Truth Out The Denial Industry

[Guest guest]

Truth out.

The Denial Industry

By Monbiot

The Guardian UK

Tuesday 19 September 2006

For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies

has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back

action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's

involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the

first of

three extracts from his new book, Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking

new story.

ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount

to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more

to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To

safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious

action

needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must co

nfront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking

causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

The website _Exxonsecrets.org_ (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/) , using data

found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have

taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These

organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is

contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans,

liars or

lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they

would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these

organisations dislike are labelled " junk science " . The findings they welcome

are labelled " sound science. "

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known

websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the

Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look

like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the

Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them,

such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or

academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like

that

of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America,

their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and

quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the

impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not

understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared

in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that

serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On

the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one

contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in

a garbled

form, has been used by Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it

relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved

by further work. So, for example, Christy, the author of the troposphere

paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his

initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these

groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science and

Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in

the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he

wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost

every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: " We urge the United States government to

reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in

December

1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse

gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology,

and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing

scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other

greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause

catastrophic

heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in

atmospheric

carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and

animal

environments of the Earth. "

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter

written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead

author of the " review " that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian

fundamentalist called Arthur B . He is not a professional climate

scientist.

It was co-published by 's organisation - the Oregon Institute of

Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the C Marshall Institute,

which

has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were

's 22-year-old son and two employees of the C Marshall

Institute.

The chairman of the C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: " We are living in an increasingly lush

environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase.

Our

children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with

which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the

Industrial Revolution. "

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had

just reminded his correspondents - was once president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences

released this statement: " The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this

petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the

manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect

the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy. "

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the C Marshall

Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition

had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates

signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has

been

repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as Bellamy,

and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by

the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus

on climate change.

All this is now well known to climate scientists and environmentalists. But

what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate

funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was

initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil

fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip .

In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a

500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. It found

that

" the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United

States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS

is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer

deaths annually in US non-smokers. In children: ETS exposure is causally

associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as

bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases

annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are

attributable to ETS. "

Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the

tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what happened

next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal documents and post

them on the internet.

Within two months of its publication, Philip , the world's biggest

tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the passive-smoking

report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate

affairs, sent a letter to I , Philip 's chief executive

officer and president, explaining her intentions: " Our overriding objective is

to

discredit the EPA report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent

states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans. "

To this end, she had hired a public relations company called APCO. She had

attached the advice it had given her. APCO warned that: " No matter how strong

the arguments, industry spokespeople are, in and of themselves, not always

credible or appropriate messengers. "

So the fight against a ban on passive smoking had to be associated with

other people and other issues. Philip , APCO said, needed to create the

impression of a " grassroots " movement - one that had been formed spontaneously

by concerned citizens to fight " overregulation " . It should portray the danger

of tobacco smoke as just one " unfounded fear " among others, such as concerns

about pesticides and cellphones. APCO proposed to set up " a national

coalition intended to educate the media, public officials and the public about

the

dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's

scientific studies, risk-assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars ...

Upon formation of Coalition, key leaders will begin media outreach, eg

editorial board tours, opinion articles, and brief elected officials in

selected

states. "

APCO would found the coalition, write its mission statements, and " prepare

and place opinion articles in key markets " . For this it required $150,000 for

its own fees and $75,000 for the coalition's costs.

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip shows, the fake

citizens' group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was

important, further letters stated, " to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of

contributors " ; to " link the tobacco issue with other more 'politically

correct' products " ; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a

bad

light with " broader questions about government research and regulations " -

such as " global warming " , " nuclear waste disposal " and " biotechnology " . APCO

would engage in the " intensive recruitment of high-profile representatives

from business and industry, scientists, public officials, and other individuals

interested in promoting the use of sound science " .

By September 1993, APCO had produced a " Plan for the Public Launching of

TASSC " . The media launch would not take place in " Washington, DC or the top

media markets of the country. Rather, we suggest creating a series of

aggressive,

decentralised launches in several targeted local and regional markets across

the country. This approach ... avoids cynical reporters from major media:

less reviewing/challenging of TASSC messages. "

The media coverage, the public relations company hoped, would enable TASSC

to " establish an image of a national grassroots coalition " . In case the media

asked hostile questions, APCO circulated a sheet of answers, drafted by

Philip . The first question was:

" Isn't it true that Philip created TASSC to act as a front group for

it? "

" A: No, not at all. As a large corporation, PM belongs to many national,

regional, and state business, public policy, and legislative organisations. PM

has contributed to TASSC, as we have with various groups and corporations

across the country. "

There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches

adopted by Philip and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two

lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip

's

consultants. " Junk science " meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking

was linked to cancer and other diseases. " Sound science " meant studies

sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive.

Both

lobbies recognised that their best chance of avoiding regulation was to

challenge the scientific consensus. As a memo from the tobacco company Brown

and

on noted, " Doubt is our product since it is the best means of

competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general

public. It

is also the means of establishing a controversy. " Both industries also sought

to distance themselves from their own campaigns, creating the impression that

they were spontaneous movements of professionals or ordinary citizens: the

" grassroots. "

But the connection goes further than that. TASSC, the " coalition " created by

Philip , was the first and most important of the corporate-funded

organisations denying that climate change is taking place. It has done more

damage to the campaign to halt it than any other body.

TASSC did as its founders at APCO suggested, and sought funding from other

sources. Between 2000 and 2002 it received $30,000 from Exxon. The website it

has financed - _JunkScience.com_ (http://www.junkscience.com/) - has been the

main entrepot for almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found

its way into the mainstream press. It equates environmentalists with Nazis,

communists and terrorists. It flings at us the accusations that could

justifably be levelled against itself: the website claims, for example, that it

is

campaigning against " faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance

special and, often, hidden agendas " . I have lost count of the number of

correspondents who, while questioning manmade global warming, have pointed me

there.

The man who runs it is called Steve Milloy. In 1992, he started working for

APCO - Philip 's consultants. While there, he set up the JunkScience

site. In March 1997, the documents show, he was appointed TASSC's executive

director. By 1998, as he explained in a memo to TASSC board members, his

JunkScience website was was being funded by TASSC. Both he and the " coalition "

continued to receive money from Philip . An internal document dated

February

1998 reveals that TASSC took $200,000 from the tobacco company in 1997.

Philip 's 2001 budget document records a payment to Milloy of

$90,000. Altria, Philip 's parent company, admits that Milloy was under

contract to the tobacco firm until at least the end of 2005.

He has done well. You can find his name attached to letters and articles

seeking to discredit passive-smoking studies all over the internet and in the

academic databases. He has even managed to reach the British Medical Journal: I

found a letter from him there which claimed that the studies it had reported

" do not bear out the hypothesis that maternal smoking/ passive smoking

increases cancer risk among infants " . TASSC paid him $126,000 in 2004 for 15

hours' work a week. Two other organisations are registered at his address: the

Free Enterprise Education Institute and the Free Enterprise Action Institute.

They have received $10,000 and $50,000 respectively from Exxon. The secretary

of the Free Enterprise Action Institute is Borelli. Borelli was the

Philip executive who oversaw the payments to TASSC.

Milloy also writes a weekly Junk Science column for the Fox News website.

Without declaring his interests, he has used this column to pour scorn on

studies documenting the medical effects of second-hand tobacco smoke and

showing

that climate change is taking place. Even after Fox News was told about the

money he had been receiving from Philip and Exxon, it continued to

employ him, without informing its readers about his interests.

TASSC's headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people. Three of

them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for organisations taking money

from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz, the man who wrote the Oregon

Petition, and who chairs the Science and Environmental Policy Project. In 1979,

Seitz became a permanent consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He

worked for the firm until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was

in

charge of deciding which medical research projects the company should fund,

and handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The

purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds shows, was to

" refute the criticisms against cigarettes " . An undated note in the Philip

archive shows that it was planning a " Seitz symposium " with the help of

TASSC, in which Frederick Seitz would speak to " 40-60 regulators. "

The president of Seitz's Science and Environmental Policy Project is a

maverick environmental scientist called S Fred Singer. He has spent the past

few

years refuting evidence for manmade climate change. It was he, for example,

who published the misleading claim that most of the world's glaciers are

advancing, which landed Bellamy in so much trouble when he repeated it

last

year. He also had connections with the tobacco industry. In March 1993, APCO

sent a memo to Ellen Merlo, the vice-president of Philip , who had just

commissioned it to fight the Environmental Protection Agency: " As you know,

we have been working with Dr Fred Singer and Dr Dwight Lee, who have authored

articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ... "

Singer's article, entitled Junk Science at the EPA, claimed that " the latest

'crisis' - environmental tobacco smoke - has been widely criticised as the

most shocking distortion of scientific evidence yet " . He alleged that the

Environmental Protection Agency had had to " rig the numbers " in its report on

passive smoking. This was the report that Philip and APCO had set out to

discredit a month before Singer wrote his article.

I have no evidence that Fred Singer or his organisation have taken money

from Philip . But many of the other bodies that have been sponsored by

Exxon and have sought to repudiate climate change were also funded by the

tobacco company. Among them are some of the world's best-known " thinktanks " :

the

Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation,

the Hudson Institute, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason

Foundation and the Independent Institute, as well as Mason University's

Law

and Economics Centre. I can't help wondering whether there is any aspect of

conservative thought in the United States that has not been formed and funded

by

the corporations.

Until I came across this material, I believed that the accusations, the

insults and the taunts such people had slung at us environmentalists were

personal: that they really did hate us, and had found someone who would pay to

help

them express those feelings. Now I realise that they have simply transferred

their skills.

While they have been most effective in the United States, the impacts of the

climate-change deniers sponsored by Exxon and Philip have been felt

all over the world. I have seen their arguments endlessly repeated in

Australia, Canada, India, Russia and the UK. By dominating the media debate on

climate change during seven or eight critical years in which urgent

international

talks should have been taking place, by constantly seeding doubt about the

science just as it should have been most persuasive, they have justified the

money their sponsors have spent on them many times over. It is fair to say that

the professional denial industry has delayed effective global action on

climate change by years, just as it helped to delay action against the tobacco

companies.

____________________________________