Whether as questions or comments following a presentation on climate change or in the course of casual conversation, I am often confronted by strongly held views on the subject. The tone is typically collegial and open to dialog, but it can get tense, if not hostile. In the United States, the issue is ideologically polarized, and it doesn't take much for discussions to become emotional. I've had enough of these interactions to prompt me to wonder, given the knowledge base on warming and climate change: What differentiates those who summarily dismiss the issue from those who believe it merits serious attention?

The political-corporate axis

Early in the history of concerns for global warming, influential elements of the U.S. business community viewed the issue as a threat and were determined to suppress it by whatever means, including the use of political leverage. Establishment of the IPCC in 1988 was followed almost immediately by formation of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), an industrial consortium of major GHG emitters seeking to question the science of climate change by supporting organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) to act as attack dogs. Numerous lobbying and public relations efforts were launched to cast doubt on evidence supporting global warming, even when engineers and scientists within the participating companies were affirming the contribution of GHG emissions to warming. Although the GCC disbanded in 2002, vestiges continued to challenge the authenticity of climate change. Casting doubt was the operative strategy, however specious the arguments, and became a tour de force for challenging the science of climate change in the U.S. Congress.

As described in Section 8.6, the strategy has been successfully used to kill legislative measures to curb GHG emissions. In the Senate, opposition has been led by James Inhofe of Oklahoma, an influential member of the Environment and Public Works Committee who views global warming as a hoax, perpetuated by alarmists (Carey, 2006a).