The Global Warming Debate

Kaneohe, Hawaii

Sharon Begley’s article about “The Denial Machine,” as frightening as it was, misses a crucial aspect of the problem. It is not just that well-heeled corporations are buying up politicians or promoting science-as-they-want-it-to-be. It is that our society is more than happy to accept spin and cant because we have come to believe that all expertise is bias, that all knowledge is opinion, that every judgment is relative. I see this daily in my university classroom. Many of even my best students seem to have lost the ability to think critically about the world. They do not believe in the transformative power of knowledge because they do not believe in knowledge itself. Begley decries the tactic of making the scientists appear divided, but the corporations didn’t have to invent this tactic. It is built into our carefully balanced political “debates,” into our news shows with equal time given to pundits from each side and into the “fairness” we try to teach in our schools. We need not be surprised that people have become consumers who demand the right to choose as they wish between the two equally questionable sides of every story. Neither global warming nor any other serious problem can be addressed by a society that equates willful ignorance with freedom of thought.

Bernard Dov Cooperman

Dept. of History, University of Maryland

College Park, Md.

“The Truth About Denial” inaccurately portrays ExxonMobil’s position and actions on climate change. The allegation that ExxonMobil has attempted to misrepresent the science is completely false. Given the inaccuracies, let me summarize our position: climate change is a serious issue, and the risks warrant action. ExxonMobil is taking action, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in our operations, supporting research into technology breakthroughs and participating in policy debates with NGOs, industry and policymakers. ExxonMobil’s support of public-policy organizations extends to a broad array of groups that research significant domestic and foreign-policy issues. We support organizations like the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies because there is value in the debate they prompt if it can lead to better informed and more optimal public-policy decisions. It is ridiculous to conclude that we or any one of these groups’ many supporters control their policy recommendations. The irony of your article is that, by recycling a range of discredited conspiracy theories, NEWSWEEK diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.