You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming
-
Upload
sarah-mcknight -
Category
Documents
-
view
15 -
download
0
description
Transcript of You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming
![Page 1: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
You CAN Argue with the Facts:
The Denial of Global Warming Naomi Oreskes
Professor of History and Science Studies
Adjunct Professor of Geosciences
University of California, San Diego
(edited by Milt Saier)
![Page 2: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Yale Project on Climate Change/ Gallup / Clear Vision Institute, 2007
72 % of Americans are completely or mostly convinced that global warming is happening.
Most Americans now accept the “fact” of global warming
![Page 3: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Many Americans also think scientists do not
![Page 4: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
A strange result…
• On one hand, “facts” by definition imply generality of acceptance, and detachment from the source.
• One wouldn’t expect the average person to know much about the sources.
• Abundant evidence (Anthony Leiserowitz, Jon Krosnick) shows that public opinion is formed based on many sources; the scientific evidence may be the least salient.
![Page 5: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
On other hand…
If the evidence of global warming is scientific evidence (analysis of temperature records, simulation models,
ice cores, CO2 measurements), and if scientists are
still arguing about it, then how can it be factual?
• What kind of a fact do lay people think it is if not
scientific fact?
• Why do people think scientists are still arguing about it?
![Page 6: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Scientists are not arguing…
• The scientific consensus on the reality of the anthropogenic effect on global warming was established by the mid 1990s.
![Page 7: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
“The scientific evidence forcefully points to a need for a truly
international effort. Make no mistake, we have to act now. And the longer we procrastinate, the more difficult the task of tackling
climate change becomes.”
Robert May, “Scientists Demand Action on
Climate,” The Scientist 19 (July 2005): 47.
![Page 8: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Natural Variability?
“The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and oceans, together with ice mass loss, supports the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forcing.”
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007,
Summary for Policymakers, p. 10
![Page 9: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Why do Americans think scientists are still arguing?
![Page 10: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Where have the press gotten their “sources” for the “other
side”?
![Page 11: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
A Brief History of Climate Science
• Various scientific reports in the 1970s, from the US, Japan and Europe, already suggested that warming would occur from increased atmospheric
CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels.
• 1988: The IPCC was established to evaluate the climate scientific data and suggest policy action on global warming.
• The big question was: “WHEN WILL THE CONSEQUENCES BECOME SERIOUS?”
![Page 12: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
The NRC Committee, headed by economist Thomas Schelling, had
concluded that the biggest problem was large uncertainties
and hoped that we could “learn faster than the problem could develop.”
Perry concluded: “The problem is already upon us: we must learn very quickly
indeed.”Perry,1981 “Energy and Climate: Today’s problem, Not Tomorrow’s” Climate Change 3: 223-225. On p
225.
![Page 13: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
1988 Things Heat Up
• In 1988, NASA climate modeler James Hansen declared to the U.S. Congress that he was “99%” certain that anthropogenic change was already occurring.
![Page 14: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
called on world leaders to translate the written document into "concrete action to protect the planet."
U.N. Framework Convention of Climate Change (1992)
![Page 15: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Almost immediately,
various individuals and organizations in the United States began to challenge the scientific basis for climate change.
![Page 16: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
In the decade to follow, these organizations included:
• George C. Marshall Institute
• http://www.marshall.org/subcategory.php?id=9
• CATO Institute
• http://www.cato.org/subtopic_display_new.php?topic_id=27&ra_id=4
• Competitive Enterprise Institute
• http://www.cei.org/sections/subsection.cfm?section=3
• Heartland Institute
• http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488
![Page 17: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
All were conservative, libertarian groups promoting
corporate interests.They were committed to laissez-
faire economics, opposing regulation or ‘excessive’
government interference in the private sector.
They were all libertarians with corporate backing who firmly believed that government should stay out of business, and they were willing to intentionally lie and distort scientific evidence to mislead the public as a means to achieve their libertarian goals.
![Page 18: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
“The tobacco strategy” For decades, the tobacco
industry challenged the scientific evidence of the adverse health effects of tobacco and supported libertarian groups that argued the same. These same groups similarly argued against the evidence concerning ozone depletion and then the burning of fossil fuels - to keep the govt out of free enterprise.
![Page 19: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
The tobacco road to global warming
As a result, legislation to protect citizens from the actions of corporations was IN EACH CASE delayed several decades.
They thus achieved their libertarian goals!
![Page 20: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Arguments over evidence of climate
change followed several strategies • “No proof” strategy: science is uncertain.
• Argue over the significance of facts. ie, we can adapt.
• Argue against the credibility of environmentalists
– Hysterical (Chicken Little)
– Communists (“Watermelons”, George Will: “Green outside but red inside”)
– Anti-Christian: Let the people of the world multipy!
• Argue whether facts are facts.
• Supply alternative “facts”
![Page 21: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Western Fuels Association
In the 1990s, they initiated a massivepropaganda campaign to challenge the scientific knowledge regarding global warming.
![Page 22: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
They decided to challenge whether the scientific facts were facts. In doing so, they choose to “reposition global warming as theory not fact”. It’s “just a theory…”
![Page 23: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
They supplied alternative “facts” to support the
suggestion that global warming would be good.
They claimed that CO2
would enhance agricultural productivity and
create a greener Earth.
![Page 24: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Who comprise the Western Fuels Association?
WFA is a cooperative of western coal producers,
mostly in the Powder River Basin in
Wyoming and Montana.
They supply coal to the electrical utilities.
![Page 25: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Article in Range Magazine, Fall 2000(“The Cowboy Spirit on America’s outback)
General Manager and Chief Executive Officer Fred Palmer were “…determined to defend the coal-fired power plants from an assault launched by professional environmental-ists, the United Nations, our own government, and the nation’s economic competitors.”
![Page 26: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
To protect the interests of western coal producers by challenging the fears and
negative feedback about global warming by claiming that the
presumption that warming was
bad was wrong.
Their real goals were:
![Page 27: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Mass Media Campaign
• 1991, the WFA provided funding for organizing the “Information Council for the Environment” (ICE)
• The stated mission: “…to develop an effective national communications program to help ensure that action by the Administration and/or Congress on the issue of global warming is based on scientific evidence.”
• The real goal was, however: “to determine the best way to influence public opinion, by testing different approaches in different markets, and evaluating the results.”
![Page 28: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Documents preserved in files of theAmerican Meteorological Society…
• They provided a budget of $510,000 for a “test market” project in February - August 1991.
• The goal: to spread the message in selected radio and print media environments to evaluate the potential for “attitude change” in their listeners.
• Four cities were chosen: Chattanooga TN, Champaign, IL, Flagstaff, AZ, Fargo, ND
![Page 29: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Objectives
1) “To demonstrate that a ‘consumer-based media awareness program’ can positively change the opinions of a selected population regarding the validity of global warming”;
2) “To begin to develop a message and strategy for shaping public opinion on a national scale”;
3) “To lay the ground work for a unified national electric industry voice on global warming.”
![Page 30: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Three criteria were selected for chosen markets
a) “The market derives a majority of its electricity from coal”;
b) “The market is home to a member of the [U.S.] House Energy & Commerce Committee or the House Ways and Means Committee”;
c) “The market [has low] media costs.”
![Page 31: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
“Program Goals”
• To find a receptive population and pre-test the strategies
• To use focus groups to test the ICE name and the “creative concepts”
• “If successful, to implement the program nationwide”
![Page 32: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Potential Program Names
• Information Council for the Environment
• Informed Citizens for the Environment
• Intelligent Concern for the Environment
• Informed Choices for the Environment
![Page 33: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Details of the “Creative strategy”• “The radio creative will directly attack the
proponents of global warming by relating ‘irrefutable’ evidence to the contrary, delivered by a believable spokesperson …”
• “The print creative will attack proponents through comparison of global warming to historical or mythical instances of gloom and doom. Each ad will invite the listener/reader to call or write for further information, thus creating a data base.”
![Page 34: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
![Page 37: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
![Page 38: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
![Page 39: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
![Page 40: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Conclusions from the test campaign
(1) Audiences trusted “technical sources” most, activists and government officials less, and industry the least. (2) ICE needed to use scientists to serve as spokesmen. (3) “Information Council on Environment” was the best name, because it positioned ICE as a “technical source”. (4) The study identified two particularly susceptible target audiences:
![Page 41: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Target 1: “Older, less educated males”
They are receptive to propaganda targeting “the motivations and vested interests of people currently making pronouncements on global warming--for example, the statement that some members of the media scare the public about global warming to increase their audience and their influence….” (ICE report,
AMS archives, p. 4)
![Page 42: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Target 2: Younger, lower-income, less well educated women
These women are more receptive to propaganda “concerning the evidence for global warming. They are likely to be “green” consumers, to believe the earth is warming, and to think the problem is serious. However, they are also likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information… “ (ICE
report, AMS archives, p. 4)
![Page 43: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Attitude change The study concluded, overall, that:
• People were receptive to attitude change.
• Many different types of people were supportive of more research (and less supportive of legislation) after hearing materials presented by an interviewer.
• It was important that the materials be presented by technical spokespersons.
![Page 44: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
These conclusions were incorporated into a video
produced by WFA the following year as part of
their national effort.
![Page 45: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
1992: “The Greening of Planet Earth:
The Effects of Carbon Dioxide on the Biosphere”
Released under the name of the
Greening Earth Society,
but funded by WFA.
![Page 46: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
The Greening of Planet Earth: The Effects of Carbon Dioxide on the
Biosphere
“Is carbon dioxide a harmful air pollutant, or is it an amazingly effective aerial
fertilizer? Explore the positive side of the issue in this half-hour documentary -- The
Greening of Planet Earth - yours free today with a qualifying tax deductible
donation of $12 plus shipping and handling.”
![Page 47: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
The bulk of the remainder of the video presents “technical experts”,
mostly an appointed group from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who argue, sometimes with meager or
incomplete evidence, but often with none at all, that global warming is not a problem. Statements were carefully tested and used ONLY if
the association believed (and later demonstrated) that they would
confuse the lay person and cause him/her to question the available
scientific evidence.
![Page 48: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
They made technical claims, with abundant reference to poorly tested,
misleading experimental data.
CLAIMS:– Crop plants will produce “30-40% more than they
are currently producing.
– Cotton “yields will be 60% greater”.
– There will be decreased water demands, as crops will grow more efficiently.
![Page 49: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
• They showed pictures of greenhouses with– “Controlled environment chambers”– C3 plants respond “quite nicely”--up to 30-40%
increased yields in response to doubled CO2.
• They filmed computer terminals to suggest that– Computer models simulate increases in soy
bean “dry matter accumulation and seed yield” in response to 660 ppm CO2.
• They presented maps and charts to illustrate
“the greener world”.
![Page 50: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Were the “facts” presented actually FACTS
(scientifically tested and confirmed),
or were they lies and partial truths
designed to mislead theaudience?
![Page 51: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Most of the “technical claims” clearly went beyond the experimental
evidence…
• Bruce Kimball asserts that a CO2 enhanced
world is “one that plants will enjoy… a lot more. They have been, in effect, eating the CO2 out of the air for a long time and
they’re rather starved for CO2….”
• “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is a
benefit that will occur around the globe, regardless of where you are located.”
![Page 52: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Some of their claims were not entirely false.
Some C3 plants do grow more abundantly in CO2 enhanced
environments, at least initially, but only when all other
nutrients are optimally available. The
same observation is not applicably to any other type of
plant including all major agriculturally important crops.
![Page 53: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Focus on something true, but that does not refute the central claims of climate
science.
(Cf. Tobacco: other causes of cancer)
Refutation by distraction
Another approach:
![Page 54: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
Tied together by rhetorical sleights of hand,
the narrator describes the greenhouse effect as “a phenomenon in which CO2 plus harmful greenhouse gases trap the heat escaping into the atmosphere and send it back to Earth.”
![Page 55: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Gerd-Rainer Weber (meteorologist)
“…Our world will be a much better one.”
![Page 56: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Widely distributed to libraries
What effect does the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting emission of carbon dioxide have on the earth's
biosphere? This question is posed to a number of leading scientists in The
Greening of Planet Earth, an enlightening documentary that
examines one of the most misunderstood environmental
phenomena of the modern age.
--http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/video/met4.html
![Page 57: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Other campaigns…
• Press releases • Legal challenges to local environmental laws • Public speeches to sympathetic audiences
– Taking scientific evidence out of context. – Misrepresenting the scientific evidence.– Impugning motivations of environmentalists and
scientists (to scare you, to get more money for research).
– Accusing environmentalists of being anti-American, anti-Christian, etc.
![Page 58: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Effect?
![Page 59: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Yale/Gallup Poll, 2007 • 50% of Americans worried “a great deal” or “a
fair amount”.– But what about the other 50%?
• Approximately 80% supported legislation of some kind to address the problem. – But legislation on greenhouse gases has been
pending in the US Congress since the late 1970s…
• The US federal government continues to oppose international action, and many citizen consider inaction justified.
![Page 60: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
While most people accept global warming as a fact,
Many (unconsciously, perhaps) don’t accept its origins in scientific
consensus. Many also think that climate
scientists are still uncertain and are arguing about it.
They think that environmentalists may be a suspicious lot with ulterior
motives.
![Page 61: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
This shows that resistance campaigns were effective
in creating a lasting impression of scientific disagreement, discord,
and dissent. They achieved the goal of
postponing governmental action aimed at addressing
climate change.
![Page 62: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble
reasoning of a single individual." --Galileo
“Galileo evidently was too good-natured to ask whether that single humble individual was being funded by petroleum money.”
--Craig Callender
![Page 63: You CAN Argue with the Facts: The Denial of Global Warming](https://reader031.fdocuments.us/reader031/viewer/2022020117/56812a46550346895d8d8230/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
References
• Yale Project on Climate Change/ Gallup / Clear Vision Institute, 2007
• Ross Gelbspan, Boiling Point, 51-52 and Heat is On, Appendix, A Scientific Critique of Greenhouse Skeptics
• John Perry 1981, Energy and Climate: Today’s problem, Not Tomorrow’s Climate Change 3: 223-225.
• Archives of the American Meteorological Society