Kiersten Purinton
Debate#1: Addressing Global Warming Skepticism
Word Count: 1675
September 4, 2009
It is a known fact that the temperature of the earth tends to fluctuate over time causing such
historical time periods as the Ice Age. Over time scientists have done research in order to see what
causes such natural temperature variances. In 1824 a French mathematician Jean Baptiste Joseph
Fourier observed that the Earth’s natural temperature was slowly rising, thousands of other scientists
have worked to analyze what was causing this increase. By the late 19th century, scientists had
concluded that greenhouse gases truly were in existence and were in fact raising the temperature of the
earth over time (Newspaperarchive.com).
Some scientists have concluded that by “the year 2050, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air
will be double what it was in 1850” (Easton), which has lead larger organizations such as the United
Nations to sign a declaration to commit to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. However, to add
somewhat of a political twist, in 1994 the UN issued another call to action titled the Kyoto Protocol
which was geared towards creating an international agreement to fight global warming by the year
2005. Regardless of the 125 various nations which agreed to this treaty, the United States, which is
estimated as being the world’s largest contributor to greenhouse gases”, refused to sign on.
(Newspaperarchive.com).
As with any other debatable issues, there are stakeholders and sub-issues which must be
addressed in order to outline this issue as a whole. Firstly, aside from the Earth itself, some of the other
stakeholders are:
1. Large oil companies – such as ExxonMobil, Shell
2. United States Government
3. 3rd party organizations – Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Competitive Enterprise
Institute (CEI)
4. United Nations
5. Future generations
There are also many sub-issues that make up the argument as a whole include:
1. Is the Earth truly warming over time or are we just experiencing a lengthened warming
period?
2. How much of the opposition that exists to global warming is due solely to funding from
ExxonMobil?
3. Of all the facts available, what percentages are credible and have not been exaggerated?
In order to properly deal with the question, “Is Global Warming Skepticism Just Smoke and
Mirrors?” one must analyze both sides of the argument. From the affirmative side, the argument on
behalf of the UCS is that all opposition that exists towards global warming is the result of excessive
funding on behalf of ExxonMobil in order to create a large “disinformation campaign” (Easton). Among
the large oil companies, ExxonMobil is the biggest stakeholder involved for a multitude of reasons.
From a financial perspective Exxon is “currently the largest publicly traded company with nearly a $100
million profit per day in 2005” (Easton). Aside from their financial investment in the energy industry,
Kiersten Purinton
Debate#1: Addressing Global Warming Skepticism
Word Count: 1675
September 4, 2009
they also have an even larger carbon footprint, if ExxonMobil was a county they would rank sixth in
emissions (Easton).
As part of UCS’s argument against Exxon’s disinformation campaign is the fact that during the
late 1990’s, Exxon worked to create a series of 3rd party organizations such as the Global Climate Science
Team and the Advancement of Sound Science which worked to fog the mirrors of clarity regarding the
global warming phenomena. By creating these small organizations, Exxon was seeking to create the
illusion that that were covering a wide range of organizations all of which had a similar opinion and
viewpoint as Exxon.
Aside from creating these organizations, Exxon invest millions of dollars into creating a wealth
of information against organizations that had been working to research and furthermore prove the
existence and depth of global warming. For example, since 1998 Exxon has spent approximately $860K
to fund the efforts of Frontiers of Freedom, a group that is used to focus solely on climate change,
basically working to prove the lack of reality when it comes to global warms. Along with promoting
false information, Exxon also invested additional funds towards groups and scientists that “persistently
voiced doubt against human caused global warming and its consequences, regardless of any of the
opposing evidence” (Easton).
Exxon has also worked to create a shift in attention away from their irresponsible carbon
footprint towards their overwhelming amount of effort being placed on creating clarity regarding
climate change. Such a strategy was similarly used by the large tobacco companies when working to
detract attention away from the wrongs of their products as well. Finally, without too much research
one can quickly note the large amount of funds ($4 million) ExxonMobil invested in the 2000 to 2006
elections cycles. Throughout President Bush’s presidential Exxon lobbied and secretly worked with
various personnel to not only influence certain roles and positions within the organization in their favor,
but also to promote certain government employees such as Philip Cooney (previous chief of staff in the
White House Council on Environmental Quality) towards distorting government reports to help to
exaggerate the level of uncertainty regarding global warming.
Although the arguments against ExxonMobil may seem strong it becomes obvious that there are
some hole’s in UCS’s reasoning. One of the biggest holes is whether or not Exxon knew that their money
was being used to fund certain activities. Many times large organizations will donate money to
companies (especially) third party organizations without truly knowing where the money is exactly
going. Therefore, although they may have an argument for the money being invested, some of their
conclusions may too drastic as to the intentions. Also, along a similar financial front many companies
also usually fund political campaigns in order to help their nominee; therefore it should not be a surprise
that Exxon would do this.
From only the few above arguments mentioned above it becomes quickly apparent that Exxon
has had undoubtedly the largest influence towards the fight against global warming. However, as
mentioned before there is an opposing side to the argument. As stated by the CEI, an organization that
Kiersten Purinton
Debate#1: Addressing Global Warming Skepticism
Word Count: 1675
September 4, 2009
is funded in order to fight government regulation of businesses, the UCS is a “liberally funded partisan
organization that distorts facts and attempts to discredit opponents with innuendo” (Easton).
Their first argument against the UCS is that it consists of a large group of “un-official” scientists
that has an extensive history of being inaccurate on many scientific issues. As stated by CEI, it is
“neither a representative of the scientific community at large nor is it a gathering of top scientists”
(Easton). Many of its members are not viewed as creditable scientists but merely a loose makeup of
opinionated “scientists” who tend to conform to the extreme sides of environmentalist ideology. It goes
on to state that many of the breakthroughs that UCS has claimed to make are simply observations of
Exxon’s spending history which is based upon general information regarding their financial history.
Aside from the lack of credentials, UCS is historically known for putting a political agenda ahead of any
scientific reasoning.
UCS has also done a large amount of funding on the political front towards past democratic
candidates. For example, since 1990 the UCS Chairman Cornell Physicist Kurt Gottfried donated more
than $10k out of his own pocket to fund the Democratic National Committee. In analyzing the financial
funding of UCS as a whole, there are many notable Hollywood celebrities and explicitly activist
foundations. It is interesting to note that the UCS “took in more money from 1998 to 2005 than
ExxonMobil contributed to global warming skeptics during that same time period” (Easton). Through
such funding and involvement with Hollywood, UCS has a powerful pull with various media outlets
which helps them to communicate and influence their own disinformation campaign.
Similar to UCS, although CEI has a strong argument it is important to note the holes in their
thinking. Firstly, it is inaccurate for CEI to make a broad statement in regards to UCS’s scientific
credentials. As can be noted there are creditable scientists the make up the organization and it is not
merely based upon the opinions of uneducated personnel. Furthermore, although they also did fund
political parties, the amount in which they funded is nothing out of the ordinary for a large corporation.
For example, the investment by Kurt Gottfried was only $10k since 1990 which is nothing in comparison
to the millions of dollars needed to fund a political campaign.
After analyzing both sides of the argument it is important to note additional sources aside from
Taking Sides. To furthermore support the argument that global warming is in true existence one can
note the opinion of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) which is geared at providing
the reality of global warming. As they have previously stated "the IPCC's conclusion that most of the
observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue". Aside
from the mentioned UCS and CEI, the IPCC is an organization that is made of over 500 scientists with
credible backgrounds (Oreskes).
However, in opposition to the IPCC, the film the Great Global Warming Swindle, works to reveal
the inaccuracies presented by the IPCC. This film works to reveal the opposing ideas of scientists,
economists, politicians, writers, and others who are skeptical about the scientific theory. The material in
the program works to convince other of the man-made global warming idea by providing a large
Kiersten Purinton
Debate#1: Addressing Global Warming Skepticism
Word Count: 1675
September 4, 2009
repertoire of well documented views of a number of respected personnel in the scientific climate
change arena (Durkin).
After presenting a brief overview of both sides of the argument regarding global warming, my
opinion is that is it not all just “smoke and mirrors” but this is a real issues that deserves immediate
attention. Furthermore, aside from policy changes that clearly need to occur, today’s generation needs
to consist of those that are feeling the further call to action. During our recent election, we were given a
preview of the power that the people can have in influencing change. Therefore, it is important that
people further transfer this drive onto important issues such as addressing climate change.
Kiersten Purinton
Debate#1: Addressing Global Warming Skepticism
Word Count: 1675
September 4, 2009
Works Cited
Durkin, Martin. "The Great Global Warming Swindle." 2007. Wikipedia.org. September 2009
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle>.
Easton, Thomas E. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Environment Issues. New York: McGraw-Hill , 2010.
"Newspaperarchive.com." 2009. globalwarmingarchive.com. 2 September 2009
<http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx>.
Oreskes, Naomi. "Essays on Science and Society." December 2004. Science Magazine.org. September
2009 <http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686>.