Join
Search

No Doubt About It: Climate Denialists Have Undermined Public Understanding of the Science

Bookmark and Share

Last night, FRONTLINE premiered its new documentary, Climate of Doubt, a chilling chronicle of the decade-long-plus campaign to confuse the public and policy-makers about the reality of human-induced climate change. As the PBS press release puts it, “Climate of Doubt describes the individuals and groups behind an organized effort to attack science by undermining scientists, and to unseat politicians who say they believe there is current climate change caused by human activity.’

The show looks at denialist groups such as the Heartland Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. It also discusses how the Tea Party seized on climate legislation, along with President Obama’s health care plan, as indicators of a “frightening expansion of government.” As the Politics & Global Warming report put out last year by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found, self-identified Tea Party members largely reject climate change science. While majorities of Democrats (78%), Independents (71%) and Republicans (53%) believe that global warming is happening, only 34 percent of Tea Party members believe global warming is happening, while 53 percent say it is not happening.

Watch Climate of Doubt on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Although the Tea Party started as a grassroots movement and continues to retain grassroots support, it’s been widely reported how large monied corporate interests and groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works provided training and organizational support for Tea Party activists and have helped shaped the Tea Party agenda. AfP President Tim Phillips told FRONTLINE about the role his group played in stoking Tea Party anger on the issue during the summer of 2009:

“We certainly did TV ads, radio ads, social media, we did rallies, events, we launched something we called Hot Air. We got up a hot-air balloon, put a banner on the side of it that said cap-and-trade means higher taxes, lost jobs, less freedom. And we went all over the country doing events and stirring up grassroots anger and frustration, concern.”

Climate of Doubt outlines the impact these organizations had on the Congressional debate on climate legislation in 2009-2010. It also explores the impact of the denialists’ campaigns at the state and local level. It interviews North Carolina State Senator David Rouser, author of the bill prohibiting the state’s Coastal Commission from basing its development plans on scientific predictions that sea level rise will accelerate over the next century. (My colleague Michael Halpern outlined the origins and impacts of this legislation in a blog post last August.) Here’s how Senator Rouser explained the scientific basis of his bill to FRONTLINE:

“Well, you know I don’t necessarily listen to any one person and I can’t you know tick off a whole list of scientists who are pro sea level rise and a whole lot of scientists who aren’t. I’m just coming at it from a common sense standpoint. The earth has been warming and cooling since day one. And you know, the effect on sea level rise, what do we know about it?”

Climate of Doubt also discusses the extensive effort by organizations such as the American Tradition Institute to harass climate scientists with sweeping requests for e-mails and other internal records. Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler tells FRONTLINE that after he was quoted in a front-page New York Times article on climate change, “within hours of that story coming out, the university received a FOIA request for my email. The goal of this was to try to find something in the e-mails that would be used to embarrass climate science. They were just rolling the dice. It was completely random. They had no reason to think there was anything improper.” But Dessler says “I don’t let it stop me…As a climate scientist, I think a lot about the future…I want to make sure that in fifty years or a hundred years or two hundred years, nobody could say we didn’t warn them.”

Though he wasn’t featured in the FRONTLINE piece, Michael Mann has probably faced more attacks on his work than any other scientist. UCS has been tracking the legal harassment Mann has faced from a member of Congress, a state attorney general and front groups.

Climate of Doubt does a good job of portraying the scientific weaknesses of the denialist spin campaign, most effectively when it shows how by carefully selecting certain start and end dates for graphs of historical temperature data, denialists can claim the Earth is experiencing a cooling trend when any fair reading of the data shows an unmistakable warming trend over the past several decades. But the program also makes clear how effective these campaigns aimed at fostering doubt and delay can be in blocking responsible actions to deal with the climate threat.

The program doesn’t cover some of the more recent developments that provide some hope that the effectiveness of the denialists’ campaign to “manufacture doubt” on the scientific reality of the climate threat is starting to wane. For example, a new poll by the Pew Research Center finds that “increasing numbers of Democrats, Republicans and independents saying there is solid evidence of warming, although there continues to be a substantial partisan divide on this issue.” While encouraging, the poll finds that public belief in climate science reality is only about halfway back to its 2006-2007 peak.

There are also signs of increasing public awareness of the links between climate change and the recent heat waves, drought, flooding and other extreme weather events. And there are high-profile efforts by Republicans such as former South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis and his Energy and Enterprise Initiative to move their party beyond the false debate over climate science to the more honest conversation about appropriate policy responses to the climate change threat.

Climate of Doubt closes with clear warnings from a range of credible scientists about the ever-more-apparent reality and dangers of climate change. As FRONTLINE correspondent John Hockenberry concludes, “inaction has consequences. There is now no concerted national response to climate change. And delay, the scientific community says, is what the planet simply cannot afford.” On that, there can be no doubt.

Posted in: Global Warming Tags: , , , , , ,

About the author: Alden Meyer has more than 30 years of experience on energy and climate policy. He is internationally recognized expert on U.S. and international climate policy. He also works extensively on renewable energy and electricity policy at the federal and state level. See Alden's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

  • Jan Freed

    “Climate always changes”… “Brilliant! Gee, why didn’t I think of that?”

    Signed,
    NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, and 98% of the world’s climate sciences.

  • http://www.ucsusa.org/news/experts/alden-meyer.html Alden Meyer

    For those interested in what the peer-reviewed science (as opposed to Fox News) has to say about the links between climate change and extreme weather events, I would recommend the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s in-depth Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation . it finds, in no uncertain terms, that “A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events.”

    I would also recommend a report published last year in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other institutions. They state that “In the past it was often stated that it simply was not possible to make an attribution statement about an individual weather or climate event. However, scientific thinking on this issue has moved on and now it is widely accepted that attribution statements about individual weather or climate events are possible, provided proper account is taken of the probabilistic nature of attribution.” Kelly Levin of the World Resources Institute had an excellent post on this report this summer, which is worth looking at as well.

    On Clay’s comment about the absence of trusted scientific voices of the caliber of Carl Sagan, I’d note that this is partly due to the fact that there is no one “star” in the climate field; as opposed to astronomy, the study of the global climate system involves a broad range of scientists from different disciplines working to gather data and find answers that ultimately have consequences for our daily lives. The “Sagan problem” is also not confined to the climate issue. A 2009 poll conducted by Research!America found that when “Americans were asked whether or not they could name a living scientist…65% said they could not, and another 18% were unable to accurately name a living scientist.” As my colleague Aaron Huertas likes to point out, we don’t have a media environment that fosters another Carl Sagan, so what we need is more and more scientists becoming a little more Sagan-like.

    • Douglas

      Indeed, we may need more scientists becoming a little more Sagan-like. Instead what we get is more technicians becoming much too Dr. Oz-like. Charlatans, poseurs, mountebanks, snake oil salesmen…all an embarrassment and detriment to valid science.

  • clay blasdel

    There are plenty of Congressmen who deny the validity of science. It’s easy to muddy the waters like they did with cigarettes and cancer. But who is the trusted ‘voice of science’ in the USA? Who appears on network television to speak for the scientific community, post Carl Sagan?

    No one. Find some trusted voice, otherwise the naysayers will prevail and we’ll lose another decade.

  • Mike Mangan

    Kind of hard to take you people seriously when you put so much effort into exaggerating the link between “climate change” and ordinary weather. This is bald-faced propagandizing. You must be assuming that the public has no knowledge of the past whatsoever. Certainly the 1930’s alone dwarfs the current mild weather we have. Do you think the public didn’t notice how you tried to link hurricanes to global warming after Katrina? That turned into the longest stretch of no major hurricanes making US landfall since the Civil War! Warmists have no one to blame but themselves for their failures.

    • Jasper

      Well said Mike. Climate changes. It always has, it always will. I will never be convinced climate can be controlled if only I will become a vegan, live in a man-made cave and buy a $45,000 electric car. How can anyone permit themselves to be so manipulated and deluded?

      • http://www.pacingtheplanet.org blissdragon

        Oh, yes you will. You will be killed by your changing climate. You will choke on your own ignorance as you watch your fossil-fuel vehicle fall to rusty ruin and as you scrounge around for edible weeds in your meat-stripped habitat. The Climate Catastophe Cometh, no matter how tightly you squeeze your eyes shut.

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, obscene, rude or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. When commenting, you must use your real name. Valid email addresses are required. (UCS respects your privacy; we will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.)