Silencing
Science :
How ExxonMobil
and the Whitehouse have duped the public about the "uncertainty"
behind climate change.
If you’ve seen Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth,
allegations that the Bush Administration manipulated federally-funded
studies in order to downplay the threat of global warming are
hardly any surprise. These manipulations have expectedly muddied
the picture on global warming throughout the general public’s
mindscape.
But
now Congress is finally taking notice.
Hearings
this February by the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform marked the first official inquiry into the administration’s
systemic disregard for the scientific process.
The
deceit began with the advice of Frank Luntz, a master propagandist
who’s played a frequent role in assisting Republicans with
spin campaigns. He constructed a 16-page document detailing the
proper protocol for speaking about climate change. Rule number
one: Never, EVER use the words “global warming.” The
term is too cataclysmic. Other advice included emphasizing a supposed
“scientific uncertainty” surrounding the issue.
Next
came the appointment of former oil lobbyist Phil Cooney to the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, where he began editing
federal reports on climate change to fit within the framework
of Luntz’s playbook. Cooney resigned in 2005 after a New
York Times article exposed his censorship. He quickly found
a job working for ExxonMobil. The Times story centered
on government whistleblower Rick Piltz, who had resigned from
the Climate Change Science Program to protest what he considered
the politicization of science.
Piltz
revealed more in his testimony before the House Committee. He
detailed an all-encompassing report prepared by his program –
the “most comprehensive effort to assess the potential implications
of global warming and climate change for the U.S.” –
that predicted a range of bad news scenarios for the environment
and society.
“This
report has essentially been made to vanish by the Bush Administration,”
Piltz testified.
Esteemed
Goddard Institute scientist, Drew Shindell, also testified to
the intimidation of climate scientists at NASA; specifically government
“minders” who had to be present for any interviews
with the press. He also detailed how press releases regarding
climate change were edited and misrepresented.
As
if this wasn’t condemning enough, a recent study conducted
by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government
Accountability Project surveyed hundreds of scientists at seven
federal agencies, discovering evidence of widespread political
interference. Forty-three percent of respondents experienced changes
or edits during review of their work that altered the meaning
of their scientific findings.
“The
new evidence shows that political interference in climate science
is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide
epidemic,” said Dr. Francesca Grifo, a senior scientist
with UCS who also testified.
The
White House claims it only tried to inject balance into reports
on climate change. The “balance” being alternative
views pointing to non-human causes, or even flat-out denials of
global warming. Such statements demonstrate the success of conservative
pundits in making a far-reaching consensus across the scientific
community seem like a tumultuous debate.
The
words “far-reaching consensus” shouldn’t be
taken lightly. Scientists around the world agree upon the fact
that greenhouse gasses, emitted through the burning of fossil
fuels, are causing an unprecedented rise in average global temperatures.
These conclusions were reached by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) – one of the largest, peer-reviewed
scientific studies in history, consisting of 2,000 scientists
from more than 100 countries. The scientific academies of all
G8 nations, along with China, India, and Brazil, released a joint
statement in 2005 stating global warming is occurring, and likely
due to human activities. The American Meteorological Society,
the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for
the Advancement of Sciences have all issued similar statements
in recent years.
So
where did the Bush Administration get the idea reports they were
receiving weren’t balanced? The answer lies in a campaign
of misinformation which rivals past efforts by the tobacco industry
to cast doubt on the carcinogenic nature of their products.
Big
Oil was never going to take the impending threat of mandatory
caps on greenhouse gas emissions lying down. Companies like ExxonMobil
began funneling millions of dollars into front groups composed
of scientists who doubted the findings of the IPCC – many
of whom aren’t climate scientists and haven’t done
any original research on the subject. Yet they demand equal weight
in media coverage for their fringe positions.
“People
don’t ask about their credentials,” said James Hoggan
in an interview with CBC. Hoggan is the creator of the DeSmogBlog
– a website aiming to “clear the PR pollution surrounding
the climate change debate.”
“Most
of these guys that you see quoted aren’t climate scientists,”
Hoggan said. “Some of them do have PhDs and a science background,
but they aren’t doing science, they’re doing PR.”
Dr.
Fred Singer, Dr. Fredrick Seitz, and Dr. Tim Ball are some of
the better-known skeptics. They argue that global warming part
of a natural cycle and might actually be beneficial. All three
have received funding from the oil industry. Singer and Seitz
were formally funded by the tobacco industry as well. They’ve
all even participated in global warming denial conferences funded
by a PR firm called APCO – the very same firm that sowed
doubt in the public about the risk of cigarettes.
Tactics
utilized to create an illusion of uncertainty about global warming
range from dubious petitions and misleading facts to half-truths.
One petition supposedly signed by 15,000 skeptical scientists
was later found by the Associated Press to include the names of
numerous fictional characters. Deniers frequently assert that
satellite data doesn’t indicate warming is occurring –
a discrepancy that’s been resolved for years. Another frequent
claim involves the supposed thickening of glaciers in Greenland
and Antarctica, despite NASA findings to the contrary. But the
bulk of their arguments rely on the theory that climate change
is merely a natural occurrence, perhaps caused by increases in
solar radiation.
However,
all these hypotheses have been thoroughly examined and discarded
by the mainstream scientific community. The only remaining uncertainties
revolve around the effects of global warming, not its existence
or cause. And with a report commissioned by the British Treasury
projecting costs of climate change to be as expensive as both
world wars and the Great Depression added together, even arguments
that it isn’t economically feasible to curb emissions are
laughable at best.
The
bottom line: You wouldn’t walk into a dental clinic for
help with a toothache, and then leave to seek a second opinion
from a proctologist. So why are we taking our cues on climate
change from non-climate scientists?
The
fact that such a vital and threatening issue has been ignored
and spun by White House to suit corporate interests is rooted
in an endemic governmental flaw: A revolving door between big
business and politics which must be vastly curtailed, or the federal
government’s response to environmental threats will continue
to be contingent upon the profit margins of CEOs.
By
Jason Glover
|