Climate change denial

src: billyburtonblogs.files.wordpress.com

Climate change denial , or denial of global warming , is part of the global warming controversy. It involves unwarranted denial, dismissal or doubt that goes against the scientific opinion of climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impact on nature and human society, or the potential for adaptation to global warming by human action. Some denials do support the term, but others often prefer the term climate change skepticism . But some scientists who examined this phenomenon have noted that "skepticism" is a misnomer and an inaccurate description when referring to those who reject anthropogenic global warming. As a result, these two terms form a continuous and overlapping range of views, and generally share the same characteristics: both refuse, to a greater or lesser degree, the mainstream scientific opinion about climate change. Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups receive knowledge but fail to overcome it or translate their acceptance into action. Several social studies studies have analyzed this position as a form of denial and pseudosain.

The campaign to undermine public confidence in climate science has been described as a "rejection engine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and is supported by conservative media and bloggers who are skeptical to produce uncertainties about global warming. In public debates, phrases like climate skepticism have often been used with the same meaning as climate rejection . The contested labels: those who are actively challenging climate science generally describe themselves as "skeptical", but many do not adhere to common standards of scientific skepticism and, despite the evidence, continually deny human validity caused by global warming.

Although the scientific opinion on climate change is that human activity is very likely to be a key driver of climate change, global warming politics has been affected by climate change rejection, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to warming climates. Those who promote rejection typically use rhetorical tactics to give the impression of a scientific controversy in which there is none.

Among the countries of the world, the industry is the strongest denial of climate change in the United States. From 2015 to 2017 (after previously serving from 2003 to 2007), the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is chaired by an oil lobbyist and climate change advocate Jim Inhofe, who earlier described climate change as "the biggest hoax ever committed to Americans "and claimed to have uncovered a fraudulent allegation in February 2015 when he brought a snowball with him in the Senate room and threw it to the floor. He was replaced in 2017 by John Barrasso, who also said: "The climate is changing." The role of playing the role of humans is unknown. " Organized organizing to undermine public confidence in climate science is associated with conservative economic policy and is supported by industry interests opposed to CO ₂ emission regulations. Climate change denials have been linked to fossil fuel lobbies, Koch brothers, industrial supporters and conservative think tanks, often in the United States. Over 90% of skeptical paper on climate change comes from right-wing think tanks. The total annual income of these climate change change change organizations is approximately $ 900 million. Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $ 120 million (Ã, Â £ 77 million) was anonymously donated through Donor Trust and Donor Capital Funds to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of science on climate change. In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 US think tanks, has lobbied on behalf of large corporations and conservative donors to challenge climate change regulations.

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published extensive research in line with the standard view of global warming. Nevertheless, oil companies are organizing climate change rejection campaigns to disseminate public disinformation for decades, a strategy that has been compared with an organized denial of tobacco smoking by the tobacco industry.

Video Climate change denial

Terminology

"Climate change skepticism" and "climate change rejection" refers to the unwarranted denial, refusal or doubt of a scientific consensus on the extent and extent of global warming, its significance, or its relationship to human behavior, in whole or in part. Although there is a distinction between skepticism that shows the dubious truth of a statement and a direct rejection of the truth of a statement, in the phrase of public debate such as "climate skepticism" has often been used with the same meaning as climate rejection or contrarianism.

Terminology emerged in the 1990s. Although all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as an integral part of the process, in mid-November 1995 the word "skeptic" was used specifically for minorities who published views contrary to scientific consensus. This small group of scientists presents their views in public and media statements, not to the scientific community. This usage continues. In his article in December 1995 The Heat is On: Warming world climate triggered a flare of rejection, Ross Gelbspan said that the industry has involved "a small group of skeptics" to disrupt public opinion in "persistent and well-funded refusal campaigns". His 1997 book The Heat is On is probably the first to concentrate specifically on the topic. In it, Gelbspan discusses "total denial of global warming" in "a campaign of persistent denial and persecution" involving "undisclosed funding of" greenhouse skeptics "with" climate skeptics "that confuse the public and influence decision makers.

A CBC Television documentary in November 2006 titled "The Denial Machine". In 2007, journalist Sharon Begley reported on the "rejection machine", a phrase that was later used by academics.

In addition to explicit rejection, social groups have demonstrated implicit denial by accepting a scientific consensus, but failing to come to terms with its implications or taking action to reduce the problem. This is exemplified in Kari Norgaard's study of a village in Norway affected by climate change, in which the population turned their attention to other problems.

Terminology is debatable: most of those who actively reject the scientific consensus use the term skeptical and climate change skepticism, and few state the preference to be described as offenders, but the word "skepticism "is not used properly, because scientific skepticism is an intrinsic part of a scientific methodology. The terms contrarian are more specific, but they are rarely used. In academic and journalism literature, the term "denial of climate change and denial of climate change has established use as a descriptive term with no degrading intent. Both the National Center for Science Education and the historian Spencer R. Weart recognize that one option is problematic, but has decided to use "climate change rejection" rather than "skepticism".

Terms associated with denialism have been criticized for introducing moralistic tones, and potentially implying links to the Holocaust denial. There is a claim that this link is intentional, which is heavily debated by academics. The use of the old "denial" precedes the Holocaust, and is generally applied in other fields such as HIV/AIDS denialism: this claim is described by John Timmer of Ars Technica as himself being a denial.

In December 2014, an open letter from the Skeptics Inquiry Committee called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to the refusal of climate change. They contrast scientific skepticism - "fundamental to the scientific method" - by rejection - "the a priori rejection of ideas without objective considerations" - and the behavior of those involved in political efforts to undermine climate science. They say: "Not every individual who calls himself a climate change skeptic is a believer, but almost everyone who denies has falsely called himself a skeptic." By making this mistake, journalists have given unworthy credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry. " In June 2015 Media Matters for America was notified by The Public Editor of The New York Times that newspapers are increasingly more likely to use "denier" when "someone challenges established science", but rate this individually without a fixed policy, and will not use the term when somebody is "somewhat vague on the subject or in the middle." The executive director of the Society of Environmental Journalists says that while there is reasonable skepticism about specific issues, he feels denier is "the most accurate term when one claims there is no such thing as global warming, or agrees that it exists but denies that it has a cause which we can understand or any measurable impact. "

Maps Climate change denial

History

Research on the effects of CO ₂ on climate began in 1824, when Fourier discovered the "atmospheric greenhouse effect" of the atmosphere. In 1860, Tyndall measured the effect. Arrhenius in 1896 showed that burning coal could lead to global warming, in 1938 Callendar found it had already occurred to some extent. Research increased rapidly after 1940; from 1957, Roger Revelle warned the public to stake that the burning of fossil fuels was a "grandiose scientific experiment" about climate. NASA and NOAA took the research, The 1979 Charney Report concludes that substantial warming is already on the way, and "The wait and see policy may mean waiting until it's too late."

In response to the growing public awareness of the greenhouse effect of the 1970s, conservative reactions evolved, denying environmental problems that could lead to government regulation. With the 1981 Presidency of Ronald Reagan, global warming became a political issue, with immediate plans to cut spending on environmental research, particularly climate-related, and stop funding for CO ₂ monitoring. Reagan was appointed Secretary of Energy James B. Edwards, who said that there is no real global warming problem. Congressman Al Gore has studied under Revelle and is aware of the growing science: he joined others in organizing congressional hearings from 1981 onwards, with testimony by scientists including Revelle, Stephen Schneider and Wallace Smith Broecker. Hearings get enough public attention to reduce cuts in atmospheric research. The political debate of the polarized party is growing. In 1982 Sherwood B. Idso published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Enemy? , which says the increase in CO ₂ will not warm the planet, but will nourish the plant and "something to be pushed and not pressured," while complaining that his theory has been rejected by "scientific stance". The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) report in 1983 said global warming "is not a theoretical issue but a threat whose effect will be felt in a few years", with potentially "catastrophic" consequences. The Reagan administration reacted by calling the report "worrying", and the dispute received widespread coverage. Public attention turned to another problem, then the discovery of the polar ozone hole of 1985 brought rapid international response. For the public, this is related to climate change and the possibility of effective action, but the interest of news fades.

Public attention was renewed amid summer droughts and heat waves when James Hansen testified at the Congressional hearing on June 23, 1988, stating with high confidence that long-term warming is ongoing with the possibility of severe warming in the next 50 years, and warns of possible storms and floods. There is increasing media attention: the scientific community has reached broad consensus that warming climates, human activity is very likely to be the main cause, and there will be significant consequences if the warming trend is not restrained. These facts encourage discussion of new laws on environmental regulations, which are opposed by the fossil fuel industry.

From 1989 onwards, industry-funded organizations including the Global Climate Coalition and the George C. Marshall Institute sought to spread doubts among the public, in a strategy developed by the tobacco industry. A small group of scientists who opposed the consensus on global warming became politically involved, and with the support of conservative political interests, began publishing books and the press rather than in scientific journals. This small group of scientists includes some of the same people who are part of a strategy that has been tried by the tobacco industry. Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point at which legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science is no longer justified, and those who spread suspicions about these issues become deniers. As their arguments became increasingly disputed by the scientific community and new data, the denials turned to political arguments, made personal attacks on the reputation of scientists, and promoted the ideas of a global warming conspiracy.

With the fall of communism in 1989 and the international movement of the environmental movement at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the attention of US conservative thinkers, who had been organized in the 1970s as a counter-intellectual movement to socialism, changed from "red fear." to the "green fear" they see as a threat to their personal goals, the free market economy of trade and global capitalism. As a backlash, they use environmental skepticism to promote resistance to the reality of problems such as loss of biodiversity and climate change.

In 1992, the EPA report linked passive smokers with lung cancer. The tobacco industry involves APCO public relations firms around the world, setting out an astroturfing campaign strategy to cast doubt on science by linking smoking anxiety to other issues, including global warming, to changing public opinion on calls for government intervention. The campaign depicts public concerns as "unfounded fears" that are purportedly based solely on "junk science" that goes against their "science" and are operated through front groups, especially the Voice Science Center Advancement (TASSC) and its Junk Science site, run by Steven Milloy. A tobacco company memo commented "Doubt is our product because it is the best means of competing with the 'body of facts' in the minds of the general public.This is also a means of building controversy." During the 1990s, the tobacco campaign died, and TASSC began to take funding from oil companies including Exxon. Its website is central in distributing "almost every type of climate change denial that has found its way into the popular press."

In the 1990s, the Marshall Institute began campaigning against increasing regulations on environmental issues such as acid rain, ozone depletion, passive smoking, and the dangers of DDT. In each case, their argument is that science is too uncertain to justify government intervention, a strategy it borrowed from previous attempts to downplay the effects of tobacco in the 1980s. This campaign will continue for the next two decades.

These efforts have succeeded in influencing the public perception of climate science. Between 1988 and 1990s, public discourse shifted from climate change science and data to the political discussion and controversy surrounding it.

The campaign to spread doubts continued into the 1990s, including a coal-financed advertising campaign aimed at "positioning global warming as a theory rather than a fact," and the 1998 proposal by the American Petroleum Institute intends to recruit scientists to convince politicians, media and the public that climate science is too uncertain to guarantee environmental regulations. The proposal includes a $ 5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of a scientific view consistent with our view of Congress, the media and other key audiences," with the aim of "asking questions about and belittling 'applicable scientific wisdom."

In 1998, Gelbspan noted that fellow journalists accepted that global warming had occurred, but said they were in a "two-stage denial of the climate crisis", unable to accept the eligibility of the answer to the problem. A subsequent book by Milburn and Conrad on The Politics of Denial describes "economic and psychological strength" that results in consensus rejection of global warming issues.

These efforts by climate change denial groups are recognized as organized campaigns that began in the 2000s. Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright played a significant role in this shift when they published an article in 2000 exploring the relationship between conservative think tanks and climate change rejection.

The "Boiling Point", published in 2004, details the fossil fuel industry campaign to resist climate change and undermine public confidence in climate science. In the August 2007 cover of The Truth About Denial, Sharon Begley reports that "the rejection engine is running at full speed", and says that it's a "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign" by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry have "created a crippling haze of doubt about climate change."

Referring to the work of sociologists Robert Antonio and Robert Brulle, Wayne A. White has written that climate change rejection has become a top priority on the broader agenda of environmental regulations pursued by neoliberals. Today, climate change skepticism is most clearly seen in the United States, where the media disproportionately display the views of the climate change rejection community. In addition to the media, the contrarian movement has also been sustained by the growth of the internet, having gained some support from internet bloggers, radio talk talkers, and newspaper columnists.

The New York Times and others report in 2015 that oil companies know that oil and gas combustion can cause climate change and global warming since the 1970s but still deniers for years. Dana Nuccitelli wrote in The Guardian that a small group of climate deniers are no longer taken seriously at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2015, in an agreement that "we must stop delaying and begin to seriously prevent the climate crisis." , The New York Times says any implementation is voluntary and will depend on every future world leader - and every Republican candidate in 2016 has questioned or rejected the science of climate change.

src: i.ytimg.com

Network rejection

United States

A poll conducted by the New York Times Magazine in 2006 found that only 56% of Americans believe that the average global temperature has increased even though scientists think they have it. The majority of Americans also believe that scientists are still divided on this issue.

A 2008 study from the University of Central Florida analyzed the source of "skeptical environment literature" published in the United States. Analysis shows that 92% of the literature is partially or entirely affiliated with self-proclaimed conservative think tanks.

A Pentagon report has shown how the denial of climate change threatens national security.

A study from 2015 identified 4,556 individuals with overlapping network links with 164 organizations responsible for most attempts to downplay the threat of climate change in the US.

A study was conducted to determine whether conservative white Americans are more likely to resist climate change. Researchers from Lyman Briggs College took samples of conservative white men with different understandings about global warming and classified them separately. Categorized into three groups: conservative white men who claim to understand global warming, conservative white men who claim not to understand global warming, and other individuals. It is concluded that many of the conservative white men who report themselves to global warming believe that the mass media has exaggerated the effects of global warming and climate change and that the effect has never occurred. 48.4% of conservative white men who reported understanding of global warming very well in the study said that the effects of global warming will never occur compared to 19% who do not understand it very well and 7.4% of all other adults. Many people seem confused by the science of climate, but research shows that people who self report the understanding of global warming are most vulnerable to resist.

Another study by Utah State University discusses geographical variations of climate change opinion on a state and local scale in the United States. It was noted that previous research found that public policy support and behavior of climate change is significantly influenced by public trust, risk attitudes and perceptions. In addition, to complement the previously stated factors, they are also influenced by knowledge, emotion, ideology, demography, and personal experience. Where people live can explain some important things, because some people live in extreme weather areas, they can be sensitive to overall changes in climate as well. The survey was conducted and showed that 63% of Americans believe that global warming is happening, 47% believe it is caused by humans and 42% believe that most scientists think it happens. In the study, a model was built to determine public opinion about climate change across the country. Representative telephone-based surveys are used to investigate opinions in four states: California, Texas, Ohio, and Colorado in addition to the metropolitan areas of Columbus and San Francisco.

International

The Clexit Coalition claims: "A new international organization (which) aims to prevent the ratification of Paris's expensive and dangerous global warming treaty". It has members in 26 countries. According to The Guardian newspaper: "Clexit leaders are deeply involved in tobacco and organizations financed by fossil fuels".

src: i.pinimg.com

Arguments and positions on global warming

Some climate change denial groups say that since CO ₂ only traces of gas in the atmosphere (about 400ppm, or 0.04%) it can only have minor effects on climate. Scientists have known for over a century that this small proportion has a significant heating effect, and doubling the proportion causes a large temperature increase. The scientific consensus, as summarized by the IPCC's fourth assessment report, the US Geological Survey, and other reports, is that human activity is a major cause of climate change. The burning of fossil fuels accounts for about 30 billion tons of CO ₂ each year, which is 130 times the amount produced by volcanoes. Some groups allege that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas, and is abandoned from many climate models. While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, scientific consensus is the lifetime of very short water vapor (about 10 days) compared to CO ₂ (hundreds to thousands of years) means CO ₂ is the main driver of temperature increase. Water vapor has been incorporated into climate models since their inception in the late 1800s.

Climate denial groups may also argue that recent global warming has halted, global warming hiatus, or that global temperatures have actually declined, leading to global cooling. These arguments are based on short-run fluctuations, and ignore long-term warming patterns.

These groups often exhibit natural variability, such as sunspots and cosmic rays, to explain warming trends. According to these groups, there is natural variability that will subside over time, and human influence has nothing to do with it. These factors have been taken into account when developing climate models, and the scientific consensus is that they can not explain the observed warming trend.

At the May 2018 meeting of the United States House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Alabama Representative Mo Brooks stated that sea level rise is caused not by melting glaciers but by coastal erosion and mud deposits flowing from rivers into the oceans.

Climate change denial literature often features suggestions that we should wait for better technology before tackling climate change, as they will be more affordable and effective.

Conspiracy theory

The theory of global warming conspiracy has been put forward that states that scientific consensus is an illusion, or that climate experts act on their own financial interests by causing unnecessary concerns about climate change. Although email leaks during Climategate, as well as multinational independent research on the topic, no evidence of such conspiracy has been presented, and strong consensus exists among scientists from various political, social, organizational and national backgrounds about the extent and causes of climate change. Some researchers conclude that about 97% of climate scientists agree with this consensus. In addition, much of the data used in climate science is available for viewing and interpreted by competing and public researchers.

In 2012, research by Stephan Lewandowsky (later from the University of Western Australia) concluded that beliefs in other conspiracy theories, such as that the FBI is responsible for the killing of Martin Luther King, Jr., are associated with more possibilities to support climate change denials.

Taxonomic rejection of climate change

In 2004, Stefan Rahmstorf described how the media gave a misleading impression that climate change is still being debated within the scientific community, attributing this impression to the efforts of climate change skeptics PR. He identifies the different positions postulated by climate skeptics, which he uses as a taxonomy of climate change skepticism: Then the model is also applied to rejection.

Skeptical trends/deniers (which denies there is global warming), [and] contend that no significant climate warming occurs at all, claiming that the warming trends measured by weather stations are artifacts due to urbanization around station- such stations ("urban heat island effects").

Attribution skeptics/deniers (who accept the global warming trend but see the natural causes for this), [and] doubt that human activity is responsible for the trends observed. Some of them even deny that the increase in atmospheric CO ₂ content is anthropogenic [while others think that] additional CO ₂ does not lead to visible warming [and] there must be a cause other natural for heating.

Respond/reject impact (which considers global warming harmless or even profitable).

This taxonomy has been used in the social sciences for publication analysis, and for categorizing climate change skepticism and climate change rejection. Sometimes, a fourth category called "consensus rejection" is added, which describes those who question the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.

The National Center for Educational Science describes the refusal of climate change as distinct disaggregated points in scientific consensus, a sequential series of arguments from denying climate change, accepting that but denying any significant human contributions, accepting this but denying the scientific findings about how this would affect nature and human society, to accept all of this but deny that humans can reduce or reduce problems. James L. Powell provides a longer list, as well as the climatology of Michael E. Mann in the "six stages of rejection", a ladder in which denials have long recognized the acceptance of points, while retreating to a position that still rejects mainstream consensus:

1. CO ₂ did not really increase.
2. Even if that happens, the increase does not have an impact on the climate because there is no convincing warming evidence.
3. Even if there's a warm-up, it's because of natural causes.
4. Even if heating can not be explained by natural causes, human impacts are small, and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions will be small.
5. Even if the current and future human effects projected on Earth's climate can not be ignored, changes will generally be good for us.
6. Whether the change will be good for us humans are adept at adapting to change; In addition, it's too late to do anything, and/or technological improvements will surely come when we really need them.

Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot and Ellen Goodman, among others, have described the denial of climate change as a form of denial.

Denialism in this context has been defined by Chris and Mark Hoofnagle as the use of rhetorical devices "to provide a legitimate debate view where there is no, end-goal approach rejecting the proposition where scientific consensus exists." This process typically uses one or more of the following tactics:

1. The accusation that scientific consensus involves conspiring with false data or suppressing the truth: the theory of global warming conspiracy.
2. False experts, or individuals with views that are at odds with established knowledge, at the same time marginalize or degrade a published topic expert. Like the doubts produced on smoking and health, some opposing scientists oppose climate consensus, some of whom are the same people.
3. Selectivity, like cherry picking unusual or even obsolete papers, in the same way as the MMR vaccine controversy is based on a single paper: examples include the discredited idea of ​​the warm period of the middle ages.
4. Unworkable research requests, claiming that any uncertainty overturns the field or exaggerates the uncertainty while rejecting probability and mathematical models.
5. Logical error.

In 2015, environmental activist Bill McKibben accused President Obama (widely considered to be very supportive of action on climate change) from the "Climate Change Disaster-Change", for his approval of an oil drilling license off Alaska. According to McKibben, the President has also "unlocked large plots of the Powder River valley for new coal mining." McKibben called this "denial of the status quo climate of a kind", in which the President denies "the meaning of science, namely that we must keep carbon on the ground."

src: i.ytimg.com

Pseudoscience

Groups, including the National Science Education Center, have described the rejection of climate change as a form of pseudosain. Climate change skepticism, while in some cases claiming to be conducting research on climate change, has focused on influencing public opinion, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science.

In the book review The Pseudosains War: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of Modern Fringe by Michael D. Gordin, David Morrison wrote:

In his final chapter, Gordin switched to a new phase of pseudosain, conducted by some of the rogue scientists themselves. Climate change denial is a prime example, where a handful of scientists, allied with effective PR machines, openly challenge the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is mainly due to human consumption of fossil fuels. Scientists have watched with disbelief that as evidence of global warming has become increasingly solid, the Danish have been increasingly successful in the public and political arena.... Today pseudosain is still with us, and as dangerous as science challenges as ever.

src: cloudfront.mediamatters.org

Public opinion

Public opinion on climate change is significantly influenced by media coverage of climate change, and the impact of climate change rejection campaigns. Campaigns to undermine public confidence in climate science have reduced public confidence in climate change, which in turn has had an impact on legislative efforts to curb CO 2 emissions.

Popular media in the US pays greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community as a whole, and the level of agreement in the scientific community has not been accurately communicated. In some cases, news outlets have allowed climate change skeptics to explain the science of climate change, not experts in climatology. US and UK media coverage differs from that presented elsewhere, where reporting is more consistent with the scientific literature. Some journalists attribute the difference to the disseminated denial of climate change, especially in the US, by a business-centered organization that uses tactics previously undertaken by the US tobacco lobby. In France, the United States and Britain, skeptical opinions of climate change appear more frequently in conservative news outlets than any other news, and in many cases such opinions are left undeniable.

Al Gore's efforts and other environmental campaigns have focused on the effects of global warming and have succeeded in raising awareness and awareness, but despite this effort, the number of Americans who believe in humans is the cause of global warming remains stable at 61% in 2007, and those who believe in popular media downplay this problem remains around 35%. A recent poll of 2015 shows that while Americans are increasingly aware of the dangers and implications of climate change for future generations, the majority do not worry about it. From a survey conducted in 2004, it was found that over 30% of the news presented in the previous decade showed equal attention to human and non-human contributions to global warming.

A study assesses public perceptions and actions on climate change, on the basis of a belief system, and identifies seven psychological barriers that influence behavior that would otherwise facilitate environmental mitigation, adaptation, and awareness. The author finds the following obstacles: cognition, ideological world views, comparisons with key people, costs and momentum, disagreements with experts and authorities, perceptions of change risk, and inadequate behavioral changes.

src: i.ytimg.com

Nationalism

It has been argued that climate change may conflict with nationalistic views as "unbreakable" at the national level and require collective action between countries or between local communities, and therefore populist populism tends to reject the science of climate change.

In TED talks, Yuval Noah Harari noted:

... nationalism has no solution to climate change. If you want to become a nationalist in the 21st century, you have to deny the problem. If you accept the reality of the problem, then you must accept that, yes, there is still room in the world for patriotism, there is still room in the world to have special loyalty and obligation to your own people, to your own country. I do not think anyone really thinks about removing it. But to face climate change, we need additional loyalty and commitment to levels outside the nation.

On the other hand, it has been argued that effective climate action is polycentric rather than international, and that national interest in multilateral groups can be enhanced by overcoming climate change rejection. Climate change counterparts may believe in "caricatures" of internationalist state interventions that are perceived to threaten national sovereignty, and can link risks such as floods to international institutions. British Independence Party's policy on climate change has been influenced by Christopher Monckton who was contracted and later by his spokesman, Roger Helmer MEP who stated in a speech "It is not clear that the increase in atmospheric CO ₂ is anthropogenic."

src: 62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com

Lobby

Attempts to lobby against environmental regulations have included campaigns to make doubts about the science behind climate change, and obscure consensus and scientific data. These efforts have undermined public confidence in climate science, and have influenced the climate change lobby.

The political advocacy organization FreedomWorks and America for Prosperity, funded by David Koch's brother and Charles Koch Industries, is important in supporting the Tea Party movement and encouraging the movement to focus on climate change. Other conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Marshall Institute, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute are significant participants in this lobbying effort, seeking to stop or eliminate environmental regulations.

This approach to understate the significance of climate change is copied from tobacco lobbyists; in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco with lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulations. Lobbyists try to discredit scientific research by creating doubts and manipulating the debate. They work to discredit the scientists involved, to refute their findings, and to create and maintain a real controversy by promoting claims contrary to scientific research. "Doubt is our product," boasting a now famous 1969 industrial memo.Unsure will protect the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come. " In 2006 George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about the similarity between the Exxon-funded group method, and those of Philip Morris tobacco giants, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public. controversy and doubt.

Former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard at Vanity Fair, earned about US $ 585,000 in the 1970s and 1980s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, went on to heads of groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute, which allegedly made efforts to "shrink" global warming. Seitz stated in the 1980s that "Global warming is far more a political issue than climate." Seitz wrote the Oregon Petition, a document published jointly by the Marshall Institute and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that goes against the Kyoto protocol. The petition and the accompanying "Global Warming Evidence Research Review" claim:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases will endanger the environment, hamper the advancement of science and technology, and undermine the health and well-being of mankind. There is no conclusive scientific evidence that human release from carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases that cause or will, in the future, lead to the destruction of Earth's atmosphere and Earth's climate disturbance.... We live in an increasingly fertile environment of plants and animals as a result of increased carbon dioxide. Our children will enjoy the Earth with much more plant and animal life than we are now blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that this petition, which he criticized as misleading and related to industrial funding, "has been quoted by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth." Attempts by climate change denial groups play a significant role in the final denial of the Kyoto protocol in the US.

Monbiot has written about another group founded by the tobacco lobby, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which is now campaigning against measures to combat global warming. In again trying to create grassroots movement appearances against "unfounded fears" and "excessive regulation," Monbiot stated that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to stop [climate change] than any other body."

The environmental sociologist at Drexel University, Robert Brulle, analyzed the funding of 91 organizations opposed to carbon emissions limitation, which he called a "climate change movement". Between 2003 and 2013, donor funds suggested Donor Trust and Donor Capital Fund, combined, are the largest funders, accounting for about a quarter of total funding, and the American Enterprise Institute is the largest recipient, 16% of the total fund. The study also found that the amount of money donated to these organizations through foundations whose funding sources can not be traced has increased.

Private sector

Several large companies in the fossil fuel industry provide significant funding for misleading the public about climate science beliefs. ExxonMobil and the Koch family foundation have been identified as highly influential climate change contrarianists.

After the IPCC released its report in February 2007, the American Enterprise Institute offers British, American and other scientists, $ 10,000 plus travel costs to publish articles critical of the assessment. The agency has received more than $ 1.6 million from Exxon, and its vice chairman is former chief executive Lee Raymond. Raymond sent a letter accusing the IPCC report of not being "supported by analytical work." More than 20 AEI employees work as administrative consultant George W. Bush. Despite his initial belief that the denial of climate change will subside with time, Senator Barbara Boxer said that when he learned of AEI's offer, he "realized there was a movement behind this that did not give up."

The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US $ 2.9 million to American groups "misinformed about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change with direct rejection of evidence". In 2006, the Royal Society issued a request for ExxonMobil to withdraw funds for climate change rejection. The letter draws criticism, especially from Timothy Ball who argues that society is trying to "politicize private science funds and censor scholarly debates."

ExxonMobil denied that it had tried to mislead the public about global warming. A spokeswoman, Gantt Walton, said that funding ExxonMobil's research does not mean that it acts to influence research, and that ExxonMobil is supporting taking action to curb greenhouse gas output. The study, conducted in the Exxon archives collection at the University of Texas and interviews with former employees by journalists showing scientific opinions within the company and their public attitudes toward climate change are contradictory.

Between 1989 and 2002, the Global Climate Coalition, a group largely business of the United States, used aggressive lobbying and public relations tactics to oppose actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and against the Kyoto Protocol. The coalition is financed by large companies and trade groups from the oil, coal and automotive industries. The New York Times reported that "even as the coalition works to influence opinions [toward skepticism], its own scientific and technical scholars suggest that science that supports the role of greenhouse gases in global warming can not be denied." In 2000, Ford Motor Company was the first company to leave the coalition as a result of environmental pressures, followed by Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, Southern Company and General Motors which were later submitted to the GCC. The organization closed in 2002.

From January 2009 to June 2010, oil, coal and utility industries spent $ 500 million in lobbying expenditures against legislation to tackle climate change.

In early 2015, several media reports surfaced saying that Willie Soon, a popular scientist among climate change deniers, has failed to reveal a conflict of interest in at least 11 scientific papers published since 2008. They reported that he received a total of $ 1.25 million from ExxonMobil, the South Company, the American Petroleum Institute, and the foundation run by Koch's brother. Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon is based, says that allowing funders from Soon's work to ban disclosure of funding sources is a mistake, which will not be allowed in future grant agreements.

Public sector

Republicans in the United States are unique in rejecting anthropogenic climate change among conservative political parties throughout the Western world. In 1994, according to a leaked memo, Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised Republican members, in connection with climate change, that "you must continue to make the lack of scientific certainty the main problem" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who sympathize with your views. " (In 2006 Luntz said he still believed "back in '97, '98, science is uncertain", but he now agrees with scientific consensus.) From 2008 to 2017, Republicans went from "debating how to combat climate change caused humans to assert that it does not exist, "according to The New York Times. In 2011, "more than half of Republicans in the House of Representatives and three-quarters of Republican senators" said "that the threat of global warming, as a man-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best exaggerated and at worst pronounced" hoax " Judith Warner writes in The New York Times Magazine. By 2014, more than 55% of Congressional congressional members are deniers of climate change, according to NBC News. According to PolitiFact in May 2014, Jerry Brown's statement that "virtually no Republicans" in Washington accepted the science of climate change, "mostly true"; PolitiFact counts "eight out of 278, or about 3 percent" of Republican congressmen who "accept the prevailing scientific conclusion that global warming is real and man-made."

In 2005, The New York Times reported that Philip Cooney, a former fossil fuel lobbyist and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute and President George W. Bush as chief of staff of the Environmental Quality Council, had " repeatedly editing government climate reports in a way that discourages the relationship between these emissions and global warming, according to internal documents. " Sharon Begley reports in Newsweek that Cooney "edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as 'lack of understanding' and 'considerable uncertainty.'" Cooney reportedly deleted all parts of the climate in a report , then another lobbyist sent him a fax saying, "You did a great job." Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his destruction with a broken scientific report, but a few days later it was announced that Cooney would take a position with ExxonMobil.

US Energy Secretary Rick Perry, in an interview on June 19, 2017 with CNBC, acknowledged climate change and human impact, but said that he disagreed with the idea that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global warming that points to the opposite for "seawater and the environment that we live ". The American Meteorological Society responded in a letter to Perry saying that "it is imperative that you understand that carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases are the main cause", which points to the conclusions of scientists worldwide.

Jim Bridenstine, the first politician elected NASA administrator, previously stated that global temperatures are not rising. A month after the Senate confirmed the position of NASA in April 2018, he acknowledged that human greenhouse gas emissions increase global temperatures.

School

According to a leaked document in February 2012, The Heartland Institute is developing a curriculum for use in schools that are framing climate change as a scientific controversy. In 2017, Glenn Branch, Deputy Director of the National Center for Educational Science (NCSE), wrote that "Heartland Institute continues to make literature on climate change refusal in science teachers across the country". He also explained how some science teachers reacted to Heartland's letters: "Fortunately, letters sent to Heartland continue to be greeted with skepticism and dismissed with scorn." The NCSE has prepared Class Resources in response to Heartland and other anti-science threats.

The Branch also refers to an article by ClimateFeedback.org reviewing the unsolicited Heartland book, entitled "Why Scientists Disagree on Global Warming", sent to science teachers in the United States. Their goal is to send it to "over 200,000 K-12 teachers". Any significant claims are assessed for accuracy by scientists skilled in the topic. Overall, they assess the accuracy of the booklet with "F": "it can scarcely print lower," and "Findings" Findings "are incorrect, misleading, logical based on defects, or just inaccurately factual."

src: i.ytimg.com

Effect

Manufacturing uncertainty over climate change, the fundamental strategy of climate change rejection, has been very effective, especially in the US. This has contributed to the low level of public attention and government inaction around the world. An Angus Reid poll released in 2010 shows that global warming skepticism in the United States, Canada, and Britain has increased. There may be several causes of this trend, including a focus on economic issues rather than the environment, and negative perceptions of the United Nations and its role in discussing climate change.

Other causes may be fatigue due to overuse of topics: a secondary poll indicates that the public may have been discouraged by extremism while discussing the topic, while other polls show 54% of US voters believe that "news media make global warming look worse than it is. actually. "A poll in 2009 on the issue of whether" some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theory and beliefs about global warming "suggests that 59% of Americans believe" at least somewhat likely ", with 35% believing it" strongly maybe".

According to Tim Wirth, "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. [...] Both suspect, sow considerable doubts, call science uncertain and disputed, which has a major impact on the public and Congress." This approach has been disseminated by US media, presenting the wrong balance between climate science and climate skeptics. Newsweek reports that the majority of Europe and Japan receive consensus on scientific climate change, but only a third of Americans consider human activity to play a major role in climate change in 2006; 64% believe that scientists disagree about it "a lot." The 2007 Newsweek poll found these numbers are declining, although the majority of Americans still believe that scientists are unsure about climate change and its causes. Rush Holt wrote an article for Science , which appeared on Newsweek :

... for more than two decades scientists have issued a warning that the release of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ), might change Earth's climate in ways that would be expensive and even deadly. The American public evaporated and bought a larger car. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored warnings and called for new government policies to tackle climate change. The politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there was much doubt among scientists, and did nothing.

The deliberate attempts by the Western Fuels Association "to confuse the public" have succeeded in their goals. This has been "aggravated by the media's treatment of climate problems". According to a Pew poll in 2012, 57% of the US public is unaware of, or flatly rejects, the scientific consensus on climate change. Some organizations promoting climate change denials have argued that scientists are increasingly resisting climate change, but this idea goes against research showing that 97% of published papers support scientific consensus, and that percentage increases over time.

Social psychologist Craig Foster compares the rejection of climate change with flatterers and reactions to the latter by the scientific community. Foster State, "potential and kinetic energy devoted to fighting the Earth-flat motion is futile and misdirected... I do not understand why people will worry about the Earth's insects flat in the face of gigantic climate change... Climate change rejection does not require trust, it just requires neglect. "

By 2016, Aaron McCright argues that anti-environmentalism - and the refusal of climate change in particular - has expanded to a point in the US where it has now become "the central principle of the current conservative and Republican identity."

On the other hand, global oil companies are beginning to recognize climate change and risks.

Manufactured denial of climate change also affects how scientific knowledge is communicated to the public. According to climate scientist Michael E. Mann, "... universities and the scientific community and organizations, publishers, etc. - too often reject the risks when it comes to defending and communicating science that is perceived as a threat by a strong interest..."

src: uploads.mesym.com

See also

• Agnotology
• Environmental skepticism
• Anti-environmentalism
• The effects of global warming
• Environmental Information Board
• International Conference on Climate Change
• Motivated reasons
• Commercialization of renewable energy: Non-technical barriers to revenue
• Semmelweis reflex
• A list of scientists opposing major scientific assessments of global warming
• Donald Trump's political position: Climate change and pollution
• Movies : Climate Change Denial Disorder , a satirical parody film about fictional diseases; Prior to the Flood (film) documenting the denial and climate change lobbying process

src: i.pinimg.com

References

src: uploads.getpop.org

Bibliography

src: niskanencenter.org

Further reading

• Kathy Mulvey (January 2017). "Tillerson Refused to Acknowledge ExxonMobil's Efforts to Deceive the Public on Climate Change"
• Hausfather, Zeke (January 2017). No 'Pause' in Global Warming: Warming Ocean and Sea Water Surface Rises on a Threatening Pace. "Detailed findings from a new report confirming NOAA data on climate change."
• David Kaiser and Lee Wasserman (December 2016). "Part 1" and "Part 2," New York Book Review
• "Frontline: Climate Doubtful". PBS. October 23, 2012. Retrieved 2012-10-25.
• "Facing Doubt: Industry climate rejection and climate science - a brief history of attacks on climate science, climate scientists and the IPCC". Greenpeace. March 24, 2010 . Retrieved September 22 2014 .
• Bowen, Mark (2008). Censoring Science: Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. Plume. ISBNÃ, 0-452-28962-9
• McCright, Aaron M.; Dunlap, Riley E. (2003). "Beating Kyoto: The Impact of Conservative Movement on U.S. Climate Change Policy" (PDF) . Social Problems . 50 (3): 348-373. doi: 10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348.
• Shearer, Christine (2011). "Kivalina: The Story of Climate Change" Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1-60846-128-8

Source of the article : Wikipedia