Molly Ivins December 14

AUSTIN — Since it's snowing in South Texas, it's obviously the perfect time to consider global warming. What we want to consider first is not so much whether the globe is warming but the way in which that topic is being debated: How do we know what we think we know about this subject? Who are the players? Who is paying to influence the debate, and why? How are the media covering the topic?

Global warming, like nuclear warfare, is one of those prospects too daunting to contemplate. Somebody arrives, like Chicken Little, to announce, "The sky is falling," and our first reaction is: "Oh, shut up." More people announce that the sky is falling — not nuts but scientists — and our second reaction is: "That could be, but it hasn't fallen yet, so I'd just as soon not think about it, thank you." That old standby, denial, is always the first line of defense.

But the stakes are awfully high here. If our grandchildren wind up in the late 21st century cursing all of us for our blind stupidity, unable to believe that we didn't react when we knew what was going to happen, we were told what was going to happen ... well, it may not be much skin off our collective nose at that point (no reference to the predictions on skin cancer implied) since we'll all be dead. But it will leave us with an intergalactic record for stupidity and irresponsibility.

There are a lot of theories about how civilizations and even entire species die. Some hold that the Roman empire fell because the Romans used lead water pipes and plates with lead in them. Some of the great civilizations of Central America are held to have died off for lack of protein. In the case of global warming, at least there won't be any doubt. Our tombstone will read, "RIP — Too Stupid to Live."

All this first came to public attention in 1988, when James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies warned a congressional panel that global warming was at hand. After Hansen's testimony, more and more scientists repeated his warning, with a consensus projecting an increase of six to eight degrees Fahrenheit in the next century if present trends continue.

In response, the United Nations convened the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, assembling 2,500 scientists to work in two panels on the question. The reports of those two working groups are what have convinced most nations and their leaders that A) global warming is real and B) we need to do something about it, ASAP.

Could the 2,500 scientists be wrong? Sure. The history of scientific error is long and amusing. At various times, the great body of scientists has believed any number of totally untrue things. But science is also self-correcting, that being the great point of the scientific method. Anyone who comes up with new evidence that disproves a currently held theory puts it in the scientific journals, where it is then reviewed by other scientists and proved to be either with or without merit. The trouble is, there is no evidence disproving the theory of global warming. In fact, the evidence confirming it gets stronger all the time.

So what is all this scientific debate? There is no scientific debate on this subject.

There is only a gigantic public relations campaign to convince us that there is a scientific debate. Paid for by your friendly producers of fossil fuels. And our information on the public relations campaign is not a matter of debate.

In Ross Gelbspan's book, "The Heat Is On," he thoroughly documents the funding behind the "greenhouse skeptics," the handful of climatologists who are so regularly interviewed, published, promoted and called upon to appear on television that they appear to be half the scientific community.

The first response of the oil and coal lobbies was to form the Information Council on the Environment. The public relations firm hired to do its bidding frankly stated its mission: "to reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." According to Gelbspan, "Big oil and big coal have successfully created the general perception that climate scientists are sharply divided over the extent and the likely impacts of climate change — and even over whether it is taking place at all."

The Western Fuels Association (coal) paid $250,000 to produce a video called "The Greening of Planet Earth." In this pleasant science-fiction fantasy, global warming turns out to be good for us: Crops will grow over ever larger areas, deserts will become grasslands — in all, a godsend. George Bush's chief of staff, John Sununu (who can still be seen becoming apoplectic on this subject on "Crossfire"), showed the video so often that it was said to be his favorite movie. Bush's energy secretary, James Watkins, cited it as a reliable source of information in an interview with The Boston Globe. It is absolute piffle.

Why would the oil and coal lobbies pay millions of dollars to spread misinformation and to promote the work of scientists whose credentials they know are suspect? After all, oilmen have grandchildren, too. These are not bad people; it's a case of fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly.

I recently spoke to a man who is very high up in the chemical division of a major oil company. He described his efforts to convince his corporate masters that their future lies more in the chemical end of the business than in finding and selling oil. He has finally given up, even though he is still convinced he is correct because (as he put it) "Exxaco (a composite name) is set up to find and distribute oil. That's all it knows how to do. That's all it ever will know how to do."

Actually, the oil companies do know how to do something else: They know how to buy public policy. They're very good at it. Ed Bradley of CBS will have a special report on Dec. 23 (way to schedule, CBS) on how the oil companies got Congress to give them an exemption from the toxic waste laws so they can dump their crud wherever they want to without even telling those nearby.

And our elected representatives, the ones who are supposed to care about your future rather than Exxon's? Gelbspan's book contains a horrifying transcript of what happened when Robert Watson, the leading author of the IPCC's 1995 report on climate change, testified before Congress. It was like a cross between the Inquisition and the zoo.

In addition to its multimillion-dollar public relations campaign, the fossil fuel lobby is also promoting an "AstroTurf" (phony grassroots) campaign and spending more millions to spread bad information about the global warming treaty just reached in Kyoto, Japan. More on that anon.

***

Molly Ivins is a columnist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. You may write to her care of this newspaper or via e-mail at mollyivins@star-telegram.com.

COPYRIGHT 1997 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.