The Truth About Denial
Still, like a great beast that has been wounded, the denial machine is not what it once was. In the NEWSWEEK Poll, 38 percent of those surveyed identified climate change as the nation's gravest environmental threat, three times the number in 2000. After ExxonMobil was chastised by senators for giving $19 million over the years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who are "producing very questionable data" on climate change, as Sen. Jay Rockefeller said, the company has cut back its support for such groups. In June, a spokesman said ExxonMobil did not doubt the risks posed by climate change, telling reporters, "We're very much not a denier." In yet another shock, Bush announced at the weekend that he would convene a global-warming summit next month, with a 2008 goal of cutting greenhouse emissions. That astonished the remaining naysayers. "I just can't imagine the administration would look to mandatory [emissions caps] after what we had with Kyoto," said a GOP Senate staffer, who did not want to be named criticizing the president. "I mean, what a disaster!"
With its change of heart, ExxonMobil is more likely to win a place at the negotiating table as Congress debates climate legislation. That will be crucially important to industry especially in 2009, when naysayers may no longer be able to count on a friend in the White House nixing man-datory greenhouse curbs. All the Democratic presidential contenders have called global warming a real threat, and promise to push for cuts similar to those being passed by California and other states. In the GOP field, only McCain—long a leader on the issue—supports that policy. Fred Thompson belittles findings that human activities are changing the climate, and Rudy Giuliani backs the all-volunteer greenhouse curbs of (both) Presidents Bush.
Look for the next round of debate to center on what Americans are willing to pay and do to stave off the worst of global warming. So far the answer seems to be, not much. The NEWSWEEK Poll finds less than half in favor of requiring high-mileage cars or energy-efficient appliances and buildings. No amount of white papers, reports and studies is likely to change that. If anything can, it will be the climate itself. This summer, Texas was hit by exactly the kind of downpours and flooding expected in a greenhouse world, and Las Vegas and other cities broiled in record triple-digit temperatures. Just last week the most accurate study to date concluded that the length of heat waves in Europe has doubled, and their frequency nearly tripled, in the past century. The frequency of Atlantic hurricanes has already doubled in the last century. Snowpack whose water is crucial to both cities and farms is diminishing. It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is.
With Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Matthew Philips in New York
© 2007
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: florianb @ 03/15/2008 7:04:50 PM
Comment: The reason "deniers" do not like being called deniers is because it is a very insulting ad-hominem. Five years ago I was fully convinced that man-made CO2 is by far the largest driver of global warming and that the cost to man-kind in the future are going to be staggering if "we don't do something now". Since then I have spend considerable time researching this issue by studying what is actually known and with what certainty it is known by reading scientific publications. I have a B.S. from Caltech *** laude, and probably a better quantitative understanding on these matters than Al Gore or Sharon Begley. There are distortions of facts on both sides of the argument, but what is astonishing to me is the lengths some people in the media and in politics (Al Gore) go to denounce anyone who may question the wisdom of the Kyoto Treaty as a stooge of big oil or a whacko. This is one of the worst pieces of journalism I have come by in a while, and consists of little more than ad-hominems. To any sensible and critically-minded reader, I highly recommend doing some personal research on this, admittingly difficult, issue and judge for yourself.
Regards,
Florian
Posted By: rockhead @ 02/23/2008 12:54:28 PM
Comment: I guess that I am one of the deniers, and this probably disqualifies me to the enlightened ones that want to tell the rest of us how to live. Maybe Mr. Gore should lead by example by getting rid of his mansion(s) and showing the rest of us how it is done. Maybe those who would wreck our economy by instituting draconian cuts should be forced to live the life style that this would cause. Maybe someone that thinks that Kyoto was such a great idea should check out how many countries have dropped out of the protocols, and how many others have failed to abide by it. Remember that when the treaty was first negotiated, the U.S. Senate voted UNANIMOUSLY to reject it.
I have no problem with living a simpler life and I do try to reduce my use of energy, but my primary reason is that I have to pay my own bills, and energy is expensive. Maybe we should try making everyone pay for what they use. I had Greenpeace come to my door to try to convince me that the local power company could more to reduce emissions. After a little give and take, I asked them if they really wanted to help reduce emissions. Of course, both of them readily agreed. I told them to go home, open their main breaker and shut off their gas. They were not so enthused about that solution.
Posted By: Deep Blue @ 01/24/2008 8:41:22 AM
Comment: Here in Sweden we get to hear about how the US is the main leg-dragger for a global consensus on man-made global warming (MMGW). Gore was treated like a demi-god during his visit here to pick up the Peace prize (which seems to no longer be given to people who have worked for peace, but for those who create conflict - ???...to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses???) and there were yards of full-page "People=Cars=CO2 =MMGW" stuff in the papers for weeks. But nowhere were there voices questioning all this information except for the rare ???reader send-ins???.
Unfortunately, Sweden does not have as open of a climate for criticism of "known facts" as the states do, therefore the media continues to pump out these MMGW ???truths??? and the schools swallow them since there's never been a public factual challenge to Gore's movie like in England.
For example, my girlfriend's daughter (15) is preparing to write a report about man-made global warming and I've been introducing, what Sharon Begley calls ???...a paralyzing fog of doubt ???, where I suggest that ???MMGW??? is more of a prideful exaggeration of our very limited power to really effect a global climate change. For an example we get a 145-255 million ton CO2/Methane injection each year from volcano eruptions. This ???volcanic injection??? into our atmosphere (along with other cyclic ???warming??? activities like our sun), provide, in my opinion, a much heavier GW load than anything that we have produced since we started making fires outside of our caves (unless we unleash all of the world's nuclear warheads of course).
Because of my ???paralyzing fog of doubt??? she was interested in learning more, so I gave her some links to check out which may help her to separate the husk from the corn and encourage her to think (and write) critically about today's political and scientific ???facts???.
http://www.solarnavigator.net/volcanoes.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/rtsu-slv042507.php
http://www.inteliorg.com/co2_climate_change.html