Creating a Climate of Doubt

By Tenzin Kunsel Sherpa

Over the past half-century, climate change has emerged as the biggest issue of our planet. There has been overwhelming evidence supporting global warming and climate change to human activities, and their disastrous effects on the world. However, there has been a lack of unanimous agreement on the emergency of the issue and, thus, has halted action against climate change. The fight against climate change has seen the growth of an anti-climate movement that tries to refute decisive scientific evidence supporting climate change. The movie, Climate of Doubt, highlights some perspectives of climate change skeptics and tries to reveal the drivers of the anti-climate movement.

A key part of the climate change counter-movement is the disapproval of science. Those denying climate-change seem to illustrate their own evidence, which they believe triumphs the extensive research done by climate scientists around the world. An example of this is seen when Fred Singer points out that the Global Surface Temperature change graph shows decreasing temperatures during a particular decade (17:30). However, he was only able to observe a cooling trend by selectively excluding data of other decades that clearly show rising temperatures. He fails to understand the long-run nature of global warming and seems to have arrived at a conclusion that befits his own bias.

Another popular figure, Christopher Monckton, states that carbon dioxide is good because it’s “plant food” (11:25). While it is true that plants utilize CO2, suggesting an increase in food productivity due to increased carbon emissions would be highly inaccurate, and also very disconcerting to scientists. Like Singer and Monckton, millions of climate skeptics favor such perplexing reasoning over the expertise of scientists. Having to persuade such a population, which is half the country, about the science of climate change has become a big challenge in the fight against climate change. Overcoming the inability of people to interpret actual evidence and comprehend scientific reasoning regarding climate change is, hence, a crucial step for climate action.

Although ignorance may seem to be primarily accountable, corporate greed is a hidden driver of the growing counter-movement. The movie illustrates this with the example of the conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity (APS), which has publicly condemned climate change. The primary donors of APS include the oil giants Koch brothers, and Donor’s Trust, which provides “anonymous funds” for their activities (47:00). The need for big donors to conceal their identity suggests questionable motives for supporting the anti-climate change agenda.

Wealthy corporates, who are the biggest contributors to global warming and climate change, benefit from groups such as APS that manipulate the public to think that climate change is a hoax. Corporates benefit tremendously by funding organizations that promote inaction against climate change. The movie also reveals the conflicting behaviors of senators and government officials. Journalist Coral Davenport reports that every Republican lawmaker avoided stating their opinion when asked about climate change (31:30). The lawmakers’ silence suggests the presence of an external influencer, often corporates with large funds dispensable for political campaigning, which primarily benefit from inaction against climate change. Thus, unethical corporate greed is a major- yet often unknown- obstacle in addressing climate change.

Influential figures like Fred Singer and advocacy groups such as APS have been able to gain mass support against climate change by exploiting the vulnerability of the public. Skeptics James Taylor (3:58) and James Sensenbrenner (13:00) acknowledge that the 2008 recession had helped push back on climate change. They enthusiastically express their success in gaining public support during the economic crisis; however, they fail to grasp that it was for the wrong reasons. During the crisis, people were looking for something/someone to blame and they, misleadingly, concluded climate change to be their enemy.

With plentiful disinformation offered by the same skeptics leading the anti-climate agenda, people are prompted to oppose legitimate sources that counter accepted scientific evidence and abandon rational thinking. As larger portions of the population are faced with a lack of access to proper education, more people lack critical thinking skills that help to discern facts from misinformation. NC State Representative, Bill Cook, cites Singer’s book as his preferred source because “it made better sense” to him (39:54). This suggests that Cook was unable to process other evidence, possibly complex scientific data, and explanation, and chose to trust Singer’s simplified but faulty information. Thus, the economic downturn accompanied by disinformation has manipulated people to oppose climate-change efforts.

Climate of Doubt shows the progression of the anti-climate movement in the past few decades. Disinformation and manipulation by a few key figures have resulted in a great divide in the country. I believe that proper higher education to develop critical thinking, restriction on false information, and reform of the donation system are extremely necessary to overcome the challenge of climate change. Although there have been major setbacks in the past half-decade, the recent election may become a renewed hope for a better climate.

References

Upin, C. (2012, October 23). Climate of Doubt. [Video file]. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ frontline/film/climate-of-doubt