious and immediate threat to human society. He quips,

“Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to believe in global warming.”28

The May 2007 issue of Vanity Fair features heartthrob actor Leonardo DiCaprio sharing space on the cover with a baby polar bear. The entire publication is devoted to concerns about climate change. James Wolcott, in his article about Limbaugh says,

“While Limbaugh has been able to maintain his hold on the faithful core, others, less fervent are peeling off at the periphery, trying not to trip over their own heels as they pedal through a series of fallback positions.”29

25

Begley, Sharon (2007) Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine Newsweek/MSNBC, Retrieved 8/5/2007www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/print/1/displaymode/1098/

26 Milloy, Steve, (2007) Global Warning’s Bottom Line, 11/15/2007 www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,311870,00.html Retrieved 11/17/200727 Global Warming FAQ, Competitive Enterprise Institute, http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf28 As quoted in Wolcott, James (2007) Rush to Judgment. Vanity Fair, May 2007 (pp. 102) 29 Wolcott, James (2007) Rush to Judgment. Vanity Fair, May 2007 (pp. 100-106)


Wolcott sums up these fallback positions as follows.

Global warming is a hoax

OK, it is not a hoax, but it is part of a natural cycle. Man is not responsible.

So maybe global warming is partly man’s fault, but the cure could be worse than the disease causing unacceptable harm to the American economy.

All right, maybe it is a serious issue, but America (Western Civilization) will prevail. Let the system take its course. Stop being Chicken Little.

The first approach was to deny that global warming existed. The skeptics attacked the accuracy of the methods used to take the Earth’s temperature. They argued that modern temperature records, which dated back to 1860, were reading warmer because cities had expanded around or near the devices used to record temperature changes. Even more problematic, initial temperature readings taken from satellites did not agree with readings taken from ground thermometers. The satellites actually showed a cooling trend. Skeptics jumped on this discrepancy to cast doubt on the readings, and ridicule those who were sounding the alarm on global warming. Once scientists adjusted the satellite data to account for orbital changes, the readings agreed quite well with ground-based instruments.

Skeptics then squawked that the temperature records did not go back far enough. Scientists countered with much older readings dating back several hundred thousand years. These readings were obtained from circumstantial evidence such as tree rings and ancient ice cores and strongly suggest a direct correlation between climate change and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. To this day, skeptics continue to challenge the ice core and tree ring evidence, but the data has stood up well under their intense scrutiny.

Most importantly, the readings suggested that human activity was the driving factor in the dramatic increase in the rate of climate change over time—a critical issue in proposing public policy changes. Despite strong evidence indicating the need for an urgent effort to reduce greenhouse gases, industry-funded groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE) refused to acknowledge the validity of the data.

These three groups, among others, have been the conduit for millions of corporate dollars used to crank out policy papers and fund PR campaigns to challenge any evidence suggesting a global climate crisis. The overriding goal was to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”30 Michael Shnayerson writes in Vanity Fair, “In 2005, the oil giant [ExxonMobil] gave CEI $270,000, a not inconsiderable portion of the institute’s $3.7 million budget, and…between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil gave it more than $2 Million…CEI gets money

30 http://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/Information_Council_on_the_Environment


from the American Petroleum Institute, various pharmaceutical companies (Dow Chemical, Eli Lily), and William A. Dunn of Dunn Capital Management.”31

GCC and ICE received similar sums of money from industry connected groups and were key players in undermining political support for any American participation in mandatory reduction of greenhouse gases. The climate change conflict intensified in the wake of the global effort to ratify the Kyoto Protocol negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997.

31 Shnayerson, Michael (2007) Letters From Washington. Vanity Fair, May 2007 (pp. 144)


The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was part of a worldwide environmental effort that grew out of the1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Five years later, in 1997, over 160 nations met at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan. Ten days of grueling negotiations produced the first formal global recognition of climate change and actually offered a plan to help reduce carbon emissions. The main goal of the treaty is to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerousanthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The immediate objective is to provide an international framework to stop humans from smothering the planet with greenhouse gases.

Some participants felt the treaty was incapable of meeting its modest objectives of reducing greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to emission measurements taken in the year 1990. Furthermore, the treaty did not cover China and India, two rapidly developing economies that produce a large share of greenhouse gases. Despite the many questions surrounding the Kyoto agreement, it was the only game in town. As of June 2007, 172 countries had ratified the treaty.32 Conspicuously absent from the signatories was the United States. Even though former Vice President Al Gore invested major resources in negotiating the Kyoto agreement, the Clinton administration exerted little effort to pass the treaty. It was clear at the time that the votes in the Senate were not there for ratification. The George W. Bush administration, staunch global warming skeptics, had no intention of trying to ratify and on the dawn of 2012, the Obama administration has yet to confront this political minefield.Despite the fact that the US Senate had no intention of ratifying the treaty, the Global Climate Coalition, which was closely aligned with the American Petroleum Institute, allocated millions of dollars in 1997 for an anti-Kyoto campaign. Begley writes,

“They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty. The plan was to train up to twenty ‘respected climate scientists’ on media—and public—outreach with the aim of ‘raising questions about and undercutting the prevailing scientific wisdom’ and in particular the Kyoto treaty’s scientific underpinnings so that elected officials will seek to prevent progress toward implementation.”33

This leaked memo solidified the reputation of groups such as GCC as nothing more than well-paid industry hit men. High profile corporate leaders desiring credibility began to distance themselves, at least publicly, from these heavy-handed tactics. SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy posts on its website that,

“By 1997, the growing scientific and public consensus regarding global warming forced a number of GCC supporters to reconsider the negative PR implications of their involvement in a group that was increasingly

32 Australia, followed suit with the election of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister in November of 2007. Rudd is a firm supporter of global climate change initiatives and promised to make signing the treaty a top priority. 33

Begley, Sharon (2007) Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine Newsweek/MSNBCwww.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/print/1/displaymode/1098/


recognized as a self-serving anti-environmentalist front group. BP/Amoco withdrew from GCC after BP’s chairman John Browne admitted that, ‘the time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society in which we are a part. We in BP have reached that point.’ ”34

Other industry giants quickly followed suit. SourceWatch goes on to say,

“…Individual companies were no longer asked to join the GCC. Instead membership would be limited to ‘only trade associations’ and other ‘like-minded organizations.’ By seeking support from trade associations instead of individual companies, GCC hoped to create a layer of deniability so that affected industries could continue to support its campaign of global warming denial while avoiding boycotts and other public campaigns against individual companies.”

ICE also faced serious credibility problems as the result of a leaked memo. Industry insiders such as the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association, and Edison Electrical Institute created ICE to do battle with anyone who dared call global warming a fact. The organization launched a $500,000 advertising and PR campaign aimed at “older less educated males” and “younger, lower-income women” who were identified as “good targets for radio advertisements” that would “directly attack the proponents of global warming…”35

The ICE anti-environmental campaign collapsed when internal memoranda related to the PR effort was leaked to the press.

34 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Council_on_the_Environment Retrieved 9/92007


Al Gore and the IPCC

Former Vice President Al Gore and The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were joint recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work related to educating the public about global warming. The IPCC is one of the leading sources of scientific information on the topic. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) established the panel in 1988.

The IPCC has three main objectives.

1) Bring together the world’s top scientists to discuss and explore relevant issues related to climate change. The Panel is made up of over 2500 scientists and experts from around the world.

2) Synthesize peer-reviewed literature on climate change studies. The IPCC emphasizes that, “The Panel does not conduct new research, monitor climate-related data or recommend policies.” Being recognized as an objective, non-partisan scientific body is essential to the effectiveness of the IPCC.

3) Produce authoritative assessments of the current state of climate change knowledge.

Though the IPCC is not a public policy group, The Panel’s goal is to:

“Make assessments available to governments and intergovernmental organisations to be taken into account in their policies on social and economic development and environmental programmes.”36

The first IPCC assessment report was released in 1990 and concluded that,

“The experts…are certain that emissions from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and that this will enhance the greenhouse effect and result in an additional warming of Earth’s surface.”37

Following the first release in 1990, the IPCC released a new report about every five years. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment was ready for release on Saturday, November 17, 2007.

“This fourth and final assessment—the so-called synthesis report—seeks to combine lessons from all three. Its conclusions are culled from data contained in the thousands of pages that are essentially technical supplements to the panel’s previous publications.”38

36 IPCC, 16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of the Climate Convention, December 2004 pg. 237 Ibid. pg. 338 Revkin, Andrew C., (2007) New York Times, Tuesday, October 2, 2007


The 2007 report makes a conscious effort to state the climate change case in more forceful terms than previous reports. Many environmentalists still felt it did not go far enough. Furthermore, the IPCC process takes five years of study and writing from start to finish, meaning the very latest data would not be synthesized into the assessment.39 Skeptics, on the other hand, claim the whole process is nothing more than alarmist propaganda and continue to resist any data, no matter how solid. Despite these concerns, the report is under serious review by governments across the globe and will have great influence on any public policy decisions involving climate change.

Now that the IPCC report has been made public, policymakers must decide what to do with it. Longtime industry darling, Steven Milloy seems to suggest that the only value the report has is as fuel for his furnace—a coal burning one no doubt. He puts it this way,

“It should come as no surprise that, according to the U.N., 257 years of western development and progress has placed the Earth in imminent danger of utter disaster and that the only way to save the planet is to drink the U.N. Kool-Aid and knuckle under to global-directed energy rationing and economic planning.”40

Besides writing for FoxNews.com under his Junk Science banner, Milloy is also an adjunct scholar for the notorious Competitive Enterprise Institute. In both capacities, Milloy has received large sums of money from the tobacco, oil and chemical industries. Not surprisingly, Milloy writes virulent columns and position papers challenging well-established data on secondhand smoke, global warming, and the use of the banned pesticide, DDT. Though he holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences and a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from John Hopkins University, it seems his real calling is in legal wrangling. He holds a Juris Doctor Degree from the University of Baltimore and a Masters of Laws from Georgetown University.

He and his colleagues at the CEI have positioned themselves as defenders of “free” enterprise and champions of the American economy. They tell us that we must hold the line against the ignorant hordes duped into believing that multi-billion dollar industries such as big oil would deliberately compromise the interests of the public for the sake of profits. Heaven forbid, scoffs Milloy and his fellow skeptics. American industry is self-correcting and needs no interference from bureaucratic watchdogs and socialist-leaning environmentalists. The relentless propaganda effort led by Milloy and other naysayers has no doubt made an impact.

Sharon Begley sums up the case as follows, “Since the late 1980’s, 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.” She goes on to say that, “As a result of the undermining of the science, all the recent talk of addressing climate change has produced little in the way of actual action.”41

39 Ibid40 Milloy, Steven (2007) U.N. Climate Distractions, 11/21/2007 www.foxnews.com/story/0.3566,312490,00.html41

Begley, Sharon (2007) Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine Newsweek/MSNBC www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/print/1/displaymode/1098/ Retrieved 8/5/07


Many climate activists hoped the IPCC report would spark relevant change. The Panel’s assessment includes a specific list of “Reasons for Concern.” In previous reports, only the most likely scenarios were listed. This time around, the Panel put forth more alarming though less likely possibilities, such as the widespread extinction of species. Critics say this is politicizing the process and writing to reinforce preconceived ideas instead of letting the results speak for themselves.42 Nevertheless, the IPCC report emphasizes that climate change may lead to “abrupt and irreversible” results. World leaders met in Bali, Indonesia December 3, 2007 to discuss the report and begin work on a global climate change treaty that will replace the Kyoto protocol that expires in 2012. The sense of urgency is growing.

Can such warnings overcome the stubborn pride that says nobody can tell America what to do? Globalization not withstanding, many Americans still perceive the world from a very narrow,xenophobic point of view. A diverse collection of conspiracy theorists and end time bible teachers see any global initiative as a plot to undermine American authority and usher in a new world order led by the antichrist.

One such scenario goes that the UN is the seat of a sinister plot driven by secular humanists who have tapped into third-world jealousy of American prestige and are now sowing discord across the globe. The poor angry masses are ripe for the picking. At some point the antichrist will rise to unite the diverse factions and lead a major assault against the Western world, as if God only operates in the western hemisphere.

Many Americans raised on sitcoms and reality shows too easily embrace overly simplistic thinking. I appreciate a good conspiracy theory and have a very healthy skepticism of government motives, no matter what country is involved. Human nature is seldom trustworthy, especially when wielding vast power. I am all for decentralized government and protection of individual freedoms. But at some point, you have to face facts and prepare for the real possibility that greenhouse gases are reaching dangerous levels.

Unfortunately, Americans tend to be psychologically conditioned to neatly packaged half-hour solutions to complex problems—an hour or two at the most. The climate change controversy often seems to the public as a nebulous theory with little to wrap one's mind around. All this deep thinking and self-analysis is for sissies, atheists and tree huggers. What's missing is a clearly defined bad guy to beat up and a beautiful girl to win. Where's John Wayne and Ronald Reagan when you need them. They would know how to handle this climate stuff. Can't the CSI team dust for a few fingerprints and wrap this thing up?

It's just not that simple. You can't punch climate change in the face or outgun him in a shoot out. What are our options? How can we understand and confront this problem in a healthy effective manner? What will it take to capture the imagination of the public, spur them to action, and bring about the Hollywood ending that any doomsday threat requires? Any movie fan knows that an historic crusade demands an heroic crusader. Enter Al Gore with an inconvenient truth.

42 Myer, Bob, Politicized Science and the IPCC, 11/21/07 www.americanthinker.com/2007 Retrieved 11/24/07


An Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore’s journey from wealthy tobacco farmer to environmental hero resonates with all the plot twists of a Hollywood blockbuster. Gore’s father and namesake was U.S. Representative and Senator from Tennessee, Al Gore Sr., whose political career spanned over thirty years. Gore writes about his father with apparent admiration. “My father was a hero to me. I looked up to him and I wanted to be like him.” But a funny thing happened on Gore Jr.'s path to political prominence.

“I watched as my father was defeated for reelection to the US Senate in 1970, mainly because of his courageous opposition to the Vietnam War, his support for school desegregation and voting rights, and his insistence on upholding constitutional principles against the onslaught being carried out by the Nixon-Agnew administration.”43

Gore Jr. also witnessed the sea change in political campaigns conducted in the age of negative television ads and sound bite attack strategies. He eventually decided on a different career path than his famous father.

Gore Jr. enlisted in the United States Army on August 7, 1969 after graduating with honors from Harvard. He eventually served as an army journalist in Vietnam. Upon return to civilian life Gore spent five years as public affairs reporter for the Nashville Tennessean. His journalistic endeavors rekindled his interest in politics.

“Seeing politics up close from that different and detached perspective, I slowly but surely came back to it on my own terms.”44

Gore quit law school in 1976 to run for the United States House of Representatives. He won a close primary election against Stanley Rogers, and then ran unopposed to win his first election to Tennessee’s fourth congressional district. After being re-elected three times, he set his sights on the United States Senate where he served until Bill Clinton tapped him to run as his vice-president.

Gore has a long and what many acknowledge is a distinguished environmental record. His interest in environmental issues began during his undergraduate years at Harvard. There he met Professor Roger Revelle, “who was the first person to propose measuring CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.” Gore describes how Revelle hired the young researcher Charles David Keeling to “collect samples of the CO2 concentrations high in the Earth’s atmosphere from multiple locations every day for many years into the future.” Their principle research station was located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii.

The measurements began in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year and would eventually serve as the basis for the Keeling curve. The data painstakingly gathered by Keeling for almost half a century strongly suggests that Earth’s CO2 levels are on a steady

43 Gore, Al (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York44 ibid


upward swing. The chart gleaned from this data became an essential part of the slide show developed by Gore that inspired the book and the movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore writes,

“I still show Revelle’s chart of rising CO2 levels many times each week. It is more elaborate than when I first saw it—the Mauna Loa measurements now span 48 years. Moreover, with the information gleaned from ice cores drilled in Antarctica and Greenland, the chart has been extended backward 650,000 years.”45

Revelle who died in 1991 and Keeling who died in 2005 have left a formidable record of climate data that has shed much light on the current climate change crisis. Drawing on their research, Congressman Gore made the issue a top priority. He initiated the first congressional hearings on the subject and worked tirelessly to convince his colleagues that the issue was urgent and compelling.

Gore was elected to the Senate in 1984. That same year his beloved sister Nancy died of cigarette induced lung cancer. Gore describes her as “luminous. Charismatic. Gutsy. Astute. Funny. Incredibly smart. And Kind.”46 In light of her untimely death, the Gore family farm eventually stopped growing tobacco. Gore saw in this tragic situation the same disconnect that many feel when faced with climate change.

“The implications of continuing to grow a crop on my father’s farm that helped produce the cigarettes that had caused (my sister’s) fatal disease seemed a little abstract and a little remote at that point—in the same way global warming seems remote to many right now.”47

Eight years after his sister’s death, Gore authored Earth in the Balance, his first call to arms regarding the importance of environmental issues. The book was dedicated to his sister and the introduction reveals the underlying philosophy that drives the former Senator’s activism.

“The edifice of civilization has become astonishingly complex, but as it grows ever more elaborate, we feel increasingly distant from our roots in the earth. In one sense, civilization itself has been on a journey from its foundations in the world of nature to an ever more contrived, controlled and manufactured world of our own imitative and sometimes arrogant design. And in my view, the price has been high. At some point during this journey we lost our feeling of connectedness to the rest of nature. We now dare to wonder: Are we so unique and powerful to be essentially separate from the earth?”48

45 ibid46 Gore, Al (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York pg. 25647 Ibid pg 25948 Gore, Al (1992) Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Rodale/New York


Earth in the Balance reached the New York Times bestseller list, but Gore understood that it was one small salvo in a much larger battle. He says, “I’ve been trying to tell this story for a long time and feel as if I’ve failed to get the message across.”

Gore remained deeply committed to climate issues while serving as Vice President in the Clinton administration. He pushed for a carbon tax that was partially implemented in 1993 and was a key player in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Many felt Gore was destined to usher in the new millennium as president of an administration focused on the environment—but destiny can be as fickle as a global warming skeptic whose check has not cleared.


Defeat and Redemption

The election debacle of 2000, that saw the defeat of the Gore/Lieberman ticket and the subsequent selection of George W. Bush as America’s 43rd president by the US Supreme Court set the stage for a momentous showdown. The new administration made it clear that economic dominance would trump environmental concerns, no matter how dire. According to Gore,

“The Bush-Cheney administration was determined to block any policies designed to help limit global warming pollution. They launched an all out effort to roll-back, weaken, and—whenever possible—completely eliminate existing laws and regulations.”49

Gore wasted little time agonizing over the brutal defeat of 2000. He quickly launched a number of business ventures related to his interests in satellite technology, alternative media and of course the environment. As part of his environmental activities, Gore revived the presentation of a slide show that he had put together during the writing of Earth in the Balance. He estimated that by the time An Inconvenient Truth was made he had presented the slide show over 1000 times.

“Over the years I have added to it and steadily improved it to the point where I think it makes a pretty compelling case, at least for most audiences, that humans are the cause of most of the global warming that is taking place.”50

At one of the showings organized and sponsored by film producer Laurie David, Gore was approached by David and another producer, Lawrence Bender to develop a film based on the slide show. It was not long before they assembled a production team, and the rest, as they say is history.

The documentary is essentially the slide show on film, which is presented before a studio audience at an arena specially constructed for the movie. Gore’s life story, which is interwoven with the slide show, provides the backdrop for the material being presented. Unlike the Bush biography that would have us believe that Eastern elites could transform into good ol' Texas ranchers in one generation, Gore’s life on his father’s farm and lifelong affinity for nature and the outdoors rings basically true.

Though An Inconvenient Truth has received some criticism for at times overstating the case, it by far avoids the absurd hyperbole of The Day After Tomorrow. The message is compelling and accessible, even more so with the aid of the companion book of the same name. At the very least, one comes away with a renewed commitment to change wasteful personal habits.

The film opened in New York and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006. To date it has grossed over $50 million and has won numerous awards, including an Oscar for Documentary Feature. The Society for Technical Communication bestowed another significant honor on the film. The

49 Gore, Al (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York50 ibid


documentary received the Society’s President Award “for demonstrating that effective and understandable technical communication, when coupled with passion and vision, has the power to educate—and change—the world.”51

51 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth Retrieved 8/7/2007


Science and the American Public

Ever since the Civil War, science and technology have become increasingly associated with American ingenuity. Indeed, it is the military funding and application of science that helped bring scientific inquiry so fully into the mainstream of American life. Paradoxically, however, science and technology have become so specialized within the military/industrial complex, that there is a new disconnect between what Gore refers to as the two cultures.

“Science has become so specialized in its single-minded pursuit of ever more refined knowledge in narrowing subspecialties that the rest of us have more and more difficulty making sense of their conclusions.”52

Scientists operate within a very specialized environment using very specialized language, speaking to very specialized audiences. Having invested years of study and substantial amounts of money into their careers, it is no wonder that scientists enjoy the elite status that many have rightfully earned. Yet, in the midst of such grave consequences predicted by global climate change, we must do more to make the basic science assessable to the general public.

Picture a crowded courtroom full of eager spectators. The prosecution and the defense both have high-powered legal teams determined to win at all costs. The prosecution presents an intriguing case: human activity is the driving force behind climate change and the need to address this fact is dire, but they must prove a very difficult theory beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense on the other hand, need only cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution’s case in order to win an acquittal, a hung jury, or at the very least, stall for time.

A bevy of dueling experts use charts, statistics and slick graphics to push their case to the jury. Each side adds a little drama to make their story a bit more compelling--do they go to far? Has either side lost their credibility? You sit enthralled, or perhaps asleep, in the jury box trying hard to make sense of the complex data and to separate fact from fiction—truth from lies? Could climate change be a well-orchestrated plot? How do you decide?

For me the veracity of the data is important, but the deciding factor is the character of the people making the argument. When I began this paper I did my best to stay objective in my point of view. I had heard the term global warming many times but knew little about the story behind the headlines. I have always enjoyed scientific inquiry, and had I not devoted my career to the media at a young age, I might have seriously pursued the natural sciences.

One of the tipping points for me has been the blatant manipulation and distortion of the data by skeptics trying to exploit the uncertainties in the climate change story. Vigorous discussion is healthy and valuable to any search for truth. No one has complete understanding of all the facts, and a well thought out challenge to even the most established data can be a welcome opportunity for deeper understanding. However, when government officials and industry insiders deliberately conspire to alter reports to suit their agenda, then I consider that a character issue that calls into question the integrity of their entire argument. The New York Times recently reported that,

52 Gore, Al (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York


“A White House official who once led the fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.”53

If this were one isolated incident, I would be inclined to give the deniers the benefit of the doubt. The evidence suggests, however, that these unscrupulous tactics are standard operating procedure used by those who fear a healthy discussion of the issue. No evidence will ever be a 100% certain, but reasonable people can draw reasonable conclusions when presented with the facts.

As Michael Tennesen proposed earlier, we should consider taking out an insurance policy in the event the worse of the predictions come true. If the chairman of British Petroleum publicly concedes that, “…we can’t wait until the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility can not be discounted,” then the rest of the deniers need to take note.

I have no doubt that American ingenuity, applied with principle and character can meet the challenge of this “global climate crisis.” But it will take men and women of character and principle to put aside their petty political differences and recommit to the role of public servant. We should all take sober note of our power to affect this planet. It is an empowering concept that carries great responsibility.

Whatever our spiritual beliefs or the depth of our patriotic zeal, at the very least, these beliefs should demand of us a sense of duty regarding stewardship of our natural resources. We can get in front of this issue now, or pay the consequences later—probably much sooner than later. Our children and grandchildren deserve no less.

Al Gore put it quite well,

“The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise.”54

Like Rowland and Molina who led a broad-based campaign to address the Arctic Ozone Hole, Al Gore gives a face to the cause and represents a compelling story behind the mission. Of course this is real life, not a movie. Each of us has much to lose in this high stakes controversy.

53 Revkin, Andrew C., (2005) Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming, New York Times June 8, 200554 Gore, Al (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York, pg. 11


As urban dwellers in communities such as Bronzeville, we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. We must educate ourselves and let our voices be heard concerning the human response to climate change and the many other environmental issues that impact our community.

Only time will tell if this inconvenient truth will stir enough of us out of our comfort zones, before there is little comfort left at all.


Bibliography

An Inconvenient Truth, Documentary, New York, Paramount Classics, (2006)

Begley, S. (2007) Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine Newsweek/MSNBC

Black, E. (2003) War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race. Four Walls Eight Windows/New York

Breslau, K. (2007) The Green Giant. Newsweek, April 16, 200

Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Global Warming and Our Changing Climate: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Global Warming FAQ, Competitive Enterprise Institute, http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf

Gore, A. (1992) Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Rodale/New York

Gore, A. (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York

Grant, T. and Littlejohn, G. (2001) Teaching About Climate Change: Cool Schools Tackle Global Warming. New Society Publishers/Canada

Gribbin, J. (1979) What’s Wrong with Our Weather: The Climatic Threat of the 21st CenturyCharles Scribner’s Sons/New York

Herman, A. (2001) How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest Nation Created Our World & Everything in It. Crown Publishers/New York

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth Retrieved 8/7/2007

Jones, R. S. (1992) Physics for the Rest of Us: Ten Basic Ideas of Twentieth Century Physics That Everyone Should Know…and How They Have Shaped Our Culture and Consciousness. Chicago, IL/Contemporary Books, Inc.

Jones, R. S. Personal interview. July 16, 2007.

Linden, E. (2006) The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations.Simon & Schuster/New York.

Milloy, S. (2007) Global Warning’s Bottom Line, 11/15/2007 www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,311870,00.html Retrieved 11/17/2007

Pearce, F. (2007) With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points In Climate Change.Beacon Press/Boston

Revkin, A. C., (2005) Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming, New York Times June 8, 2005

Rosenthal, E. U.N. Report on Climate Details Risk of Inaction: Scientists’ Final Accounting is Forceful on Temperatures and Sea Levels New York Times (Nov. 17, 2007)

Tennesen, M. (2004) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Warming Alpha Books/Indianapolis, IN

The Day After Tomorrow, Feature Film, Los Angeles, 20th Century Fox (2004)

Wolcott, J. (2007) Rush to Judgment. Vanity Fair, May 2007

http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,311870,00.html

Climate Change 1.2.3

Documents

Transcript of Climate Change 1.2.3