During her research, Harvard professor and historian of science Naomi Oreskes found that scientists were warning about human-made climate change as early as the 1950s. However, a campaign of disinformation by the fossil fuel industry has clouded public understanding of climate science for decades.
In an interview with Yale Climate Connections, Oreskes discusses the origins of the current climate debate, draws lessons from past fights against misinformation (such as the battle against tobacco), and highlights the importance of acknowledging the established nature of climate science. She also points to the increasing legal action against the fossil fuel industry as a potential solution to challenge the harmful narrative surrounding climate change.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Yale Climate Connections: What led you to explore what scientists knew about the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming in the mid-20th century?
Naomi Oreskes: While conducting research on the relationship between scientific knowledge and funding, I came across the early understanding of human-made climate change by a group of oceanographers in 1958. This discovery was crucial for me.
YCC: Why is it significant that this science was well-established many years ago?
Oreskes: It is important for people to realize that the science behind climate change is solid, similar to how gravity or DNA is understood. This clarity is essential for policies and actions aimed at addressing climate change.
Moreover, in the legal context, a clear understanding of climate science is vital for effective policy-making. The history of discussions on carbon dioxide in congressional hearings in the 1960s sheds light on the legislative awareness of climate change issues.
YCC: How did the debate around human-made climate change become so convoluted for policymakers and politicians despite scientific consensus decades ago?
Oreskes: Back in the 1960s, scientists effectively communicated the risks of climate change to policymakers and international leaders. However, the media misrepresented climate change as a debate with two opposing views, contributing to confusion among the public.
The fossil fuel industry orchestrated disinformation campaigns over the years to cast doubt on climate science, mirroring tactics used by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the dangers of smoking. This strategy aimed to stall action on climate change by creating uncertainty.
YCC: What can we learn from the historical misinformation surrounding smoking to combat climate disinformation today?
Oreskes: Similar to the fight against smoking, combating climate disinformation requires collective action and the dissemination of scientific evidence. Legal action against the fossil fuel industry is gaining momentum globally, with various lawsuits holding these companies accountable for their actions.
Understanding the historical context of business opposition to regulation helps us comprehend the strategies used in climate disinformation campaigns. By uncovering these tactics, we can effectively counter them and drive meaningful change.
More resources:
The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change:
Status of Ratification of the Convention
Endangerment Finding:
What is the EPA ‘endangerment finding’?
Current EPA Stance on the Endangerment Finding:
President Trump executive order on energy
Massachusetts v. EPA:
Sabin Center for Climate Change Law
Clean Air Act:
The Big Myth:
Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway’s book “The Big Myth”
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
