I was extremely pleased to read Sharon Begley’s detailed and highly accurate article on the climate-change deniers (“The Truth About Denial”). I first published on climate disruption in 1968 and, like my scientific colleagues, have grown increasingly concerned about it ever since. The success of the deniers has been appalling and, sadly, they have succeeded in delaying needed action for a decade or more. I know dozens of the leading climate scientists personally and have followed and taught about the increasingly clear and ominous responses of Earth’s flora and fauna to global heating, which is being thoroughly documented by biologists. The prospects for our descendants are grim indeed. There is never certainty in science, but the deniers have it exactly backward. The vast majority of knowledgeable scientists worry that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conclusions are too conservative, and the consequences for humanity are likely to be more severe than projected. NEWSWEEK has done a great service for humanity in exposing what scientists have long known —that the deniers are well-paid charlatans. Thank you.
Paul R. Ehrlich
Stanford, Calif.
It is one thing to claim that the average Earth temperature is rising. This is global warming. It is quite another to claim that the Earth temperature rise is caused by human behavior. This should be called anthropogenic global warming, and the two terms must not be used interchangeably. It is outrageous to insinuate that anyone who questions whether human behavior causes global warming has been paid to say so. Your article smacks of predatory journalism.
Michael and Christine Economides
Houston, Texas
Your article caricatures the argument about global warming as between good, intelligent scientists and evil, venal deniers in the employ of big corporations. There is another group out here, people who were trained as scientists and feel very able to understand the arguments, who think that there are real scientific problems with the current theory, and who think that scientific analysis should continue until there is a provable theory in place. While some may be ready to declare the argument settled, I’m not, and there are a lot of people like me.
Tom Jones
Dallas, Texas
I was delighted to see your cover story promising information about another side of the global-warming issue, but I was disappointed to see that you focused primarily on politics rather than science. You miss the key point. The debate is less about whether the Earth’s climate is warming as it is about the extent to which man’s activities contribute to warming. The good news is that many of the efforts put forward to reduce human contributions to warming are positive from a cultural and general environmental perspective regardless of whether they will materially affect warming. But because global warming has taken on the religious fervor of the temperance movement, it risks imposing rules that may harm developing nations and, by knee-jerk ridicule of those with differing perspectives, it creates a climate that is inhospitable to discovering the truth.
Grace Novick
Providence, R.I.
Kudos to Sharon Begley for her superb, well-researched and -written, comprehensive, much-needed debunking of those who claim that “Global Warming Is a Hoax.” I hope it will provide the breakthrough we need to start effectively responding to global climate change. There is another issue that bears out the quip that denial is not just a river in Egypt: the failure to address the major impact that animal-based agriculture has on global warming. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s November 2006 report “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” livestock agriculture emits more greenhouse gases (in CO2 equivalents) than all the world’s transportation sources combined, and the report projects that the number of farmed animals will double in the next 50 years. So among the many steps essential to avoid the potential unprecedented catastrophe from global warming, a major shift toward plant-based diets is essential.
Richard H. Schwartz
Staten Island, N.Y.
Your article on global warming and the efforts of naysayers to deflect concern was excellent. Widespread awareness and concern is a necessary first step toward taking action to alleviate global warming’s effects. Unfortunately, many of these damaging effects have already passed their tipping points, whereby the effects themselves serve to accelerate the progression of damage—known as positive feedback. Helpful as it was, however, your article failed to mention the role played by population growth. Simply put, more people means more emissions of greenhouse gases to warm the atmosphere and less forest cover to help slow the catastrophic floods we can expect. As with global warming, we need widespread awareness and concern before effective action can be taken to rein in the population monster. If we fail to do so, nature will impose its own cruel controls. Denial and delay only magnify this problem, too.
John Blake,
Hollister, Calif.
Sharon Begley’s smug dismissal of “Greenhouse Doubters” suggests that NEWSWEEK’S editors are convinced that human-caused global warming is underway and that humans ought to do something to counter it. Unfortunately, the viability and costs of doing things that may substantially cut atmospheric greenhouse gases don’t get much attention from Begley or anyone else. I suspect that most greenhouse “doubters” might accept that the planet is warming a bit if they didn’t sense partisan politics in the mix. It’s also my guess that if key Democrats took global warming seriously enough to begin bucking those in their party who loathe nuclear energy, many doubters would convert. Indeed, countries like France, Japan and Finland already know that nuclear power is the only realistic answer to controlling atmospheric carbon in a future with more people. This is, of course, because the seminal inconvenient truth is that nuclear power is the only realistic way to produce the large amounts of the carbon-free hydrogen fuel necessary to fuel modern civilization. Yet until America’s leaders actually lead us in this direction (Bush has called for an expansion of nuclear-power capabilities), attempts to deal with global climate change will seem to many Americans to be partisan “politics as usual”—with the credibility of all science held at constant risk.
Mike Rethman
Kaneohe, Hawaii
Sharon Begley’s article about “The Denial Machine,” as frightening as it was, misses a crucial aspect of the problem. It is not just that well-heeled corporations are buying up politicians or promoting science-as-they-want-it-to-be. It is that our society is more than happy to accept spin and cant because we have come to believe that all expertise is bias, that all knowledge is opinion, that every judgment is relative. I see this daily in my university classroom. Many of even my best students seem to have lost the ability to think critically about the world. They do not believe in the transformative power of knowledge because they do not believe in knowledge itself. Begley decries the tactic of making the scientists appear divided, but the corporations didn’t have to invent this tactic. It is built into our carefully balanced political “debates,” into our news shows with equal time given to pundits from each side and into the “fairness” we try to teach in our schools. We need not be surprised that people have become consumers who demand the right to choose as they wish between the two equally questionable sides of every story. Neither global warming nor any other serious problem can be addressed by a society that equates willful ignorance with freedom of thought.
Bernard Dov Cooperman
College Park, Md.
“The Truth About Denial” inaccurately portrays ExxonMobil’s position and actions on climate change. The allegation that ExxonMobil has attempted to misrepresent the science is completely false. Given the inaccuracies, let me summarize our position: climate change is a serious issue, and the risks warrant action. ExxonMobil is taking action, reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in our operations, supporting research into technology breakthroughs and participating in policy debates with NGOs, industry and policymakers. ExxonMobil’s support of public-policy organizations extends to a broad array of groups that research significant domestic and foreign-policy issues. We support organizations like the Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies because there is value in the debate they prompt if it can lead to better informed and more optimal public-policy decisions. It is ridiculous to conclude that we or any one of these groups’ many supporters control their policy recommendations. The irony of your article is that, by recycling a range of discredited conspiracy theories, NEWSWEEK diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
Kenneth P. Cohen
Irving, Texas
Your article on global warming was very well crafted, but ultimately failed to come to grips with the debate it describes. The dilemma it failed to address is that of “risk assessment.” If we do everything that is needed to lessen the threat, and we are wrong, then there has been no real harm done. For those who believe that man-made global warming is real, the consequences of being wrong are that we will have spent some money and affected the way we live to some extent. On the other hand, if we follow those who deny that global warming is not man-made, then we will have disrupted the world in ways that can only have very negative consequences. Elementary risk analysis suggests that we pay attention to the danger, for the consequences of not doing so are truly frightening.
David Feldstein
Sacramento, Calif.
I compliment Sharon Begley and NEWSWEEK for the article “The Truth About Denial.” As a climate scientist, I see the data every day and there’s no question in my mind or those of my colleagues that the climate is changing and we’re primarily to blame. In particular, Begley’s article did not make the mistake of giving the same weight to the opinions of the small but vocal group of skeptics as to the mainstream scientific community. Such attempts at journalistic “balance” are misleading to readers.
Andrew Dessler, Associate Professor
College Station, Texas
The clear implication of Sharon Begley’s article is that refutations of the global-warming phenomenon are somehow disingenuous and contrived, while the pronouncements of those with opposite views are heartfelt and enlightened. Why is it that the efforts of oil companies and conservative think tanks to alter public opinion represent an evil conspiracy, when the efforts of Al Gore, et al., are good and noble? Could it be that one side disagrees with Begley, and the other does not? The hard questions about global warming are not about whether the actions of mankind can alter the environment (of course they can), they are about what, if anything, our society should do about it.
Evan D. Coobs
Champaign, Ill.
Your article on global warming clearly wants to promote the agenda of those who have concluded that this is a problem and that we are the cause. Emotionally charged terms such as “the denial machine,” “naysayers” and “greenhouse doubters” are used in an obvious attempt to promote one point of view, and to disparage anyone who might disagree with the premise that global warming is a result solely of the generation of greenhouse gases by industrialized nations, primarily the United States. The Earth’s climate change is controlled by many factors—in addition to greenhouse gases—and there are many different scientific opinions regarding which of these factors is the most significant. I, for one, will wait for an honest comparison of these factors before I decide if there is a global-warming problem, and if so, if it is caused by human use of hydrocarbon fuels. It does not appear that I will be able to look to NEWSWEEK for such an honest comparison.
Frank J. Rio
Manchester, Conn.
Though I applaud NEWSWEEK’s most recent effort to raise awareness about the problem of global warming, an item in your cover story, “The Truth About Denial,” deserves clarification. Sharon Begley reports that I “adamantly oppose greenhouse curbs that might hurt the auto and other industries,” a conclusion I doubt anyone closely observing my work on this issue would draw. Since January, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has held 18 hearings focused on addressing the problem of climate change with fair, effective policy solutions. I recently helped to pass an energy bill that will reduce carbon emissions by 10.4 billion tons, an amount equal to the annual emissions of every car on the road today. I’m also a cosponsor of the Hill-Terry bill, legislation aimed at increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks up to 40 percent over current standards. And I’ve continually expressed my intention to reduce CO2 emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050—a goal I plan to accomplish with “greenhouse curbs” that do not place unfair burdens on one single group, industry or community. When it comes to addressing the problem of global warming, I’m not standing in the way. I’m trying to lead the way.
Rep. John d. Dingell, Chairman
Washington, D.C.
Sick of the Mommy Wars
Thank you to Kathleen Deveny for her article “Yummy vs. Slummy” (Aug. 13). I, too, am tired of all the debates, arguments and labels surrounding today’s mothers. I have two children and truly believe being a mother is the toughest job in the world. We mothers should embrace and support one another, instead of degrading and labeling one another. We should live and let live and know that most mothers are raising their children to the best of their abilities.
Lisa Norman
Indianapolis, Ind.
Kathleen Deveny is right that many of us don’t care about Yummy Mummies, Slummy Mummies, Alpha Mommies, etc. But these are just distracters, soft topics that derail our attention from the real issues of motherhood and mothers. Why is there a need for more talk about motherhood? Just to name a few reasons: there is a wage gap not only between men and women, but between women with and without children; child care is a serious problem for working mothers; family-friendly policies—such as maternity leave, workplace breast-feeding programs and flex time—are as rare as intelligent, insightful articles about motherhood; women who devote themselves to unpaid work through child rearing on a full-time basis receive no Social Security credits and are therefore at a significant disadvantage in terms of retirement and economic independence, and for the very simple reason that it is a basic and universal human experience that almost half of the world’s population has or will experience. Women with children have lives and experiences as diverse as any other broad group of people. Mothers, however, bear an unusual burden, responsibility and challenge within society as primary caregivers for the next generation. Let’s keep the conversation, books and articles coming, and maybe mothers will become a unified group with a voice strong enough to insist upon the necessary changes.
Gabriela Alcalde
Louisville, Ky.
As the author of a play about modern motherhood, “Mother Load,” currently touring the country, I read Kathleen Deveny’s “Yummy vs. Slummy” with some disappointment. The lively conversations I have had with parents all around this country belie Deveny’s assertion that we should all be “bored to death” with the topic. It is belittling to women to assume that everything mothers have to say about our lives is either uninteresting or, worse, narcissistic. “Slummy Mummy” and “The Feminine Mistake” hardly belong in the same category of literature, and to dismiss them both out of hand is unfair. It also seems ironic that Deveny claims to be tired of reading about motherhood after her own article on motherhood has been published in NEWSWEEK. Now that she’s had her chance, do you think she’d mind holding off on a ban on mommy lit until I get my own book draft in to my editor?
Amy Wilson
New York, N.Y.
Clarification
In “The Truth About Denial” (Aug. 13), we said that Congressman John Dingell “adamantly oppose[s] greenhouse curbs that might hurt the auto and other industries.” While Dingell has long opposed greenhouse curbs, he is now a co-sponsor of a bill aimed at improving fuel efficiency.
