Climate Change 1.2.3

Climate
Change
and the
American
Public
Ignorance is not
an option
by Amandilo M. Cuzan
June 2007
A simple presentation on the
basics of Climate Change. What it
is. What it does. And how to
wade through all the hysteria and
become an informed participant in
the escalating struggle to confront
this issue.

Ignorance is Not an Option 3
Climate Change and the American Public:
Ignorance is Not an Option
Amandilo M. Cuzan
Copyright © 2007
www.jazzinthealley.org
www.bronzevillealliance.org
This paper may be copied and distributed for educational purposes
with the written consent of the author.

Climate Change and the American Public:4
Table of Contents
Preface ..........................................................................................................................................5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................6
What is Global Warming?............................................................................................................7
The Hole in the Ozone Layer .....................................................................................................11
The Greenhouse Effect...............................................................................................................14
Debates and Rumors of Debates.................................................................................................17
The Kyoto Protocol ....................................................................................................................21
Al Gore and the IPCC.................................................................................................................23
The Inconvenient Truth ..............................................................................................................26
Defeat and Redemption ..............................................................................................................29
Science and the American Public...............................................................................................31
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................34

Preface
I originally wrote this paper as a school project in 2007. As a media specialist for over forty
years I wanted to explore how scientific information is communicated to the American public.
My advisor at the University of Minnesota suggested that I write about global warming, since
there is a lot of confusion about the subject.
The idea intrigued me. I enjoy scientific inquiry and global warming was at the center of an
intense debate about how the world should respond to the alledged increase of greenhouse
gasses in the atmosphere. I heard many people scoff at the idea that global warming was a
serious concern.
One thing I discovered right away was that black people were on the margins of the discussion.
It seemed like another "white man's" issue that had little to do with the price of tea in
Bronzeville. Since that time, dozens of grassroots organizations have targeted Bronzeville and
similar inner city communities with green initiatives and environmental programs. The
growing consensus is that in a global community where social, cultural and economic interests
are woven together as never before, we must all be involved in stewardship of our limited
natural resources.
From the Great Lakes to the cities beautiful parks and boulevards, we are responsible for the
environmental legacy we leave our children and grandchildren. Our greatest weapon in this
battle is information. This paper provides you with a basic understanding of the climate
change story. Ignorance is not an option. Enjoy.

Introduction
No matter what your political beliefs, your house of worship, your economic status, your
genetic pedigree, what school you attend, what car you drive, where you live, work or play, we
humans face one undeniable truth. We share one planet. Earth is the only planet within our
reach that can sustain human life. Perhaps that is why the issue of global warming and its
potential to spark worldwide catastrophe is finally hitting a nerve with the American public.
Worldwide disasters are not new to the popular imagination. The possibility of a large asteroid
smashing into the Earth, the ever present threat of nuclear war, or a super-plague run amok are
all potential candidates to destroy life as we know it.
Global warming, however, is prompting a growing concern that we must do something—and
do it now! Average citizens are being called upon to curb their wasteful consumer habits and
help the nation and the world to lessen dependence on unsustainable energy sources such as
fossil fuels. Like it or not, we are all in this together.
In this paper, I will explore the science behind global warming and how that science is
presented to the American public. I will also examine the “debate” between the many
scientists who insist that climate change is an urgent concern, and those few well funded
“experts” who insist the science is flawed and our economy cannot sustain the “hysterical”
fixes being proposed.
In conclusion, I will discuss the impact of this controversy on public policy decisions.

What is Global Warming?
Many people find it hard to grasp the danger of global warming. Most of us think of the local
weather forecast when we consider the concept. Trudging through a winter blizzard, or
experiencing below zero weather, we ask ourselves why all the fuss over a degree or two of
warmer weather. Isn’t that a good thing? Such ill-informed attitudes are widespread. When
scientists speak of climate change, they are not referring to daily temperature changes but
“average weather, including weather’s variability over much longer time horizons.”1
Climate
is measured more in centuries and eons rather than in days, months, or even years.
Earth’s eco-system is a complex web of inter-related phenomena. What impacts one part of
the planet will eventually affect other regions as well. It is predicted that a few degrees
increase in climate over time can produce major negative consequences for human existence.
These negative consequences may be all the more severe because it is now widely accepted
that anthropogenic or human activity is largely responsible for an unprecedented warming of
Earth’s climate.2
This is the key question. What impact does human activity have on climate
change? Carbon levels have been higher in Earth’s distant past, and our climate goes through
naturally recurring cycles of warm and cold spells, but there is increasing evidence that current
human activity is pushing the rate of change to dangerous, irreversible levels.
The rate of climate change is the next critical question. There is growing concern that many
species will become extinct because they will not have sufficient time to adapt to abrupt
changes (measured in mere decades) in global climate. Scientists warn that only a few degrees
increase in climate over time can trigger grim consequences.3
Though some areas of our planet may even see positive change, the majority of the predictions
are dire. Frequent heat waves like the one that hit Europe in 2003 and killed 35,000 people
would likely damage crops, increase droughts and worsen industrial pollution. Warm, dry
conditions will likely increase forest fires which will exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
Already fragile water and food resources would be threatened. Tropical diseases may spread
further north along with the spread of warmer temperatures. These same warmer temperatures
could prompt an intensified hydrological cycle of evaporation and precipitation that could
produce exceptionally violent and damaging storms, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods. Many
scientists and interested observers feel this is already happening and will only get worse.
Melting icecaps and glaciers would likely cause sea levels to rise, inundating coastal areas and
1
Global Warming and Our Changing Climate: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions, Environmental
Protection Agency Publication, www.epa.gov, Retrieved on 7/12/2007
2
Rosenthal, Elizabeth, U.N. Report on Climate Details Risk of Inaction: Scientists’ Final
Accounting is Forceful on Temperatures and Sea Levels New York Times (November 17, 2007)
3
According to the EPA, Earth’s surface is currently warming at a rate of about 0.32ºF/decade or 3.2°F/century.
The five warmest years over the last century have likely been: 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006. The top 10 warmest
years have all occurred since 1990. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

possibly causing major alterations to ocean currents. Not only would selected species be
threatened, but also life as we know it could become extinct.4
Pretty scary—or is it? Could global warming be a hoax? Could all this doomsday talk be part
of a global conspiracy to undermine the American economy? At the very least are we dealing
with a bunch of misled environmentalists relying on junk science?
In the popular movie, The Day After Tomorrow, which was released by 20th
Century Fox in
2004, viewers are presented with a severe climate change scenario. Large areas of Antarctic
glaciers break away and melt into the Atlantic Ocean. This huge influx of fresh water dilutes
the salt water of the Atlantic Ocean and disrupts the THC.
What is THC you ask? No, it is has nothing to do with marijuana.5
In this case, THC stands
for thermohaline circulation. Thermohaline circulation is the part of the ocean’s circulatory
system which is driven by differences in temperature and salt content. This huge worldwide
system of ocean currents operates like a conveyer belt moving water around the globe.
This conveyor belt passes through the warm waters off the Cape of Africa and travels north
through the Atlantic Ocean toward the North Pole. The part of the THC known as the Gulf
Stream carries large amounts of warm water in its wake that helps to maintain warmer
temperatures in Europe. Without this generous gift flowing north off the West Coast of Africa,
Europe would likely be much colder.
The Day After Tomorrow depicts a situation where the change in the salinity of the Gulf
Stream disrupts this heat transfer and eventually triggers three massive hurricanes across the
globe. The eyes of the hurricanes have such low pressure that cold air from the upper
troposphere is sucked downward into the unsuspecting cities of Europe and North America.
Anything in the path of this extremely cold air, so the movie portrays, is instantly frozen in
place.
The Day After Tomorrow went on to generate over a half-billion dollars in revenue. Its high-
end special effects and all-star cast made the movie an enjoyable viewing experience for many
people. However, a wide cross-section of politicians, scientists and environmental groups
strongly criticized the film for depicting a climate change scenario that has no basis in fact.6
Though the melting of glaciers, the rise in sea levels, and the initial impact on the THC is
predicted by global warming, the subsequent climatic effects shown in the movie are
considered absurd. Even if such a cooling effect did take place, it would hardly happen within
the few days suggested by the movie, and certainly without the severity that would cause
helicopters to freeze in mid-air.
4
Tennesen, Michael (2004) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Warming, Alpha Books/Indiana pg. 4-15
5
THC can also refer to tetrahydrocannabinol the main chemical in marijuana that gets you high.
6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow, Retrieved 8/7/2007

Advocates who demand that America take the lead in confronting the potential consequences
of climate change are very concerned about providing accurate information to the American
public. Environmental journalist, Eugene Linden states,

“Any look at present-day climate change must take into account how
information about the issue has been received by politicians and the
public…I have watched with frustration as the story presented to the general
public has diverged ever more markedly from the story as it is seen by
scientists studying the phenomenon.”7
The American electorate is perhaps the most influential voting block in the world. Our votes,
though often dismissed by cynics as irrelevant can and do drive much of American public
policy. An informed electorate is still the most powerful weapon in a democracy. The key
word here is informed.
7
Linden, Eugene (2006) The Winds of Change: Climate Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations. (pg.220)

The Hole in the Ozone Layer
Most baby boomers remember the intense media coverage of the hole in the ozone layer during
the 1970’s and 80’s. Ozone is a form of oxygen that exists in the upper atmosphere. It
protects the Earth against harmful ultraviolet radiation by intercepting the sun’s UV rays
before they reach the surface of our planet. Systematic observations of the gas began in 1930.
Over forty years later two chemists discovered that a family of industrial chemicals called
chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs was depleting the protective ozone layer.
CFCs were mainly used in refrigeration and air conditioners. These extremely stable
chemicals made up of chlorine, fluorine, and carbon atoms were also used in aerosol sprays
and as fillers in insulation. Before 1970, CFCs were thought to be harmless. Then
F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, two chemists working out of the University of
California Irvine found that chlorine atoms produced by the decomposition of CFCs could
destroy the protective ozone layer that shields us from too much UV radiation. On June 28,
1974, Nature magazine published Rowland and Molina's findings.
Scientists tend to be natural skeptics. Debating research results are a vital part of refining
scientific data. This spirited intellectual process, though effective for scientific exploration,
can be agonizingly ineffective for sparking needed changes in public policy.
Determined to make sure that their critical discovery did not stagnate within the scientific
community, Molina and Rowland went on an unprecedented personal crusade to spread their
message to policy makers and the news media. The two chemists were often maligned for
what industry analysts insisted was questionable data. Based on the available information
many scientists predicted that ultraviolet radiation passing through the hole in the ozone layer
would result in rising skin cancer rates, increased cases of cataracts, and other environmental
damage. A contentious debate ensued where representatives of the chemical industry led by
DuPont, strongly challenged the connection between the depletion of the ozone layer and
CFCs. The debate raged for over a decade. As long as there was no “smoking gun” the
chemical industry could resist any costly fixes proposed by the scientific community and
government regulators.
Then in 1985, a British team led by Joseph Farman actually discovered a hole in the ozone
layer over Antarctica.
“When the team first measured ozone above the [Halley Bay Station in
Antarctica], they assumed the spectrophotometer they were using must be
broken and sent the device back to England to be repaired. But the
spectrophotometer worked just fine.”8
8
Tennesen, Michael (2004) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Warming, Alpha Books/Indiana pg. 46

A year later in 1986, Susan Solomon led a team of sixteen NASA scientists to the Antarctic
region to further investigate the depletion of the ozone. NASA soon published widely
circulated satellite photos of the Antarctic Ozone Hole.
“For the public, the Antarctic Ozone Hole was the smoking gun. It was the
first time anyone had ever presented solid, scientific, irrefutable evidence of
a connection between CFC’s and ozone depletion. The public began to
realize man’s enormous capacity to effect his environment.”9
Further studies followed and the world began to take notice. In 1987, a meeting of 25
industrial nations took place in Montreal, Canada, which led to an agreement to gradually
phase-out CFCs and other ozone-depleting materials. The agreement was called a
“monumental achievement” by then-president Ronald Reagan. But not everyone accepted
Reagan's statement as sincere . Eugene Linden points out that,
“DuPont, the world’s largest producer of CFCs successfully lobbied the
Reagan administration to halt steps [to ban CFCs] that had been underway
since the previous Carter administration. Only when the evidence of
damage had become overwhelming in the late 1980s did DuPont reverse
position, and even then skeptics noted that its motives were suspect.”10
According to Linden, by the mid 1980s DuPont had a substantial industry lead on the
production of CFC alternatives. Mandates from the outgoing Carter administration had forced
DuPont to explore alternatives to these harmful chemicals. Ironically, Ronald Reagan tabled
these same mandates when he took power in 1981. Now DuPont stood to gain big from its
intransigence. The phasing-out of CFCs would give DuPont a virtual lock on the market of
CFC alternatives—a market with much higher profit returns than the production of the
chemicals that were depleting the ozone layer.
Linden’s analysis highlights an important principle. The prime directive of corporations is to
make a profit, or failing that, minimize losses. Any attempts to confront climate change must
account for this prime directive. The profit motive transformed chemical giant DuPont from a
major industrial polluter into a champion of the environment; and cleared the way for most
CFCs to be banned by 1996.
Scientists predicted at the time that banning CFCs would cause the hole in the ozone to
disappear altogether by 2050.11
Molina and Rowland must have especially enjoyed the
personal vindication brought about by these developments. The two chemists, whose
unprecedented crusade helped to launch the Montreal Conference in 1987, won a Nobel Prize
in 1995 for their work in discovering the depletion of the ozone layer.
9
ibid.
10
Linden, Eugene (2006) The Winds of Change: Climate Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations. pg.204
11
A conference was recently held in Canada where an agreement was worked out to speed the elimination of
ozone depleting gases. “Developing countries have agreed to cut production and consumption by 10 percent in
2015; by 35 percent by 2020 and by 67.5 percent by 2025 with a final phase-out in 2030.” That is 20 years sooner
than originally agreed upon by the Montreal Protocol.
Norohona, Charmaine Nations to Speed Elimination of Destructive Gas, Seattle Times 9/23/2007

After such a promising success story, there was hope that the world would now focus on the
growing evidence pointing to a new environmental threat—climate change. Unfortunately,
that was not to be the case. With limited scientific evidence to verify global warming, the
political will was lacking to confront what many considered a non-problem.
Unlike the circumstances surrounding the ozone battle, climate change involved dozens of
industries and complex, often conflicting variables. It took years of debate, conferences and
political gamesmanship before affected industries would even acknowledge the existence of
the greenhouse effect. Today, despite well established data to the contrary, there are still
deeply entrenched holdouts that challenge the prevailing science regarding greenhouse
emissions and their relationship to global climate change.

The Greenhouse Effect
The Earth’s atmosphere is sometimes referred to as a blanket. We can intuitively infer that the
heavier the blanket, the warmer the planet. When rays from the sun hit the atmosphere of the
Earth, much of the radiant energy is reflected back into space or intercepted by the ozone layer.
Additional energy is reflected off the surface of the Earth as the sun’s rays hit bright surfaces
such as water, snow, or ice. The rest of the solar energy is absorbed at the Earth’s surface and
released in the form of heat. Some of this heat escapes back into space. A substantial amount,
however, is trapped by the atmosphere and emitted back to Earth.
The gasses that trap heat like a blanket are called greenhouse gasses. Water vapor is the most
common greenhouse gas. Water vapor manifests as clouds and is part of the natural
greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth warm enough for human habitation. Other naturally
occurring gasses in the atmosphere include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane.
Of these, the second most abundant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2). Scientists have
determined that CO2 has the greatest impact on climate change. When the climate system is in
balance carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere by natural processes and regulated by
two naturally occurring phenomena; absorption by the oceans, and photosynthesis12
, occurring
most abundantly in rainforests. With the aid of this natural regulation, carbon levels stay fairly
constant under normal conditions.
Because the Earth’s ecosystem is a complex web involving the interaction of many forces, one
part of the system can affect other parts of the system in unpredictable ways. Scientists
estimate that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has remained at
about 280 parts per million for most of the past 10,000 years. With the birth of the industrial
revolution in the 1700s, the balance of CO2 concentration has been tipped out of balance by
two major human endeavors. Large quantities of carbon dioxide are being released into the
atmosphere each year by the burning of carbon-rich fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural
gas. Added to this, humans have cut down nearly half of the Earth’s forests. Forests are a
major vehicle for the absorption of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis.
The result of this one-two punch is not hard to calculate. Today, carbon levels have increased
31% to about 380 ppm and rising. Educators and environmentalists, Tim Grant and Gail
Littlejohn report that,
“In the past decade, almost seven billion tonnes of carbon were released
every year by the burning of fossil fuels and destruction of forest. About
half of it dissolved in the oceans or was taken up by plants; the other half,
about 3.5 billion tonnes of carbon, was added to the atmosphere and will
remain there for 50 to 200 years.”13
12
Photosynthesis is a chemical process that converts carbon dioxide into organic compounds, especially sugars,
using the energy from sunlight.
13
Comeau, Louise and Grant, Tim, The Greenhouse Effect, Grant, Tim and Littlejohn, Gail (2001) Teaching
About Climate Change: Cool Schools Tackle Global Warming. New Society Publishers/Canada pg 9.

The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more heat radiation is trapped and emitted
back to Earth. Carbon dioxide has a life span in the atmosphere of over 100 years. Therefore,
even an immediate halt of fossil fuel burning would not be felt for a century.14
Newsweek
environmental reporter Sharon Begley paints a sobering picture, “carbon dioxide molecules
belched out by Model Ts are still up there.”15
For many observers, such assessments indicate
the need for urgent action.
On the contrary, top representatives of the oil and gas industry resisted any suggestion that
climate change was real. As DuPont did in the 1980s when faced with mounting evidence that
its products were depleting the ozone layer, the energy, automotive, and chemical industries
launched a major offensive to counter the growing evidence of man’s contribution to global
warming and the impact this warming could have on the Earth.
The direct involvement of industry bigwigs in the PR offensive indicated how serious they
took the threat. Executives would publicly refute any hint that climate change was a serious
concern. As long as no smoking gun existed, such as the Arctic Ozone Hole, corporate leaders
reasoned that no immediate (or expensive) action would be demanded of them. The strategy
was effective in the early going of the debate. Dealing with phenomena that manifests over
dozens, perhaps hundreds of years, makes it difficult to find a smoking gun.
Added to this, the economic costs were presented to the public as more damaging than any
possible cure. Cost is indeed a very important part of the climate change equation and is often
hard to conceptualize. Michael Tennesen writes,
“Fixing Global warming is not going to be cheap…This is likely to be
hugely expensive, requiring major reductions in the use of gasoline, fuel oil,
natural gas, and coal.”16
Industry leaders presented themselves as good stewards of the American economy resisting
unreasonable efforts to slow vital economic growth.
They in turn cast their opponents as “Chicken Littles” duped by a United Nation’s-led
movement of socialists and liberal hacks determined to undermine the American economy.
Despite such characterizations, scientists and environmentalists across the globe were
determined to get their story to the public. Tennesen goes on to present an apt analogy.
“Doing something now about global warming is like taking out insurance.
We take out insurance on our cars and our homes in the event of major
catastrophes. We don’t expect them, but we want to be prepared. Maybe
it’s time to contact an agent.”17
14
15
Begley, Sharon (2007) Curbing Emissions Won’t Be Enough Newsweek April 16, 2007 pg. 65
16
17
ibid

As the debate intensified, industry representatives received increasingly negative PR for
promoting positions sharply at odds with the scientific consensus on global warming.
Defiantly they raged on about free enterprise and American ingenuity. Behind this patriotic
veneer lurked the ever-dominant profit motive. Like big tobacco before them, industry did
their best to play both sides against the middle, financing trade associations and think tanks to
sow doubt, while publicly and reluctantly admitting that global climate change might indeed be
a problem.18
18
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition Retrieved 9/9/2007

Debates and Rumors of Debates
Item: Record Heat Wave in Europe Takes 35,000 Lives19
Item: U.N. Report: Global Warming Could Be ‘Abrupt, Irreversible’20
Item: Study: Global Warming Will Kill More Americans21
Item: Groundwater lost to rising sea levels greater than thought: study22
Item: Artic Melt Unnerves the Experts23
Everyday new evidence surfaces that appears to reinforce the primary predictions of global
climate change. Dramatic melting of ice caps and glaciers, record-setting warmth throughout
the globe, deadly weather events, and increased CO2 emissions seem to indicate that the
problem is real and demands urgent attention. Nevertheless, advocates of swift and sustained
action find themselves up against formidable obstacles. Despite the growing public awareness
of the term “global warming” many people still have minimal understanding of the facts
underlying the concept. Environmental activists Tim Grant and Gail Littlejohn discuss the
problems faced when teaching about climate change.
“The topic is complex because the Earth’s systems are complex, and
scientists themselves are not at all certain of the potential ramifications of
our interference with these systems. Equally formidable from an educator’s
point of view is the intangibility of climate change: its global scale and
seemingly slow progression make it a phenomenon that does not easily lend
itself to classroom demonstration.”24
Affected industries, already struggling with intense global competition and geopolitical
upheaval in oil producing states have come down forcibly on the side of denying climate
change. Indeed, the economic stakes are high and there is much uncertainty on how to best
calculate the costs of any meaningful solution. Instead of taking the lead on this critical issue,
many industry insiders have chosen instead to aggressively exploit the uncertainties in the
climate change story and stall any serious effort to reduce greenhouse gases.
Sharon Begley writing in Newsweek exposes what many have termed the global warming
denier's movement.
“If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific
findings about global warming recognize the game is over, think again.
Yes, 19 million people watched the “Live Earth” concerts last month, titans
of corporate America are calling for laws mandating greenhouse cuts,
19
Larsen, Janet, (2003) Record Heat Wave in Europe Takes 35,000 Lives,
www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update29.html, Retrieved 11/20/2007
20
www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,311953,00.html November 16, 2007
21
Fiore, Marrecca, www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,287915,00.html Retrieved 7/4/2007
22
Oberman, Mira, http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071117/ts_alt_afp/usclimatewarmingresourceswater_0711
Retrieved 11/17/2007
23
Revkin, Andrew C., New York Times, Tuesday, October 2, 2007
24
Grant, Tim and Littlejohn, Gail (2001) Teaching About Climate Change: Cool Schools Tackle Global
Warming. New Society Publishers/Canada pg 1.

‘green’ magazines fill newsstands, and the film based on Al Gore’s best
selling book, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ won an Oscar. But outside
Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the
denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both
government policy and public opinion.”25
According to many analysts, the skeptics have used an evolving set of rationale to
aggressively, and at times deceptively cast doubt on any pronouncements regarding the
severity of climate change and man’s role in causing global warming. Steven Milloy states in
his foxnews.com column,
“Putting aside that weather-related events can’t be tied to man-made
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)…the real climate-related threats to
business (are): the alarmism itself and attendant government regulation.”26
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) ran by non-scientist, Myron Ebell says on its
website,
“There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging
climate change.”27
Rush Limbaugh in his trademark condescending sarcasm has been one of the leading voices
against recognizing climate change as a serious and immediate threat to human society. He
quips,
“Despite the hysterics of a few pseudo-scientists, there is no reason to
believe in global warming.”28
The May 2007 issue of Vanity Fair features heartthrob actor Leonardo DiCaprio sharing space
on the cover with a baby polar bear. The entire publication is devoted to concerns about
climate change. James Wolcott, in his article about Limbaugh says,
“While Limbaugh has been able to maintain his hold on the faithful core,
others, less fervent are peeling off at the periphery, trying not to trip over
their own heels as they pedal through a series of fallback positions.”29
25
Begley, Sharon (2007) Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine Newsweek/MSNBC, Retrieved 8/5/2007
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/print/1/displaymode/1098/
26
Milloy, Steve, (2007) Global Warning’s Bottom Line, 11/15/2007
www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,311870,00.html Retrieved 11/17/2007
27
Global Warming FAQ, Competitive Enterprise Institute, http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
28
As quoted in Wolcott, James (2007) Rush to Judgment. Vanity Fair, May 2007 (pp. 102)
29
Wolcott, James (2007) Rush to Judgment. Vanity Fair, May 2007 (pp. 100-106)

Wolcott sums up these fallback positions as follows.
 Global warming is a hoax
 OK, it is not a hoax, but it is part of a natural cycle. Man is not responsible.
 So maybe global warming is partly man’s fault, but the cure could be worse than the
disease causing unacceptable harm to the American economy.
 All right, maybe it is a serious issue, but America (Western Civilization) will prevail.
Let the system take its course. Stop being Chicken Little.
The first approach was to deny that global warming existed. The skeptics attacked the
accuracy of the methods used to take the Earth’s temperature. They argued that modern
temperature records, which dated back to 1860, were reading warmer because cities had
expanded around or near the devices used to record temperature changes. Even more
problematic, initial temperature readings taken from satellites did not agree with readings taken
from ground thermometers. The satellites actually showed a cooling trend. Skeptics jumped
on this discrepancy to cast doubt on the readings, and ridicule those who were sounding the
alarm on global warming. Once scientists adjusted the satellite data to account for orbital
changes, the readings agreed quite well with ground-based instruments.
Skeptics then squawked that the temperature records did not go back far enough. Scientists
countered with much older readings dating back several hundred thousand years. These
readings were obtained from circumstantial evidence such as tree rings and ancient ice cores
and strongly suggest a direct correlation between climate change and the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere. To this day, skeptics continue to challenge the ice core and tree ring evidence, but
the data has stood up well under their intense scrutiny.
Most importantly, the readings suggested that human activity was the driving factor in the
dramatic increase in the rate of climate change over time—a critical issue in proposing public
policy changes. Despite strong evidence indicating the need for an urgent effort to reduce
greenhouse gases, industry-funded groups such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI),
the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) and the Information Council on the Environment (ICE)
refused to acknowledge the validity of the data.
These three groups, among others, have been the conduit for millions of corporate dollars used
to crank out policy papers and fund PR campaigns to challenge any evidence suggesting a
global climate crisis. The overriding goal was to “reposition global warming as theory (not
fact).”30
Michael Shnayerson writes in Vanity Fair, “In 2005, the oil giant [ExxonMobil]
gave CEI $270,000, a not inconsiderable portion of the institute’s $3.7 million budget,
and…between 1998 and 2005 ExxonMobil gave it more than $2 Million…CEI gets money
30
http://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/Information_Council_on_the_Environment

from the American Petroleum Institute, various pharmaceutical companies (Dow Chemical, Eli
Lily), and William A. Dunn of Dunn Capital Management.”31
GCC and ICE received similar sums of money from industry connected groups and were key
players in undermining political support for any American participation in mandatory
reduction of greenhouse gases. The climate change conflict intensified in the wake of the
global effort to ratify the Kyoto Protocol negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997.
31
Shnayerson, Michael (2007) Letters From Washington. Vanity Fair, May 2007 (pp. 144)

The Kyoto Protocol
The Kyoto Protocol was part of a worldwide environmental effort that grew out of the1992
Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Five years later, in 1997, over 160 nations met at the United
Nations Conference on Climate Change in Kyoto, Japan. Ten days of grueling negotiations
produced the first formal global recognition of climate change and actually offered a plan to
help reduce carbon emissions. The main goal of the treaty is to achieve “stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The immediate objective is to provide an
international framework to stop humans from smothering the planet with greenhouse gases.
Some participants felt the treaty was incapable of meeting its modest objectives of reducing
greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to emission measurements taken in the year 1990.
Furthermore, the treaty did not cover China and India, two rapidly developing economies that
produce a large share of greenhouse gases. Despite the many questions surrounding the Kyoto
agreement, it was the only game in town. As of June 2007, 172 countries had ratified the
treaty.32
Conspicuously absent from the signatories was the United States. Even though
former Vice President Al Gore invested major resources in negotiating the Kyoto agreement,
the Clinton administration exerted little effort to pass the treaty. It was clear at the time that
the votes in the Senate were not there for ratification. The George W. Bush administration,
staunch global warming skeptics, had no intention of trying to ratify and on the dawn of 2012,
the Obama administration has yet to confront this political minefield.
Despite the fact that the US Senate had no intention of ratifying the treaty, the Global Climate
Coalition, which was closely aligned with the American Petroleum Institute, allocated millions
of dollars in 1997 for an anti-Kyoto campaign. Begley writes,
“They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight page
memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled
with controversy and uncertainty. The plan was to train up to twenty
‘respected climate scientists’ on media—and public—outreach with the aim
of ‘raising questions about and undercutting the prevailing scientific
wisdom’ and in particular the Kyoto treaty’s scientific underpinnings so that
elected officials will seek to prevent progress toward implementation.”33
This leaked memo solidified the reputation of groups such as GCC as nothing more than well-
paid industry hit men. High profile corporate leaders desiring credibility began to distance
themselves, at least publicly, from these heavy-handed tactics. SourceWatch, a project of the
Center for Media and Democracy posts on its website that,
“By 1997, the growing scientific and public consensus regarding global
warming forced a number of GCC supporters to reconsider the negative PR
implications of their involvement in a group that was increasingly
32
Australia, followed suit with the election of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister in November of 2007. Rudd is a
firm supporter of global climate change initiatives and promised to make signing the treaty a top priority.
33
Begley, Sharon (2007) Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine Newsweek/MSNBC
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/print/1/displaymode/1098/

recognized as a self-serving anti-environmentalist front group. BP/Amoco
withdrew from GCC after BP’s chairman John Browne admitted that, ‘the
time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the
link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven,
but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the
society in which we are a part. We in BP have reached that point.’ ”34
Other industry giants quickly followed suit. SourceWatch goes on to say,
“…Individual companies were no longer asked to join the GCC. Instead
membership would be limited to ‘only trade associations’ and other ‘like-
minded organizations.’ By seeking support from trade associations instead
of individual companies, GCC hoped to create a layer of deniability so that
affected industries could continue to support its campaign of global
warming denial while avoiding boycotts and other public campaigns against
individual companies.”
ICE also faced serious credibility problems as the result of a leaked memo. Industry insiders
such as the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association, and Edison Electrical
Institute created ICE to do battle with anyone who dared call global warming a fact. The
organization launched a $500,000 advertising and PR campaign aimed at “older less educated
males” and “younger, lower-income women” who were identified as “good targets for radio
advertisements” that would “directly attack the proponents of global warming…”35
The ICE anti-environmental campaign collapsed when internal memoranda related to the PR
effort was leaked to the press.
34
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Coalition
35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Council_on_the_Environment Retrieved 9/92007

Al Gore and the IPCC
Former Vice President Al Gore and The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) were joint recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work related to
educating the public about global warming. The IPCC is one of the leading sources of
scientific information on the topic. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) established the panel in 1988.
The IPCC has three main objectives.
1) Bring together the world’s top scientists to discuss and explore relevant issues related
to climate change. The Panel is made up of over 2500 scientists and experts from
around the world.
2) Synthesize peer-reviewed literature on climate change studies. The IPCC emphasizes
that, “The Panel does not conduct new research, monitor climate-related data or
recommend policies.” Being recognized as an objective, non-partisan scientific body is
essential to the effectiveness of the IPCC.
3) Produce authoritative assessments of the current state of climate change knowledge.
Though the IPCC is not a public policy group, The Panel’s goal is to:
“Make assessments available to governments and intergovernmental
organisations to be taken into account in their policies on social and
economic development and environmental programmes.”36
The first IPCC assessment report was released in 1990 and concluded that,
“The experts…are certain that emissions from human activities are
substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
and that this will enhance the greenhouse effect and result in an additional
warming of Earth’s surface.”37
Following the first release in 1990, the IPCC released a new report about every five years. The
IPCC’s Fourth Assessment was ready for release on Saturday, November 17, 2007.
“This fourth and final assessment—the so-called synthesis report—seeks to
combine lessons from all three. Its conclusions are culled from data
contained in the thousands of pages that are essentially technical
supplements to the panel’s previous publications.”38
36
IPCC, 16 Years of Scientific Assessment in Support of the Climate Convention, December 2004 pg. 2
37
Ibid. pg. 3
38
Revkin, Andrew C., (2007) New York Times, Tuesday, October 2, 2007

The 2007 report makes a conscious effort to state the climate change case in more forceful
terms than previous reports. Many environmentalists still felt it did not go far enough.
Furthermore, the IPCC process takes five years of study and writing from start to finish,
meaning the very latest data would not be synthesized into the assessment.39
Skeptics, on the
other hand, claim the whole process is nothing more than alarmist propaganda and continue to
resist any data, no matter how solid. Despite these concerns, the report is under serious review
by governments across the globe and will have great influence on any public policy decisions
involving climate change.
Now that the IPCC report has been made public, policymakers must decide what to do with it.
Longtime industry darling, Steven Milloy seems to suggest that the only value the report has is
as fuel for his furnace—a coal burning one no doubt. He puts it this way,
“It should come as no surprise that, according to the U.N., 257 years of
western development and progress has placed the Earth in imminent danger
of utter disaster and that the only way to save the planet is to drink the U.N.
Kool-Aid and knuckle under to global-directed energy rationing and
economic planning.”40
Besides writing for FoxNews.com under his Junk Science banner, Milloy is also an adjunct
scholar for the notorious Competitive Enterprise Institute. In both capacities, Milloy has
received large sums of money from the tobacco, oil and chemical industries. Not surprisingly,
Milloy writes virulent columns and position papers challenging well-established data on
secondhand smoke, global warming, and the use of the banned pesticide, DDT. Though he
holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences and a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from John
Hopkins University, it seems his real calling is in legal wrangling. He holds a Juris Doctor
Degree from the University of Baltimore and a Masters of Laws from Georgetown University.
He and his colleagues at the CEI have positioned themselves as defenders of “free” enterprise
and champions of the American economy. They tell us that we must hold the line against the
ignorant hordes duped into believing that multi-billion dollar industries such as big oil would
deliberately compromise the interests of the public for the sake of profits. Heaven forbid,
scoffs Milloy and his fellow skeptics. American industry is self-correcting and needs no
interference from bureaucratic watchdogs and socialist-leaning environmentalists. The
relentless propaganda effort led by Milloy and other naysayers has no doubt made an impact.
Sharon Begley sums up the case as follows, “Since the late 1980’s, this well coordinated, well-
funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a
paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change.” She goes on to say that, “As a result of the
undermining of the science, all the recent talk of addressing climate change has produced little
in the way of actual action.”41
39
Ibid
40
Milloy, Steven (2007) U.N. Climate Distractions, 11/21/2007 www.foxnews.com/story/0.3566,312490,00.html
41
Begley, Sharon (2007) Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine Newsweek/MSNBC
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/print/1/displaymode/1098/ Retrieved 8/5/07

Many climate activists hoped the IPCC report would spark relevant change. The Panel’s
assessment includes a specific list of “Reasons for Concern.” In previous reports, only the
most likely scenarios were listed. This time around, the Panel put forth more alarming though
less likely possibilities, such as the widespread extinction of species. Critics say this is
politicizing the process and writing to reinforce preconceived ideas instead of letting the results
speak for themselves.42
Nevertheless, the IPCC report emphasizes that climate change may
lead to “abrupt and irreversible” results. World leaders met in Bali, Indonesia December 3,
2007 to discuss the report and begin work on a global climate change treaty that will replace
the Kyoto protocol that expires in 2012. The sense of urgency is growing.
Can such warnings overcome the stubborn pride that says nobody can tell America what to do?
Globalization not withstanding, many Americans still perceive the world from a very narrow,
xenophobic point of view. A diverse collection of conspiracy theorists and end time bible
teachers see any global initiative as a plot to undermine American authority and usher in a new
world order led by the antichrist.
One such scenario goes that the UN is the seat of a sinister plot driven by secular humanists
who have tapped into third-world jealousy of American prestige and are now sowing discord
across the globe. The poor angry masses are ripe for the picking. At some point the antichrist
will rise to unite the diverse factions and lead a major assault against the Western world, as if
God only operates in the western hemisphere.
Many Americans raised on sitcoms and reality shows too easily embrace overly simplistic
thinking. I appreciate a good conspiracy theory and have a very healthy skepticism of
government motives, no matter what country is involved. Human nature is seldom
trustworthy, especially when wielding vast power. I am all for decentralized government and
protection of individual freedoms. But at some point, you have to face facts and prepare for
the real possibility that greenhouse gases are reaching dangerous levels.
Unfortunately, Americans tend to be psychologically conditioned to neatly packaged half-hour
solutions to complex problems—an hour or two at the most. The climate change controversy
often seems to the public as a nebulous theory with little to wrap one's mind around. All this
deep thinking and self-analysis is for sissies, atheists and tree huggers. What's missing is a
clearly defined bad guy to beat up and a beautiful girl to win. Where's John Wayne and
Ronald Reagan when you need them. They would know how to handle this climate stuff.
Can't the CSI team dust for a few fingerprints and wrap this thing up?
It's just not that simple. You can't punch climate change in the face or outgun him in a shoot
out. What are our options? How can we understand and confront this problem in a healthy
effective manner? What will it take to capture the imagination of the public, spur them to
action, and bring about the Hollywood ending that any doomsday threat requires? Any movie
fan knows that an historic crusade demands an heroic crusader. Enter Al Gore with an
inconvenient truth.
42
Myer, Bob, Politicized Science and the IPCC, 11/21/07 www.americanthinker.com/2007 Retrieved 11/24/07

An Inconvenient Truth
Al Gore’s journey from wealthy tobacco farmer to environmental hero resonates with all the
plot twists of a Hollywood blockbuster. Gore’s father and namesake was U.S. Representative
and Senator from Tennessee, Al Gore Sr., whose political career spanned over thirty years.
Gore writes about his father with apparent admiration. “My father was a hero to me. I looked
up to him and I wanted to be like him.” But a funny thing happened on Gore Jr.'s path to
political prominence.
“I watched as my father was defeated for reelection to the US Senate in
1970, mainly because of his courageous opposition to the Vietnam War, his
support for school desegregation and voting rights, and his insistence on
upholding constitutional principles against the onslaught being carried out
by the Nixon-Agnew administration.”43
Gore Jr. also witnessed the sea change in political campaigns conducted in the age of negative
television ads and sound bite attack strategies. He eventually decided on a different career path
than his famous father.
Gore Jr. enlisted in the United States Army on August 7, 1969 after graduating with honors
from Harvard. He eventually served as an army journalist in Vietnam. Upon return to civilian
life Gore spent five years as public affairs reporter for the Nashville Tennessean. His
journalistic endeavors rekindled his interest in politics.
“Seeing politics up close from that different and detached perspective, I
slowly but surely came back to it on my own terms.”44
Gore quit law school in 1976 to run for the United States House of Representatives. He won a
close primary election against Stanley Rogers, and then ran unopposed to win his first election
to Tennessee’s fourth congressional district. After being re-elected three times, he set his
sights on the United States Senate where he served until Bill Clinton tapped him to run as his
vice-president.
Gore has a long and what many acknowledge is a distinguished environmental record. His
interest in environmental issues began during his undergraduate years at Harvard. There he
met Professor Roger Revelle, “who was the first person to propose measuring CO2 in the
Earth’s atmosphere.” Gore describes how Revelle hired the young researcher Charles David
Keeling to “collect samples of the CO2 concentrations high in the Earth’s atmosphere from
multiple locations every day for many years into the future.” Their principle research station
was located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii.
The measurements began in 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year and would
eventually serve as the basis for the Keeling curve. The data painstakingly gathered by
Keeling for almost half a century strongly suggests that Earth’s CO2 levels are on a steady
43
Gore, Al (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York
44
ibid

upward swing. The chart gleaned from this data became an essential part of the slide show
developed by Gore that inspired the book and the movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Gore writes,
“I still show Revelle’s chart of rising CO2 levels many times each week. It
is more elaborate than when I first saw it—the Mauna Loa measurements
now span 48 years. Moreover, with the information gleaned from ice cores
drilled in Antarctica and Greenland, the chart has been extended backward
650,000 years.”45
Revelle who died in 1991 and Keeling who died in 2005 have left a formidable record of
climate data that has shed much light on the current climate change crisis. Drawing on their
research, Congressman Gore made the issue a top priority. He initiated the first congressional
hearings on the subject and worked tirelessly to convince his colleagues that the issue was
urgent and compelling.
Gore was elected to the Senate in 1984. That same year his beloved sister Nancy died of
cigarette induced lung cancer. Gore describes her as “luminous. Charismatic. Gutsy. Astute.
Funny. Incredibly smart. And Kind.”46
In light of her untimely death, the Gore family farm
eventually stopped growing tobacco. Gore saw in this tragic situation the same disconnect that
many feel when faced with climate change.
“The implications of continuing to grow a crop on my father’s farm that
helped produce the cigarettes that had caused (my sister’s) fatal disease
seemed a little abstract and a little remote at that point—in the same way
global warming seems remote to many right now.”47
Eight years after his sister’s death, Gore authored Earth in the Balance, his first call to arms
regarding the importance of environmental issues. The book was dedicated to his sister and
the introduction reveals the underlying philosophy that drives the former Senator’s activism.
“The edifice of civilization has become astonishingly complex, but as it
grows ever more elaborate, we feel increasingly distant from our roots in the
earth. In one sense, civilization itself has been on a journey from its
foundations in the world of nature to an ever more contrived, controlled and
manufactured world of our own imitative and sometimes arrogant design.
And in my view, the price has been high. At some point during this journey
we lost our feeling of connectedness to the rest of nature. We now dare to
wonder: Are we so unique and powerful to be essentially separate from the
earth?”48
45
ibid
46
Gore, Al (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York pg. 256
47
Ibid pg 259
48
Gore, Al (1992) Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Rodale/New York

Earth in the Balance reached the New York Times bestseller list, but Gore understood that it
was one small salvo in a much larger battle. He says, “I’ve been trying to tell this story for a
long time and feel as if I’ve failed to get the message across.”
Gore remained deeply committed to climate issues while serving as Vice President in the
Clinton administration. He pushed for a carbon tax that was partially implemented in 1993 and
was a key player in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Many felt Gore was destined to usher in the new
millennium as president of an administration focused on the environment—but destiny can be
as fickle as a global warming skeptic whose check has not cleared.

Defeat and Redemption
The election debacle of 2000, that saw the defeat of the Gore/Lieberman ticket and the
subsequent selection of George W. Bush as America’s 43rd
president by the US Supreme Court
set the stage for a momentous showdown. The new administration made it clear that economic
dominance would trump environmental concerns, no matter how dire. According to Gore,
“The Bush-Cheney administration was determined to block any policies
designed to help limit global warming pollution. They launched an all out
effort to roll-back, weaken, and—whenever possible—completely eliminate
existing laws and regulations.”49
Gore wasted little time agonizing over the brutal defeat of 2000. He quickly launched a
number of business ventures related to his interests in satellite technology, alternative media
and of course the environment. As part of his environmental activities, Gore revived the
presentation of a slide show that he had put together during the writing of Earth in the Balance.
He estimated that by the time An Inconvenient Truth was made he had presented the slide show
over 1000 times.
“Over the years I have added to it and steadily improved it to the point
where I think it makes a pretty compelling case, at least for most audiences,
that humans are the cause of most of the global warming that is taking
place.”50
At one of the showings organized and sponsored by film producer Laurie David, Gore was
approached by David and another producer, Lawrence Bender to develop a film based on the
slide show. It was not long before they assembled a production team, and the rest, as they say
is history.
The documentary is essentially the slide show on film, which is presented before a studio
audience at an arena specially constructed for the movie. Gore’s life story, which is
interwoven with the slide show, provides the backdrop for the material being presented.
Unlike the Bush biography that would have us believe that Eastern elites could transform into
good ol' Texas ranchers in one generation, Gore’s life on his father’s farm and lifelong affinity
for nature and the outdoors rings basically true.
Though An Inconvenient Truth has received some criticism for at times overstating the case, it
by far avoids the absurd hyperbole of The Day After Tomorrow. The message is compelling
and accessible, even more so with the aid of the companion book of the same name. At the
very least, one comes away with a renewed commitment to change wasteful personal habits.
The film opened in New York and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006. To date it has grossed over
$50 million and has won numerous awards, including an Oscar for Documentary Feature. The
Society for Technical Communication bestowed another significant honor on the film. The
49
50
ibid

documentary received the Society’s President Award “for demonstrating that effective and
understandable technical communication, when coupled with passion and vision, has the power
to educate—and change—the world.”51
51
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth Retrieved 8/7/2007

Science and the American Public
Ever since the Civil War, science and technology have become increasingly associated with
American ingenuity. Indeed, it is the military funding and application of science that helped
bring scientific inquiry so fully into the mainstream of American life. Paradoxically, however,
science and technology have become so specialized within the military/industrial complex, that
there is a new disconnect between what Gore refers to as the two cultures.
“Science has become so specialized in its single-minded pursuit of ever
more refined knowledge in narrowing subspecialties that the rest of us have
more and more difficulty making sense of their conclusions.”52
Scientists operate within a very specialized environment using very specialized language,
speaking to very specialized audiences. Having invested years of study and substantial
amounts of money into their careers, it is no wonder that scientists enjoy the elite status that
many have rightfully earned. Yet, in the midst of such grave consequences predicted by global
climate change, we must do more to make the basic science assessable to the general public.
Picture a crowded courtroom full of eager spectators. The prosecution and the defense both
have high-powered legal teams determined to win at all costs. The prosecution presents an
intriguing case: human activity is the driving force behind climate change and the need to
address this fact is dire, but they must prove a very difficult theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense on the other hand, need only cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution’s case in
order to win an acquittal, a hung jury, or at the very least, stall for time.
A bevy of dueling experts use charts, statistics and slick graphics to push their case to the jury.
Each side adds a little drama to make their story a bit more compelling--do they go to far? Has
either side lost their credibility? You sit enthralled, or perhaps asleep, in the jury box trying
hard to make sense of the complex data and to separate fact from fiction—truth from lies?
Could climate change be a well-orchestrated plot? How do you decide?
For me the veracity of the data is important, but the deciding factor is the character of the
people making the argument. When I began this paper I did my best to stay objective in my
point of view. I had heard the term global warming many times but knew little about the story
behind the headlines. I have always enjoyed scientific inquiry, and had I not devoted my
career to the media at a young age, I might have seriously pursued the natural sciences.
One of the tipping points for me has been the blatant manipulation and distortion of the data by
skeptics trying to exploit the uncertainties in the climate change story. Vigorous discussion is
healthy and valuable to any search for truth. No one has complete understanding of all the
facts, and a well thought out challenge to even the most established data can be a welcome
opportunity for deeper understanding. However, when government officials and industry
insiders deliberately conspire to alter reports to suit their agenda, then I consider that a
character issue that calls into question the integrity of their entire argument. The New York
Times recently reported that,
52

“A White House official who once led the fight against limits on greenhouse
gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play
down links between emissions and global warming, according to internal
documents.”53
If this were one isolated incident, I would be inclined to give the deniers the benefit of the
doubt. The evidence suggests, however, that these unscrupulous tactics are standard operating
procedure used by those who fear a healthy discussion of the issue. No evidence will ever be a
100% certain, but reasonable people can draw reasonable conclusions when presented with the
facts.
As Michael Tennesen proposed earlier, we should consider taking out an insurance policy in
the event the worse of the predictions come true. If the chairman of British Petroleum publicly
concedes that, “…we can’t wait until the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is
conclusively proven, but when the possibility can not be discounted,” then the rest of the
deniers need to take note.
I have no doubt that American ingenuity, applied with principle and character can meet the
challenge of this “global climate crisis.” But it will take men and women of character and
principle to put aside their petty political differences and recommit to the role of public
servant. We should all take sober note of our power to affect this planet. It is an empowering
concept that carries great responsibility.
Whatever our spiritual beliefs or the depth of our patriotic zeal, at the very least, these beliefs
should demand of us a sense of duty regarding stewardship of our natural resources. We can
get in front of this issue now, or pay the consequences later—probably much sooner than later.
Our children and grandchildren deserve no less.
Al Gore put it quite well,
“The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few
generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational
mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and
unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the
pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for
transcendence; the opportunity to rise.”54
Like Rowland and Molina who led a broad-based campaign to address the Arctic Ozone Hole,
Al Gore gives a face to the cause and represents a compelling story behind the mission. Of
course this is real life, not a movie. Each of us has much to lose in this high stakes
controversy.
53
Revkin, Andrew C., (2005) Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming,
New York Times June 8, 2005
54
Gore, Al (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York, pg. 11

As urban dwellers in communities such as Bronzeville, we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.
We must educate ourselves and let our voices be heard concerning the human response to
climate change and the many other environmental issues that impact our community.
Only time will tell if this inconvenient truth will stir enough of us out of our comfort zones,
before there is little comfort left at all.

Bibliography
An Inconvenient Truth, Documentary, New York, Paramount Classics, (2006)
Begley, S. (2007) Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine Newsweek/MSNBC
Black, E. (2003) War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race.
Four Walls Eight Windows/New York
Breslau, K. (2007) The Green Giant. Newsweek, April 16, 200
Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Global Warming and Our Changing Climate:
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Global Warming FAQ, Competitive Enterprise Institute, http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
Gore, A. (1992) Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Rodale/New York
Gore, A. (2006) An Inconvenient Truth, Rodale, New York
Grant, T. and Littlejohn, G. (2001) Teaching About Climate Change: Cool Schools Tackle Global Warming.
New Society Publishers/Canada
Gribbin, J. (1979) What’s Wrong with Our Weather: The Climatic Threat of the 21st
Century
Charles Scribner’s Sons/New York
Herman, A. (2001) How the Scots Invented the Modern World: The True Story of How Western Europe’s Poorest
Nation Created Our World & Everything in It. Crown Publishers/New York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth Retrieved 8/7/2007
Jones, R. S. (1992) Physics for the Rest of Us: Ten Basic Ideas of Twentieth Century Physics That Everyone Should
Know…and How They Have Shaped Our Culture and Consciousness. Chicago, IL/Contemporary Books, Inc.
Jones, R. S. Personal interview. July 16, 2007.
Linden, E. (2006) The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather and the Destruction of Civilizations.
Simon & Schuster/New York.
Milloy, S. (2007) Global Warning’s Bottom Line, 11/15/2007
www.foxnews.com/story/0,3566,311870,00.html Retrieved 11/17/2007
Pearce, F. (2007) With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points In Climate Change.
Beacon Press/Boston
Revkin, A. C., (2005) Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming,
New York Times June 8, 2005
Rosenthal, E. U.N. Report on Climate Details Risk of Inaction:
Scientists’ Final Accounting is Forceful on Temperatures and Sea Levels New York Times (Nov. 17, 2007)
Tennesen, M. (2004) The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Global Warming Alpha Books/Indianapolis, IN
The Day After Tomorrow, Feature Film, Los Angeles, 20th
Century Fox (2004)
Wolcott, J. (2007) Rush to Judgment. Vanity Fair, May 2007

Climate Change 1.2.3

More Related Content

What's hot (9)

Viewers also liked (6)

Climate Change 1.2.3