Author Archives: bperlm2

 

The Politicization of Climate Science

 

ANCHOR INTRO, Jack MacKay (:25):

 

In recent years the scientific consensus has grown stronger and stronger that human activity is causing global climate change with severe implications for our planet. Nonetheless, there remain many powerful deniers to climate change.

Supporters of climate denial, led by the fossil fuel industry, are able to propagate their beliefs because of a phenomenon known as the politicization of science.

Ben Perlmutter reports on the politicization of climate science for Emory News Now.

 

 

TRT (3:22)

POLITICAL SCIENTIST, DR. TOBY BOLSEN (:32)

EMORY STUDENT, JORDAN KOLPAS (1:42)

POLITICAL SCIENTIST, DR. TOBY BOLSEN (2:21)

SCIENCE HISTORIAN, NAOMI ORESTES (2:53)

 

AUDIO CLIP, Sen. Ted Cruz (:05):

 

“the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers.”

 

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:28):

 

Those are the words of Republican Senator and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz. While Cruz compares advocates of man-made climate change to flat-earthers, a broad scientific consensus disagrees with him.

Cruz and fellow climate deniers, are able to spread their scientifically questionable claims like this because they “politicize climate science.”

Georgia State political science professor Toby Bolsen defined the politicization of science in a phone interview:

 

ACTUALITY, Dr. Toby Bolsen (:09):

 

“Politicization occurs when an actor emphasizes the inherent uncertainly in science by casting doubt on the existence of a scientific consensus.”

 

 

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:59):

 

Actors, for their self interested reasons, spread doubt about science amongst the public while there is little to no doubt within the scientific community.

Emory University environmental science professor Woody Hickcox explained that climate science is particularly susceptible to politicization because it is so complicated. Hickcox says it requires the contributions of many disciplines, from biology, to astrophysics, to oceanography, to ecology. There are many points at which politicization can occur.

 

Powerful interests in the fossil fuel industry have been the main funders of climate denial research, especially ExxonMobile, the world’s largest oil company, and the Koch brothers, owners of the petrochemical giant Koch Industries.

They stand the most to lose from taking action on climate change, as their products, fossil fuels, produce greenhouse gasses, which in turn cause climate change.

College senior and environmental science and biology major Jordan Kolpas thinks that is of dubious ethics for the fossil fuel industry’s to fund climate science:

 

ACTUALITY, Jordan Kolpas (:23.5):

“If you have research like the stuff that the Koch brothers are funding its like illegitimate research, and like as a biology major, I’ve seen a lot of different ways you can skew um scientific studies to portray some sort of picture. But you need funding first off, but if you need funding secondly and its coming from an biased source, its illegitimate.

 

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:15):

Fossil fuel companies also try to directly appeal to the public to create a perception of doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change.

Dr. Bolsen elaborated on why politicizing science is such an effective tactic for skewing public perception:

 

ACTUALITY, Dr. Toby Bolsen (:13):

“When elites do this, when politicization enters the picture, people can’t reason. They can’t know whether or not to trust scientific evidence in particular cases.”

 

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:19):

Self-interested elites, in this case the fossil fuel industry, create a public perception of doubt, while there is none amongst climate scientists.

Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science and author the best selling book about politicizing science, Merchants of Doubt, explains how this tactic is so effective in an online interview:

 

ACTUALITY, Naomi Oreskes (:22):

 

“A key part of the strategy from the very beginning is to undermine the idea of scientific consensus. And one of the things they discovered in their own market research was that if you can persuade people that there’s no scientific consensus, then people will think that it will be premature to act…and this is why you hear them saying as a kind of mantra, ‘there’s no consensus.’ ”

 

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter (:03):

And thus, the debate rages on in the public forum.

 

TAG (:02.5):

Ben Perlmutter, Emory News Now

 

 

 

 

 

ANCHOR INTRO:

As it becomes clear beyond a reasonable doubt that human activity is causing global climate change with severe implications for our planet, there nonetheless remain many powerful deniers to this scientific truth.

The Republican Party leads the climate denial movement in the United States. The Republicans, supported by the fossil fuel industry, are able to propagate denial because of a phenomenon known as the politicization of science.

Ben Perlmutter reports on the politicization of climate science for Emory News Now.

 

AUDIO CLIP, Sen. Ted Cruz:

“the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers.”

 

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter

Those are not the words of some crazy on street corner, but those of Senator and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz.

Cruz and Fellow Republicans, are able to spread bunk claims like this because they “politicize climate science.”

Georgia State professor Toby Bolsen explains in a phone interview:

 

ACTUALITY, Dr. Toby Bolsen

“Politicization occurs when an actor emphasizes the inherent uncertainly in science by casting doubt on the existence of a scientific consensus.”

 

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter

Actors, for their self interested reasons, spread doubt to science while there is little to no doubt within the scientific community.

Dr. Bolsen elaborates:

 

ACTUALITY, Dr. Toby Bolsen

“When elites do this, when politicization enters the picture, people can’t reason. They can’t know whether or not to trust scientific evidence in particular cases.”

 

REPORTER VOICER, Ben Perlmutter

Emory University environmental scientist Woody Hickcox explained that climate science is particularly susceptible to politicization because it is so complicated — it requires the contributions of many disciplines, from biology, to astrophysics, to oceanography. There are many points at which politicization can occur.

Powerful interests in the fossil fuel industry have been the main funders of climate denial research. ExxonMobile, the world’s largest oil company, and the Koch Brothers, owners of the petrochemical giant Koch Industries, have been the largest funders of climate denial research.

They stand the most to lose from taking action on climate change, as their products, fossil fuels, produce greenhouse gasses, which in turn cause climate change.

By politicizing climate science to create the public perception of doubt, fossil fuel companies stop the public from coming to the consensus that climate change is occurring and needs to be addressed.

And, Republicans have joined in link step with the fossil fuel industry, as that’s where the money is. In the 2014 national elections, the Koch Brothers spent over $290 million.

College senior Claire Carter thinks about the politicization of climate science:

 

ACTUALITY, Claire Carter

“I think its ridiculous and has become too politicized and is following the money rather than the science.”

 

TAG

Ben Perlmutter Emory News Now

This March Republican presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz, audaciously compared global warming activists to people who believe the world is flat.

Cruz could not be further from the truth. It is in fact him and climate deniers like him that are on the wrong side of science.

Since humanity created the scientific method, there have always been doubters of science. From doubters of a heliocentric universe, to creationists, to anti-vaxxers, some people have refused to concede to scientific truth. Today, climate deniers are yet another iteration of these opponents to scientific reality.

Climate deniers are able to perpetuate their false beliefs through a phenomenon known to social scientists as the politicization of science.

Georgia State political science professor Toby Bolsen explained in a phone interview that “politicization occurs when an actor emphasizes the inherent uncertainly in science by casting doubt on the existence of a scientific consensus.”

People who do not like a scientific consensus, for whatever reason, are able to twist facts to make it seem like doubt exists when there is in fact none. Climate change science is particularly vulnerable to politicization because climate change is such a complicated field of study.

Emory University environmental scientist Woody Hickcox explained climate science is a particularly complicated discipline because it takes from so many different fields of study. Climate science needs to take into account meteorology (to see how weather has changed, chemistry (to understand how greenhouse gasses are emitted), astrophysics (to measure climate changes from outerspace), ecology (to study the effect of climate change on life), the list goes on and on.

No single academic paper can prove that human green house gas emissions are causing climate change. Rather a large body of literature proves the influence of human’s on climate change.

This body of literature has many uncertainties because scientists, following the tried and true scientific method, try to falsify conclusions, rather than prove them. Science is designed to be open to critiques in its incessant quest for the truth.

Climate deniers emphasize the inherent uncertainty of science even though this doubt is in reality far overwhelmed by a scientific consensus pointing towards the influence of humans on climate change. Deniers amplify uncertainty not to promote science, but to promote a political agenda.

By casting doubt on climate science, deniers distort public opinion on climate change away from science towards a position politically advantageous to them.

One of the favorite tactics of climate denying politicians is to claim that they are not scientists, and therefore cannot speak on climate change, as the science is unsettled.

President Obama, a staunch climate change advocate, said during the State of the Union address in response to Republican climate deniers: “I’ve heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they’re not scientists – that we don’t have enough information to act. Well, I’m not a scientist, either. But you know what? I know a lot of really good scientists at [NASA], and [NOAA], and at our major universities.”

While the president is certainly correct to put his trust in scientists, his prestigious endorsement is not nearly enough to counter the vast machinery that supports climate denial.

The fossil fuel industry has been the largest contributor to funding climate denial. Fossil fuels are one of the largest contributors to green house gas emissions, so the industry have a lot to loose if government creates legislation to curb emissions, hurting these companies’ bottom line.

ExxonMobile, the worlds largest oil company, and Koch Industries, a gigantic petrochemical company, are the two greatest contributors to the politicization of climate change.

Earlier this year, Harvard scientist Willie Soon, who had argued that recent climate change could mostly be explained by natural variation in the sun’s energy output, was discovered to have not exposed that he received $1.2 million for his research from Koch Industries and Exxon Mobile. Scientists must disclose conflicts on interest like this. Dr. Soon’s failure to expose his conflict of interest sparked widespread outcry from the international media, climate activist groups, and the scientific community.

Many climate deniers have cited Dr. Soon’s research as justification for their climate denial. Sen. James Inhofe, who claims that climate change is a hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon to justify his claims.

This recently controversy about Dr. Soon’s research is emblematic of the Politicization of climate change in American politics. Interests with vested interests in climate denial fund a scientist with fringe beliefs. Then politicians who support climate denial cite this fringe scientist to justify their climate skepticism. Thus, doubt in climate change is seeded.

Tales like that of Dr. Soon are all too common. Unfortunately it is impossible to know how much money Exxon, Koch, and other vested interests give to climate denial research because they often fund via the research third-party, “dark money” conservative groups, a 2013 study by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle reports.

Greenpeace, an environmentalist group, and other researchers found that Exxon and the Koch-backed charity foundations have funneled money to climate denial research through Donors Trust, a charity that supports ultra-free market ideas. Donors Trust gave $146 million to climate denial groups between 2002 and 2011. Due to lax oversight on donations to charities like Donors Trust, it is impossible to fully ascertain how much of the organization’s money came from the fossil fuel industry.

With all of this doubt being disseminated, the general public has difficulty telling the real science from the fossil fuel funded bunk. This leads to a debate where there should be no debate, yanking discussion away from how to grapple with climate change to whether there is climate change. Reaction to climate change continues at a tepid pace, as fossil fuel companies continue their greenhouse gas emissions unabated.