This is very different than the tobacco companies.
It was known anecdotally for a hundred years that smoking was unhealthy, despite a very widespread cultural acceptance of it. The evidence was overwhelming to anyone with ears and eyes who knew lifetime smokers. The tobacco companies went so far as paying cardiologists to invent the so called 'Type A' personality to explain excess heart attacks among smokers.
Climate change on the other hand is much more subtle. The greenhouse effect is not an obvious on its face, one typically needs to be taught about it in school. Additionally, the natural variation both in weather and climate obscure effects. And the difficulty in measuring global historic temperature series and modelling climate needed to be invented over the past couple of decades.
It may seem obvious to many people today, but that's more than likely because they grew up in an environment of scientific consensus.
What's funny in the original article, is the the first paper cited, was GM sponsored research to indicate that the particulate pollution (aerosols) couldn't be causing the growth in polar ice caps because aerosols would have a warming effect. The true irony here is that this wasn't a warning about warming, it was sponsored research showing that GM wasn't responsible for cooling which had been observed. (Please note -- I am not claiming that there was ever a consensus about a 'global cooling threat', there wasn't. There was a limited concern that aerosols could have this effect, and luckily GM research was able to step in and show them how those fears were misguided.)
It was known anecdotally for a hundred years that smoking was unhealthy, despite a very widespread cultural acceptance of it. The evidence was overwhelming to anyone with ears and eyes who knew lifetime smokers. The tobacco companies went so far as paying cardiologists to invent the so called 'Type A' personality to explain excess heart attacks among smokers.
Climate change on the other hand is much more subtle. The greenhouse effect is not an obvious on its face, one typically needs to be taught about it in school. Additionally, the natural variation both in weather and climate obscure effects. And the difficulty in measuring global historic temperature series and modelling climate needed to be invented over the past couple of decades.
It may seem obvious to many people today, but that's more than likely because they grew up in an environment of scientific consensus.
What's funny in the original article, is the the first paper cited, was GM sponsored research to indicate that the particulate pollution (aerosols) couldn't be causing the growth in polar ice caps because aerosols would have a warming effect. The true irony here is that this wasn't a warning about warming, it was sponsored research showing that GM wasn't responsible for cooling which had been observed. (Please note -- I am not claiming that there was ever a consensus about a 'global cooling threat', there wasn't. There was a limited concern that aerosols could have this effect, and luckily GM research was able to step in and show them how those fears were misguided.)