<div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2&emc=eta1">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=2&emc=eta1</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate </div>
<div> </div>
<div><span></span><span>
<div class="byline">By <a title="More Articles by Andrew C. Revkin" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/andrew_c_revkin/index.html?inline=nyt-per"><font color="#004276">ANDREW C. REVKIN</font></a></div>
<div class="timestamp">Published: April 23, 2009 </div>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>For <span class="nytd_selection_button" id="nytd_selection_button" title="Lookup Word" style="BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%; FILTER: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/global/word_reference/ref_bubble.png', sizingMethod='image'); MARGIN: -20px 0px 0px -20px; WIDTH: 25px; CURSOR: pointer; POSITION: absolute; HEIGHT: 29px"></span>more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to <a title="Recent and archival news about global warming." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"><font color="#004276">global warming</font></a>.</p>
<p>“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue. </p>
<p>But a <a href="http://documents.nytimes.com/global-climate-coalition-aiam-climate-change-primer#p=1"><font color="#666699">document filed</font></a> in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.</p>
<p>“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.</p>
<p><span class="nytd_selection_button" id="nytd_selection_button" title="Lookup Word" style="BACKGROUND: none transparent scroll repeat 0% 0%; FILTER: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(src='http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/global/word_reference/ref_bubble.png', sizingMethod='image'); MARGIN: -20px 0px 0px -20px; WIDTH: 25px; CURSOR: pointer; POSITION: absolute; HEIGHT: 29px"></span>The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, <a title="More articles about coal." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier"><font color="#004276">coal</font></a> and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups.</p>
<p>Throughout the 1990s, when the coalition conducted a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign challenging the merits of an international agreement, policy makers and pundits were fiercely debating whether humans could dangerously warm the planet. Today, with general agreement on the basics of warming, the debate has largely moved on to the question of how extensively to respond to rising temperatures.</p>
<p>Environmentalists have long maintained that industry knew early on that the scientific evidence supported a human influence on rising temperatures, but that the evidence was ignored for the sake of companies’ fight against curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action. </p>
<p>George Monbiot, a British environmental activist and writer, said that by promoting doubt, industry had taken advantage of news media norms requiring neutral coverage of issues, just as the tobacco industry once had. </p>
<p>“They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Mr. Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.”</p>
<p>William O’Keefe, at the time a leader of the Global Climate Coalition, said in a telephone interview that the group’s leadership had not been aware of a gap between the public campaign and the advisers’ views. Mr. O’Keefe said the coalition’s leaders had felt that the scientific uncertainty justified a cautious approach to addressing cuts in greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>The coalition disbanded in 2002, but some members, including the <a title="More articles about National Association of Manufacturers" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_assn_of_manufacturers/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><font color="#004276">National Association of Manufacturers</font></a> and the <a title="More articles about American Petroleum Institute" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_petroleum_institute/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><font color="#004276">American Petroleum Institute</font></a>, continue to lobby against any law or treaty that would sharply curb emissions. Others, like Exxon Mobil, now recognize a human contribution to global warming and have largely dropped financial support to groups challenging the science.</p>
<p>Documents drawn up by the coalition’s advisers were provided to lawyers by the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, a coalition member, during the discovery process in a lawsuit that the auto industry filed in 2007 against the State of California’s efforts to limit vehicles’ greenhouse gas emissions. The documents included drafts of a primer written for the coalition by its technical advisory committee, as well as minutes of the advisers’ meetings.</p>
<p>The documents were recently sent to The New York Times by a lawyer for environmental groups that sided with the state. The lawyer, eager to maintain a cordial relationship with the court, insisted on anonymity because the litigation is continuing.</p>
<p>------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div></span></div>