Global warming skepticism despite scientific consensus and evidence

Global Warming -- it Is Authentic, but Why So Many Skeptics?

The phrases "global warming" and "climate change" have become household words over the past twenty years or so, and given the vast amount of discussion and research, and the clear signs that the planet is hearing up, an alert citizen can safety predict that this topic will become even more prominent in American society. What are the latest results from scientific studies? How are businesses responding to the challenges that are present today and certainly are on the horizon for the coming years? How are poor people faring -- or how will they fare -- as the climate heats up, the seas rise, and powerful weather systems create devastation in many parts of the globe? And why are so many people, in particular conservatives, in denial about the fact that the climate is heating up? What are the arguments from those that dispute the science of global warming? This paper presents scholarly research articles that delve into these issues and a number of other aspects of the global climate change phenomenon.

The Literature -- Updated Information on Global Warming

A peer-reviewed research article in the journal Progress in Physical Geography provides a review of key points that have been released (by scientists) to the public subsequent to the most recent report (The Fourth Assessment Report -- AR4) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has played a "major role in framing the current understanding of likely impacts" from global climate change (Gosling, et al., 2011, p. 444).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international organization of scientists -- created by the United Nations' Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization -- that, over the past twenty plus years, has conducted to empirical research on climate change. The IPCC is just one among other science-based organizations studying the warming climate worldwide, but the IPCC is generally viewed as the most respected organization doing this valuable research.

The IPCC recruits the talent and experience of scientists from over 190 countries, and thousands of researchers with specific skills record temperature changes in the air, on land, and in the plant's waters. In its "First Assessment Report" (issued in 1990) the IPCC asserted that while there is a "natural greenhouse effect" which keeps the earth "warmer than it would otherwise be," emissions produced by human activities "…are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide." Hence, in its first report the IPCC was establishing the science-based facts of climate change in the world, and it has continued to add data and verify the causes for the myriad weather-related changes the planet is going through.

In the "Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007," the IPCC states that "…Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is not evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level" (IPCC, 2007).

Gosling points to a study that predicts the harm to coastal regions of the planet if the amount of sea level rise (SLR) is 34 centimeters; up to 100 million people would be flooded out of their homes in that event (Gosling, 445).

If the SLR is up to 1 meter -- which some studies suggest is quite possible given the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice -- about 84 developing countries would be negatively impacted and nearly 2% of the wetlands on the planet would be lost. Additionally 56 million people would not only be flooded but would lose their homes (Gosling, 446). There is an ongoing threat to fishes and other sea life (including coral) because of the acidification of the ocean, Gosling continues (447). Oceans are absorbing the C02 (greenhouse gases) at high levels and that is causing a reduction in pH balance, posing danger to aquatic life. Ocean acidification (OA) "…can impair fish hearing and balance, sense of smell and sensing of predators," Gosling reports based on the recent literature.

It is also known that OA has a negative affect on "…commercially valuable calcifying organisms such as mussels and oysters," and this impacts Pacific cultures (in small island states) that have limited agriculture and depend on the sea for income and protein (Gosling, 447). Plant and animal species are threatened, as well, Gosling continues: about "…20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far…are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction" as global mean temperatures exceed c to 3( above pre-industrial levels (448).

More people will have to deal with "water scarcity" as the climate continues to warm up; in fact when the climate warms by 2( Centigrade, about 59% of the world's population could be facing "blue water shortage" (irrigation water for agriculture), Gosling explains (450). As to agriculture, the rising temperatures are expected to bring "extreme events" (huge tornados, massively powerful hurricanes and cyclones that destroy crops) as well as additional "pests, weeds and diseases" (Gosling, 452). Moreover, as to the impact on humans from additional pests, Gosling asserts that with a 2(C rise in global temperatures, an estimate 5 to 6 billion people "…will be at risk for dengue [fever]," spread by mosquitoes (453).

Are hurricanes more intense and more destructive due to the warming oceans, the drivers of these huge storms? Scientists from the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia institute of Technology and from the National Center for Atmospheric Research published a piece in the American Meteorological Society that separates the "muddied" public denial from the empirical science. The authors, professors, scientists and researchers, put forth hypotheses followed by rebuttals, and in the end their hypotheses have more credibility and science-based data than the rebuttals; some of the rebuttals to their data were made by known "anti-global warming" individuals. The rebuttals fall into categories the authors call "logical fallacies." As to the articles' verified hypotheses: a) the frequency "…of the most intense hurricanes is increasing globally"; b) as the sea surface temperatures (SST) increase, so does the intensity of tropical hurricanes; and c) global tropical sea surface temperatures increase as a direct result of greenhouse warming (Curry, et al., 2006).

An article in the peer-reviewed journal Science (Webster, et al., 2005, p. 1844) pointed out that over the 35 years up until 2005, there have been observed "A large increase…in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." Webster and colleagues examined all of the tropical cyclones and hurricanes and determined that the warming of the SST has led to stronger hurricanes and cyclones. While the research did not report an "increase in the numbers of storms" due to the warming of sea surface temperatures, the research did show "a substantial change in the intensity distribution of hurricanes globally" (Webster, 1846).

The research showed no increase in the category 1 hurricanes; it showed "small" increased in the number of category 2 and 3 hurricanes; but "…hurricanes in the strongest categories (4 & 5) have almost doubled in number" in the ten years leading up to 2005 (Webster, 1846). In fact, in the 1970s there were 50 category 4 and 5 hurricanes, but in the ten years preceding 2005 there were 90 hurricanes in the strongest categories (Webster, 1846).

Meanwhile, the IPCC sent out a press release in March, 2012, which updates the data provided in the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. The IPCC expressed "medium confidence" that there will be, due to global climate change, "an observed increase in the length or number of warm spells or heat waves" in a number of regions of the planet (Lynn, 2012). The IPCC also expressed that there will be "a likely increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events" in comparison with what rainfall and other precipitation events are the normal and expected events in some areas -- particularly in "high latitudes and tropical regions" (Lynn, p. 2).

The 2012 IPCC update also expressed "medium confidence" that there will be an "increase in duration and intensity of droughts… [in] southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil and southern Africa" (Lynn, p. 2). The press release is just a summary of the 592-page report titled "Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate change Adaptation (SREX)" (Lynn, p. 1). Thousands of scientific studies are contained in the report, which was compiled by 220 scientists from 62 nations "…for which 18,784 outside expert and government review comments were received in the three rounds of formal review" (Lynn, p. 3).

Impact of Climate Change on the World's Poorest Nations

An article in the peer-reviewed Worldviews journal reports that "…the global poor will face the most devastating effects of global climate change…and it will be the poorest regions of the world with the least amount of resources to mitigate those negative effects" (Mastaler, 2011, p. 66). In Africa, for example, the IPCC predicts that "rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some countries by 2020"; this will compromise access to food and may leave 25 to 250 million people "vulnerable to increased water stress" (Mastaler, 66). And in Asia, the additional flooding expected due to the melting glaciers in the Himalayas could cause severe "diarrheal disease" and could also contribute to the "toxicity of cholera" in South Asia (Mastaler, 66).

In Africa and in South Asia, the ecosystems and weather patterns will be "uniquely impacted ecologically by climate change," Mastaler continues on page 71. Due to rising temperatures and scarce water sources "drought and desertification is expected to become increasingly common and more severe" in Africa and South Asia; and the inhabitants of those regions of the world are already struggling to make ends meet may be hit the hardest by global warming (Mastaler, 71).

The Literature -- Propaganda Used to Influence Public Opinion

In the 1990s the conservative movement in the U.S. -- foundations, think tanks, public intellectuals and media (including right wing radio announcers like Rush Limbaugh and TV personalities Sean Hannity and others on FOX News) -- "mobilized" to challenge climate change and policies directed towards the warming climate (Dunlap, 27). Limbaugh broadcasts his far right wing program on over 600 radio stations and constantly reminds his listeners that the idea of man-made global warming is "…a hoax" (Limbaugh, April 30, 2012). How does he know it is a hoax? He says he has read "…faked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, e-mails written by participants in the hoax who described how to cover up the hoax…it hasn't warmed in ten years," he told a caller. "Virtually every claim these people made haven't come true" (Limbaugh).

Meanwhile, Dunlap explains that the Limbaugh-led propaganda and more thoughtful skeptics in the conservative movement have been successful in convincing Republicans and conservative independents that global warming is some kind of liberal smoke-screen to harm business and scare people. A poll referenced by Dunlap shows that between 1997 and 2008, the percentage of Republicans that believe news about global warming is "exaggerated" has "increased significantly," from 37% in 1997, to 59% in 2008 (Dunlap, 28). The data from the Democrat side of the equation shows that Democrats who sense the news about global warming is exaggerated declined from 27% in 1997 to 17% in 2008.

Moreover, polling referenced by Dunlap shows that Republicans' belief in human-caused climate change (that is, the burning of fossil fuels -- coal, oil, gasoline burned in cars and trucks) declined from 53% in 2001 to 40% in 2008. While more Republicans were doubting that humans were causing climate change dropped 13% in that time frame, Democrats' believe that humans are causing climate warming rose from 70 to 72% (from 2001 to 2008) (Dunlap, 29).

An article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Business Ethics explains that very successful anti-global warming media campaigns are operated by "Astroturf" organizations like Western Fuels Association and the Heartland Institute (Cho, et al., 2011, p. 571). The authors define "Astroturf" organizations as "fake grassroots organizations" normally sponsored by "…large corporations to support any arguments or claims in their favor" or to "…deny those against them" (571). Cho and colleagues assert that Astroturf organizations generally violate accepted codes of ethics -- codes established by public relations associations -- and basically present "deceptive" activities. When Astroturf groups "purposefully…manipulate public opinion and harm scientific research" that represents "…a serious lapse in ethical conduct" (Cho, 572).

By hiding their "true identity" and creating a new identity that "…the audience believes to be shared" the Astroturf groups that corporations sponsor use their visibility "as implicit tools of persuasion" (Cho, 575). Cho mentioned the Heartland Institute as one of several Astroturf groups spewing propaganda to the public to create doubt about global climate change. Writing in The Guardian, journalist George Monbiot explains that the Heartland Institute (HI) is actually a lobbying group that has received at least $676,000 from ExxonMobil (Monbiot, 2012, p. 2). The Heartland Institute published a list in 2007 of "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares"; in this particular Astroturf publication the HI put forward the view that these 500 scientists believed "Modern Warming" is no more worrisome than "Medieval Warming" and "Roman Warming" in past centuries (Monbiot, 2).

After checking some of scientists that the HI listed as doubters, blogger and freelance journalist Kevin Grandia, a director for Greenpeace, received 45 responses from scientists in the HI list. These 45 responses arrived within 48 hours after Grandia reached the scientists through emails. All 45 responders were "…outraged that they had been traduced," Grandia writes. Dr. David Sugden, professor of geography, University of Edinburgh wrote that he was "…horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite" (Grandia, 2007). Dr. Svante Bjorck, with the Geo Biosphere Science Centre at Lund University, responded: "What you [HI] have done is totally unethical" (Grandia, 2007). There were many more irate responses to the Grandia email inquiries.

On the subject of the use of unethical strategies to convey a point, the Heartland Institute launched a billboard campaign with a photo of notorious mass-murdered "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski (and the words, "I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?"). In their billboard campaign the HI said that those that accept the science of climate change "…are on the radical fringe" and the most "prominent advocates" of global warming are "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" (Hance, 2012). Besides the Unabomber, the HI had intended -- prior to shutting down the provocative program -- to also feature billboards with Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, and other murderers and psychopaths (Hance, 1).

The press release put out by HI stated: "What these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media, and liberal politicians say about global warming" (Hance, 1). After removing the billboards -- following widespread negative public response -- the Heartland Instituted issued a statement, saying this project was just "an experiment," and after 24 hours the "results are in: It got people's attention" (Current.com).

The press release continued: "This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message…we do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the 'realist' message on the climate" (Current.com).

Meanwhile, Monbiot references strategies put in place by the "Information Council for the Environment" (ICE), a group that was set up by the Western Fuels Association, the National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute. In order to make their propaganda pitch effective, the ICE group identified "two possible target audiences": a) "Target 1: Older, less educated males" that would be "receptive to" their propaganda that the media were just trying to scare people about climate change; and b) "Target 2: younger, lower-income women" because these females are "…likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information…" (Monbiot, p. 1).

The Literature -- Propaganda / Censorship from the George W. Bush White House

An article published in The New York Times (Revkin, 2005) revealed that the White House was basically using Philip A. Cooney, a former lobbyist with the American Petroleum Institute, to edit and censure science documents related to global climate change. Cooney "…removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors… had already approved" (Revkin, p. 1). Cooney, who was chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality in the Bush White House, had "no scientific training" but was the staff member who was appointed by Bush to basically play down the significance of climate change (Revkin, p. 1).

In one report, for example, Cooney "…crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snow pack," Revkin explained on page 1. In the margins of that report Cooney said that including the melting of glaciers was "…straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings" (Revkin, 1). Rick S. Piltz, a former Bush White House senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research (who resigned his position) said he had "…not seen a situation like the one that has developed [in the Bush White House]…in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program" (Revkin, 1).

The Literature -- Skeptics in the U.S. Congress

An article in the peer-reviewed journal Globalizations quotes Republican U.S. Senator James Inhofe (from Oklahoma) as he spoke from the floor of the United States Senate on July 28, 2003: "Put simply, man-induced global [climate change] is an article of religious faith… [and] the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science" (Armitage, 2005, p. 417). The senator went on to proclaim that global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" (Armitage, 417). Inhofe went on to cite the anti-environment thriller written by novelist Michael Crichton, State of Fear, as both an accurate "source of scientific information" and as an "accurate depiction of the environmental community," whose concern over global warming Inhofe described as "hysterical" (Armitage, 418).

The author points out that the tactic used by Inhofe and others who campaign against the notion that the climate is heating up is to assert that "…the central tenants of the science of global warming are unsettled…inconclusive and this more research rather than mitigating policy is the prudent response" (418). And so with sufficient political positions firmly in place to negate any legislation to mitigate climate change, the United States, just 4% of the world's population, continues to emit "…one-quarter of the world's CO2 -- about 40,000 pounds per U.S. citizen each year, more than China, India, and Japan combined" (Armitage, 418).

What is the Executive Branch of the government doing about Global Warming?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in 2010 that it would begin regulating power plants (in particular, coal-fired power plants) in 2011 and 2012. In a letter to the U.S. Congress EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that she shares the goals of Congress to ensure "economic recovery at this critical time" but in the meantime addressing greenhouse gas emissions is part of a comprehensive energy and climate policy is vitally important in the eyes of the Obama Administration (Eilperin, 2010). Predictably, the conservative majority in the U.S. House of Representatives voted 249-177 to "…block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases that scientists say cause global warming" (Associated Press, 2011).

Conclusion

Certainly there will always be differing points-of-view on issues that come before the public and Congress. But the U.S. Congress in 2012 is so polarized and bitterly entrenched in their various ideological positions that attempting to mitigate the causes of global climate change (reducing the greenhouse gas emissions) will be all but impossible. Some of the most extreme positions against global warming, like that of Texas governor Rick Perry -- who said climate science is a "contrived phony mess that is falling apart" (Krugman, 2011) -- can be dismissed as radical rhetoric and ignored. Still, the data supporting climate change is powerful, the research by the IPCC is voluminous and impressive, and so notwithstanding those in denial, the U.S. must push ahead with policies that reduce, not add to, greenhouse gas emissions.