The time to debate the science of global warming has long past. The scientific community has come to a consensus that global warming is happening. This begs the question, “Why is there a debate?” A look at the “controversy” surrounding smoking is instructive to understanding the global warming “debate.”
In the 1950s, the medical community began publishing report after report confirming the link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. The American media began reporting the findings. Cigarettes companies took notice when cigarette sales began to decline and legislators began proposing anti-smoking laws.
The tobacco industry hired Public Relations firms to fight the battle of public opinion. The goal was “creating doubt about the health charge without actually denying it, and advocating the public’s right to smoke, without actually urging them to take up the practice.”
To win the battle, the tobacco companies didn’t need to actually win the argument—they just needed to have it. They knew if the American public thought there was a scientific debate, legislators would have political cover not to take action against the tobacco companies. So, they created a scientific “debate” where there was none.
They were remarkably successful. Until the 1990s, not one major piece of anti-smoking legislation passed even though everyone knew smoking could kill you.
How does this relate to global warming?
Like cigarettes causing cancer, there is scientific certainty about the causes of global warming. There has been scientific certainty for a decade. Like the tobacco companies, parties wanting to delay global warming action claim there is a scientific controversy where there is none. But don’t take my word for it:
In 2003, political strategist Frank Luntz outlined a strategy for delaying action on global warming. Like the smoking “controversy,” the delay strategy hinges on calling scientific findings into question.
Like the smoking “debate,” the manufactured global warming “debate” has delayed meaningful action against global warming. As with smoking, the goal is not to win the debate but to delay action. If we continue debating, Miami will be ten feet under water and these folks will be suggesting scientific study to figure out why.
Why should Christians care?
By ignoring global warming science, we ignore our responsibility to help those who will be affected by global warming. We are the ones on the road to Jericho ignoring the injured man.
One Comment
Never thought about it like that… Very insightful.