There is at least a 90% chance that more than half of the increase in global temperature since 1950 is due to human activity. [Literal translation.]

—Climate Change 2007: U.N. Synthesis Report, IPCC

A myth has confounded the understanding of climate science. While its source has been discovered, its power remains. The myth claims that climate science is still too uncertain to serve as a guide to policy. In part, as a counter to this myth, some supporters of climate policy exaggerate both the certainty and conclusions of climate science. This adds to the confusion and, if anything, reduces the credibility of the climate science it seeks to support.

In November 2000, officials began the permanent evacuation of more than 40,000 people from their traditional home. …. The islands are just 12 feet above sea level, and water levels are rising at 11.8 inches per year. —Ross Gelbspan, Boiling Point, 2004

This particular legend, still circulating after seven years, makes it seem that climate science has pointed the finger of global warming at a dramatic human catastrophe. But, as explained below, the report is simply wrong. As people come to understand such errors, some will become more disposed to give credence to anti-science opinions, such as the following:

“This glib statement [the UN's conclusion quoted above] overlooks that fact that from 1940 to 1975 globally-averaged temperature declined. … If there’s a cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 and temperature in the last 50 years at all, it seems to be slightly in the opposite direction from what the U.N. claims —Steven Milloy, Fox News, November 21, 2007

The statement Milloy calls “glib” is the central conclusion of the new four-volume, 2000-page, UN report, summarizing five years of research by thousands of scientists and agreed to by roughly 100 countries. What Milloy calls an “overlooked” temperature decline is one of the most studied aspects of global warming and a key part of the evidence that CO2 emissions do cause global temperatures to rise.

Uncertainty happens... and it is manufactured. Gelbspan’s misstatement is probably a godsend for the organized effort to deny global warming. But Fox News commentator Milloy previously promulgated “scientific uncertainty” with direct funding from Exxon, a skill he apparently learned earlier while working for tobacco companies.

Scientists, in fact, are uncertain about the effects of global warming. Nevertheless, they are certain that inaction is risky. As with the risk of fire, flood, or terrorism, it makes no sense to wait until we are sure of disaster before taking action.

While most climate scientists feel that too little is being done about global warming, they generally believe, as I do, that exaggeration—intentional or not—is counterproductive. In this chapter we’ll take a look at both the organized deceptions of the oil industry and some of the exaggerations on the other side among those who should know better. Fortunately, at this point, there really is a scientific consensus, which is cautious, sensible, and sufficiently clear.

Doubt and Uncertainty Was Their Strategy

The “scientific uncertainty” argument against global warming was not mere happenstance. A leaked internal memo of the Global Climate Coalition reveals it used that argument strategically as a way to achieve “victory,” a concept they clarify in their memo.

Unless “climate change” becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory. —Internal memo of the Global Climate Coalition, 1998.

To the oil, coal and auto industries, which formed this coalition, “victory” was the defeat of the Kyoto proposal and the end of all “further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change.” All three industries were alert to the threat such initiatives pose to their profits. They formed their coalition in 1989, just a few months after the U.N. organized the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the world’s leading scientific authority on global warming.

The industry coalition, wary of the new global scientific initiative, focused on casting doubt on the science. The 1998 memo shows them chagrined to find they have been losing the battle, but it points to an opportunity: “...the science underpinning global climate change theory has not been challenged effectively in the media.” It also emphasizes the need to get “average citizens to ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science.”

Remember, these are not scientists who are challenging the underpinnings of climate science, these are industry lobbyists who have concluded that victory can only be declared when all “initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change” have been permanently defeated.

As climate science turned ever more strongly against the Coalition’s position after 1998, the Coalition began to disperse. Dupont and British Petroleum had left in 1997, Shell and Ford left by 1999, and DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, and Texaco left in 2000. Exxon stuck with the Coalition until it became inactive in 2001. By that time, however, a new Administration provided Exxon with new champions.

Frank Luntz may be the most renowned public-relations specialist among top Republicans. He was the principal author of, and pollster for, Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.” In 2002 he advised the Republicans on techniques for “Winning the Global Warming Debate.”

The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. …

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate. …

Emphasize the importance of “acting only with all the facts in hand.”

[Italics, underlining and bracketed note are all in the original.] “Winning the Global Warming Debate” by Frank Luntz, 2002

Luntz warned that winning would not be easy because the scientific debate was “closing against” the Republicans. As a result, there was no use in directly disputing the science. Instead, they should “make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue.” Lack of certainty is an ideal issue because, in a complex field such as climatology, certainty will take decades to achieve. Emphasizing “the importance of ‘acting only with all the facts in hand.’” completes the link between “lack of scientific certainty” and taking no action.

Of course, it doesn’t really make any sense to wait until “all the facts are in hand.” We normally make intelligent decisions without scientific certainty. Someone puts one bullet in a six-shooter, spins the cylinder, and points the gun at your head. Don’t worry; no action is needed. Science has not yet proved you will be killed. And it never will. Science will always put the odds at one in six, indicating a very uncertain outcome. Luntz would have us conclude, “Act only with all the facts in hand”—right after the trigger is pulled.

Global warming is not as dangerous as a gun to your head, but as with the gun, there is a real chance of catastrophe. Ignoring such risks because of a “lack of scientific certainty” is not a sensible strategy.

The argument Luntz pitched to the Republicans is psychologically powerful though not new. It was used by the tobacco companies for years to cast doubt on the science of cancer-causing cigarettes—and they succeeded for decades.

“Sound Science”—a Short History

While I had heard a parallel drawn between the cancer-denial of the cigarette industry and the global-warming-denial of the oil industry, I was surprised to learn that there is an organizational and strategic link as well. “Sound Science,” as George Orwell might have predicted, is the code word for questioning the mainstream science behind hazards of cigarette smoke, global warming, and several other scientific findings that annoy various self-interested corporations.

In 1993 Philip-Morris hired a public-relations firm to set up “The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.” Its goal was to convince the public that second-hand smoke was not a problem. By then, ten years of scientific studies indicated second-hand smoke could be lethal. The result was a grass-roots movement advocating no-smoking areas. Philip-Morris was also worried because, unlike smokers, second-hand smokers cannot generally be blamed for inhaling cigarette smoke. Legally, second-hand smoke was hazardous to the health of Philip-Morris.

As it turned out, the science continued to point ever more strongly towards such health risks. Today even Philip-Morris admits on its web site that:

Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease, … and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. … Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them.

In the year Philip Morris launched the Sound Science Coalition, Steven Milloy, the Fox News commentator, was a registered lobbyist working for a company that was receiving $40,000 a month from Philip Morris. In 1993 Milloy was calling the EPA’s then-recent study of second-hand smoke a “joke.” That study reached milder conclusions about the danger of second-hand smoke than those now endorsed by Philip Morris.

By 1997 Milloy was the executive director of the Sound Science Coalition. But in 1998 the press discovered the Coalition was actually a front group for the tobacco industry. Once this was public knowledge the Coalition was no longer useful as a means of deception, and Milloy closed it down. But that same year he opened The Advancement of Sound Science Center (at same address as the Coalition), and used it to begin attacking global-warming science. By 2000 he was being funded by Exxon.

The phrase “sound science” is not commonly used by scientists. A search of the New York Times finds it used in only one story in the 1970s, and its new political meaning shows up only in 1986. The Times first reports its use in high-level politics in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush adopted the term from the medical industry to attack the Food and Drug Administration.

But in 1992, Philip-Morris budgeted $880,000 to launch of the Sound Science Coalition and kicked the term deep into Republican territory. Let’s check back with political strategist Luntz as he teaches Republicans how to cast doubt on the science of global warming. Just before he warns that “The scientific debate is closing against us,” he says “The most important principle in any discussion of global warming is your commitment to sound science.”

Evidently Luntz’s Republican students took their lessons seriously. Compared to only 16 mentions in the New York Times between 1970 and 1992, “sound science” shows up in 143 New York Times stories since then. A Google search for the term on WhiteHouse.gov finds it on 314 pages.

Steven Milloy spent years pressing the tobacco industry’s claims concerning second-hand smoke. But the scientific debate closed against Big Tobacco, and Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds now admit they had it exactly backwards. What they ridiculed as “junk science” was actually sound, mainstream science.

Milloy has now spent years pressing the oil industry’s claim that carbon dioxide does not contribute to global warming. But again his Sound Science Coalition/Center has folded, as the scientific debated closed against him. The battle is not over, but Big Oil is being forced to shift tactics and become more discrete.

What Does Exxon Really Want?

As a business article in the New York Times put it recently, Exxon is “unapologetically geared toward generating returns [profits] for its shareholders.” Of course all corporations are focused on profits, and that’s how economists can sometimes predict what they will do. So what does economics predict about Exxon’s global warming strategy?

Since Exxon’s profit goes go up and down with the price of oil, it wants high oil prices. That’s a snap. But, even for Exxon, those prices are hard to control. There are only two influences powerful enough to make much difference: OPEC and the Kyoto treaty.

OPEC pushes oil prices up by restricting supply. Kyoto pushes prices down (a little) by restricting demand. Of course, that’s not the point of the Kyoto treaty, but that’s one thing it does, and that hurts oil-company profits. So economics—and common sense—make a clear prediction:

Exxon wants OPEC to succeed and

global warming policies to fail.

Of course, the profit-maximizing principle also predicts that Exxon will never, ever admit this. That would make them even more unpopular, which hurts business.

As attitudes shift in favor of global warming initiatives, Exxon’s job becomes more difficult. Now, if Exxon is seen dismissing climate change, Exxon will be ignored in public discussions.

This could explain why Exxon has been shifting its public position and why it funds legitimate climate-change research at Stanford University. Exxon wants in on the public discussions—wants to be “at the table.”. As Charles Territo of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers explained: "If you're not at the table, you’re on the menu.” And as Kenneth Cohen, Exxon’s head of public affairs told reporters in June 2007, “We're very much not a denier, very much at the table with our sleeves rolled up.”

Holly Fretwell’s new book, The Sky’s Not Falling!: Why It’s Ok to Chill About Global Warming, is for children. Fretwell, an economist, claims her “expertise is not in climate science,” yet after a short discussion of climate-science fallacies geared for sixth graders, she concludes: “This all makes it highly unlikely that the current warming trends are a result of human activity.”

When Fretwell was asked, in December 2007, about the group that funded her book, she replied, “[it] does accept a small amount of money from Exxon to help cover our general overhead expenses. I can only assume that this support comes because they like what we do.” The book illustrates Exxon’s continued low profile, sometimes secretive, efforts to discredit climate-change science, while it takes a more conciliatory stance in public.

The cigarette industry often took a more conciliatory stance in public than it did in private. It’s a clever profit-maximizing strategy, just as economics predicts. Exxon may change tactics, but if economics has any validity, they will always resist a reduction in oil demand (addiction) with the most clever strategy they can devise. Though this view may seem dismal, it should be remembered that public pressure has already constrained the strategies that Exxon and the other oil companies find profitable.

Of Islands and Sea Levels

Exxon is worth about half a trillion dollars, Ross Gelbspan, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, rather less. But he enjoys taking on the giant; Al Gore, for one, has commended him for his efforts, and he deserves the praise.

But there is a problem with Gelbspan’s work which is signaled on page two of his book, Boiling Point. It begins, “The evidence is not subtle.” This is the reverse of Exxon’s line that the evidence is too uncertain to rely on. But what do climate scientists think of the evidence? If the evidence really is not subtle, and the scientists are passably bright, then like Gelbspan they would see that virtually all of global warming is certainly caused by human activity. As we will see shortly, this is quite far from the current scientific consensus. So if Gelbspan is right, many if not most scientists are not bright enough to understand the implications of their own evidence. They are not quite able to keep up with a scientifically untrained journalist.

Gelbspan’s certainty about global warming runs through his work as a reporter, making him incautious when reporting his side of the story. Consider this excerpt from the seventh and last “Snapshot of the Warming” from Boiling Point, published in 2004.

In November 2000, officials began the permanent evacuation of more than 40,000 people from their traditional home. As the British newspaper the Independent noted, “[this] could be the dress rehearsal for millions of people around the globe affected by rising sea levels.” …. The islands are just 12 feet above sea level, and water levels are rising at 11.8 inches per year.

Gelbspan tells us – based on an article in The Independent – that the sea level is rising 11.8 inches per year due to global warming. But an experienced reporter writing his second book on global warming should have been instantly wary of this report. Three numbers, shown below, are key to a basic understanding of the global warming.

Every global-warming reporter should know these three numbers, and since some don’t seem to, its probably good for the rest of us to keep them in mind. (For the record, CO2 is up 37% as of 2007, and increasing faster than ever.)

Noticing that the reported 11.8 inches per year seems much too fast, how might an investigative reporter proceed? First, a close reading of the source newspaper article, which can be found on Gelbspan’s web site, reveals it does not say the sea level was rising 11.8 inches per year. Instead it says “The islands … are sinking 11.8ins a year.” That’s a little different. To be fair the rest of the article is quite confusing, as are most news articles on this topic.

But suppose the shocking rate of sea-level rise and the “sinking islands,” raised a warning flag. Where could a reporter turn to investigate? In 2004, IPCC’s 2001 report would have been the obvious place. Fortunately, the IPCC has provided a short, readable Summary for Policymakers. Download it from the web, and search for “sea level.” The second hit reads “Global mean sea level: Increased at an average annual rate of 1 to 2 mm during the 20th century.” That’s in Table 1. There are twenty-five millimeters in an inch. Two millimeters is less than a tenth of an inch.

To satisfy your curiosity as to exactly why the islands would be sinking, here is a clearer news report from 2000.

The move from the Duke of York group is mostly due to a spectacular clashing of tectonic plates: beneath the islands the Pacific Plate is sliding into the Bismarck and Solomon Plates. The shift is extremely violent and this month saw a magnitude eight earthquake and several in the seven range. … The Duke of York is a group of atolls, no more than four metres (12 feet) above sea-level … The islands are sinking 30 centimetres (11.8 inches) a year. The other atolls, including Takuu (also known as Mortlock) which hosts the Polynesians, are east of the area and also going under. —Michael Field, Agence France Presse, November 28, 2000

So, assuming the 11.8 inches per year was measured correctly, only 1 percent of the problem is global warming and 99 percent is due to geological plate tectonics. One part of the earth’s crust is sliding under another.

Unfortunately, Gelbspan’s misstatement of the facts in his “Snapshot of the Warming” appears to be part of a pattern in which Gelbspan and some other members of the press inadvertently undermine the credibility of the science of global warming by overstating its conclusions. For example in “Snapshot of the Warming #1,” from the same book, Gelbspan says

“Were the Greenland Ice Sheet (or a substantial part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet) to slide into the oceans, it could cause a rapid rise in sea levels. Since about half the world’s population lives near coastlines, the consequences could be chaotic.”

“Sliding,” “rapid,” “chaotic.” All possibly true on the timescales that climate scientists normally consider. But when reading this, I form an image like one in an old-time newsreel, where they break a bottle of champagne across the ship’s bow. In fact, while the IPCC acknowledges the possibility of “future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow” affecting sea levels over the next century, it considered the scientific uncertainty too great to include such an effect in its conclusions. Instead, the IPCC’s scenarios show a range of from 7 to 23 inches over the next 100 years, and little of that is from Greenland.

The problem with this sort of reporting is that it consistently omits, apparently to preserve dramatic effect, the values listed as likely by the scientific community. Warning of extreme possibilities is valuable, so that risks can be considered. But reporting extremes as if they are the likely outcome ends up making people more skeptical of the science, to the delight, I am sure, of the oil companies.

The Scientific Consensus

Some reporters have let us down, as have a few scientists, some in the pay of Exxon. But the vast majority of scientists are true to scientific principles, and they are speaking to us clearly. The IPCC does a remarkable job of reflecting the scientific consensus, and it deserves our attention.

The IPCC’s 2007 climate-change report gives us the scientific answer to the central question of climate change: Is human activity responsible for global warming? But to understand the answer you must think like a gambler. Gamblers play the odds and know nothing is certain. If you ask them: “Will next year be the hottest on record?” they will refuse to say “Yes” or “No.” Neither will a scientist. They will give you the odds.

It may surprise some, but if you ask a scientist if humans cause global warming and you ask for a scientific answer they will probably not say “yes,” they will probably sound like a gambler and give you the odds. But contrary to the warming deniers, there is a solid scientific consensus and it tells us what we need to know. To understand it, we must listen carefully to what the IPCC says.

“Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” —Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, IPCC

Here’s a literal translation into plainer English.

The odds are at least 9 in 10 that over half of the increase in global temperature since 1950 is due to human activity.

Nine in 10 means a 90% chance, and that is how the IPCC defines the phrase “very likely.” To avoid sounding too geeky, they have redefined quite a few English phrases to mean specific probabilities. “Very likely” is one of them. They use their science to find the odds and then translate their findings into this coded form of English. Of course, when a glass is 90% full it is 10% empty, so they could have said:

The odds are no more than 1 to 10 that over half of the increase in global temperature since 1950 is due to nature.

That means exactly the same thing. Because the IPCC does not make these statements unless all of the roughly 100 IPCC nations agree, the statement must be weak enough to get the most skeptical nation to agree with it. But at present, there is no other consensus statement, so for policy purposes, it seems best to rely on the IPCC.

Why Act Now?

Shouldn’t we wait? If scientists are not yet completely sure what’s causing the warming, why not wait for them to figure it out? There are two good reasons to act now. First, science is already 100% sure the world faces a serious risk. Second, the world is extremely slow to organize.

Risk is certain. Science is not 100% sure that unchecked global warming would cause a catastrophe. There is still a little doubt about the danger. But consider the question from the other perspective. Science is not 100% sure the world is safe—in fact it’s not even 10% sure. Neither do the warming deniers have any proof of safety. The legitimate scientists in the IPCC readily admit their small uncertainty, but the deniers never admit their much greater uncertainty. That is the difference between science and politics.

In spite of uncertainties, the IPCC’s conclusions tell us the scientists are 100% sure the world is at risk, and the risk is not small. When we know there’s a risk of a house fire, a car accident, or a terrorist attack, we take precautions to lower that risk. The bigger the risk, the more we spend taking precautions. So the relevant question is not “Should we do something?” but, “How big is the risk, and how much should we do?”

The IPCC’s cautious scientists do not answer that question, but they do describe possible changes in temperature which indicate risk. They present six “equally sound” scenarios for expected global temperature increases in the 21st century. These estimated increases range from 3 degrees Fahrenheit for the most optimistic scenario to 7 degrees Fahrenheit for the most pessimistic. The temperature increases are from the 1990s to the 2090s. Averaging these six scenarios gives an expected global temperature increase of 5 degrees Fahrenheit (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 The IPCC estimated global temperature change through the year 2100 based on six “equally sound” emission scenarios. The graph shows three of these, and the bars at the right show all six. The lowest line on the graph shows what would happen if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing in 2000. Five degrees centigrade equals 9 degrees Fahrenheit.

Risk is about uncertainty—the range of what might happen rather the single best estimate. The gray bars in Figure 1 give an indication of the temperature uncertainty under each of the six scenarios. Assuming IPCC’s six scenarios are equally likely, there is a 5 percent chance that the temperature will increase by more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2095.

A temperature increase of 9 degrees brought us to the present balmy conditions on earth from the depths of the last ice age, when glaciers extended from the north pole half way down Long Island. Another warming of that magnitude would cause changes of a similar magnitude. After that, citizens of Washington, D.C., might be building dikes and temperatures there would top 100 degrees thirty days out of the year instead of just one. Such a temperature increase would almost certainly continue into the next century, bringing even more extreme changes.

To avoid the misrepresentations of some news reports, I would like you to note that there is only a 5 percent chance of the scenario just described. There is also a 5 percent chance that with no effective climate policy global temperature will only rise by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2095. The consequences would be far milder. We could hold our breath and hope for the low number. We would have one chance in twenty. But there’s just as good a chance of drawing the unlucky 9 degree warming.

When it comes to serious dangers, a 5 percent chance is quite high—ten times greater than the chance of some type of house fire in the next year. But few decide to skip fire insurance. And even with the expected 5 degree temperature rise, the risks of damage are significant. Guarding against such risks is clearly worthwhile, and there is no reason to wait until we are sure the house is on fire before taking precautions. Risk is reason enough.

The world is slow to organize. Fixing the climate takes two steps, organizing and acting. Organizing is slow but cheap. The trick to making real progress is to get past the organizing stage so that action becomes effective. The trick to getting organized is to postpone the discussion of how stringent the policy should be until after the organization and policies have been put in place. That means designing the policy around an easy-to-live-with cap or incentive that can easily be made stronger once the policy is agreed on.

This approach is opposite to what happened with the Kyoto protocol. At Kyoto most of the effort went into arguing about how strict the caps would be. But because China, India, Brazil, Australia and the United States were unhappy with the caps they rejected the policy itself. Third world countries signed on, but only after they got exemptions from the limits—in other words from the fundamental policy. Nothing was required of them. In the end, there was little cooperation, the policy was weak, and compliance was spotty at best.

The result of this failure is that fifteen years after the world started to organize, CO2 is being emitted 25 percent faster than in 1992 when the U.N. started the process, and the rate of emissions growth has accelerated in recent years. The organization process is now starting over, with not all that much to show for the last fifteen years.

Climate science has spoken. There is more than enough reason to organize a global policy that it capable of sustaining and even enforcing effective emission controls. With stringency and costs set low at the start, there is no excuse for anything short of “full speed ahead.” Once the organization is in place, the science will be clearer. Assuming the climate is changing as it now appears to be, that will make setting stricter limits or stronger incentives easier than it is now.