Judging from some of the backchannel chitchat I'm encountering, we environmental journalists are hitting our collective head against a wall over the near-deafening yawp from global warming deniers.

The ratio of science-literate to science-challenged responses in our blog comments, email, and in-baskets is so unbalanced, the scale is broken. And mainstream reporting on climate change remains stuck in a time warp, where a few big snowstorms during one winter on one small part of a big continent, undercut the veracity of years upon years of recorded temperature increases across the globe.

It's tempting to become dispirited about reporting on climate change. What's driving this hostility and inattention to facts?

To answer that question, journalists -- at least the ones who care about being effective on the job -- often look for clues in the psychology or intellect of the reader. Not surprising, since our goal is to present well-sourced facts in as engaging a manner possible, to help readers understand and act upon the issues most important to them and to society.  If we're getting our jobs done right (and we're always asking ourselves that, too), then the problem must be on the receiving end.

But poor grasp of science cannot be all that's at work here, since apparently science illiteracy is the norm in the US. (A factor that hasn't impeded all sorts of environmental and health policy reforms based on better scientific understanding as well as social progress.)

Even though the number of science literate citizens has tripled in the past two decades, it's still only 28% of the nation, reports Janet Raloff of Science News. Further, she notes, only one European nation's rate of science literacy exceeds that of the US: Sweden.

Despite that, public sentiment across the European Union nations seems firmly in favor of climate action.

US climate change skepticism can't just be a result of widespread paranoia, either, since global warming deniers are far from unique in the annals of pseudo-science conspiracy theories. UFO obsessives, chemtrail conspiracists, and free energy suppression believers also are sure that they have ferreted out a truth millions of others fail to perceive. Like climate change deniers, they all privilege sketchy sources of data and information over more coherent, verifiable, mainstream sources.  And they're convinced that the government and scientists are in cahoots to hide information from the public, probably to get across some sort of social domination scheme.  (This despite constant affirmations in the news that both politics and science are practically blood sports, rife with ambition and competition among participants.)

So why do these other pseudo-science conspiracists remain on the lunatic fringe, while climate change deniers have become all but middle-of-the-road?

Here's the major difference between them: there's not a lot of money to be made confusing the public about whether alien spaceships or perpetual motion are real. But CO2-intensive industries, such as oil, coal, and gas, have a lot to lose in the short term from climate, energy, and transportation policy reforms that cap and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

So or the past 15 to 20-odd years -- and this is not particularly new information -- they have actively poured funding into efforts that promote skepticism about global warming. In his book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, James Hoggan calls this effort "institutionalizing uncertainty."

The public broadcasting series Frontline has aired two excellent reports touching on these efforts to upend US climate action, which you can view online: 2007's Hot Politics, which looks in depth at the climate change denial "industry," and 2008's Heat, on market responses to the changing climate.

The energy sector pumps tens of millions of dollars into lobbying political officials. Greenwire has reported that in 2009, electric utilities spent $144.4 million for lobby efforts. The oil and gas industries spent $168.4 milion to influence the fate of climate and energy legislation in Congress (as well as tax legislation, health care, and government spending). That's upwards of 20% more than they spent in 2008.

By law, corporations have to report on how much they spend to lobby politicians. It's more difficult to track down political spending via other outlets, such as consulting and public relations fees. But given the enormous sums spent on lobbying, it seems reasonable to assume that there's a lot of fossil energy money sloshing around in these grey zones. And there are some facts to back that up: As Politico reported last year, the coal-industry-backed American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity paid close to $1 million to a public relations/lobby firm to create fake grassroots ("astroturf") opposition to federal climate and energy policy reform.

Now, influence spending by clean energy companies surged as well in 2009 -- up about 36% from the year before, according to Greenwire. Still, it added up to a mere $30.1 million. Green groups spent only around $22.5 million lobbying on energy and climate issues.  This combined $52.6 million is still only raindrop in the the combined $300 million-plus river of spending by the energy and utility industries last year.

This may go a long way to explaining the recent rise in climate change skepticism. It comes down to the the old journalism adage: "follow the money."

Image: US Capitol coal-fired power plant.  After years of pressure by the coal industry to keep it burning coal, despite known air pollution problems in the area, it was due to be switched entirely to natural gas by the end of 2009.