(2) McCright and I (2003) also analyzed the ties between a small number of skeptic scientists and leading
conservative think tanks, the tactics of conservative think tanks in promoting skepticism in general and
the skeptic scientists in particular, and the manner in which both skeptics and the think tanks benefitted
from a change in the political opportunity structure represented by the Republican takeover of Congress
in 1994. Our preliminary analyses should be extended to the current situation and expanded to include
a more detailed examination of the activities of key congressional figures such as Rep. Joe Barton and
Sen. James Inhofe as well as the Bush Administration, all of which represent the institutionalization of a
climate-change “counter-movement.”(3) Since our emphasis on the role of conservative think tanks as key agents of climate skepticism has come
under criticism from Fisher (2006) for down-playing the role of the fossil fuel industry, more attention is
needed to tease out the relative effects of Exxon Mobil and other corporations and those of conservative
think tanks. This is particularly important now that fossil fuel front groups such as the Global Climate
Coalition and the Cooler Heads Coalition have either disappeared or declined in prominence (Layzer
2007), Exxon stands in isolation from other oil companies in its opposition to climate change policy-
making (Rowlands 2000), and conservative think tank leaders and political pundits assert that their
skepticism toward climate science and opposition to climate policy-making stem from their beliefs that
the former is not “sound science” and the latter will be harmful--rather than being motivating by financial
support from oil companies (Shnayerson 2007).(4) Drawing upon the sociology of science and technical controversies, more detailed analyses should be
conducted of the strategies and tactics of the skeptic and “mainstream” camps within climate science.
Particular attention should be given to the former’s primary use of non-scientific outlets for their work
versus the latter’s heavy reliance on traditional, refereed journals portends for scientific controversies.
Controversies such as those surrounding climate change seem more likely to remain unresolved and
impact both public consciousness and policy-making when they can no longer be resolved via peer-
reviewed publications in scientific journals.(5) The long-run impact of the conservative (and Republican) assault on climate science and science more
generally, particularly in terms of relativizing scientific knowledge, deserves attention. Conservative and
corporate efforts to undermine climate (and other environmental) science reinforce cultural conservatives’
efforts to combat evolution and oppose various forms of medical research (Mooney 2005), and the result
may be a long-lasting distrust of scientific information among major segments of our society.(6) The degree to which lay persons are affected by manufactured controversies led by corporations and
conservative think tanks and spear-headed by advocates of skepticism employed by the think tanks
and skeptic scientists affiliated with them warrants study. Are laypersons more likely to be reached by
conservative think tanks through their websites, the media appearances of their spokespersons, or through
friendly media such as Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and conservative newspapers such as the Washington
Times? From whom do lay people take their “cues” on global warming, and which cues are most
effective? Which sectors of the public are most susceptible to the skeptics’ message?Very preliminary insight into some of these issues, as well as confirmation of the influence of those
promoting climate skepticism, can be gained from recent Gallup Poll trends in perceptions of global warming,
separated by political party identification (for question wording and additional trend data see Dunlap 2008).