LA JOLLA, Calif.─Although recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans are convinced that global warming is no longer a myth, polls have also shown that more than half of Americans still think that scientists are debating its legitimacy.
Dr. Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at UCSD, explained the root of the debate and uncertainty surrounding global warming during her presentation entitled, "The American Denial of Global Warming," held at the Birch Aquarium at Scripps on Monday, Oct. 8.
Oreskes began her lecture by presenting the evidence of global warming, making reference to research such as that of David Keeling in 1965, that showed the dramatic increase of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, and continued to introduce other studies such as that of Gilbert Plass done in the 1950s and reports published by the IPCC. After reviewing the evidence, Oreskes explained the history and methods of the well-funded campaigns that were designed to spread doubt about issues such as global warming.
She said that one of the main contributors to the uncertainty surrounding global warming was the George C. Marshall Institute, which was founded in 1984 to create debate and to give the illusion of scientific uncertainty surrounding the issue of the Strategic Defense Initiative.
When the Cold War ended in 1989 the Marshall Institute turned to other issues such as global warming. Oreskes explained that many of the people who spearheaded the debate against global warming were also involved in other debates such as the one saying that smoking tobacco does not cause lung cancer or cardiovascular disease, as well as the debates on whether sulfur and nitrogen emissions were linked to acid rain, and whether CFCs were the cause of the hole in the ozone.
Oreskes said that although it was eventually proven that smoking tobacco does cause lung cancer, CFCs do contribute to the ozone hole, and that sulfur and nitrogen emissions are linked to acid rain, the same arguments were used again and again, continuing with the debate on global warming. While explaining the methods used during the tobacco case, Oreskes said, "It shows you how the strategies and tactics were developed. The focus was not on proving that tobacco was safe, but simply on creating reasonable doubt."
"In the process, they greatly misrepresented the facts about climate science, they confused the American people, and they delayed political action on one of the most important issues of our time," said Oreskes. "In the 1980s, one of the main arguments about global warming was that we could afford to wait and see. The fact is that we actually have waited; we've waited since 1979, and we have seen. What we have seen is that the predictions of the 1970s and the 1980s have largely come true. Global warming is here."
Feeds