Subject: Global Warming Are skeptics winning debate on warming? --------------------------------------- By Scott Allen, Globe Staff, 04/28/97 Tiny minority has undue influence, book says They are a handful of scientists bucking the tide, arguing that global warming is unimportant - or maybe even beneficial - in a time of mounting scientific concern that the burning of fossil fuels is raising the Earth's temperature. But this band of scientific skeptics, most with ties to the coal or oil industries and conservative organizations, is winning the political debate, argues Ross Gelbspan in a pointed new book, "The Heat is On: The High Stakes Battle Over Earth's Threatened Climate." Using a combination of industry funding, media access and the support of the Republican-controlled Congress, doubters such as Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia and Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have convinced the public that there is far more doubt about the theory of global warming than really exists, argues Gelbspan, a former Boston Globe reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner who has covered environmental issues since 1972. It is largely because of their efforts, Gelbspan contends, that the Clinton Administration has taken no serious steps to curb global warming despite alarming signs, such as last week's flooding of Grand Forks, N.D., that human pollution may have made the climate not only warmer, but also more unstable. "Americans don't know what is happening to the climate [because] the oil and coal industries have spent millions of dollars to persuade them that global warming isn't happening," writes Gelbspan. The industry campaign has included recruiting scientists to produce videos, news articles and expert testimony challenging the theory of global warming. ("Dissenters deny charges that they're shilling for oil and coal industries.") (Globe staff photo of smoke stacks, by Tom Landers) A group of utilities and coal companies (want) to "reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact," by targeting a media campaign at "older, less-educated men" and "young, low-income women," Gelbspan found. But, even before the book hits store shelves this week, scientists targeted by Gelbspan are crying foul. They say his book is little more than an attempt to intimidate researchers who sincerely question the severity of global warming. "You are essentially telling people that if they express themselves, they are likely to end up in a screed like Ross's," said meteorologist Lindzen of MIT, whose own research has concluded that the Earth's upper atmosphere tends to offset warming on the ground. Lindzen, who has served on the advisory board of the Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank, called Gelbspan "a relatively despicable person" who made him look like an industry shill when he has received a tiny amount of money from coal and oil interests, and nothing in the past two years. In reality, Lindzen said, the coal and oil industries are reluctant to join the fight over global warming despite the potentially devastating costs to them. Some environmentalists, too, say that the reasons for America's inaction on global warming have at least as much to do with the national passion for fossil fuels than the influence of a few scientific skeptics. Despite the 1970s energy crisis and war in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in 1991, the US government has been reluctant to adopt policies to encourage a switch to other fuels. Why would global warming be more likely to prompt action, they ask? Yet, the doubters are remarkably prominent in news accounts on global warming, especially considering that they number perhaps a dozen compared to a 2,000-scientist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has concluded that human activity appears to be changing the Earth's climate. Michaels, climatolgist for the state of Virgina who publishes a coal-backed newsletter that regularly skewers global warming concerns, is cited in the media almost as much as Stephen Schneider of Stanford, a pioneering climate change researcher who wrote the first popular book raising concern about global warming. A Nexis search of US newspapers and magazines showed Michaels was cited 190 times to Schneider's 278 since 1980. The skeptics "are having an impact disproportionate to their numbers," said Bud Ward, editor of the journalism newsletter, Environment Writer. "That may in part reflect the merits of their arguments," he said. "More than that, it reflects their ability to portray themselves as a bigger part of the opposition than I think they in fact are." Gelbspan's book, which expands on a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, comes at a pivotal time in the debate over what, if anything, should be done about climate change. Most nations are scheduled to meet in Kyoto, Japan, this December to sign an agreement that would stabilize or cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called "greenhouse gases." President Clinton says he supports the concept, but the Administration has been reluctant to name a reduction target or set a deadline. As a result, allies such as Britain are pressuring the United States to do more. Britain wants to cut emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Gelbspan's book argues that the the United States is lagging, in part, because the skeptics are "draining the issue of all sense of crisis" with false assurances that global warming is, in the words of one critic, "pure media hype." That view, Gelbspan argues, perfectly serves the oil and coal industries. Gelbspan produces documents showing that, beginning in the late 1980s one large coal supplier, $400 million Western Fuels Association, started recruiting global warming skeptics to counter what the company called "what seemed generally accepted about the potential for climate change." Besides funding Michaels' newsletter, Western Fuels also spent $250,000 to produce a video, "The Greening of Planet Earth," which argued global warming could be good by extending the growing season. Lindzen, whom Gelbspan calls the most academically accomplished skeptic but an ideological extremist, appears in the video, as does Sherwood Idso, a physicist whose writings have appeared in a magazine published by the John Birch Society. In addition, Western Fuels began using the skeptics as expert witnesses in state legislatures as well as Washington D.C. The skeptics bristle at the idea that industry support affects their work. "It is completely irrelevant as to who supports the work of these people," said Virginia atmospheric scientist S. Fred Singer, who says he gets no more than 10 percent of his income from the coal and oil industry. And Michaels scoffed at the idea that the coal and oil industry could counter the $2.3 billion spent annually on climate research by the US government. "If three guys at about $25,000 a year [in income from the fossil fuel industry] can beat back $2.3 billion, those guys must have an awfully cogent argument," said Michaels in 1995, referring to himself and two other global warming critics. However, Gelbspan points out that Michaels didn't disclose the industry backing for his newsletter until Environment Writer published the information. Gelbspan believes the oil and coal industry has spent millions to promote the skeptics' views, including everything from Mobil's paid opinion pieces in major publications to direct public relations campaigns. The doubters' views have been further amplified by their allies in the Republican-controlled Congress, who have called them to testify on an equal footing with leading federal climate change researchers. After hearing from Michaels, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Science Subcommittee, said he felt most of the concern about global warming was based on "unjustified scare scenarios." He later recommended deep cuts in US spending on climate research. Yet, outside Congress, the international science community increasingly agrees that global warming is both real and worrisome. The 2,000-scientist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in 1995 that a 1-degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures over the last century is at least partly the result of human fossil fuel burning. If nothing is done, the average temperatures could rise another 3.6 degrees by 2100, the group concluded. This year, 2,000 economists, including six Nobel laureates, signed a statement arguing that the threat of global warming is serious enough to warrant "preventive steps." Jerry Mahlman, an atmospheric scientist and director of the Geophysical Fluid Laboratory at Princeton University, told the House Science Committee flatly that global warming is a "harsh and inexorable reality." Still, the skeptics correctly point out that there are huge uncertainties remain about how the climate system works. For instance, a study this month suggests that global warming causes earlier spring, meaning more green plants that then offset global warming. As a result, skeptics play a vital role in forcing climate researchers to prove their point. "Skepticism is part of science... It is the pruning that keeps the Tree growing straight," said Benjamin D. Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, author of the part of the 1995 IPCC report that found human influence on the global climate. What frustrates Santer and other scientists about some prominent global warming skeptics is that they often bypass the checks and balances of science, making sensational charges without subjecting their work to rigorous review. While other climate researchers publish their works in scholarly journals such as Science, where papers are reviewed by other scientists before being published, skeptics are more likely to use letters to the editor, special interest publishing houses and other non-reviewed outlets for their findings. For instance, Singer's major coup came in 1991 when he persuaded the aging Roger Revelle, father of climate change theory, to sign a paper downplaying the risk of rising temperatures. The article was published in the journal of the Cosmos Club, an obscure private organization, amid questions from Revelle's family about why the ailing man would sign such a document. He died shortly afterward. Likewise, Michaels' World Climate Report newsletter is a journal without independent scrutiny of his work. Prominent climatologist Thomas Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, said that Michaels made so many factual errors in congressional testimony that, were he to submit it for publication, "I would have to recommend its rejection." Not all the skeptics avoid academic scrutiny. Santer said Lindzen's academic writings are influential. Singer is regarded as a "qualified atmospheric scientist" by prominent Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich, who has been heavily involved in global environmental issues. But, on balance, said William Moomaw, a Tufts University professor of international environmental policy, "The skeptics have brought very little science to the table." So why are they playing such an important role in the global warming debate? Partly, said Ward, it reflects American journalist's tendency to accentuate extremes in their effort to get both sides of the story. "In this area of journalism, balance is the enemy of accuracy," Ward said. And, in a way, the skeptics are just doing what environmentalists do everyday: trying to influence public opinion. Willett Kempton, co-author of the book Environmental Values in American Culture, said it seems to work, especially among people who pay attention to the news. "The people who think of [global warming] as more speculative tend to be the more educated, more newspaper reading, more critical thinkers," said Kempton, a University of Delaware professor. (AP File Photo: "Vice President Al Gore displays chart showing atmospheric temperature changes during address at environmental meeting last month.") This story ran on page c1 of the Boston Globe on 04/28/97.