Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Technology
belonged to the American million-
aire Lyndon Larouche. According to Monbiot,
Larouche is perhaps not the most reliable place
to obtain your scientific data. In addition to cast-
ing doubt on human-induced climate change,
Larouche holds some controversial views on
various aspects of global political life (Monbiot,
2006: 25). While no credible scientific source can
be found for this glacier data, it has been used by
a range of institutions and individuals to cast doubt
on the scientific consensus on climate change.
Monbiot did notice that many of the groups
who were circulating this dubious data had
something in common: they had received funding
ExxonMobil is classified as the world's largest
corporation. It does, of course, depend for its
continuing success on its ability to extract, refine
and sell oil. On these terms ExxonMobil's com-
mercial success is challenged by a scientific
consensus that suggests that the continued use of
fossil fuels could generate disastrous climatic
consequences. It should come as little surprise that
the scientific research that ExxonMobil funds
often casts doubt on the climate change consensus
and the science upon which it is based. Sim
(2006) has described this type of science as a form
of 'special interest scepticism'. Given the over-
whelming breadth of scientific evidence that
supports the twin notions that climate change
is occurring and that this change is caused by
human interventions in the global atmosphere, it
is difficult for climate change sceptics to produce
scientific evidence that is able to prove this
consensus wrong (unless fabricated evidence,
such as the previously mentioned glacier statistics,
can be circulated). Monbiot argues that in these
circumstances organizations such as ExxonMobil,
and the scientists and right-wing politicians
that they support, have not sought to prove the
scientific consensus wrong. Instead they have
worked to suggest that the science of climate
change is marked by great uncertainty and
division. This strategy is perhaps best encapsulated
in the words of Frank Lunz (cited in Monbiot,
2006: 27), who acted as a political consultant
for George W. Bush, when he stated (in a leaked
memo):
Should the public come to believe that the
scientific issues are settled, their views about
global warming will change accordingly.
Therefore you need to continue to make the
lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in
the debate.
While discussing the genuine scientific
uncertainties that remain about climate change is
a healthy thing to do, it appears that many climate
change deniers are deliberately manufacturing
uncertainty in order to generate a confused
understanding of climate change in the minds
of the general public. It appears that climate
change deniers have found an unlikely source of
inspiration in their manufacturing of scientific
uncertainty. The tobacco industry has been fight-
ing the findings of mainstream science for some
time. In order to avoid compensation claims and
governmental regulation, so-called 'big tobacco'
has been funding scientific research that has
routinely cast doubt on the link between smoking,
passive smoking and lung cancer. While is clear
that those wishing to cast doubt on the climate
change consensus have learnt a lot from the
endeavours of the tobacco industry, Monbiot
suggests that there is now an alliance emerging
between the two groups (2006: 20-39). This
alliance is based upon a recognition that through
carefully coordinated scientific research pro-
grammes and publicity campaigns, big oil and
big tobacco can collectively work to cast doubt over
the findings and intent of mainstream science, and
thus ward off unwanted governmental regulations
in the fields of smoking and climate change.
More recently, scientific controversies around
climate change took an unexpected turn. In 2009,
just before the United Nations Conference on
Climate Change in Copenhagen, a file containing
1000 emails sent from and received by members
of the prominent Climate Research Unit at the
