Features

What do climate change and tobacco have in common? Josh Hercus investigates how scientific research is often supressed for corporate gain.

We’ve known the end result of both for a long time
Contrary to what many of you might think, scientists were well aware of the connection between smoking and receiving a nasty form of cancer as far back as the 1930s. Even the Nazis ran major anti-smoking campaigns after German scientists found smoking to cause lung cancer. Over the years this evidence continued to strengthen and we now know the plethora of negative effects that are caused by smoking cigarettes. Yet it’s only in the past twenty years that any substantial efforts have been made to curb smoking.
 
Climate change has experienced a similar progression. We’ve known for at least fifty years that the earth is warming up far more rapidly that it should do naturally. Of course, along the way there have been some exaggerated predictions and contested theories but it was around the 1960s that consensus on made-man climate change began to be reached. Spot quiz: guess how many national and international scientific bodies deny human-influenced climate change? The answer is – not a single one.
 
So, how is it the case that the scientists have known all this for such a long time, yet we’ve done barely anything about it?
 
Uncertainty stalls change
In their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, scientific historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway argue that action against scientific issues such as climate change, tobacco smoking, ozone layer deletion and acid rain has been obstructed by a small group of scientists, conservative think tanks and corporations. Their tactic is to raise scientific uncertainty and doubt around these issues. This makes it difficult to “settle” public debate and effectively stagnates any progress. It works so well that they’ve got it down to an art form.
 
Oreskes and Conway explain that after a piece was published in the Reader’s Digest in 1952 linking smoking and cancer, the presidents of the four largest tobacco companies teamed up with one of the largest public relations firms to try to “convince the public that there was ‘no sound scientific basis for the charges [made by the Reader’s Digest]’ and that recent reports were simply ‘sensational accusations’ made by publicity-seeking scientists hoping to attract more funds for their research.” As the tobacco industry actively sought to confuse and deceive the public about the negative effects of smoking, in 1954 they established the Tobacco Industry Committee for Public Information to “supply a ‘positive’ and ‘entirely “pro-cigarette” message to counter the anti-cigarette scientific one.”
 
The tobacco industry managed to maintain this doubt through a number of ways. They funded their own research units which arrived at medical conclusions that contradicted established views as well as forming powerful lobby groups to prevent the regulation of tobacco. Many of the tobacco industry’s advertising campaigns actively misinformed the public on health issues.
 
The alarming link between tobacco and climate change is that some of the same scientists have been doing the same thing.
 
Dr. Fredrick Seitz, a prominent physicist, was elected president of the US National Academy of Sciences from 1962 to 1969. In 1979 be began to work as a consultant for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company where he advised their medical research programme. None of the studies under the direction of Seitz found anything that suggested that smoking cigarettes was harmful. In 1984, he helped found the George C. Marshall Institution, a conservative, right wing think tank that has actively lobbied and create a false public perception surrounding the effects of second hand smoke and smoking tobacco, the relationship between CFCs and ozone depletion and the existence of anthropogenic (human-made) climate change. Up until 2008, gas and oil giant ExxonMobil funded the institution.
 
In 1998 a letter signed by Seitz was sent to thousands of scientists that implied that the National Academy of Science was ambiguous on the science of climate change. The letter included a document that mirrored the format of a peer-reviewed scientific journal article which backed Seitz’s claim, a strategy not entirely dissimilar to the one he used with the tobacco industry. In response to this, the National Academy of Sciences released an unprecedented statement which said “[The] National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition...[and] a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” Despite being debunked, Seitz’s attempt at confusing the science on climate change has been highly successful.
 
Unsurprisingly, the same tactic has been used by climate change deniers more recently. Frank Luntz, a professional political consultant and pollster, used to work as an adviser for the Bush administration. In an interview with PBS, he states that his specialisation is “testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.” Translation: he’s a spin doctor.
 
In 2003 The Guardian reported on a leaked confidential memo from Luntz to the Bush administration which stated that, “the scientific debate is closing [against us] but [is] not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," adding that "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." Luntz also suggested that the administration use the term “climate change” rather than “global warming” because it sounded less disastrous and frightening to voters.
 
Confusing the public on climate change isn’t just exclusive to the US. New Zealand has had its fair share too. In 2010 the climate sceptic lobby - the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition - prosecuted NIWA over its data accuracy. Basically, this all stemmed from the fact that some of the data was slightly adjusted to account for the small differences in the temperatures due to the location of the measuring stations (i.e. some of them are higher than others, which means that the temperatures are slightly different, but the fluctuations in the temperature are the same). This is common scientific practice. It’s possible that the intention wasn’t actually to sue them, but simply to perpetrate that NIWA was doing something wrong and raise doubt among their findings to add to the public confusion surrounding the facts on climate change.
 
After all this, the question remains; why has so much effort gone into distorting what most scientists are telling us?
 
It’s always been an ideological battle
The thing that ties together both of these plagues on our society is that it has never been a scientific debate – rather it’s an ideological debate. Scientific uncertainty has been used as a tool to confuse public perception, hinder progress and to protect the interests of businesses who damage society and the environment. There’s a lot at stake. Seven out of the ten top earning companies in 2010 were oil and gas companies. They’re not going to give up their profits without a fight.
 
Right wing ideology believes that individuals should be able to do what they want and to take responsibility for their actions. A problem arises in the instance of climate change (and to a degree, smoking) where the actions of individuals collectively harm everyone. Just as a smoker causes damage to another person with their second hand smoke, our current way of living is indirectly contributing to the destruction of glaciers, animal life and the homes of those in low-lying countries. Most importantly, it is damaging the lives of the future. Yet it appears that rather than acting like mature, responsible adults, climate change deniers will do anything other than admit what’s blatantly in front of them because they don’t like being told what to do. Worse still, they fuel the misinformation that is being spread to the public.
 
It’s taken fifty years to finally begin to release the stranglehold that tobacco companies had on our society. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of time with climate change. I’m not blaming anyone in particular for climate change. We’re all contributing in our own way. But it’s time to take up our moral responsibility and do something about it rather than sticking our heads in the sand. Be a part of the solution rather than the problem.
 
Thanks to Matt Heard for helping with the researching of this article.