The Truth About Denial

NEWSWEEK

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

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

« Prev Page

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Still driving my SUV @ 11/22/2009 1:36:57 AM

To say that because I believe global warming is a myth means that I do not believe in the Holocaust is like me saying that because you do believe in global warming means you support Al Qaeda. You show your intelligence with a statement like that and you assure that anything you have wrote will be disregarded by everyone that has had the misfortune to read it.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Still driving my SUV @ 11/22/2009 1:28:44 AM

Though I have no proof to back it up, and most likely never will (much like Gore), I believe it is much more likely that global warming is nothing more than a way to make government larger, which it has every year of my life. I also believe that for whatever reason, the people that actually buy into the thought that we are causing the earth???s temperature change have an overwhelming feeling of guilt that they have life too good and they want to punish themselves and this is the only way they know how. I would just like to know two things:

1) What temperature is the earth supposed to be?

2) What is that big yellow thing in the sky that dictates how warm I feel when I walk outside? It seems to me that when that big yellow thing is blocked by clouds, I feel colder, but when there are no clouds, I feel warmer. Coincidently, when I am closer to that big yellow thing, I feel warmer than when I am farther away.

I have a lot easier time believing that the solar flares which come from this big yellow thing and coincide with proven science that says we have hotter years with more solar flares, and colder with less. Of all the theories I have seen, this is the only one that has actually made sense to me, and until I see anything that is equally convincing, I will not believe it. Nor will I ever believe a former VP who has no education in climatology. But he sure has lined his pockets on this myth. I guess Gore must have asked the people on the sun to stop driving SUV's back in 1997, the last year the earth actually got hotter. Don't worry though, I love planting trees, they are great for firewood.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: Topeka57 @ 09/28/2009 2:45:31 AM

I do not understand the continual push-back on the issue of global warming, and I am fascinated and disturbed by how the question of our survival has become a partisan issue. I work in the medical research area and one characteristic of science is that there is often very little certainty, yet we move forward with the best knowledge we have available -- usually that which is accepted by the majority of scientists. There continue to be disputes about biomarkers and treatment of heart disease, for example, but we don't withhold treatment while we continue the research. To continue with the comparison, there may be questions about the causes -- the condition might be caused by "human activity" (or bad habits, in the case of the heart patient). The cause might also be genetic, or a combination of factors. Yet in each case we expect the patient to participate in their recovery, if they want to survive.

Our planet seems to be suffering from "inflammation", and its inhabitants will need to participate in its recovery, regardless of the cause. We can continue to argue about and research the causes, but as with heart disease, the longer we put off treatment, the less likely we are to recover.

There is more than enough evidence that our collective habits are at least part of the problem. It is almost certainly the cause of the increased acidity and growing dead-zones in the oceans, and the alarming number of species extinctions. That alone should be a wake-up call.

There has also been the argument that it would be unfair to our national interests if we take action, while developing countries balk. Yes indeed, China and India must be a part of the solution. But we can no longer afford to wait for others. We certainly weren't willing to wait for others when we went to war with Iraq. And (regardless of one's position on the war) I think it is fair to say we went to war with less certainty than we have about the threat of global climate change.