Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

Many Americans believe that global warming is a recent scientific discovery, when in actuality scientific research on the effects of carbon dioxide on climate have been ongoing for 150 years. Similarly, “as early as 1995, the leading international organization on climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), had concluded that human activities were affecting global climate” (169). In the 2000s, despite climate scientists agreeing that average global temperatures had risen, only 56 percent of Americans believed this theory, and 64 percent believed that there was much disagreement amongst scientists. Among the many reasons the United States has failed to act upon global warming is the confusion raised by Bill Nierenberg, Fred Seitz, and Fred Singer.

“1979: A Seminal Year for Climate”

In 1965 Roger Revelle was commissioned to write a summary of the potential impacts of carbon-dioxide-induced warming. He focused on the most certain effect, sea level rise, forecasting a 25 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide within the next 35 years, potentially leading to marked changes in climate. Neither Nixon nor Johnson paid attention to the report, as it was overshadowed by other global and national crises. However, throughout the 1970s, the world (especially the continents of Africa and Asia) experienced myriad droughts, crop failures, and famines. A committee of elite scientists, the Jasons, who gathered beginning in the 1960s to advise America on national security issues, looked at carbon dioxide and climate to see if they could find the source of these issues. In a 1979 report, they demonstrated that an increase in carbon dioxide would increase the surface temperature of the Earth, which would be greatest at the poles. Although this was not a new belief in scientific circles, the Jason study created a stir in politics, and MIT professor Jule Charney was commissioned to review the study.

Charney created a nine-scientist panel and invited two other leading climate modelers—both of whom had much more sophisticated models than the Jasons—to help the study: “The key question in climate modeling is ‘sensitivity’—how sensitive the climate is to changing levels of CO2” (172), concluding that a doubling of carbon dioxide could lead to anywhere from a one-and-a-half-degree to a four-degree increase, although most likely the increase would be around three degrees. As a greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide trapped heat, and a higher level of carbon dioxide meant a warmer Earth. Although other complications existed (like clouds, wind, etc.), the panel decided these were second-order effects with minimal impact. However, the group could not tell how long this temperature increase would take to occur, because oceans acted as heat sinks, moving the heat from their surrounding environment to the bottom of the ocean:

The available evidence suggested that ocean mixing was sufficient to delay the Earth’s atmospheric warming for several decades. Greenhouse gases would start to alter the atmosphere immediately—they already had—but it would take decades before the effects would be pronounced enough for people to really see and feel (173).

This presented a problem when trying to convince government officials that global warming was a crisis, as by the time they saw its effects, it would be too late to stop.

“Organizing Delay: The Second and Third Academy Assessments”

Charney’s report concerned policymakers, who wanted to know when measurable change would occur and what its effects would be, neither of which Charney’s report addressed. The National Academy of Sciences wrote a letter to address these concerns. Thomas Schelling, an economist, maintained that not all of the effects of global warming would be bad, and that humanity would move and adapt as they had at the end of the last major glaciation. Considering the time Charney’s group suggested the world had, the price of fossil fuel would lead to a decline in its usage, permitting conversion to alternate energy sources:

All this, he suggested, would happen naturally as market forces kicked in, so there was no need for regulation now. Considering all the other uncertainties that Schelling emphasized, his faith in the free market could have been viewed as surprising, and his predictions have turned out to be entirely wrong (175).

Fossil fuel usage has indeed increased. The panel pressed the need for research in place of regulation.

However, John Perry believed that even a small increase in carbon dioxide would affect the climate, and that global warming was already very much in effect: “Perry would be proven right, but Schelling’s view would prevail politically” (176). A new committee, with Bill Nierenberg as its chair, was formed to further research carbon dioxide and the resultant report “was really two reports—five chapters detailing the likelihood of anthropogenic climate change written by natural scientists, and two chapters on emissions and climate impacts by economists—which presented very different impressions of the problem” (177).

The Executive Summary represented the views of the economists, which challenged the natural scientists’ assertions (and the assertions of the majority of the scientific community) that warming would occur, causing serious physical and biological consequences, including flooding and the ice melting: “The overall conclusion was the same as before: CO2 had increased due to human activities, CO2 will continue to increase unless changes are made, and these increases will affect weather, agriculture, and ecosystems” (178). The economists (and the Executive Summary), however, stressed the uncertainties of the social and economic effects concerning carbon dioxide. They agreed that regulations would be most effective in curbing emissions, but that they would be difficult to enforce and possibly costlier in the long run. Similarly, Schelling found it unfair to single out carbon dioxide for its potential to induce climate change, again stressing the human need to merely adapt. The economists used Fred Singer’s tactic of discounting faraway costs in order to minimize the effects of carbon dioxide: “The physical scientists viewed accumulating CO2 as a serious problem; the economists argued that it wasn’t” (180). The Executive Summary sided with the economists, rejecting the interpretation of the facts as a problem. The summary stressed the necessity for migration as well as the need for more research in place of government regulation.

Many of the report’s reviewers railed against the idea that migration could solve climate change, as migration usually accompanied historical trauma and widespread death, taking a special toll on the impoverished. But the reviewers’ remarks went unheeded, and the report was published anyway. Many scientists viewed it as ridiculous and ignored it, but the White House used it to attack the EPA’s subsequent reports concerning the severe implications of climate change. The press reiterated the belief in an alarmist EPA. Records indicate that Nierenberg purposefully aligned his position with the lack of government regulation desired by White House administration. However, even some economists turned on the report’s economic conclusions, realizing that there was not an infinite number of resources for the free market to consume.

“Meeting the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ with the ‘White House Effect’”

In 1988, the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the announcement by climate modeler James Hansen that anthropogenic global warming had begun changed climate science forever, leading to an organized campaign of denial. A terrible drought had devastated the US in 1988, and Hansen explained to Congress that since 1980, the US had warmed by a full degree, which they were 99 percent sure was due to global warming. One model predicted that “within twenty years, [the Earth’s global mean temperature] would be higher than at any time since the warmest previous interglacial period then known, which ended about 120,000 years ago” (184). As the media gave Hansen extensive coverage, some of his fellow scientists criticized his suppositions for discounting uncertainties.

In response to the uncertainties in Hansen’s statement, Bert Bolin led the newly created IPCC, dividing the panel into three groups of almost 300 scientists: one to report on the state of climate science, one to discuss socio-economic impacts, and one to create potential responses. When George HW Bush became president, he promised “to counter the ‘greenhouse effect with the White House effect’ by bringing the power of the presidency to bear on the problem” (185), in response to national concern. Scientists truly believed they would finally address climate change.

“Blaming the Sun”

By 1989, the Marshall Institute seemed obsolete, as the Soviet Union had mostly disbanded and the threat of impending communism with it. The Institute refocused its attention on environmental alarmists, however, attacking climate science. Jastrow, Seitz, and Nierenberg published a paper claiming to set the record straight by blaming global warming on the sun. This paper was later turned into a book and presented to the Bush administration, having a large impact. The report claimed that historical data showed a cooling between 1940 and 1975 even though CO2 emissions increased, demonstrating that carbon dioxide could not be responsible for the warming. Rather, they used tree rings to suggest a period of higher energy output from the sun, which led to warming and went by a 200-year cycle, which was almost over. The report was actually using information and graphs from the Hansen report, which said that global warming was caused by a combination of CO2, volcanoes, and the sun, although they only used the data from the sun. Also “there hadn’t been any solar output increase in the mid-twentieth century, so only CO2 explained the recent warming” (187). Similarly, if climate was as sensitive to solar output as the Marshall report suggested, it would also be increasingly sensitive to greenhouse gases.

In May 1990, the IPCC published its first report, proclaiming that “global warming from greenhouse gases would produce changes unlike what humans had ever witnessed before” (189), directly refuting the Marshall report’s solar argument. The Marshall Institute published a longer report and began attacking the IPCC, but Bolin confronted Nierenberg’s assertion that global temperatures increased linearly by demonstrating that historical records showed exponential increase. But the Marshall graph and report were redistributed by conservative organizations, ultimately being responsible for the Bush administration’s opposition to carbon taxes and regulation of fossil fuel consumption.

“The Attack on Roger Revelle”

Fred Singer attacked climate change by claiming that Revelle, seen as a pioneer of climate change, had changed his mind. In 1990, Revelle presented a paper that promoted further research while outlining six steps to reduce future warming: use of natural gas, conservation, non-fossil energy sources, stimulation of phytoplankton production, artificially increasing atmospheric reflection, and expanding forests. Revelle maintained the uncertainty, and Singer approached him after the presentation to talk about collaborating on a newspaper article. Shortly thereafter, Revelle suffered a heart attack and subsequent infection, leaving him unwell. During this time, Singer published a paper with Revelle as co-author, although there is uncertainty whether Revelle ever looked at this paper, as he was in the hospital for much of the time. In the meantime, Singer had published another article which stressed that scientists did not know the cause of global warming and the uncertainty precluded government action. During the hospital-bedside review of the report, Revelle had attempted to make changes including an important numerical change which aligned his position with that of the IPCC (and most mainstream scientists), but Singer did not input the revisions, instead dropping contentious facts altogether. Revelle died soon thereafter, so it is unknown whether he agreed with the article, although many close to him believe he did not and was embarrassed by it. However, as it was not published in a scientific or peer-reviewed journal, it is believed that Reveille hoped it would just go away.

However, the paper was used to attack Revelle’s mentee, Al Gore, in the 1992 election, by casting Singer’s words as Revelle’s—unacceptable in scientific circles, which understand the first author to be the quotable source. This challenge was repeated throughout conservative media, much to the anger of close scientist friends and Revelle’s family members, all of whom presented Revelle’s previous paper (presented just before he got sick) as well as continuing work concerning policy questions as evidence to counter conservative attack. However, these refutations were not published in the same venues (as the conservative venues refused) and mostly accessible to other scientists. Singer tried to republish the article in a more scientific venue, and one of the scientists (a close friend and colleague of Revelle), attempted to have his name removed from the article, leading to a huge battle which resulted in the addition of a footnote to Revelle’s single-authored paper. In a memorial symposium for Revelle, scientists argued with Singer that he had pressured Revelle. Singer attacked them for their political agendas, eventually filing a libel suit against one of them, which Singer won. However, one statement during Revelle’s hospital stay conclusively indicates his belief that greenhouse gases cause climate warming, which will in turn affect water resources.

Regardless, the UN Earth Summit convened in June 1992 to address anthropogenic climate change. It forced its signatories to pledge concrete action to protect against dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system, among which was President Bush. However, no real limitations were established; the Framework Convention was merely an agreement on principal.

“Doubling Down on Denial”

Despite the efforts of conservative scientists, global warming was becoming a known phenomenon, although questions still remained as to whether it could be directly tied to human activities. Detection and attribution studies were underway to find this link, threatening skeptics with their desire to delineate anthropogenic causality.

Attempting to find the cause of global warming amidst a lot of other useless data, one young scientist, Benjamin Santer, found errors in the models used in the IPCC’s first assessment. He joined a Californian lab that attempted to make modeling more rigorous, objective, and transparent for all of the scientific community. The lab was working on distinguishing between CO2, which caused warming, and sulfate aerosols, which caused cooling, both of which have distinctly different climate fingerprints, as do the various methods of solar and volcanic warming (which alter the temperature of various parts of the atmosphere).

Santer was asked to write one of the chapters of the IPCC’s second assessment. He worked with thirty-five other scientists to write this chapter on the causality of climate change, which included “a discussion of model and observational uncertainties” (201). The report then went through several rounds of peer review, including a country review, in which governments chose reviewers to provide commentary: “Santer presented the results of his fingerprint study of changes in the vertical structure of atmospheric temperatures [which] might just have proved the human impact on climate” (202), exciting scientists.

The report was then leaked, drawing significant attention. However, the media misunderstood that scientists had already viewed human activity as the likely cause of global warming, and that this new study actually demonstrated that fact, which the skeptics capitalized on. Congressional hearings questioned the science, using one contrarian as an expert to question the trustworthiness of the IPCC climate models, although other scientists refuted this analysis, most of which went undocumented by the media. Santer globally presented his findings, which oil-rich states and fossil fuel industry representatives opposed. This disagreement went back and forth, ultimately boiling down to an adjective within the following sentence: “‘The balance of evidence suggests that there is a [blank] human influence on global climate’” (205). The word which was eventually agreed upon was “discernible.” However, ultimately this summary was removed, as none of the other chapters had summaries. Santer was then criticized for having removed material.

Fred Singer attacked the report, saying that the models were wrong, and the fingerprinting study was not peer-reviewed and violated IPCC rules, which was refuted by other scientists who said that Singer was misrepresenting the IPCC in order to discredit it. Industry lobbyists accused Santer of “‘secretly altering the IPCC report, suppressing dissent by other scientists, and eliminating references to scientific uncertainties’” (207), which was then reiterated by Nierenberg in a report by the Global Climate Coalition, circulated to politicians and the media. Fred Seitz also went to the media, accusing Santer of fraud and advocating for the abandonment of the IPCC.

Santer responded by a letter which, at first, the media refused to print. The media then heavily edited the letter, including taking out the forty other cosigners. Santer said that Seitz was not a climate scientist and had no involvement with the IPCC and that his claims were hearsay. Other scientists came to Santer’s defense, admonishing Seitz for neither fact-checking nor citing sources, which the media again revised and weakened, to the condemnation of the American Meteorological Society and the University corporation for Atmospheric Research, who openly supported Santer and rejected Seitz’s critique. The media published three more letters, one from each Singer and Seitz, restating the attacks and also arguing that the IPCC conclusion was too weak. A back and forth ensued, both in the media and then, when the media had enough, via email. Singer’s claims were shown to be false but he repeated them in the media, asserting that Seitz was the victim. Later analysis showed that Singer’s efforts were part of the American conservative rhetoric of political suppression which aimed to envelop the IPCC in an aura of secrecy and unaccountability.

This caused a rift in the scientific community which directly affected Nierenberg, with whom other scientists refused to work, labeling him duplicitous and with ulterior motives. Nierenberg “didn’t seem to understand that by participating in this assault on Ben Santer, he was attacking the entire community of climate modelers” (213), politicizing the science and polarizing the scientific community.

The Marshall Institute claims had great effects in the Bush administration and Congress, leading conservatives to use them as arguments for cutting climate research funding, calling global warming a hoax propped up by trendy science via leftists.

“In 2004, one of us showed that scientists had a consensus about the reality of global warming and its human causes—and had since the mid-1990s. Yet throughout this time period, the mass media presented global warming and its cause as a major debate” (215). Balanced articles that gave equal space to the few dissenters represented 53 percent of media stories. In July 1997, two senators blocked the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, effectively killing global warming in politics.