Inside the dubious Doubt factory
Understanding the machinery that fuels skepticism on climate change science
Hey folks! A rather prolonged sickness came in the way of our Sunday ritual last week. Inching closer to recovery now, so we’re back to business 😎
Explain like I’m a memer
(summary in a meme)
Five years ago, I found myself hobnobbing with a bunch of curious and ambitious 20-somethings from all across the world in Kazakhstan. Here, I met a jovial young gentleman from Russia who was studying in south-east Asia and was truly convinced that climate change was a farce. In his words, “climate change is a propaganda run by the West”. We had gathered in Kazakhstan for a conference meant to discuss global economic, political, and social issues. Paradoxical enough 🙃
This was my first ever sighting of a climate change denier.
As he uttered those words, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was a lone case or it was a mass distributed stance. A quick internet search made me discover that Putin, on multiple occasions, had publicly denied the human linkage to climate change citing some “processes in the universe” as the reason for climate change. With that, I had satiated my wonderment. However, a recent report from Carnegie Politika has also shone light on Russia’s shady behavior in COP27 last year where they opposed both reducing fossil fuel emissions and a transition to renewable energy. They believe that development of nuclear and natural gas energy will reduce emissions and natural forests will absorb the emissions. All we need to curb climate change 🤷
While many of us go through denial at some point (for different things) in life, what I wasn’t truly prepared to discover was a deliberate…
Climate Change Denial.
A brief timeline of events
Mid 1800s: CO2 was first established as a GHG
Early 1900s: The greenhouse effect of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels was found to be detectable
1960s: Scientists started warning American political leaders of the ‘future problem’
1980s: Scientists started to worry that the ‘future problem’ was already here
1988: Climate change found some legitimacy with the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's apex body on climate issues.
1995: IPCC declared that the human influence on climate was now ‘discernible’
2004: Scientific consensus on the issue found mainstream media coverage // ‘The year climate change found respect’1
However, action through these years - ZILCH.
Welcome to the sketchy world of climate change denial (CCD).
Essentially, a play of 3Ds - denial, dismissal, doubt, CCD unfolds by 3Ding the occurrence and significance of climate change or its causation by human activity.
At first it may sound inconsequential but given the eerie success, its manufacturing machinery merits understanding for it serves as a primer on spotting mass manipulation in general. For this piece, the focus is on ‘manufactured’ denial.
Trivia: In IPCC’s 1995 assessment report, about 28 different adjectives were tried before settling for a rather conservative ‘discernible’ to qualify the human impact on global climate.
Why manufacture CCD?
To delay action.
Historically, CCD has been manifested at will with the primary intent of delaying political action and protecting capitalist interests by manipulating public perception. If we go back to the timeline above, the 1980s were ripe for American political action on a problem that scientific experts were convinced was a problem of the present. Political action = policy making / regulation. However, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway uncovered in their fantastic book, Merchants of Doubt2, that the priorities chosen by the then and following political leaders were such that the only thing they wished to hear was that climate change could wait…indefinitely.
1997 - Scientifically, global warming was an established fact. Politically, global warming was dead3.
As a consequence, pseudo-evidence was manufactured. Big Oil made similar efforts to delay regulation of their thriving business. Climate change had no option but to wait…indefinitely.
How do they do it?
By carbon-copying (pun intended) the Tobacco industry playbook.
While the health hazards of cigarette smoking were known to German scientists as early as 1930s - to the extent that Hitler forbade smoking in his presence - and even the American media was raising an alarm in the 1950s, it took more than 50 years for any anti-tobacco action to kick off4. Yes, action began only about 15 years ago!
The central theme of the Tobacco playbook was harbouring DOUBT. Amping up uncertainty to let confusion thrive was the motto. Uncertainty throws most people off guard, thus, helping delay action.
An infamous memo written by an industry executive in 1969 read:
Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy5.
In the case of Climate, doubt was sown deep and nurtured meticulously using multiple tactics. Find some of the most interesting ones below.
Funding scientific research which raised doubt on the existing research // building an army of credible witnesses
Only science can challenge science. Scientists of extremely high repute, like those who worked on the atomic bomb during WWII but had no connection with climate science, were hired to manufacture studies which would cast major doubt on the existing scientific knowledge of climate change. With so many achievements to their name, nobody dared to question their relevance to the studies they were involved in. Funding research was a tried and tested Tobacco strategy, hence, the same actors were hired to execute the act for climate change denial too. Funding flowed in from compromised think-tanks, foundations and the fossil fuel industry. Grants were made for university collaborations to swing perspectives of young students. The government too ensured that ‘credible’ people of their choice found a place in ‘independent’ committees so that reports could reach conclusions they wanted. The scientific-consensus on climate change was crushed by flooding the market with contradicting research.
Hiring PR firms which can creatively mold public opinion
In his book, Propaganda, Edward Bernays (the person who coined the term Public Relations) quotes:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.
We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
PR legends like Bernayes, Ivy Lee and John Hill who were masters in engineering consent were hired by organizations like ExxonMobil and BP to place advertorials (ads disguised as editorials) in leading newspapers which strengthened the uncertainty around climate change, organize disinformation campaigns using coalition groups as fronts and create infomercials which cleverly shifted the burden of action on consumers. The idea of these infomercials was to deflect attention away from the oil company’s role in fueling climate change and turning attention toward consumer demand for, and dependency on, its products6.
Trivia: Bernayes, who replaced the term ‘Propaganda’ with ‘Public Relations’ because the former found negative connotation during the World War, is famed for getting men to wear wrist watches which were earlier considered feminine, getting women to smoke cigarettes which was earlier a taboo and popularizing pianos at homes which were earlier found only in music schools. His unorthodox ways of making these happen make him a PR legend.
Even today, PR campaigns continue to wreck public psychology in the form of greenwashing about which I wrote in an earlier post, You washed me green, baby! and sportswashing - sponsoring grand sports events to build a net-positive brand recall. Saudi oil major, Aramco, for example, is one of the largest sponsors of F1 and has recently inked deals to sponsor international cricket World Cup tournaments and basketball events.
Pressurizing journalists to present a ‘balanced’ view
As television rose to prominence, Fairness Doctrine was established in 1949 which required broadcast journalists to dedicate airtime to controversial issues of public concern in a balanced manner. While this did not formally apply to print journalists, it became a sort of industry practice from the Tobacco debate times. This doctrine was used by professional deniers to invoke an obligation among reporters to present their views, especially those who focused on the scientific consensus on climate change rather than present it as a debate or controversy. Editors were hounded by dissenting experts if a report didn’t include their viewpoint, to which they ultimately succumbed. This way fake experts got equal status, time and print space as the actual climate experts, thus, fortifying the doubt.
Lobbying is another evergreen tactic followed by fossil fuel industry to influence policy in self interest - keep your friends close, but enemies closer.
Trivia: Given how rampant the use of doubt is, there is a branch of study called Agnotology which studies deliberately induced ignorance or doubt, typically to sell a product, influence opinion, or win favour, particularly through disinformation.
How can you not fall for it?
The key is to keep up your awareness game. Keep your eyes and ears open, and question claims. If you’re a regular reader of Anticlimatic, you’re headed the right way, if not, subscribe right away! 🙂
In addition, I had highlighted some tactical to-dos in my previous post, You washed me green, baby!, which you should check out (again).
Edit: Adding another resource which provides a non-exhaustive global list of individuals and organizations who have been found to be climate deniers - https://www.desmog.com/
Additional interesting reads I came across while researching this piece:
Disinformation techniques employed by the PR world
How to brand a disease and sell a cure
Exxon Mobil publicly denied global warming for years but quietly predicted it
I recommend reading this book
Ibid.
Ibid.