Denial of man-made global warming
The denial of man-made global warming (sometimes also known as climate denial , climate change denial or climate science denial ) is the rejection, not wanting to admit it, denying or combating the scientific consensus of climate research on the current global warming . These include in particular trend denial, i.e. denying that the earth is currently warming, denial of causes, i.e. denying that the effect is man-made, and denial of consequences, i.e. denying that the warming is causing major social and ecological problems . In addition to these three basic categories, the denial of consensus is often added, i.e. the denial that the core statements in research have long been undisputed. Climate change skepticism , climate skepticism and climate skepticism are also used as self-designations .
Despite the consensus that has existed in science since the early 1990s at the latest , which is shared by all scientific academies in all major industrialized countries, parts of the public continue to reject the existence of man-made global warming, especially in some Anglo-Saxon countries . The rejection is clearly pronounced in states in which an influential counter-movement was created for economic reasons with great financial commitment by companies, especially in the areas of the extraction and utilization of fossil energies , the aim of which is to ensure the existence of the scientific consensus through conscious Undermine sowing doubt . A distinction can therefore be made between “naive denial” by laypeople , based on ignorance of the scientific literature, and “motivated denial” by people and organizations who have access to the relevant information.
There is a smooth transition between sincere climate (change) skepticism and genuine denial, with climate (change) skeptics being open to rational arguments , while climate (change) denial arguments are closed. The denial of scientific findings from climate research is not a skepticism in the scientific sense, but rather a (partly organized) denial of man-made global warming. A large number of scientific studies show that climate protection is often fought for political and ideological reasons. The denial of man-made climate change is a form of pseudoscience that has similarities with other forms of scientific denial, such as denying the theory of evolution or the health-damaging effects of smoking to believing in conspiracy theories . In part, there are personal, organizational and economic connections between these forms of denial of scientific knowledge. A central connection pattern is, among other things, the constant fabrication of artificial controversies such as the alleged controversy about global warming , which, contrary to popular belief, is not a scientific discussion, but rather the conscious dissemination of false claims by climate deniers. Most of the literature that denies climate change has been published without peer review , does not usually meet scientific quality standards, has been largely funded by organizations and companies that benefit from the use of fossil fuels , and is associated with conservative think tanks. The denial of climate research is considered to be “by far the most coordinated and financed form of science denial” and at the same time represents the backbone of the anti- environmental movement and its opposition to environmental research .
The "organized climate denial scene" behind this approach is made up of conservative think tanks , various political front groups and a large number of lay bloggers , plus laypeople who claim to be experts, some scientists, PR companies , astroturfing groups and conservatives Media and politicians. What they have in common, above all, is their rejection of state regulation through climate protection measures . The organized climate denial scene played a key role in spreading skepticism about man-made global warming among the public and politicians. Since around 1990 this climate denial scene has been taking action against both climate research and climate scientists with ever increasing vehemence . It now also directly attacks core scientific principles, institutions and knowledge in order to undermine scientific evidence for man-made global warming and its negative consequences. Such actions were particularly successful among conservative sections of the population in the USA.
People who deny a human influence on climate change, do not consider it relevant or consider the consequences of global warming to be irrelevant, or (especially until the 1990s) deny climate change at all, become climate (change) skeptics, climate (change) denier and climate change contrarian . The terms are often used synonymously in research, with intense debate as to which of the terms best describes people who reject the scientific consensus on man-made climate change.
Climate change skepticism
The word skepticism comes from the Greek and means “I examine”. In its original meaning, the word skeptic suggests that the respective person has not yet come to a final decision, but rather is still undecided. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines a skeptic as “a seeker of the truth; a questioner who has not yet reached definitive conclusions ”. Basically, skepticism plays an indispensable role in science, as scientists must be cautious and cautious in approaching new findings and should only draw a conclusion when new claims have been fully corroborated. But if the evidence is sufficient, a true skeptic must accept that evidence. However, this is not the case with climate skeptics: For example, Soentgen and Bilandzic state that the “climate skeptics” they investigate are usually not undecided, but rather dogmatists who have long since formed an opinion and are determined to fight for it.
It is also emphasized that the term skeptic is appropriate for parts of the public who doubt the severity of the consequences of global warming. However, those who run active campaigns to deny man-made climate change and are no longer accessible to any arguments are wrongly described as skeptics. This would apply in particular to the core of the organized “denier industry”, which consists of representatives of conservative think tanks, contrary scientists, bloggers and their supporters. In this context, “climate skeptics” are sometimes used in quotation marks .
Climate change denial
The term climate change denial ( English climate change denial ) is widespread for about 2005th Under denial is understood "the denial of well-known facts." Washington and Cook define denial as "refusing to believe anything, regardless of the evidence." Deniers displayed "willful ignorance" and used logical fallacies to support their unwavering personal beliefs. Denial is not a search for the truth , but rather the denial of a truth that one does not want to accept. So this refusal to accept overwhelming evidence is not skepticism, but rather the exact opposite: a form of denial that should be explicitly called that. Powell argues in a similar way: calling climate deniers who simply refused to accept the now accumulated evidence of global warming as climate skeptics means “sullying an honorable term” and allowing them “to wrap themselves in the cloak of science, even if they deny crucial parts of climate science ”. There is a fundamental difference between "honest and honorable skepticism" and "irrational, selfish denial".
Catriona McKinnon defines “climate change denial” or the short form derived from it, “climate denial” as “the deliberate and deceptive misrepresentation of the scientific realities of climate change”. One of these scientific realities is, for example, "the fact that climate change is taking place, its man-made causes and its harmful consequences". On the other hand, “minority or outsider positions on aspects of climate research within the range of normal and healthy disciplinary differences” are not “climate denial”.
Another definition for the explicit denial of scientific facts is provided by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee , whose publication in turn builds on the preliminary work of the Hoofnagle brothers. Accordingly, the deliberate denial of the scientific consensus in a particular field is "a process that uses some or all of the following five elements in a coordinated manner":
- The responsibility of conspiracy
- The use of false experts who hold an opinion that goes against the state of research
- Selectivity or cherry picking when selecting data
- Imposing impossible demands on scientific research
- The recourse to misrepresentations and logical fallacies
On the other hand, there is a risk that the use of the term “denier” as well as “alarmist” will polarize public discussion, which makes a dialogue between different social groups more difficult. The communication scientist Michael Brüggemann emphasizes that it is “necessary and correct” to designate such actors as “deniers or liars [...] who deny anthropogenic climate change for political reasons”, since a dialogue with them is neither worthwhile nor with them convince with the best arguments. However, the terms are inappropriate for people who exercise well-founded criticism of individual studies in climate research, as well as for those "who are unsettled, poorly informed or simply wrong".
Many researchers find it important to make a clear distinction between genuine skepticism and ideological denial. In terms of climate change, for example, a lot of shoddy “use the terms skeptical and skeptical” and “feigned skepticism is often used to circumvent uncomfortable scientific findings”. Far too often "pseudoscience and anti-science [...] are allowed to disguise themselves as science, and denial, or rather lies, can appear as skepticism". According to this line of reasoning, the term climate change skeptic , for example, is misleading when applied to those who dispute a widely accepted scientific consensus. Since real skepticism is a core component of scientific work is that he is for the unjustified pseudo-skeptical inappropriate Doubting statements for any reason, because it contributes to the public's confusion.
A review study published in 2017, which evaluated 161 peer-reviewed specialist articles published between 1990 and 2015, came to the same conclusion. According to this, there is still a debate in science about which term is most appropriate for people who dispute scientific knowledge. At the same time, however, the authors stress that a sharp line between reasonable (scientific) skepticism and clear denial must be drawn, which is why the word denial (denial) was the most appropriate term. The term skepticism , however, is an "obvious misnomer" and should therefore not be used for deniers of scientific findings. Furthermore, Miranda Schreurs points out that many who portray themselves as skeptics who question science actually emphasized the uncertainties in such a way that their “skeptical” position would hardly differ from that of open deniers.
Thus, while the term climate change denier is widespread in the scientific literature, climate change deniers usually prefer to portray themselves as skeptics open to argument, and some also reject the term denier as derogatory. Jörg Matschullat, among others, expresses clear criticism of this “self-appropriation of the title climate skeptic ”. This must be "clearly countered". For example, "individuals, groups or entire [...] institutions that are only out to deceive the public with a large number of half-information - and sometimes false information -" should be called "charlatans" or "deniers".
History of origin
Prehistory: The establishment of scientific consensus on global warming
The climate research can look back on history more than 150 years. John Tyndall recognized the greenhouse gas effects of carbon dioxide as early as the mid-19th century . At the beginning of the 20th century, Svante Arrhenius discovered that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels could change the earth's climate. Guy Stewart Callendar deepened the research and then collected empirical data to prove the resulting greenhouse effect . In 1965, US President Lyndon B. Johnson's Scientific Advisory Board finally turned to Roger Revelle for information on the possible effects of global warming caused by carbon dioxide. In the report published in the same year, Revelle and his colleagues predicted, among other things, that the atmosphere would contain around 25% more carbon dioxide by the year 2000, which would change the atmospheric heat balance in such a way that significant climatic changes could occur. They stated "with reasonable certainty" that "fossil fuels are currently the only source of CO 2 added to the ocean-biosphere-atmosphere system " and concluded in the abstract:
“Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years. The CO 2 produced by this combustion is being injected into the atmosphere; about half of it remains there. The estimated recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are sufficient to produce nearly a 200% increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO 2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate, and will almost certainly cause significant changes in the temperature and other properties of the stratosphere. "
“Because of their global industrial civilization, man is unwittingly conducting a huge geophysical experiment. Within a few generations, it burns the fossil fuels that have slowly emerged in the earth over the past 500 million years. The CO 2 produced during this combustion is released into the atmosphere, around half of which remains there. The estimated recoverable reserves of fossil fuels are sufficient to increase the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by almost 200%. By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO 2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps significant changes in the climate and will almost certainly lead to significant changes in temperature and other properties of the stratosphere. "
In the 1970s, the first usable computer models came into use, which, like earlier predictions, also came to the conclusion that an increase in the proportion of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere would lead to global warming. In 1979, a report by the National Academy of Sciences , considered a very conservative scientific body, also confirmed that doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would warm the earth by one to several degrees Celsius. The report, which was produced under the direction of Jule Charney , indicated this so-called climate sensitivity to be close to 3 ° C, with a probable margin of error of ± 1.5 ° C as the most likely value . At the same time, he stated that "there is no reason to assume that these [climatic] changes will be negligible".
After 1980, a third chain of evidence was added. Analyzes of ice core drillings from Greenland and the Antarctic now enabled a glimpse into the history of the climate , which went back to the past cold ages of the Quaternary . The measurements showed that low CO 2 values always correlated with low earth temperatures , which was a clear and independently obtained confirmation of physical theory and computer models. In the 1980s, more scientists took on climate research, and within this then still small community of a few hundred climate scientists involved, a kind of consensus was formed for the first time. While the warming was now measurable, the type of warming indicated greenhouse gases, and almost all climate scientists agreed that it was a serious threat, most of these researchers were aware that human-made global warming was not yet complete at this point was proven. That changed in the late 1980s. In 1989 there was already a rough consensus in science about man-made global warming, which only a few researchers contradicted. This consensus was fully developed by the early 1990s at the latest and has since been confirmed again and again in a number of studies. This consensus is based on the entirety of the scientific papers on climatology. According to a review published in 2016, this includes more than 220,000 papers for the period 1980 to 2014 alone, with the number of these publications doubling every five to six years.
In the 1990s, the above lines of evidence were ultimately to prove by fingerprint methods (fingerprints) added. Fingerprinting methods are based on the fact that global warming caused by greenhouse gases behaves differently than warming caused by other factors. If the measured warming could be attributed to a stronger solar activity, according to the laws of physics, both the troposphere and the stratosphere would have to warm up. In the case of warming by greenhouse gases, which hinder the radiation of heat into space through absorption in the lower earth atmosphere (i.e. the troposphere), this troposphere in particular would have to warm up, while the stratosphere would have to cool down. The proof that only the troposphere actually warms up, while the stratosphere cools down, and that the observed global warming could not be attributed to the sun alone, was provided in the 1990s. If increased solar activity were responsible for the warming, the warming would also have to show itself above all in summer and during the day. In fact, however, the strongest warming effects take place in winter and at night, as is to be expected for greenhouse gas-induced warming.
In the mid-1990s, there was no longer any reasonable reason for a real scientific debate about the statement that humans had changed the climate and that the earth had already been warmed by human actions at that time. This conclusion was backed up by the work of thousands of scientists worldwide. With the Keeling curve and other atmospheric CO 2 measurements, it was proven that the CO 2 share in the atmosphere rose, and isotope studies confirmed that this was due to the burning of fossil fuels; ice cores also provided historical data over hundreds of thousands of years. It had been known since the 19th century that the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had to lead to global warming for physical reasons. Concrete temperature measurements showed an increase in the earth's temperature of around 0.6 ° C from the beginning of industrialization to the mid-1990s. At the same time, climate models were already sophisticated enough at this point in time to provide successful future prognoses and also to correctly take into account temporary disturbances, such as the short-term cooling after the eruption of the Pinatubo volcano in 1991. Last but not least, fingerprint methods as a core element of the chain of evidence clearly showed that the up to The warming measured at this point in time could not be explained without human intervention, which means that the "smoking gun" was also available as evidence.
Despite these various chains of evidence for man-made global warming, a small number of scientists, such as Fred Singer , stuck to their opposition. In doing so, however, they no longer proceeded scientifically, but rather like lawyers. Instead of repeatedly questioning their own convictions, including the arguments and evidence for man-made warming in their considerations and then publishing them in peer-reviewed journals, these self-proclaimed skeptics proceeded highly selectively and only presented arguments against the talked about man-made climate change while ignoring anything that spoke for it. With very few exceptions, they no longer published in scientific journals, where they would have been subjected to a quality check due to the peer review process , but repeated arguments in pamphlets, (non-peer-reviewed) books and conservative newspapers that were in the scientific Literature by this time had long since been refuted . This turned them into deniers whose only interest was to sow doubts about the state of science.
Weart identifies 1996 as a key year: the IPCC had previously stated in its Second Assessment Report that the human influence on the climate was already "recognizable". As a result, the fossil fuel industry, together with right-wing front organizations, began a campaign aimed at portraying this conclusion as untrue, accusing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the IPCC lead author Ben Santer with willful dishonesty, corruption and manipulation of the data To deliberately deceive the public and politicians. This "public defamation attack unprecedented in the history of science" "crossed a red line" for Spencer Weart.
Cultural and historical roots of climate change denial
The historical and cultural roots of climate change skepticism or denial go back to the time before man-made climate change became known. From the 1960s onwards, the environmental movement in the USA increasingly drew attention to the negative consequences of unlimited economic growth . The increasing visibility of environmental damage led to demands to enact environmental protection laws and limit environmental damage. In the 1960s and early 1970s, some environmental protection regulations were passed and the EPA was founded. These developments were viewed with concern by the industry, so that a counter-movement to these emerging environmental protection efforts quickly emerged, which later became part of the conservative counter-movement.
This was in response to the emergence of progressive social movements in the United States in the 1960s. Conservative circles, who feared the creation of a welfare state that they had rejected , reacted by financing a counter-movement that was supposed to spread conservative or neoliberal views. To this end, a number of think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation were set up to anchor neoliberal ideas in society and quickly become an influential political force. These think tanks spread a particularly radical version of the capitalist economic order , often referred to as market fundamentalism , which was based on the ideas of Friedrich August von Hayek and Ludwig von Mises and rejected the realization that a strong state is necessary for a successful market economy to regulate the market be. At the same time, they generally rejected state regulations and advocated unregulated markets.
Emergence of climate change denial
Particularly during the reign of Ronald Reagan (1981–1989), state regulation measures were strongly opposed, especially in the environmental sector, as part of a neoliberal transformation of society. Among other things, convinced anti-environmental politicians occupied key positions in the cabinet, including the EPA and the Ministry of the Interior. However, their blunt attacks on environmental protection led to a backlash on the part of the environmental movement and the population, the majority of whom were in favor of environmental protection, which could weaken the anti-environmental initiatives of the Reagan administration.
In 1989, a brochure from the George C. Marshall Institute halted the George HW Bush administration's climate protection efforts . This think tank was set up to defend the Strategic Defense Initiative . After the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, he focused on issues of environmental and climate policy. In this context, the representatives of the George C. Marshall Institute Robert Jastrow , William Niernberg and Frederick Seitz gave a lecture at the White House, which came to the conclusion that the sun is responsible for the warming. In doing so, they cited scientific literature, but misrepresented it. The original study to which the authors referred gave various causes for climate change in the 20th century. She came to the conclusion that global warming before 1940 was probably due to an increase in solar activity, but that only carbon dioxide emissions came into question for warming after 1975, since there was no increased solar activity after the turn of the century. These results were recorded in six different graphics. Of the six graphics in the original study, however, Jastrow, Kidneyberg and Seitz only presented the upper half of a single one of these six graphics, suggesting that only solar activity is responsible for climate change. This report had a major impact in the White House and is believed to be a major cause of the Bush Senior Administration's inaction on climate protection. On the scientific side, the claims of the Marshall Institute were rejected; Among other things, the IPCC stated that the role of solar activity is small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases. However, the Marshall Institute and the authors of the report continued to disseminate the wrong version, even though science had made great efforts to point out the facts. Meanwhile, the Cato Institute , another conservative think tank, began to distribute the manipulated graphic from the Marshall Institute report.
When global environmental problems such as global warming or the loss of biodiversity became a major issue in international politics in the early 1990s , environmental protection became a significantly greater threat to the conservative movement and industry as well as their political goals, especially unregulated markets. With the collapse of communism they lost their longstanding ideological enemy image, whereupon the conservative movement switched to replacing the “red threat” from communism with a “green threat” as a result of environmental protection concepts. Climate change was thus hyped up as the new main threat, since combating it required extensive regulatory interventions in the market. As a result, the conservative movement and industrial companies tried together from the beginning of the 1990s to prevent climate protection policy , in particular denying the existence of climate change and its negative effects.
From the Reagan era, the conservative counter-movement and industry had learned that it was not advisable to attack environmental protection concepts directly, as the population generally supported them and considered them to be a task of the state. So they started attacking the foundation on which the demands of environmentalists and scientists were mostly based: scientific knowledge. In order to undermine this scientific foundation, they rely on the strategy of sowing doubt . This strategy, in which the (scientific) evidence of the dangerousness of its products is deliberately sabotaged by industry, had already been used successfully for decades by industrial companies and branches of industry such as the tobacco industry to protect their products from regulation and lawsuits. Fomenting insecurity was expanded to the main strategy in the fight against environmental initiatives and finally to fueling an alleged scientific controversy (See section procedure ).
Classification of skeptics and deniers
Often climate change skeptics and deniers are divided into the three basic categories “trend”, “cause” and “consequence skeptics / deniers”; a classification that originally goes back to the German climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf .
- Trend skeptics / deniers generally deny that global warming is taking place.
- Cause skeptics / deniers admit that global warming currently exists. But they question the human influence on it by claiming that human influence is exaggerated, negligible or absent compared to natural factors. Cause skeptics are also used to refer to people who claim that it is not known with sufficient accuracy what the main causes of global warming are.
- Consequences skeptics / deniers accept the human cause of global warming, but claim that it has positive effects or that the climate models are not robust enough. In addition, people are among the follow-up skeptics who consider man-made global warming to be true , but do not consider the need for climate protection measures etc. to be given or generally reject them. Climate deniers of this type, who partially recognize man-made climate change, but at the same time deny its serious consequences for humans and the environment, are also referred to as lukewarmmer .
A fifth category “relevance denier” was also proposed. Relevance deniers do not necessarily deny scientific findings from climate research, but set up premises that make science irrelevant. The denial of relevance can be found among others among religiously motivated climate deniers and proponents of the idea that economic growth is always positive on balance .
Peter Doherty presented a four-part classification especially for climate-skeptical scientists:
- Crystal clear deniers who accuse the IPCC of fraud and who think climate researchers are fools.
- Fighting brawlers who automatically take a position opposite to any general consensus.
- Professional polemicists who seek personal recognition by engaging in a major public debate .
- Naysayers with a conflict of interest who used to work closely with industries such as mining and now have a strong sense of loyalty .
Levels of Denial
Several hierarchical levels of climate change denial can also be identified. James L. Powell names a total of seven levels. In this context, he explicitly points out that, as with the military delaying tactic , climate change deniers fall back from stage to stage as soon as their respective claims are refuted by scientists. When you finally reach the last stage, you usually start the sequence all over again.
- "The earth is not warming up."
- "Ok, it heats up, but the cause is the sun."
- “All right, humans are the cause, but that doesn't matter because the warming won't cause any damage. More carbon dioxide will actually be beneficial. More plants will grow. "
- "Granted, global warming could prove dangerous, but there is nothing we can do about it."
- “Sure, we could do something about global warming, but the cost would be too high. We currently have more pressing problems, such as AIDS and poverty. "
- “We could very well be able to afford to do something about global warming at some point; but we have to wait for 'solid science', new technologies and geoengineering. "
- “The earth is not warming up. Global warming ended in 1998, it was never a crisis. "
Climate researcher Michael E. Mann mentions a similar sequence of stages of climate denial claims :
- "Carbon dioxide levels don't actually rise."
- "Even if they increase, that increase has no effect on the climate and is not convincing evidence of warming."
- "Even if there is warming, it is only due to natural causes."
- "Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will remain small."
- "Even if the current and future expected effects on the earth's climate are not negligible, the changes will generally be good for us."
- “Whether the changes will be good for us or not, people are very adept at adapting to change; Besides that, it is too late to do something about climate change and / or a technological solution will definitely come up when we really need it. "
Mann also perceives a retreat from the first to lower levels: For example, the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the earth's atmosphere has hardly been contested since the early 1990s. Some climate change deniers like Fred Singer would have worked their way up from level 2 (“There is no warming”) to level 6 (“We cannot do anything about warming”).
Psychological types of (climate) denial
Following Stanley Cohen's classification, three psychological types of denial can be distinguished from scientifically recognized facts such as global warming: literal denial, interpretative denial and implicit denial.
- Literal denial is an assertion that something did not take place or is not true. With regard to global warming, this form of denial is comparable to inventing counter-claims by energy companies that there is no such thing as global warming. Literal denial thus represents the argumentation strategy of the organized climate denial industry.
- In interpretative denial, facts themselves are not denied, but interpreted differently. For example, euphemisms and technical jargon are used and terms are changed to doubt the meaning of events. An example is the use of the word collateral damage for the accidental killing of civilians by military action. The interpretative denial thus corresponds to the (political) spin . It is widely used by governments and business corporations who make many announcements but are actually faced with little concrete action.
- Implicit denial is the form of denial that is most prevalent in society. With it, the psychological, political or moral consequences and consequences of known knowledge are denied. This does not mean that information about global warming itself is rejected, but rather that people fail to apply the existing knowledge in everyday life and to implement necessary changes in behavior in their lives according to the knowledge. So you have the necessary information and accept it as true, but choose to ignore it for various reasons. With regard to man-made climate change, knowledge about it is largely accepted, but not translated into concrete actions or behavioral changes.
Organized climate denial scene
Historical research has shown that very well-organized campaigns that are run at great financial expense play an important role in spreading skepticism or rejection in fields where there is a scientific consensus . This is also the case with climate research and is mainly done through the establishment of an alternative climate-skeptical discourse of individuals and organizations. Organized denial is conscious, rational behavior with clear political and economic goals. Efforts to deny the existence and significance of global warming began immediately after man-made climate change became public in the late 1980s. In 1989, a year after climate change became a topic of public interest, the Global Climate Coalition, the first industry-funded political front group, was created to challenge global warming. Since then, the network of the denial movement has grown steadily.
The organized climate denial scene - now referred to in English-language research as the denial machine (literally: " denial machine ") - has its origins in the United States and is still most strongly rooted there today. From there, the denial of man-made climate change spread to other parts of the world, often supported by American think tanks and scientists. Scientific research shows that the systematic disinformation of the public to an unprecedented extent was the main reason why half the US population and a large part of Republicans lost trust in climate research during the 1990s and 2000s, and eventually developed an open hostility towards scientifically well-established facts. From the beginning, the "denial machine" used all the PR tools that the tobacco industry had previously developed, including:
“[T] he use of 'front groups' funded by the fossil fuel industry, including biased 'think tanks'; bogus grassroots 'Astroturf' organizations and established business associations willing to assist in the effort; the recruitment and funding of scientists (from all disciplines) trained in public relations and willing to contradict the 'conventional' view of climate change; the use of a media 'echo chamber' to repeat and reinforce their message; the use of dubious 'petitions' to create the false impression of disputes among climate scientists; Ad hominem attacks, including 'SLAPP' lawsuits, against legitimate climate scientists in order to intimidate them and discredit their research; using established PR methods such as focus group testing, polls, advertising, mass emails, 'educational' materials distributed to schools, and one-sided websites to spread their doctrine and measure progress towards the 'goal' of perpetual public doubt; and finally, a relentless assault on science itself, a tactic Big Tobacco previously devised to discredit research that showed the harmful effects of smoking. "
McCright and Dunlap summarize the procedure of this organized denial scene as follows:
"In brief, this counter-movement uses the money and resources of industry and conservative foundations to organize a large number of conservative think tanks, lobby organizations, media, front groups and republican politicians to disregard, suppress, conceal and pick the cherry on the cake. in order to dispute the reality and seriousness of climate change. "
They call the messages of this denial movement "perhaps the most successful systematic lies of the past decades". In total, the US climate contrarian movement alone now has around 900 million US dollars a year at its disposal: The overwhelming majority of these funds come from politically conservative organizations, with funding increasingly being disguised through donors trust organizations.
The denial of global warming is pursued by a multitude of different actors: It involves a small number of scientists, some governments, a multitude of political and religious organizations such as foundations, think tanks and institutes, industrial actors, either directly or indirectly through supposedly independent organizations act, as well as parts of the media and the public.
As of 2015 there were 444 active climate denial organizations in 53 countries around the world; in addition, there are 21 other organizations that have already been dissolved. Of the total of 465 organizations, almost 70% are based in the USA, and around half are organized as think tanks. The most important forces of the organized climate denial movement, which deny the existence of man-made global warming through targeted attacks on climate research, include the Cato Institute , the Competitive Enterprise Institute , the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute , all of which are conservative think tanks . Its aim was and is to use the " Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt " strategy to create uncertainty and doubts about the existence of global warming in the population, and then to argue that there is not enough evidence to support concrete climate protection activities . This communication strategy had previously been used to deny the harmfulness of tobacco and passive smoking , the existence of the ozone hole and acid rain .
Also very important in the denial of global warming is the role of internet blogs. The vast majority of the leading climate deniers are "private researchers" without the qualifications necessary to conduct genuine academic research or teaching.
Organization, funding and dissemination of denial
In the research, business enterprises as well as industrial associations and associations were recognized as important promoters and sponsors of climate change research. Many of these companies are energy companies in the oil and coal industries , but steel companies , mining companies and automobile manufacturers are also significant players. Companies in the fossil energy sector in particular recognized the consequences that climate protection measures would have on their business activities at an early stage, and therefore very soon started fighting climate research and climate policy. Many companies and associations such as ExxonMobil , Peabody Energy , American Petroleum Institute , the Western Fuels Association and the Edison Electric Institute funded climate-skeptical scientists, conservative think tanks who denied the existence of global warming, and various front-line organizations to undermine climate research and mitigate action prevent.
While the corporations initially relied on direct lobbying in the early 1990s , for example through the Global Climate Coalition, from the 2000s they switched to the more subtle method of financing the network of the organized climate denial scene. At the same time, the Global Climate Coalition and many other climate denial organizations changed their argumentation strategy with the presidency of George W. Bush and after a decade of successful blockade of climate protection policy: they had previously only claimed that the "extent and timing" of global warming were uncertain, and thus that occurrence of a climatological disaster not generally excluded, she began the basics of climate science in itself to contest; the foundation of a science, the basis of which goes back to John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius in the 19th century .
In addition to companies from the fossil energy sector, other companies and industry associations such as the National Association of Manufacturers or the United States Chamber of Commerce participated in the denial of climate change. Among other things, they organized themselves in front groups such as the Global Climate Coalition in order to jointly take action against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol , which they succeeded in doing. With the administration of George W. Bush , the pressure for companies to act eased. The Bush administration not only rejected climate protection actions, but also actively took action against climate research itself, thus institutionalizing the denial of man-made climate change in the government itself.
From the mid-2000s, climate change returned to the public through documentaries such as An Inconvenient Truth and the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC . After Barack Obama was elected US President in 2008 and there was also a Congress with a democratic majority, industrial companies intensified their efforts to prevent climate protection measures. The oil and coal industry, other companies and trade associations began to stir up massive public resistance again. This was done through classic lobbying, the use of front groups, astroturfing campaigns and advertising. In 2009/10 there was also a joint approach by environmental protection associations and some large companies that are campaigning for the introduction of an emissions trading system, but this failed due to strong resistance from other industrial companies. In 2010 they invested around 500 million US dollars in the ultimately successful fight against the application, which also provided for the introduction of an emissions cap for emissions from the United States.
Even if more and more US companies are campaigning for climate protection as of 2015, there is still strong lobbying in large parts of the US economy against the implementation of climate protection concepts, some of which are openly and partly hidden behind the scenes. Companies also increased (financial) support for candidates who oppose climate protection measures, which led to remarkable successes for these candidates in the last election. A total of around $ 2 billion was invested in direct climate lobbying in the USA between 2000 and 2016. The fossil energy industry spent about ten times as much money as renewable energy companies and environmental protection organizations put together.
ExxonMobil and the Koch Family Foundations were identified as particularly influential sponsors , with funding from Koch Industries having expanded significantly in recent years (as of 2016). Exxon, in turn, had (co) financed more than 130 different denial organizations as of 2011. In this way, the public should be given the impression that climate skepticism is not only widespread, but that it is also shared by serious scientists thanks to the organizations' often scientific-sounding names.
Own knowledge of man-made climate change
The companies and associations themselves were informed early on about the existence and threatening consequences of man-made climate change, long before they commissioned campaigns to deny climate change. Exxon top executives knew of the dangers of global warming since the 1970s and had this knowledge corroborated by their own in-house scientists. She then used this knowledge to exploit Arctic oil deposits, while at the same time investing tens of millions in campaigns to deny climate change and fight climate protection measures.
A study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2017 determined, based on internal documents, Exxon studies and Exxon advertorials (advertisements) in the New York Times , how much internal knowledge at Exxon and the external image or public relations of the group diverged. While 80% of internal communications and 83% of peer-reviewed papers written by Exxon scientists recognized climate change as real and man-made in 1977–2014, only 12% of advertorials to the general public did so. Instead, 81% of the Group's advertorials sowed doubts about man-made global warming. Also, Shell did make a study in 1986 came to similar conclusions and was kept under wraps.
The American Petroleum Institute , the largest interest group in the US oil and gas industry, even knew from its own research in 1954 that burning fossil fuels had increased the amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere, several years before the publication of the Keeling curve . In 1959, oil industry leaders were warned by Edward Teller that the rise in CO 2 would cause temperatures and sea levels to rise by the end of the 20th century. In 1965, three days after scientists had informed then US President Lyndon B. Johnson in a report about the dangers of climate change, this report was discussed at the annual general meeting of the American Petroleum Institute. There the then API President Frank N. Ikard addressed the following words to the assembled leading US industrialists:
“This report unquestionably will fan emotions, raise fears, and bring demands for action. The substance of the report is that there is still time to save the world's peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out. One of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon dioxide is being added to the earth's atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at such a rate that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be so modified as possibly to cause marked changes in climate beyond local or even national efforts. The report further states, and I quote: '… the pollution from internal combustion engines is so serious, and is growing so fast, that an alternative nonpolluting means of powering automobiles, buses, and trucks is likely to become a national necessity.' ”
“This report will undoubtedly stir emotions, arouse fears and prompt calls for action. The key message of the report is that there is still time to save the peoples of the world from the disastrous effects of pollution, but time is running out. One of the most important predictions of the report is that carbon dioxide will be added to the earth's atmosphere through the combustion of coal, oil and natural gas in such an amount that by the year 2000 the heat balance will be changed in such a way that significant climatic changes may occur, over local or even go beyond national efforts. The report goes on to say, and I quote: '… internal combustion engine pollution is so severe and growing so rapidly that an alternative environmentally friendly means of powering cars, buses and trucks is likely to become a national necessity.' "
In 1968, scientists finally warned the American Petroleum Institute that man-made climate change would lead, among other things, to a melting of the Arctic and a rise in sea levels. In public, however, the API denied for decades that the existence of climate change was scientifically sound.
Conservative think tanks play an important role in concealing the state of the art in science, and research is now increasingly focusing on their role in the public and political climate debate. Think tanks are among the most influential and visible elements of the organized climate denial industry and have been engaged in addressing climate change since the late 1980s. At the end of the 1990s, when many companies withdrew from open sponsorship of climate deniers, partly due to poor publicity, think tanks intensified their efforts again. At the same time, they take on an integrating function that holds the various elements of the climate change denial movement together and at the same time increases their reach in society. In the USA, industrial companies have been building up a whole network of think tanks since around 1990 at great financial expense, in order to create a "counter-science" with them, so to speak, that disseminates business-friendly statements directed against climate policy . At the same time, many business-related neoliberal think tanks were financed by business.
Even if think tanks are organizations that have a clear political agenda, they present themselves as (alternative) scientific organizations and their members and speakers as neutral and unbiased experts. They distribute large quantities of publications containing information material for climate deniers and have great credibility in the media and in political circles, directly or through their members and affiliated speakers. The think tanks that deny global warming include large and thematically broad think tanks from the conservative and libertarian scene such as the Heritage Foundation , the Hoover Institution and the Competitive Enterprise Institute , but also smaller organizations that are dedicated to the topic Specializing in climate change, such as the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute . Other think tanks active in the denial movement include the Cato Institute , the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the Science and Public Policy Institute . The Stockholm Network , among others, operates in Europe and has members in various European countries. Other organizations such as the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) are working on the close networking of various think tanks from Europe, America and Australia.
The think tanks are responsible for publishing large volumes of material with arguments in denial, including books that often receive high attention, funding scientists who disagree with scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and holding briefings for politicians with similar views. Other important tasks include providing "experts" for hearings in political bodies and in the media, as well as tracking real climate researchers by submitting multiple requests for all research data, emails, private contacts, handwritten notes, etc. among other things, more than 90% of the papers expressing climate-skeptical positions in the USA come from these think tanks. The production of climate-skeptical literature by think tanks increased significantly between 1998 and 2014, with an absolute peak being reached in late 2009 / early 2010, around the time of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009 .
Contrarians from science
A small number of people with a scientific background play an important role within the organized climate denial movement, as their real or supposed competencies in climate issues are fundamental for the effectiveness of the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt strategy . The scientists are presented as reliable authorities in order to give credibility to the false assertions and half-truths that have been expressed. This strategy goes back to the tobacco industry : it recognized as early as the 1950s that the conflict of interest would be (too) obvious if it were to attack scientific findings on the harmfulness of smoking itself. However, if scientists were to question the scientific findings, the credibility would be much higher. The tobacco industry then looked specifically for scientists who were willing to publicly question the scientific findings.
In the climate denial movement, too, scientists such as Robert Jastrow , William Kidneyberg and Frederick Seitz were important pivots from the start. The specialist knowledge of these scientists with dissenting opinion is very different: some are recognized scientists, but as non-specialist researchers have little competence in climate issues, some have specialist training to answer climatological questions, but can hardly provide references for actual scientific research, others again, they have neither suitable training nor references. Contrarians with excellent references, however, only exist a few; Richard Lindzen is a rare exception . In the mid-1990s, Lindzen was also the only significant contrarian who continued to act like a climate skeptic and published papers in the peer-reviewed specialist literature.
In general, the scientists who deny man-made climate change are not part of the established research community in the climatologically relevant disciplines. Many of them do not belong to any scientific institution, but work for think tanks . In the meantime, think tanks and front groups cite a large number of supposed experts without any recognizable credibility on climate issues, many of whom seem to have neither a (natural) scientific training nor corresponding specialist knowledge, as is the case with Christopher Monckton, for example . By working with think tanks, however, such “experts” can also get a lot of media attention and in this way fuel the supposed “ controversy about global warming ”.
As of 2007, the core of the US contrarians consisted of about a dozen people. In addition to Frederick Seitz and Richard Lindzen, these were the biochemist and molecular biologist Bruce Ames , the astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas , the geographer Robert Balling Jr. , the climate researcher John Christy , the retired meteorologist Hugh Elsaesser , the president of the think tank “Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change “ Sherwood Idso , geographer David Legates , environmental scientist Patrick J. Michaels , physicist Fred Singer and Willie Soon . Most of the leading Contrarians have no scientific expertise in climate issues, but were instead recruited on the basis of good public relations skills in order to take a counter-opinion on the state of research.
Some of the people mentioned above, such as Fred Singer or Fred Seitz, appeared after their scientific careers as "universally applicable purchasable deniers" who had very different environmental and environmental factors for a whole range of different industrial sectors such as the energy industry, the tobacco industry or the chemical industry Deny health problems. Some of these contrarians like Patrick Michaels had close direct links with industry. Since such contacts between scientists and business are often accompanied by negative PR and to avoid being accused of acting directly as spokespersons for industrial companies, most of the contrarians now work with one or more think tanks of the denial movement. This happens, for example, through full-time employment in these organizations, through membership in committees, presentations at events, press briefings or political advice, but above all through the publication of denial materials. At the same time, through the connection with the think tanks, they attract more public attention.
Goals and approach
Front groups and short-lived Astroturfing campaigns aim to deny global warming as such, but also to undermine concrete legislation in the form of environmental and climate protection laws . Front groups were or are set up by industrial companies and trade associations to both disguise and shield their own activities in the denial of man-made climate change. Such organizations were set up both with and without the help of think tanks from the denial movement.
These front groups often give themselves euphemistic names to hide their real intentions. One technique here is so-called green scamming , in which anti-environmental organizations pretend to be environmental organizations by choosing a name that sounds relevant. Examples are the Global Climate Coalition , the Alliance for Environment and Resources or the American Council on Science and Health . These organizations often use certain code words such as “solid science” or balance, when what they mean by “solid science” is publications or views that they can use as evidence for their anti-science campaigns. Powell, too, identifies the most striking of the common characteristics of many climate denial organizations in their "admirable" designations, which for the most part sound highly rational. In this context he refers to a list of denier organizations drawn up by the Union of Concerned Scientists , which includes 43 denier organizations financed by the oil company ExxonMobil . Not a single one of these organizations was so named that their fight against human-made global warming could be derived from their name. The list was headed by an organization called Africa Fighting Malaria , which listed a collection of articles and comments on its website that spoke out against urgent climate action; even though the malaria risks could be exacerbated by global warming.
An example of an organization operating under a false flag in German-speaking countries is the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), whose name specifically suggests scientific nature. In truth, however, EIKE is not a scientific institution, but a lobby organization that neither owns an office nor employs climate scientists, but instead disseminates fake news on climate issues on its website .
The most important front organization was allegedly the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which was founded in 1989 as a response from business to the IPCC . It was financed by large companies in the energy sector, automobile manufacturers and industrial associations, among others, immediately questioned the need for climate protection and attacked climate research. Until 2002, it planted doubts about the scientific findings on global warming and placed climate skeptics in public media discussions. The GCC was initially headed by William O'Keefe of the American Petroleum Institute and was very involved in the fight against the US ratification of the Kyoto Protocol . However, it also played a decisive role in the attacks on the IPCC lead author Benjamin D. Santer , which aimed to discredit the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a whole; In retrospect, the attacks turned out to be unfounded. The Global Climate Coalition carried out its lobbying and PR activities against climate research despite the knowledge of the member societies that their results were scientifically sound. For example, an internal assessment of the state of affairs had shown that the claims of climate skeptics “did not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of climate change caused by greenhouse gases”. In 2002, the GCC dissolved after several companies had withdrawn and it was also clear that the Bush administration was pursuing the same goals as it in terms of climate policy.
In 1991 the Information Council on the Environment was founded, set up by coal and energy companies to undermine climate research. After their strategy of reinterpreting global warming as "theory" instead of fact, through a leak to the press, it dissolved. Another front organization was the Greening Earth Society , which was set up by the Western Fuels Association , an association of the energy industry, as well as some contrarians, including Patrick Michaels . She launched an elaborate disinformation campaign claiming that elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere were not harmful, but rather beneficial.
Also important is the Cooler Heads Coalition , which was founded in 1997 as a loose association of various conservative think tanks under the leadership of the Competitive Enterprise Institute . It thus reflects the transition of the core of the denial movement from industrial companies to conservative think tanks and is considered to be particularly aggressive in its attacks against climate research and individual climate researchers. In addition to the CEI, the CFACT , the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute are involved in it. The Cooler Heads Coalition is led by Myron Ebell . Ebell, like Christopher C. Horner, as head of the CEI, is one of the central figures of the organized climate denial scene. Both use the Cooler Heads Coalition as well as the CEI to produce and distribute large amounts of disinformation material. In addition, they were both key figures in defaming the IPCC and promoting the hacking incident at the University of East Anglia's climate research center as an alleged Climategate scandal.
Front organizations were founded, among other things, by the religious right to create a countermovement to the growing climate awareness within the Christian community. Among other things, a politically neoliberal front group called the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance was founded with support from business , which was later renamed the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and was involved in a variety of environmental protection campaigns. It is headed by Calvin Beisner , who had long-standing ties to industrial companies and conservative think tanks, and published, among other things, an “Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”, which adopted many of the claims made by climate deniers.
Astroturfing campaigns are not as long-term in their purpose as front organizations, but have the same goal. They should deny global warming as such, but also undermine concrete legislation in the form of environmental and climate protection laws . The two front groups Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works , which are closely related to the brothers Charles and David Koch ( Koch Industries ), are of great importance in such campaigns . These played an important role in the financing of Astroturf campaigns, which for example in 2008 and 2009 were aimed at preventing climate protection laws and were also intended to directly combat Barack Obama's policies . Such campaigns, supported by the American Petroleum Institute , among others , and set up with the help of professional public relations firms, have long been used by industry and think tanks. They are specifically designed to give the impression of being a grassroots movement emerging from below , but are actually campaigns controlled by their clients.
Conservative / right-wing politicians
Politicians from the Republican Party play an important role in the USA, the country of origin of the organized denial of global warming . As early as the 1990s, Republican Congressmen ignored and attacked climate research and questioned scientific knowledge about climate change. This has increased since then. During the reign of George W. Bush (who worked in the Texas oil industry from 1978 to 1992), the White House was a central part of the climate denial scene. Was further institutionalized the denial of climate change with the initiatives of the brothers Charles and David Koch , which means Americans for Prosperity wrested a promise hundreds of Republican politicians, no CO 2 -tax introduce, including most of the leading Republicans.
In the 113th Congress of the United States (January 2013 to January 2015), a majority of Republican members and 90% of top Republican politicians rejected the fundamental findings of climate research. In addition to the Republicans' already existing ideological predisposition for climate-skeptical positions, this is due in particular to extensive donations from the fossil fuel sector . During the two-year legislative period of this congress alone , climate-skeptical candidates received $ 641 million in donations from industrial companies and trade associations. Many Republicans initially often ignored scientific expertise; later they went over to specifically inviting scientific contrarians and other people from the organized climate denial scene to the congress in order to maintain the illusion of a supposedly existing scientific controversy about global warming .
James Inhofe is considered the Republican politician who most prominently denies man-made global warming . Among other things, he called it the biggest hoax to fool the American people. As chairman of the Senate's environmental committee, he made it an important pillar of the organized climate change denial scene; He also called for leading climate researchers to be brought to justice. He is in close contact with Marc Morano , who runs a major climate denier website for him. In February 2015, he brought a snowball to a Senate session and cited the existence of snow as evidence against global warming and the record temperatures recently announced in 2014.
When Donald Trump took office in January 2017, a climate denier was elected US President. He also filled the cabinet positions relevant to climate policy with climate change deniers: among others, long-time ExxonMobil boss Rex Tillerson became foreign minister, former attorney general and lobbyist Scott Pruitt head of the EPA environmental agency , former Texas governor Rick Perry energy minister and environmental protection opponent Ryan Zinke became interior minister . Before that, climate skeptics or deniers of man-made climate change were presidents or heads of government in various countries. These include the former US President George W. Bush , who has been criticized for his efforts to deliberately undermine climate research, and the Australian Prime Minister (September 2013 to September 2015) Tony Abbott , who questioned the human influence on the climate and a Strong opponents of climate protection measures were Canadian Prime Minister (2006 to 2015) Stephen Harper , who admitted that climate change was a major threat, but otherwise shared similar views and, like Bush, did not sign the Kyoto Protocol , and the Czech President (2003 until 2013) Václav Klaus , who compared global warming to communism and maintained close ties with climate-skeptical American lobby organizations and think tanks such as the Heartland Institute .
These conservative politicians used a number of strategies to divert public attention away from climate policy and climate protection projects. These included the appointment of climate deniers as chairmen of scientific committees, the abolition of advisory bodies and scientific (research) programs, the cancellation of state funds for environmental protection programs, the reallocation of research funds to more industry-relevant research, and censorship measures against environmental and climate researchers , which are now also being seized under Donald Trump. The governments under Stephen Harper (Canada) and John Howard (Australia) also targeted measures that fueled ignorance in the population in order to keep public commitment to climate protection low. George W. Bush is considered a major player in the "war on science", including against climate research.
In Europe, it is above all parties from the right-wing political spectrum that question or deny man-made global warming. Of the 21 right-wing or right-wing populist parties examined in 2018, the vast majority deny the human influence on current climate change (seven parties, including the AfD) or attach little importance to the issue or take no clear position (eleven parties); only three parties recognized man-made global warming. For populist politicians in particular , attacks on science are an attractive strategy for gaining votes, for example by portraying themselves as defenders of the interests of the local population or by using the fact that scientists tend to belong to the social elite to win votes from anti-intellectual Population groups.
Conservative / right-wing media
Conservative media play a key role in disseminating climate denial arguments, especially in the US. Important media here are and have been newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal , the New York Post and the Washington Times , magazines such as The Weekly Standard , The American Spectator and National Review , talk show programs from certain presenters such as Rush Limbaugh , and television channels such as Fox News including popular commentators like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity and other columnists and moderators like George Will , Charles Krauthammer or Glenn Beck . Some of the best known media outlets actively involved in spreading climate denial propaganda include the News Corporation's various media outlets , owned by Rupert Murdoch . Together these media acted like an echo chamber in which the claims of climate deniers circulate endlessly and mutually reinforce each other. Attacks on climate research, and increasingly also on climate researchers, were not only disseminated in decidedly conservative circles via these media, but also reached large sections of the general public.
The Wall Street Journal in particular, as the largest US newspaper, is considered to be an influential forum for the organized climate denial movement , which often allows people to have their say in the opinion columns who deny man-made climate change . According to a study published in 2017, the WSJ was also the leading US newspaper that reported the least about the negative effects of global warming . At the same time, it reported the most negatively about climate policy and climate protection . Fox News plays an important role among TV channels. Fox News reports global warming significantly more than any other TV network, but does so in a more hostile manner that raises public doubt. Overall, according to a study published in 2012, consumers of Fox News were more climate-skeptical the more they saw Fox News.
Research has shown that climate skepticism is not only more prevalent in conservative media, but also more widespread than in non-conservative media. This applies not only to factual reporting in general , but especially to editorials and opinion pieces , where the denial of man-made climate change is particularly present. Climate deniers and their theses receive a lot of attention in the USA. In other Anglo-Saxon countries, such as Australia and the United Kingdom , denial is also disproportionately widespread, while in other countries the claims of climate deniers receive little attention.
In Germany, climate-skeptical claims in the media have so far been rare, as a study based on reports on the UN climate conference in Durban in 2011 showed. But they are gaining in importance. Climate-skeptical claims were most frequently published by the conservative newspaper Die Welt , which contained climate-skeptical elements in more than 17% of its articles. The world was not only comparatively skeptical about climate research itself, but especially about the existence of global warming and its causes. In Germany, climate change denial theses are mainly disseminated by right-wing conservative to right-wing populist alternative media that position themselves against the elites and the “ mainstream ”. Examples of this are Epoch Times , Tichy's Insight , Junge Freiheit , Compact , Cicero , Russia Today Germany , peculiarly free and the axis of the good , which repeatedly cite each other as sources.
Blogs and Social Media
Blogs now play an important role in the climate denial scene . These blogs, on which self-proclaimed climate skeptics and climate-skeptical scientists question the existence and significance of global warming, add a meaningful element to the climate- skeptical echo chamber , supplementing conventional media and partially replacing them. The first of these blogs was founded in 2005: by 2014 there were more than 170 such blogs in English alone. Certain blogs are run by climate-skeptical scientists like Judith Curry , but the most popular by laypeople: Watts Up With That is run by a retired TV meteorologist, ClimateAudit by a former mining executive and passionate hockey stick critic ( Stephen McIntyre ), and ClimateDepot by a self-appointed one "Warrior" in the "Climate Wars" ( Marc Morano ).
The blogs have large following and often receive hundreds of replies to their posts, often expressing malicious criticism of climate scientists, climate activists and supporters of climate protection concepts. Through the approach of the blogs, climate researchers are sometimes targets of harassment and bullying activities.
The denial blogs came into focus in 2009, when some of them played key roles in the artificial creation and propagation of the so-called controversies surrounding the hacker incident at the University of East Anglia's climate research center ("Climategate") as well as some minor errors in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report . Some bloggers are now among the stars of the climate denial scene and have regular access to conventional media, especially those with a conservative orientation. The blogs are well networked internationally; the organized US climate denial scene, for example, is closely networked with climate-skeptical bloggers in the United Kingdom and several other countries in and outside Europe. Climate-skeptical content is also posted heavily on other social media platforms via blogs, for example by linking the blogs on Facebook or Twitter . In addition, climate-skeptical claims seem to be conspicuously strong in online newspaper comments. Through all of these mechanisms, allegations of climate denial are also attracting a great deal of attention outside the actual climate denial scene and are helping to spread the denial of global warming internationally.
Posts by climate deniers are particularly widespread in social media. For example, in November 2016, there were more than 500,000 videos on YouTube spreading the myth that global warming was a lie, while only about 40,000 videos existed dealing with climate deniers.
Climate change deniers use a number of different tactics to deny scientific knowledge they do not like. According to Stefan Rahmstorf , the methods of the interest groups denying man-made climate change range “from the constant repetition of long-disproved farmer-catcher arguments, to invented fake news , the presentation of pseudo-studies ornamented with scientific jargon by pseudo-experts to the defamation and intimidation of climate researchers”. The biologist Sean B. Carroll names six core tactics of science deniers, some of which have been used again and again since the 19th century. This collection, which he describes as the "fundamental handbook of denialism ", comprises the following procedure by means of which one can distinguish scientific denial from genuine scientific debate:
- "Create doubts about science."
- "Question the personal motives and integrity of scientists."
- "Build up real disagreements in research and cite non-experts with minority opinions as authorities."
- "Exaggerate the possible dangers that can arise from the respective topic."
- "Present the issue as a threat to personal freedom."
- "Claim that acceptance of a key philosophy, religious belief, or custom would contradict a group."
Highlighting uncertainties and doubts
Climate deniers and stakeholders have a great strategic advantage in influencing the public over scientists. While scientists must convince the public of their findings in order to induce political action, it is sufficient for opponents of scientific knowledge to stir up uncertainty in order to achieve political inaction. One of the most important argumentation patterns of climate deniers is therefore the presentation that scientific findings on the existence, causes and consequences of global warming are "uncertain" and it is wise to wait with climate protection, since there is a possibility that the climate will not change at all change. The organized climate denial movement therefore often disseminates or cites allegations or appropriate events that are intended to stir up uncertainty and thus give the impression of allegedly contradicting the scientific consensus. This approach is effective because for many people even a minor disagreement among scientists creates the impression that no one knows the truth. That is why we try to exaggerate the number of dissenting opinions as much as possible. In the USA, for example, organized disinformation campaigns of this kind have led to the public misjudgment that there is no consensus on man-made global warming, even though it has existed for decades.
This strategy is not new: The artificial stirring up of uncertainty in the form of the strategy “ Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt ” has been a tried and tested means of commercial enterprises and branches for decades to question scientific findings on environmental problems and to prevent environmental protection measures. In 1969, a tobacco industrialist put it in a nutshell:
"Doubt is our product [...] because it is the best method to compete with the 'facts' in the minds of the public."
It is always argued that there is not enough scientific evidence to act and take protective measures for the environment, health or climate. Before this procedure, also known as the " tobacco strategy" after its inventors , was used to discredit scientific findings on man-made climate change, it was used, among other things, to downplay the dangers of tobacco smoking , acid rain , the ozone hole and asbestos . Central actors in these campaigns against environmental and health protection were Frederick Seitz , Fred Singer , William Renberg and Robert Jastrow , four physicists with no special expertise in environmental or health issues but who were highly regarded. They used this to present themselves successfully as experts in public and with politicians and then to distort the current state of science . Since the beginning of the 1990s, climate change became the central target for artificially generated uncertainty and doubts in order to block a climate protection strategy.
In 2002, the Republican strategy advisor Frank Luntz also pointed out the particular political importance of creating uncertainty and the impression of a scientific controversy in the targeted fight against scientifically proven knowledge . In a now famous internal policy brief for the Republican Party that later leaked to the public, he warned Republicans that they had all but lost the environmental debate. He then advised stepping up their efforts to deny the scientific consensus on global warming:
“The scientific debate is closing [against those who deny the reality of climate change] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science. [...] Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. "
“The scientific debate is closing [on those who deny the reality of climate change], but it is not yet closed. There is still a chance to question science. [...] Voters believe that there is no consensus on global warming within the scientific community. Should the public feel that the scientific questions have been resolved, their views on global warming will change accordingly. "
Luntz therefore recommended pointing out uncertainties in scientific research and an alleged scientific controversy and making the supposed lack of scientific certainty the central aspect of the political debate. This advice was followed by the Bush administration , which subsequently highlighted scientific uncertainty in official reports. As has been the case with many anti-environmental campaigns before, Luntz also advised his clients to emphasize the fact that action should only be taken when all the facts were on the table. The core motive of this argumentation model is that scientific findings could only be of relevance for politics if they can provide absolute certainty. In fact, such an assumption is diametrically opposed to the actual way scientific research works, because it basically works by weighing up proofs, their consistency and probabilities, while absolute proofs only exist in mathematics .
Creation of an artificial controversy
Over time, fueling uncertainty has evolved into a man-made controversy. The aim of this strategy is to give the public the impression that there is a great debate and contradiction not (only) in public but within the scientific community about the existence of man-made warming. In fact, the so-called “controversy about global warming” is considered to be the prime example of a “ controversy ” artificially generated and fueled by interest groups from business and politics with no real equivalent within science.
In order to create this supposed controversy, companies and conservative think tanks recruited some climate-skeptical scientists and other supposed experts (often without expertise in climate-related issues) who should (t) not only create criticism of real scientific research, but an alternative to it to deliberately confuse the public and politicians. The functioning of real research is specifically imitated: These authors mostly publish unreviewed reports and books, publish in marginal specialist journals, often predatory journals without peer review , which print articles for a fee, hold conferences and also compile lists of scientists who allegedly doubt man-made warming. An example of this method is the creation of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change by the Heartland Institute as a counterpart to the IPCC . The aim was to make the central findings of climate research, that the earth warms up significantly through human activity and that this will have negative consequences, appear unsafe for the public and also to give the impression that they are highly controversial in science. The counter-claims to the findings of climate research are at the same time widespread and often supplemented with accusations of scientific misconduct in order to achieve a special effect on the public and politics and to undermine the need for climate protection .
Because climate deniers publish almost exclusively outside of science in media, where they are not exposed to any quality-assuring peer review process, they can repeat arguments that have long been disproved by science over and over again. These pseudo-arguments , sometimes referred to as “ zombie arguments” , which are brought out again and again when necessary, are then used to attack real scientific research results. From the point of view of science communication and the public understanding of scientific research results, this publication practice gives rise to a serious problem: while climate deniers, whose publications almost without exception would not pass a peer review, usually contact the public directly via various media, serious scientists tend to do so who publish their work in peer-reviewed journals are less likely to present their results in the mass media. Last but not least, the fact that climate deniers operate almost exclusively outside of the peer review is in direct contradiction to the supposedly high quality standards that deniers attribute to their own claims. As an explanation for their inability to put their theses into the peer-reviewed literature, climate deniers often resort to conspiracy theories such as that this would be prevented by a left-wing plot.
At the same time, climate deniers try to undermine climate research by cutting research funds. In 2011, for example, the then Republican-dominated Science Committee of the House of Representatives tried to reduce research funding for some climate-related research institutions such as the Department of Energy , NASA , NOAA and the National Science Foundation ; but the majority of these attempts failed because of the democratic party . In 2017, the Trump administration proposed massive cuts in climate and environmental research; including the halving of the budget of the research offices of EPA , deletions in weather and climate monitoring satellite the NOAA and Umdelegierung of research funds at NASA.
Global warming has negative consequences for almost all parts of the environment and society. Therefore, climate deniers often concentrate on certain observations in their argumentation, which they can reinterpret by leaving out the context or tearing them out of context in such a way that these observations seem to contradict the negative consequences of global warming. For example, climate denier blogs pay little attention to the refutation of the physical evidence for human-made global warming and the resulting ecological consequences, as it would be practically impossible in view of the overwhelming scientific evidence to refute this argumentative. Instead, they focus on a few standout topics that stand out and generate public interest, present them as key issues, and ultimately attack them. Climate deniers use these key issues to suggest to the public that the (supposed) refutation of evidence for human-made global warming would also render all other lines of evidence irrelevant. The goal here is to implant the population the idea that hundreds of arguments for global warming all by the overturning of a single domino stone would disproved, because this indeed must lead a series of overturning all other dominoes, even if much evidence for man-made Global warming is actually not related at all. In fact, there are many independent chains of evidence for global warming, all of which need to be considered.
Examples of such attacks are attacking the hockey stick diagram or the endangerment of polar bears by global warming. Polar bears are now a catchy symbol for the dangers of global warming, as their habitat disappears directly due to the polar ice melt and they are dependent on sea ice as their main food for seal hunt. The current state of research is that ice retreat is the greatest threat to the long-term survival of polar bears, and the IECN officially places them on the Red List of Endangered Species . A large number of climate denier blogs deny this danger in the sense of the domino theory described above, in some cases vehemently. The main source of these claims is the Polar Bear Science blog run by Susan Crockford, which is the source of around 80% of all blogs. Crockford is cited as an expert by these blogs, although she has never done research on polar bears and has not published a single peer-reviewed publication. Instead, she is connected to the climate denier organizations Heartland Institute and Global Warming Policy Foundation , which she describes as an “expert on the evolution of polar bears” or “one of the world's leading polar bear experts” and for whom she has published statements and briefings. One of Crockford's main arguments is that the findings of the past 40 years cannot be used as an indication of future developments, which clearly contradicts the scientific consensus on this.
Denial of the urgency of climate protection and focus on adaptation measures
A comparatively new strategy that has been in use since at least the mid / late 2000s, while not denying the existence or human cause of climate change, is to argue that it is too late to stop global warming. Deniers who use this PR trick initially present themselves as reasonable interpreters of the scientific findings, but then argue that we should adapt to warming , that warming may even be positive, or that climate protection measures and economic development need to be balanced . Proponents of this kind of denial, such as Björn Lomborg, argue that there are more important goals than combating global warming, such as fighting poverty, HIV or malaria, and that it would be better if money were used for these measures rather than climate protection . In doing so, they deliberately conceal the fact that poverty and malaria will be exacerbated by climate change. In fact, the ability to adapt to global warming is limited. It is necessary to adapt to the warming that has already taken place. For example, ecosystems only have noteworthy adaptive capabilities up to around 2 degrees; however, if the temperature rises significantly higher, they would collapse and many species become extinct. Climatologists such as James E. Hansen believe that it is impossible for human civilization to be able to reasonably adapt to a sea level rising several meters, which would flood many large cities around the world. In addition, there is a risk that one or more tipping elements in the earth system will exceed their tipping point due to pure adaptation strategies , which under certain conditions can also result in a galloping greenhouse effect . The assertion that strategies for adapting to man-made climate change are simpler or cheaper than preventive climate protection concepts is also to a considerable extent misleading. This is especially true in light of the fact that it is currently not at all foreseeable which types of adaptation would be needed at all.
The strategy of creating an artificial debate without a real equivalent in science has been successful in the past thanks to support from the media, among other things . The media continued to present allegations by deniers that had already been scientifically refuted, as if there was (still) a scientific controversy on the subject. They also often refrained from pointing out that the supposed “experts” who presented counter-theses to the state of the art in science had connections to ideologically motivated think tanks or received financial support from the industries concerned, such as the fossil energy sector . In addition, many media allow employees of climate- skeptical think tanks or Greenscam organizations to publish guest articles without disclosing the background of these organizations or their funding. In addition, many of these people are presented as “independent scientists” even though they are in fact often not scientists at all or biased because of their positions.
Many quality media also contributed significantly to the dissemination of climate-skeptical theses by giving a small group of climate deniers a disproportionate amount of space in their reporting through supposedly “ balanced ” reporting (“balance as bias”) and thus significantly strengthening the opinions of this group. An influential study from 2004 found that of 636 media articles examined that had appeared in four major newspapers between 1988 and 2002, around 53% reported “balanced”. This means that they weighted the theses almost equally that humans have a significant share in global warming and that global warming is exclusively natural. 35% of the articles emphasized the existence of man-made global warming, but also mentioned the counter-thesis that the warming was caused by natural causes, and only 6% of the articles correctly reproduced the scientific consensus by attributing the warming to humans without presenting a counter-thesis . The reporting also changed over time. While in 1988 the majority of the reports still correctly reflected the view of science, from around 1990 onwards journalists changed the way they reported to a supposedly "balanced" presentation with the onset of disinformation campaigns, among others by the Global Climate Coalition and the Heartland Institute . At the same time, the press began to replace scientists as the most frequently cited sources with politicians as sources of information.
Although there were many more scientists who believed global warming to be man-made, these scientists were mostly confronted by the media with a “skeptic” who claimed the opposite. Through this supposedly balanced reporting, which has its origin in the fairness doctrine , climate deniers and their theses were systematically favored in the media, as they received much more attention than they actually deserved due to the broad scientific consensus. At the same time, the public was given the wrong impression that there is only limited agreement in climate research about the causes of global warming.
In the meantime, however, there has been a change in the media landscape: As of 2017, the “balanced presentation” is no longer the most important driving force behind the presence of climate deniers in media reporting. Rather, many media are moving to more interpretive journalism in their climate reporting , in which the denial of global warming is placed in context. However, climate deniers continue to receive a lot of media attention and are overrepresented in the media compared to their scientific importance. In this way, the climate debate continues to be presented as a clash between climate science and dissenting scientists, which not only leads to polarization, but also runs the risk of marginalizing more important debates about the design of climate policy and climate research. According to Brüggemann and Engesser , it would make more sense to ignore the deviating scientists in the future and instead look out for new narratives : For example, to focus on how politicians intend to keep the agreements reached at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015 .
Patterns of argumentation from climate deniers
In order to achieve their goal of convincing the public and the media that there is insufficient knowledge to take climate action, climate deniers use different argumentation models, many of which are rhetorical arguments. These are intended to create the appearance of a legitimate debate where there is actually none. This includes, for example, the frequently voiced accusation that climate researchers and scientific bodies such as the IPCC are "alarmists" who deliberately exaggerate scientific results and stir up unjustified " hysteria ". In fact, however, scientific studies have come to the conclusion that the IPCC reports are conservative in their assumptions and tend to underestimate rather than exaggerate some aspects of global warming.
The use of metaphors from the field of religion by climate deniers and skeptics, and particularly conservative media, is also established in order to denigrate both the scientific findings on climate change and climate activists and climate researchers. For example, religion metaphors are used to reinterpret scientific research on religion or a matter of belief , thus framing climate change as an irrational belief-based religion . People who accept the major human share in climate change as a fact are portrayed as religious extremists who are intolerant and incapable of criticism. Climate change is also mocked with ideas such as sin , for example by portraying environmentally friendly behavior as a sacrifice .
Since the climate debate usually takes place in public outside of science, climate deniers can fall back on a large number of scientifically refuted arguments and repeat them as often as they want, so that there are now a large number of arguments that are ostensibly climate denial. These arguments are not infrequently logically incoherent and mutually exclusive. A selection of well over two hundred popular arguments including their refutation can be found on Skeptical Science . These and other popular arguments were analyzed in 2009 by Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee , who found that different forms of denialism in very different areas all had very similar argumentation patterns. In total, they found five central and intensively used argumentation models.
Leading false experts
This method aims to present supposedly serious experts who claim to be experts in a certain field, but whose views are actually contrary to the state of research . The aim of this approach is to undermine the scientific consensus on man-made warming. If the public is convinced of a consensus, this will have a formative effect on their own perception of global warming. One tactic to prevent this effect is to present false experts (often without their own scientific work on climate research) posing as highly qualified experts in order to give the false appearance of scientific controversy.
The best example of this strategy is the Oregon petition , in which climate deniers cite around 31,000 "scientists" who speak out against human-made global warming. In the text accompanying the petition, they argue that such a large number of scientists proves that there is no scientific consensus. Not only scientists could sign the petition, but every university graduate with a bachelor's degree in natural sciences, and the information is hardly verifiable due to a lack of evidence. Overall, of these 31,000 people, more than 99% had no expertise in climate science. Although this argument emerged as early as 1999, this argument is repeatedly taken up by online platforms and then widely disseminated via social media. For example , a fake news article from YourNewsWire.com that appeared in September 2016, citing the Oregon petition as evidence that climate change was a hoax, was shared over 600,000 times on Facebook within six months.
Another variant of the tactic is to deliberately exaggerate the comments made by the few remaining climate-skeptical climate researchers. For example, in a memo written in 1998 by oil company representatives and think tank employees, it was proposed to set up a PR program specifically for media communication in which five “independent” scientists were to be “identified, recruited and trained”, who would then be responsible for public relations work on climate research should operate. In particular, the media should be provided with a constant flow of informational material that is intended to deliberately undermine general knowledge about climate research.
False experts often work for various political front organizations, so that the industrial companies or associations behind them are concealed from the public. Among other things, false experts serve to represent industrial positions supposedly independently and thus convince journalists, politicians and the public that the uncertainties regarding global warming are too great to justify the introduction of climate protection measures. The use of fake experts is often accompanied by defamation campaigns against real experts and researchers in order to discredit them.
Selectivity or cherry picking when selecting data
Selectivity in the selection of documents or cherry- picking occurs , for example, through (strong) use of isolated outsider work that attacks the consensus in a research field. Usually climate deniers are not deterred by their isolated position, but rather see themselves as modern Galileos who have the courage to fight against the prevailing doctrine or an alleged political correctness . Farmer and Cook cite five common types of cherry-picking when it comes to arguments used by climate deniers:
- Short periods of time
- This tactic is used, for example, with regard to the global surface temperature, which does not increase evenly every year, but is superimposed by statistical noise . Instead of the long-term trend, short-term periods are selected here, with two extreme values being specifically used within the noise. A classic example is the selective selection of 1998 for the calculation of temperature trends. With this extremely warm year as the starting point of the time series, the following years give the impression of a significantly lower temperature rise. On this basis, climate skeptics argued that global warming had stalled since 1998 . If, on the other hand, 1997 is used as the starting point instead of 1998, the whole argument falls apart.
- Isolated examples
- Isolated examples are given and at the same time examples that would lead to different results are specifically ignored. For example, despite global glacier retreat, there are a few glaciers around the world which, contrary to the general trend, are increasing in mass and volume. Some climate deniers use these exceptions as an example to argue against the existence of global warming, ignoring the documented multitude of melting glaciers. Another example is the selective rendering of James E. Hansen's climate projections by Patrick Michaels . When Hansen gave a testimony to the US Congress in 1988, he created three different projections for global temperature developments, each based on different scenarios for global carbon dioxide emissions. Ten years later, Michaels cited only the most extreme of Hansen's projections, ignoring the other two completely, then claiming that Hansen was 300% wrong.
- Specific places
- Another strategy used by climate deniers is to limit their data selection to certain locations and thereby ignore a broader database. A certain temperature profile of a single place is often used to argue against the facts that the medieval warm period was warmer than the current temperatures. From a global perspective, the situation is such that in some places it was warmer than today, but in others it was colder. Overall, that is, taking into account the global climate and not just individual locations, it was colder than it is today during the Medieval Warm Period .
- Isolated research
- Only the few research papers that confirm the positions of climate deniers are cited, while many other research papers that come to the opposite conclusion or refute the “skeptical” papers are ignored. For example, a work by Richard Lindzen is often cited as evidence of low climate sensitivity , but hardly any reference is made to the large number of papers that postulate a higher climate sensitivity. Those works that indicate methodological deficiencies in Lindzen's work are also kept secret. Another example is the criticism of the hockey stick diagram , which usually ignores the fact that the results of this work agree on all essential points with a number of similar peer-reviewed studies.
- Quota mining
- In quote mining, quotes from research or personal correspondence are deliberately taken out of context in order to convey a misleading picture. One example of this is the hacking incident at the University of East Anglia's climate research center , which climate deniers branded as a Climategate. During this incident, e-mails from climate researchers were scoured for quotes that were intended to create the impression that the scientists involved were acting with fraudulent intent, while the overall context showed that they were actually only discussing technical details.
Recourse to misrepresentations and logical fallacies
Misrepresentations and logical fallacies include a number of different rhetorical arguments, for example the use of straw man arguments , in which the argument of the respective discussion partner is initially distorted so that it can then be more easily refuted. Logical fallacies are arguments that are logically incorrect and then lead to invalid conclusions.
- argumentum ad hominem
- Argumentum ad hominem is Latin and stands for "Evidence speech to people". Ad hominem arguments discard arguments made by a person by attacking the person himself. Climatologists are regularly victims of attacks ad hominem, in particular researchers who have made significant contributions to research are attacked. Among other things, some climate researchers have been the victims of hate campaigns ranging from death threats to investigations by the US Congress and were stalked by people who tried to destroy their reputation. The aim of these personal attacks on climate researchers is to discredit climate research itself.
- Straw man arguments
- In straw man arguments , statements of the respective opponent are distorted or twisted so that it is easier to argue against them. In this way, the put on straw man can easily be refuted. An example of a straw man argument is the false claim that climate researchers claim that carbon dioxide is the only driver of climate change. In fact, various factors are considered in climate research, of which carbon dioxide is not the only one, but only the most important of the currently observed global warming.
- Red Herring
- Red Herrings or smoke candles are attempts at distraction , in which a statement that is easy to substantiate is used, which has nothing to do with the actually stated conclusion. An example of a smoke candle is the claim that carbon dioxide does not cause a problem because it is a transparent and odorless gas. In fact, carbon dioxide is not problematic because it emits an unpleasant odor, but because it is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Another Red Herring is the argument that carbon dioxide is plant food and therefore stimulates their growth. However, this is only true when considering carbon dioxide in isolation. In fact, (useful) plants also need sufficient water and a certain temperature range for their growth. However, global warming disrupts the global water cycle and leads to more severe drought and more intensive flooding. Also cause more heat waves increased drought stress in plants.
- Wrong analogies
- Incorrect analogies are used to compare facts that do not fit together. An example of a false analogy is the Galileo fallacy , in which climate deniers compare themselves to Galileo Galilei , who opposed the consensus at the time that the sun orbited the earth. Galileo proceeded according to scientific criteria and gained his knowledge through observation and logic, for which he was suppressed not by scientists but by religious and political forces. Galileo was thus a pioneer of the scientific method with which today's climate researchers also gain their knowledge. Climate deniers who refer to Galileo today do not, however, proceed according to the scientific method, but are largely ideologically driven. The Galileo fallacy turns reality on its head.
- Association Fallacy
- In the case of Association Fallacy , it is argued that two things that share the same property are the same. For example, the Heartland Institute showed the terrorist Theodore Kaczynski, known as Unabomber, in a poster with the accompanying text “I still believe in global warming. Do you too? ”It was suggesting that climate research was wrong because a person who has committed grave injustice views global warming as a fact. The advertising campaign also implied that climate researchers are synonymous with terrorists.
- Non sequitur
- Non sequitur (Latin “it does not follow”) denotes an argument in which the conclusion is not supported by the premises. A popular example of this fallacy is the argument that the climate has always changed and that the current global warming must therefore be of natural origin. Such a claim is equivalent to arguing that people died of natural causes in the past and therefore no one can be murdered today.
- Wrong dilemma
- In the case of a false dilemma , the false impression is given that there are exactly two alternatives for a certain issue, while there can actually be further alternatives or both possibilities are possible. An example of this rhetorical tactic is the argument that ice cores showed that the rise in carbon dioxide followed the rise in temperature. Accordingly, the rise in temperature causes a rise in carbon dioxide and not the other way around. The fallacy, however, is the assumption that only one of these two assumptions is possible. In fact, both are correct, that is, carbon dioxide causes a rise in temperature in the same way as a rise in temperature causes higher carbon dioxide emissions. These interactions eventually lead to a self-reinforcing process called feedback . Due to this feedback with carbon dioxide, small increases in temperature caused by a change in the earth's orbit triggered a process that ultimately moved the earth from the ice age to a warm period.
Imposing impossible demands on scientific research
The aim of building unrealizable expectations is to make demands that scientific work cannot provide at all. For example, climate deniers point out that no exact temperature data could be collected before the invention of the thermometer , or lead uncertainties in climate models to reject these models across the board.
Uncertainty is an important element in scientific research. Climate denialists and other denialists take advantage of this by first demanding absolute security, which science can never achieve, and then emphasizing that action should only be taken when 100% security prevails. This reasoning contradicts both the scientific way of working and normal risk management , since 100% security implicitly means that there can never be any action. In addition, uncertainty about the specific consequences of global warming also means that the negative consequences can be more severe than expected.
Propagating conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theories are among the classic argumentation patterns of deniers of scientific knowledge. For example, if there is overwhelming scientific approval for a certain statement in a research field, this is not explained by the fact that a large number of researchers independently of one another came to the same or very similar results, but rather by a conspiracy of the respective researchers. For example, climate deniers reckon the fact that climate researchers, scientific institutions and peer-reviewed journals agree on climate change as a conspiracy within climate research or accuse climate researchers of corruption . A common feature of many conspiracy theories is that they greatly exaggerate the power of the conspirators. For example, a conspiracy in climate research would require thousands of climate scientists from dozens of countries to work together around the world and scientific academies from all over the world would also have to be part of the conspiracy.
Basically, there are different types of conspiracy theories: One variant of conspiracy theories suggests that climate researchers who agree with the consensus position in research are financially motivated and above all want to benefit from research funding. In fact, research grants are only granted for research that leads to the expectation of new knowledge, while applications for research that simply repeats known knowledge are usually not accepted.
A comparatively subtle form consists of not generally accusing climate researchers of intrigue, but rather of suppressing minority opinions by the prevailing doctrine. This includes the Galileo fallacy mentioned above, in which climate deniers compare themselves to Galileo Galilei . This argumentation strategy is often presented using terms from the field of religion , whereby climate researchers are portrayed as dogmatic priests of a religious community and consent to the scientific consensus on a religious belief is reinterpreted; a framing that, in view of the scientific method followed by climate researchers, which can be traced back to people like Galileo, represents a reversal of reality.
Another variant is inversionism . Industrial groups try to blame scientific institutions for their own interests, such as the misrepresentation of research results. Your own motivations are projected onto the other group . An example of this is the claims made by climate deniers that climate research is politically motivated, while in fact there is much evidence that denial of global warming is ideologically motivated. The same applies to the allegation that climate researchers have a financial interest in research funding, while at the same time a large part of the financial support for the climate denial movement comes from the fossil energy industry.
Further examples of conspiracy theories are the attacks on the IPCC and Benjamin Santer launched in 1996 in the course of the publication of the second report of the IPCC or the attacks on Michael E. Mann and the credibility of his work, especially the hockey stick diagram . Conspiracy theories on man-made climate change became widely known with the hacking incident at the University of East Anglia's climate research center, dubbed the “Climategate” , in which climate deniers, through selective quoting (quote mining), gave the impression that there was a conspiracy within climate research. In fact, up to 2013 nine investigative commissions independently of one another came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of misconduct by climate researchers. These results were then reinterpreted by climate deniers as a further indication of a conspiracy within climate researchers.
Climate change denial and skepticism in society
Global warming has become an increasingly politicized topic in recent years (as of 2016) in several countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and especially the USA, which is partly due to the organized campaigns of the climate denial movement. In these countries, people with conservative views are significantly more climate-skeptical and at the same time show less support for climate protection efforts than politically more left-wing people. In the EU, too, society has become more polarized when it comes to climate change since the late 2000s. However, there is still a much less pronounced ideological gap between conservative and progressive political attitudes in terms of societal climate skepticism than in the USA, Canada or Australia.
In Germany , climate skeptics and climate deniers make up a small part of the population. Climate deniers are overrepresented among men and among people from East Germany , while there is no strong correlation with socio-economic backgrounds.
Even if there are no climate denial organizations in Germany with such a great influence as in the USA, there are also social actors here who deny climate change. These include, for example, the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), an association recognized by the state as "non-profit" that operates a website on climate change, claims to be a scientific institute and conducts polemics . His mission is to "bring down the established model of anthropogenic climate change". On its website, EIKE presents an “advisory board” of a total of 23 people with doctoral degrees or professorships, who are referred to there as “leading scientists”. As of December 2016, two of these 23 people were still working in Germany; five others had already died and eleven were retired.
Other important actors in this scene are the journalists Dirk Maxeiner , Michael Miersch and Günter Ederer and the two authors Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning, who were formerly employed by the energy company RWE . Maxeiner and Miersch published the Lexikon der Öko- Errtümer in 1998 , and Vahrenholt and Lüning in 2012 a book entitled Die kalte Sonne. Why the climate catastrophe does not take place . In these books, the authors questioned basic knowledge of climate research, among other things, and attributed global warming largely to natural processes. They also claimed that the global warming warning was a means to create jobs, prestige and research funding for climate researchers and to restrict citizens' freedom through laws. The environmental philosopher Jens Soentgen and the communication scientist Helena Bilandzic evaluated this in a joint publication as a conspiracy theory . In this context, the Bild-Zeitung dedicated a multi-part series of articles to Vahrenholt and Lüning in which they presented the two of them as a “renowned research team”, even though neither Vahrenholt nor Lüning are climate researchers.
In the past, the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) also acted as a disseminator of climate-skeptical theses. For example, in 2006 the BGR prepared an internal statement for the Federal Ministry of Economics , which contradicted numerous key statements of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report , which was published shortly thereafter, and discredited it before it was published. In addition, in 2003 a climate-skeptical brochure, produced jointly by BGR and the lignite industry, was placed directly in the members' magazine of the German Association of Journalists by BGR .
Politically, man-made global warming is mainly denied by the alternative for Germany . Among other things, the former party leader Frauke Petry expressed doubts about the human cause of global warming and repeated the long-established claim in the US climate denial scene that climate researchers are acting out of political interest. Analyzes of blog posts from the years 2015 and 2016 with the help of keyword clouds also showed a close connection between "climate lie " and lying press allegations and the mention of the AfD, which suggests that both allegations are mostly voiced by right-wing populist actors.
In New Zealand , polls found that around 7% of the population generally disagree with the warming trend and 10% doubt humans as the cause of warming. Trend deniers also showed a stronger rejection of climate protection measures such as emission reductions and stated that they were acting less environmentally friendly than those who were skeptical of the cause.
In the UK , full denial of climate change is rare, but denial of the negative effects of global warming is quite common. The aim of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which was founded in 2009 by the conservative politician Nigel Lawson , is to prevent “overreactions” against warming. Lennart Bengtsson , former director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg , also joined the advisory board of this foundation , who left him shortly afterwards because of the alleged peer pressure on the international climate scene.
Climate skepticism and climate denial are disproportionately high in the UK among low-income older people, conservative people, men and car owners. Around 40% of Britons believed in 2011 that science was divided over the existence of man-made global warming. At the political level, human-caused climate change is denied in particular by the UKIP .
In the US , climate deniers and skeptics are far more numerous, better institutionalized and at the same time far better financially equipped than in Europe. There, climate change is a highly political issue that has been increasingly politically charged by the activities of the organized climate denial scene over two decades. Therefore, the population of the USA now has an exceptional position in the world on this topic.
|Global warming effects
have already started
|Global warming is v. a. caused by
|Global warming is being
exaggerated in the media
|Most scientists believe
that global warming exists
|Global warming represents a
serious threat while still
represents her life
|Own concern about
Survey research shows that people who describe themselves as Liberals or Democrats are more likely than Conservative Americans and Republicans to accept the existence of global warming. Climate-skeptical views are most widespread among conservative white men, but other factors are also relevant. This Democratic-Republican divide widened over the course of the 21st century. The differences are particularly large between Republicans who consider themselves conservative and Democrats who consider themselves liberal (see table on the right).
At the same time, knowledge of the state of research on climate change decreased. In 1989, the vast majority of Americans knew the basics of the scientific state of research on global warming and did not doubt it. Two decades later, in 2010, more than a third of Americans felt that most scientists weren't sure global warming was happening. In addition, at the beginning of 2015, a third of Americans believed that climate change was not primarily caused by humans; in addition, only one in ten Americans was aware of the scientific consensus on man-made climate change. The aforementioned campaigns also had an impact on climate policy : a survey in the USA in 2005 showed that a clear majority of the US population would also support expensive climate protection concepts if only there was a scientific consensus on the dangers of global warming . However, only half of the population knew that this scientific consensus had existed for a long time at this point.
Causes and motives of climate change denial and skepticism
In the scientific literature, a multitude of possible causes and factors for the contention of human-made global warming are discussed. In addition to the organized denial machinery described above, which has consciously implanted climate-skeptical views in society, a number of psychological and sociological factors as well as values and worldviews are identified as important criteria. These include the personal pursuit of profit of individual deniers, which is spurred on by financial rewards from the industry. Also important are personal motives such as ideology or belief that lead to certain facts being rejected that contradict them. Still other deniers are eccentric personalities, drawn in part by status as famous deniers or outsiders in the media. While personal and individual aspects of climate skepticism have already received a lot of attention in social science research on climate change , the networks behind the production of climate-skeptical texts are still relatively poorly researched.
One explanation for the denial of scientific findings such as climate change is that the denial functions as a kind of psychological protective shield that serves to ward off a supposedly unsolvable problem. For example, it has been argued that denial is a self-deceptive response to an existential and difficult-to-manage dilemma. Other authors argue that denial is caused by cognitive dissonance , for which empirical evidence also exists.
For example, personal experience or reflection about climate change can cause a range of negative feelings such as fear, anxiety, guilt, or helplessness. There are various coping strategies for dealing with these negative experiences that serve to restore the psychological balance. These include B. acting to solve the specific problem, avoiding thinking about it, or denying the problem. Avoidance and denial are the more likely the more people feel overwhelmed, ashamed, hopeless or helpless.
There is also a strong connection between the rejection of man-made global warming and conspiracy theoretic ideas (see also paragraph Propagating conspiracy theories ). In 2013, for example, a group of Australian and Swiss psychologists conducted a survey among recipients of climate-skeptical blogs found a clear statistical correlation between doubts about global warming, belief in conspiracy theories (including those without scientific reference such as the claim that the FBI was behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968) and a strong confidence in free markets .
Sociological factors can be, for example, the socialization of a person or group of people. One explanation suggests that people often only accept information from those they trust, since the “cost” of social capital can be high if one's views do not match the dominant views in a social or political group.
A lack of scientific understanding can also play a role. Accordingly, behind the false statements and false thought patterns described above with regard to climate change, there are sometimes simply difficulties in classifying scientific findings correctly and logically. For some people, there is a contradiction between human intuition and scientific explanations, which leads to not questioning oneself but rather questioning science. The so-called Dunning-Kruger effect can also help here . With this effect, people do not have enough knowledge of a topic to be able to adequately assess their own ignorance about this topic. This can lead to people affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect greatly overestimating their own ability to adequately assess the work of real experts and researchers.
Values and worldviews
The denial of climate change seems to correlate with certain values and worldviews. These include individualistic worldviews, anthropocentrism , the advocacy of strong private property rights , belief in capitalism and a free-market neoliberalism , conservative values and evangelicalism . The clearest correlations occur when several of these values and factors come together. The refusal to recognize human-made global warming is thus due, among other things, to the fact that the results of climate research threaten certain political worldviews and lifestyles . This applies where, for ideological reasons, state interventions in the economy are rejected, for example, which result from the need for lower carbon dioxide emissions for climate protection measures. Thus, the existence of man-made climate change is denied in order not to have to endure the uncomfortable truth that one's own lifestyle produces large amounts of climate-impacting carbon dioxide. The denial acts here as a psychological protective mechanism, which serves to avoid having to question one's own lifestyle.
Belief in free markets and the rejection of the state and state regulations already played an important role in early climate-skeptical views in the 1980s. Prominent climate deniers such as Frederick Seitz , Fred Singer , William Kidneyberg and Robert Jastrow , who were still respected scientists during the Cold War, obtained the motivation for their rejection of the harmfulness of passive smoking and the existence of the ozone hole or climate change from market-fundamentalist and state-skeptical positions. Environmental damage as well as climate damage represent a market failure that can only be resolved with government intervention; however, these interventions required state regulation, which they categorically rejected as a creeping “path to socialism”.
Psychological studies also showed that there is a positive correlation between climate change denial and a high degree of social dominance orientation (defined as the "tendency to support group-based hierarchies and cross-group dominance "). Social dominance orientation is therefore seen as a good determinant for climate change denial, which even delivers better results than the self-declared political attitudes of people, and seen as part of the explanation why a disproportionately large number of white conservative men deny climate change. At the same time, people with a strong orientation towards social dominance show less willingness to recognize the protection of the environment as a value, to be personally committed to environmental protection and to accept personal restrictions for environmental protection.
Motivation of the organized denial machinery
It is well researched how the organized climate denial lobby has purposefully promoted the denial of scientific evidence. Both conservative political ideology and the economic interests of companies in the fossil energy sector are named as the motivation for this denial movement, sometimes both in combination. Due to the wrong balance in the media reporting, the disinformation campaigns of this movement were often presented as being equivalent to scientific findings. For industrial actors, the denial of climate change is inexpensive as well as quick and easy to pull off, and it also makes it possible to divert public attention away from concrete ways in which the climate crisis can be overcome. The aim of denial is to prevent all direct impulses for problem solving and thus to buy time for industrial companies.
Measures against climate skepticism and climate denial
Climate skepticism among the population is seen as an important obstacle to combating climate change, so the scientific literature suggests various ways in which the denial of scientific knowledge could be countered. Both incremental and radical changes in the approach to deniers are proposed. For example, researchers tending towards the latter note that the usual academic answers do not work because they require that both sides follow the fundamental rules of rational reasoning, such as that the scientific evidence must be viewed as a whole. It is also emphasized that denial cannot be combated simply by providing more and more information . Instead, it is proposed that, for example, the tactics and practices of deniers be disclosed to the general public. Other researchers think it is expedient to build green identities and lifestyles in the longer term . It also stresses the need for tailored approaches to different types of denial. If the knowledge base is denied, the scientific consensus should be emphasized, while if the need for action is denied, messages such as collective performance or participation should be relied on. It is also suggested to shift the public discussion away from the pure state of knowledge and towards the fundamental values. This could lead to debates about national security , human rights , technology or health , for example .
Many authors also advocate more public education, for example by clarifying how high the scientific consensus on human-made global warming actually is. In contrast, a couple of authors argued that portraying a controversy could also be expedient. Several authors again emphasize that it is important to convey the background and functioning of epistemology , scientific practice and critical thinking to the public . Educational offers specifically for journalists were also suggested. Other researchers argue that scientists should be more involved in the public debate. At the same time, it is suggested that researchers should also be more concerned with the social backgrounds of denial, but should also be more clear about norms . The strategy of simply presenting more and more information according to the information deficit model , on the other hand, is not considered sufficient, since ideological factors and convictions play a major role in the acceptance of climate change and the people with the greatest "climate skepticism" themselves Having formed an opinion based on ideological factors rather than evidence. The latter are therefore by no means skeptical or insecure and reject evidence and information on climate change more than any other population group.
Research also suggests that the population could be “protected” from misinformation, disinformation campaigns and fake news through preventive education about misinformation about climate change, exposing misleading argumentation techniques and promoting media skills . This process is considered analogous to vaccination : The public attitude to the topic is preventively “vaccinated” against disinformation. Contributing to success against financially motivated attacks on science by companies can, for example, be the creation of public awareness and investigative journalism , but also political approaches that focus on the well-being of humanity.
- Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al .: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229-241 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
- Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term . Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157. (See also the lecture of the same name at the University of Hamburg)
- Achim Brunnengräber : Climate skeptics in Germany and their fight against the energy transition . FFU report 03/2013, Free University Berlin 2013.
- John Cook et al .: Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors . In: Environmental Research Letters . tape 13 , no. 2 , 2018, doi : 10.1088 / 1748-9326 / aaa49f .
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 300-332.
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160.
- Ross Gelbspan: The climate disaster. Oil, Power and Politics . Munich 1998, ISBN 978-3-932425-05-9 (English-language original edition: Gelbspan: The Heat is on . Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1997).
- Susanne Götze , Annika Joeres : The climate pollution lobby . How politicians and business leaders sell the future of our planet . Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-492-07027-0 .
- Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
- James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore: Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming . Greystone Books 2009, ISBN 978-1-55365-485-8 .
- Kirsti M. Jylhä: Denial Versus Reality of Climate Change . In: Dominick A. DellaSala, Michael A. Goldstein (Eds.) Encylopedia of the Anthropocene, Volume 2. Climate Change . Elsevier 2018, 487–492, ISBN 978-0-12-813576-1 , doi: 10.1016 / B978-0-12-809665-9.09762-7 (preview in google.com ).
- Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer, Gilles E. Gignac: NASA faked the moon landing - Therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. In: Psychological Science 24, May 2013, pp. 622-633, doi: 10.1177 / 0956797612457686
- Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The madhouse effect. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane . Erlangen 2018, ISBN 978-3-933634-46-7 .
- Kari Marie Norgaard: Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press , 2011, ISBN 978-0-262-51585-6 .
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Merchants of Doubt : How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming, Bloomsbury Press, 2010, ISBN 978-1-4088-2483-2 .
- James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, ISBN 978-0-231-15719-3 .
- Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, ISBN 978-1-84971-336-8 .
- klimafakten.de - Project of the European Climate Foundation
- German language website of Skeptical Science
Arguments and opinions from specialist scientists and scientific organizations
- John Cook et al .: America Misled. How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change , October 2019.
- Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air. How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (PDF; 1.7 MB) by the Union of Concerned Scientists
- Frequent questions about climate change from the Federal Environment Agency
- And it is warming up (PDF; 3.4 MB) from the Federal Environment Agency
- Overview page on facts and false claims about climate change by climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf
- Making Sense Of Climate Science Denial University of Queensland online course at EdX
Journalistic overview work
- Katarina Huth, Jean Peters, Jonas Seufert: The Heartland Lobby In: Correctiv . February 4, 2020. (Cf. Christian Esser , Manka Heise, Katarina Huth, Jean Peters: Undercover with climate change deniers . In: Frontal21 .)
- Susanne Götze , Annika Joeres : Union of values and the new right. Coalition of Climate Change Deniers. In: Spiegel Online . January 25, 2020.
- Kelly Crowe: How 'organized climate change denial' shapes public opinion on global warming. In: CBC News . September 27, 2019.
- Anna Schughart: Climate Change and Science: When the Facts Go Down. In: Märkische Oderzeitung . February 27, 2019.
- Amy Westerveld: How the fossil fuel industry got the media to think climate change was debatable. In: Washington Post . January 10, 2019.
- Maximilian Probst , Daniel Pelletier: Fake News: The War Against the Truth. In: The time . December 6, 2017.
- Anita Blasberg , Kerstin Kohlenberg : The climate warriors. In: The time . November 22, 2012.
- Patrick Illinger : Report from the center of the doubt. In: Süddeutsche.de . December 1, 2011.
- Uri Shwed, Peter S. Bearman: The Temporal Structure of Scientific Consensus formation . In: American Sociological Review . tape 75 , no. 6 , 2010, p. 817-840 , doi : 10.1177 / 0003122410388488 .
- Naomi Oreskes : The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change . In: Science . tape 306 , no. 5702 , 2004, p. 1686 , doi : 10.1126 / science.1103618 .
- Cf. Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The Tollhausffekt. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane . Erlangen 2018, p. 9.
- Paul C. Stern: Sociology. Impacts on climate change views . In: Nature Climate Change . tape 6 , 2016, p. 341-342 , doi : 10.1038 / nclimate2970 .
- Cf. Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al.: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229–241, here: p. 237 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
- Riley E. Dunlap: Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 691-698, p. 693 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764213477097 .
- Stephan Lewandowsky: Future Global Change and Cognition . In: Topics in Cognitive Science . tape 8 , 2016, p. 7–18, here 11 f ., doi : 10.1111 / tops.12188 .
- Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, p. XXII.
- Kirsti M. Jylhä: Denial Versus Reality of Climate Change . In: Dominick A. DellaSala, Michael A. Goldstein (Eds.) Encylopedia of the Anthropocene, Volume 2. Climate Change . Elsevier 2018, 487-492, p. 487.
- Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229–241, here: p. 235 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, pp. 144.
- Riley E. Dunlap: Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 691-698, p. 692 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764213477097 .
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, p. 156.
- Wouter Poortinga include: Uncertain climate: An investigation into public skepticism about anthropogenic climate change. In: Global Environmental Change 21, (2011), 1015-1024, p. 1016, doi: 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2011.03.001 .
- Jens Soentgen , Helena Bilandzic: The structure of climate- skeptical arguments. Conspiracy Theory as Critique of Science . In: GAIA . tape 23 , no. 1 , 2014, p. 40-47 , doi : 10.14512 / gaia.23.1.10 .
- Quoted from: Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 1.
- James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 4.
- Riley E. Dunlap: Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 691-698, p. 692 f ., doi : 10.1177 / 0002764213477097 .
- cf. Stefan Rahmstorf , Hans Joachim Schellnhuber : Der Klimawandel. C. H. Beck, 7th edition 2012, p. 85.
- Sven Ove Hansson: Science and Pseudo-Science , in: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Version dated April 11, 2017. Accessed December 1, 2017.
- Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (ed.): "Lügenpresse". Anatomy of a political battle term . Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here p. 146.
- Quoted from: Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, p. 1 f.
- Catriona McKinnon: Should We Tolerate Climate Change Denial? In: Midwest Studies In Philosophy . tape 40 , no. 1 , 2016, p. 205-216 , doi : 10.1111 / misp.12056 .
- Pascal Diethelm, Martin McKee : Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? In: European Journal of Public Health . tape 19 , no. 1 , 2009, p. 2-4 , doi : 10.1093 / eurpub / ckn139 .
- Candice Howarth, Amelia Sharman: Influence of Labeling and Incivility on Climate Change Communication . In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science 2017. doi: 10.1093 / acrefore / 9780190228620.013.382 .
- Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (ed.): "Lügenpresse". Anatomy of a political battle term . Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here pp. 156f.
- See for example Jeremy Kemp et al .: Skeptics and deniers of climate change not to be confused . In: Nature . No. 464 , 2010, p. 673 , doi : 10.1038 / 464673a .
- Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The madhouse effect. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane. Erlangen 2018, p. 1f; Ibid. XIX.
- Lawrence Torcello: The Ethics of Belief, Cognition, and Climate Change Pseudoskepticism: Implications for Public Discourse . In: Topics in Cognitive Science . tape 8 , 2016, p. 23 , doi : 10.1111 / tops.12179 .
- Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229-241 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
- Miranda Schreurs : Climate change denial in the United States and the European Union . In: MJ Peterson (Ed.): Contesting Global Environmental Knowledge, Norms, and Governance . Routledge 2019, 89-109, p. 89, doi: 10.4324 / 9781315166445-6 .
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, p. 322.
- Jörg Matschullat: Climate change - climate fraud? In: Communications of the German Meteorological Society . No. 2 , 2010, p. 22–35 ( tu-freiberg.de [PDF; 626 kB ]).
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, p. 220 f.
- Roger Revelle et al .: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide , Appendix Y4, in: President's Science Advisory Committee, Panel on Environmental Pollution, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the Panel on Environmental Pollution . Washington DC, The White House, 1965, p. 119.
- Roger Revelle et al .: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide , Appendix Y4, in: President's Science Advisory Committee, Panel on Environmental Pollution, Restoring the Quality of Our Environment: Report of the Panel on Environmental Pollution . Washington DC, The White House, 1965, p. 126f.
- Spencer Weart: Global Warming. How skepticism became denial . In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . tape 67 , no. 1 , 2011, p. 41-50, p. 44 , doi : 10.1177 / 0096340210392966 .
- Quoted from: Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, p. 223.
- Spencer Weart: Global Warming. How skepticism became denial . In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . tape 67 , no. 1 , 2011, p. 41-50, p. 45 , doi : 10.1177 / 0096340210392966 .
- James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 178.
- William RL Anderegg et al .: Expert credibility in climate change . In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . tape 107 , no. 27 , 2010, p. 12107-12109 , doi : 10.1073 / pnas.1003187107 .
- John Cook et al: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature . In: Environmental Research Letters . tape 8 , 2013, doi : 10.1088 / 1748-9326 / 8/2/024024 .
- John Cook et al .: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming . In: Environmental Research Letters . tape 11 , no. 4 , 2016, doi : 10.1088 / 1748-9326 / 11/4/048002 .
- James Lawrence Powell: Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True . In: Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society . tape 35 , no. 5-6 , 2015, doi : 10.1177 / 0270467616634958 .
- Robin Haunschild et al .: Climate Change Research in View of Bibliometrics . In: PLOS ONE . tape 11 , no. 7 , 2016, doi : 10.1371 / journal.pone.0160393 .
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, p. XVI.
- Mojib Latif : Are we getting the climate out of sync? Background and forecasts. Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag, Frankfurt 2007, p. 146.
- Michael E. Mann : The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Columbia University Press, 2012, p. 17.
- See Michael E. Mann : The Hockey-Stick and the Climate Wars. Columbia University Press, 2012, pp. 12-17.
- Spencer Weart: Global Warming. How skepticism became denial . In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . tape 67 , no. 1 , 2011, p. 41-50, p. 46 f ., doi : 10.1177 / 0096340210392966 .
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 304 f.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, p. 304.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 300-332, pp. 305.
- Cf. Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, pp. 237-240.
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, p. 239 f.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 305 f.
- See Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 306-308.
- James Painter, Teresa Ashe: Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate skepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007-10 . In: Environmental Research Letters . tape 7 , 2012, doi : 10.1088 / 1748-9326 / 7/4/044005 .
- Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 11.
- Susanne Götze , Annika Joeres : The climate pollution lobby . How politicians and business leaders sell the future of our planet . Munich 2020, p. 30.
- Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al .: 'Cornwallism' and Arguments against Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions . In: Environmental Values . 2020, doi : 10.3197 / 096327119X15579936382554 .
- Quoted from: Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, p. 11.
- James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 172 f.
- Michael E. Mann : The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Columbia University Press, 2012, p. 23.
- Michael E. Mann : The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Columbia University Press, 2012, p. 24 f.
- Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, p. 98.
- Justin Farrell: Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, No. 1, 2015, pp. 92-97, doi: 10.1073 / pnas.1509433112 .
- Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer: Motivated Rejection of Science . In: Current Directions in Psychological Science . tape 25 , no. 4 , 2016, p. 217–222, here: p. 220 , doi : 10.1177 / 0963721416654436 .
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, p. 300.
- Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term . Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here: p. 140.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 318 f; see. also Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, p. 155.
- Justin Farrell et al .: Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation . In: Nature Climate Change . 2019, doi : 10.1038 / s41558-018-0368-6 .
- William C. Tucker: Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial A Crime? In: Ecology Law Quarterly . tape 39 , 2012, p. 831-892, here: p. 845 , doi : 10.15779 / Z38V55M .
- Aaron McCright, Riley Dunlap: Combatting Misinformation Requires Recognizing Its Types and the Factors That Facilitate Its spread and Resonance . In: Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition . tape 6 , 2017, p. 389–396, here: p. 391 f ., doi : 10.1016 / j.jarmac.2017.09.005 .
- Robert J. Brulle: Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations . In: Climatic Change . tape 122 , no. 4 , 2014, p. 681-694 , doi : 10.1007 / s10584-013-1018-7 .
- Ruth E. McKie: Rebranding the Climate Change Counter Movement: A Critical Examination of Counter Movement messaging through a criminological and Political Economic Lens, Volume 1 . Dissertation University of Northumbria at Newcastle 2017, pp. 41–43.
- Riley E. Dunlap and Peter J. Jacques: Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 699-731, esp. 700 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764213477096 .
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014.
- Stephan Lewandowsky et al: NASA Faked the Moon Landing — Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science . In: Psychological Science . tape 24 , no. 5 , 2013, p. 622-633 , doi : 10.1177 / 0956797612457686 .
- Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39–47, here p. 43. , Doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
- Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al .: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229–241, here: p. 236 , doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, esp. 148.
- Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term . Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here pp. 149f.
- Nathaniel Rich : Losing Earth , Berlin 2019, pp. 210f.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, p. 310 f.
- Nick Watts et al: Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health . In: The Lancet . tape 386 , 2015, p. 1861-1914, p. 1901 , doi : 10.1016 / S0140-6736 (15) 60854-6 .
- Robert J. Brulle: The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016 . In: Climatic Change . tape 149 , no. 3–4 , 2018, pp. 289-303 , doi : 10.1007 / s10584-018-2241-z .
- Juliet Roper et al .: Doubt, Delay, and Discourse: Skeptics' Strategies to Politicize Climate Change . In: Science Communication . tape 38 , no. 6 , 2016, p. 776-799 , doi : 10.1177 / 1075547016677043 (English).
- Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, p. 75 (English).
- Geoffrey Supran, Naomi Oreskes: Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977-2014) . In: Environmental Research Letters . tape 12 , 2017, doi : 10.1088 / 1748-9326 / aa815f .
- The Greenhouse Effect. Retrieved April 16, 2018 . .
- Benjamin Franta: Early oil industry knowledge of CO 2 and global warming . In: Nature Climate Change . tape 8 , 2018, p. 1024-1025 , doi : 10.1038 / s41558-018-0349-9 .
- Quoted from: Benjamin Franta: Early oil industry knowledge of CO 2 and global warming . In: Nature Climate Change . 2018, doi : 10.1038 / s41558-018-0349-9 .
- Oil industry knew of 'serious' climate concerns more than 45 years ago. In: The Guardian . April 13, 2016, accessed November 19, 2016 .
- Constantine Boussalis, Travis G. Coan: text-mining the signal of climate change doubt . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 36 , 2016, p. 89–100 , doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2015.12.001 .
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 311-313.
- Susanne Götze , Annika Joeres : The climate pollution lobby . How politicians and business leaders sell the future of our planet . Munich 2020, p. 67.
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, pp. 149.
- Puneet Kollipara: Open records laws becoming vehicle for harassing academic researchers, report warns . In: Science . 2015, doi : 10.1126 / science.aaa7856 .
- Jordi Xifra: Climate Change Deniers and Advocacy: A Situational Theory of Publics Approach . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 60 , no. 3 , 2016, p. 276–287, here p. 284 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764215613403 .
- Constantine Boussalis, Travis G. Coan: Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 36 , 2016, p. 89–100, especially 98. , Doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2015.12.001 .
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 313 f.
- See Naomi Oreskes : Foreword. In: Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, pp. XIII f.
- See Spencer Weart: Global Warming. How skepticism became denial . In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . tape 67 , no. 1 , 2011, p. 41-50, p. 47 , doi : 10.1177 / 0096340210392966 .
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, p. 152.
- Aaron McCright: Dealing with climate change contrarians. In: Susanne C. Moser, Lisa Dilling (Ed.) Creating a Climate for Change. Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge University Press, 2007, 200–212, p. 200 and especially footnote 2.
- See Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: Der Tollhausffekt. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane . Erlangen 2018, pp. 83–86.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 314 f.
- Seth Heald: Climate Silence, Moral Disengagement, and Self-Efficacy: How Albert Bandura's Theories Inform Our Climate-Change Predicament . In: Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development . tape 59 , no. 6 , 2017, p. 4–15 , doi : 10.1080 / 00139157.2017.1374792 .
- See Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, pp. 72-75 (English).
- James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 93 f.
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, especially p. 150.
- David Miller, William Dinan: Resisting meaningful Action on Climate Changes. Think tanks, 'merchants of doubt' and the 'corporate capture' of sustainable development. In: Anders Hansen, Robert Cox (Eds.): The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication. London 2015, 86–99, p. 90.
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, especially p. 151.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, p. 315 f.
- Denis G. Arnold: Corporate Responsibility, Democracy, and Climate Change . In: Midwest Studies in Philosophy . tape 40 , no. 1 , 2016, p. 252-261 , doi : 10.1111 / misp.12059 .
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, esp. 153 f.
- NOAA January 12, 2015: National Climate Report - Annual 2014
- Jeremiah Bohr: Is it hot in here or is it just me? Temperature anomalies and political polarization over global warming in the American public . In: Climatic Change . tape 142 , 2017, p. 271-285 , doi : 10.1007 / s10584-017-1934-z .
- Bruce W. Jentleson: Global Governance, the United Nations, and the Challenge of Trumping Trump . In: Global Governance . tape 23 , 2017, p. 143-149 .
- Kari De Pryck, Francois Gemenne: The denier-in-chief: Climate Change, Science and the Election of Donald J. Trump . In: Law Critique . tape 28 , no. 2 , 2017, p. 119-126 , doi : 10.1007 / s10978-017-9207-6 .
- Lesley Evans Ogden: Nine years of censorship . In: Nature . tape 533 , 2016, p. 26-28 , doi : 10.1038 / 533026a .
- Stella Schaller, Alexander Carius: Convenient Truths - Mapping climate agendas of right-wing populist parties in Europe . Adelphi, esp.p. 11. Retrieved September 8, 2019.
- Alan McLintic: The motivations behind science denial . In: The New Zealand Medical Journal . tape 132 , no. 1504 , 2019, pp. 88–94, here p. 91 .
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 316 f.
- Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, esp. 152.
- Karen Akerlof et al: Communication of climate projections in US media amid politicization of model science . In: Nature Climate Change . tape 2 , 2012, p. 648-654 , doi : 10.1038 / NCLIMATE1542 .
- Lauren Feldman: Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers' coverage of climate change . In: Public Understanding of Science . tape 26 , no. 4 , 2017, doi : 10.1177 / 0963662515595348 .
- Lauren Feldman et al .: Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC . In: The International Journal of Press / Politics . tape 17 , no. 1 , 2012, p. 3–31, especially 22 f ., doi : 10.1177 / 1940161211425410 .
- Jonas Kaiser, Markus Rhomberg: Questioning the Doubt: Climate Skepticism in German Newspaper Reporting on COP17 . In: Environmental Communication . tape 10 , no. 5 , 2016, p. 556-574 , doi : 10.1080 / 17524032.2015.1050435 .
- Sebastian Haupt: The citation cartel of the climate deniers . In: Katapult , January 29, 2020. Accessed February 2, 2020.
- Andrea Röpke , Andreas Speit : Völkische Landnahme. Old clans, young settlers, right-wing ecos. Ch.links Verlag, Berlin 2019, p. 19
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 317 f.
- Anita Blasberg, Kerstin Kohlenberg: Die Klimakrieger. In: The time . November 22, 2012. Retrieved May 10, 2017.
- Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term . Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here p. 139.
- Stefan Rahmstorf : Foreword to the German edition. The doubt about climate change as an industrial product , in: Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The madhouse effect. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane. Erlangen 2018, p. VII.
- See Wendee Holtcamp: Flavors of Uncertainty: The Difference between Denial and Debate . In: Environmental Health Perspectives . tape 120 , no. 8 , 2012, p. a314-a319 , doi : 10.1289 / ehp.120-a314 .
- Elke U. Weber , Paul C. Stern: Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States . In: American Psychologist . tape 66 , no. 4 , 2011, p. 315-328, especially 321 , doi : 10.1037 / a0023253 .
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, p. 27 f.
- Cf. Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, pp. XXI – XXIV.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, pp. 306 f.
- Michael E. Mann : The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Columbia University Press, 2012, p. 22 f.
- Quote from: Michael E. Mann : The Hockey-Stick and the Climate Wars. Columbia University Press, 2012, p. 22.
- See James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 174.
- Ding Ding ua: Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement . In: Nature Climate Change . tape 1 , 2011, p. 462-466 , doi : 10.1038 / NCLIMATE1295 .
- Michael E. Mann : The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. Columbia University Press, 2012, pp. 60 f.
- Michael E. Mann , Tom Toles: The madhouse effect. How climate change denial threatens our planet, destroys our politics and drives us insane . Erlangen 2018, p. 14.
- Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 300-332, here pp. 308 f.
- See also William C. Tucker: Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial A Crime? In: Ecology Law Quarterly . tape 39 , 2012, p. 831-892, here p. 891 , doi : 10.15779 / Z38V55M .
- Jeffrey Beall: Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research . In: Journal of Korean medical science . tape 31 , 2016, p. 1511–1513 , doi : 10.3346 / jkms.2016.31.10.1511 .
- David J. Hess: Political Ideology and the Green-Energy Transition in the United States. In: David Lee Kleinmann, Kelly Moore (Eds.): Routledge Handbook of Science, Technology, and Society. Routledge, 2014, pp. 277–291, here p. 281.
- Sara Reardon, Jeff Tollefson, Alexandra Witze, Erin Ross: US science agencies face deep cuts in Trump budget . In: Nature . tape 543 , 2017, p. 281–287 , doi : 10.1038 / nature.2017.21652 .
- Jeffrey A. Harvey et al .: Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy . In: BioScience . tape 68 , no. 4 , 2018, p. 281-287 , doi : 10.1093 / biosci / bix133 .
- Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 52f.
- See Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 78.
- Leconte, J., Forget, F., Charnay, B. et al .: Increased insolation threshold for runaway greenhouse processes on Earth-like planets. In: Nature . tape 504, 268–271 , 2013, doi : 10.1038 / nature12827 . According to this publication, the prerequisite for such a complete destabilization does not seem to be fulfilled for the earth.
- See Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 125.
- Naomi Oreskes et al: Adaptation to Global Warming: Do Climate Models Tell Us What We Need to Know? In: Philosophy of Science . tape 77 , no. 5 , 2010, p. 1012-1028, p. 1026 , doi : 10.1086 / 657428 .
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, p. 310.
- Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan, 2011, p. 94.
- Maxwell T. Boykoff, Jules M. Boykoff: balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 14 , 2004, p. 125–136 , doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 .
- James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 121 f.
- Spencer Weart: Global Warming. How skepticism became denial . In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . tape 67 , no. 1 , 2011, p. 41-50, p. 46. , Doi : 10.1177 / 0096340210392966 .
- Naomi Oreskes , Erik M. Conway : The Machiavellis of Science. The network of denial. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim 2014, p. 267 f.
- Matthew C. Nisbet: Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement . In: Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development . tape 51 , no. 2 , 2009, p. 12-23 , doi : 10.3200 / ENVT.51.2.12-23 .
- Michael Brüggemann , Sven Engesser : Beyond false balance: How interpretive journalism shapes media coverage of climate change . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 42 , 2017, p. 58–67 , doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2016.11.004 .
- Haydn Washington, John Cook: Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 43.
- Keynyn Brysse et al .: Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? In: Global Environmental Change . tape 23 , 2013, p. 327–337 , doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008 .
- David McKnight: A change in the climate? The journalism of opinion at News Corporation . In: Journalism . tape 11 , no. 6 , 2010, p. 693-706 , doi : 10.1177 / 1464884910379704 .
- Srdan Medimorec, Gordon Penny Cook: The language of denial: text analysis Reveals differences in language use between climate change proponents and skeptics . In: Climatic Change . tape 133 , no. 4 , 2015, p. 597-605 , doi : 10.1007 / s10584-015-1475-2 .
- Ruth Woods et al .: The use of religious metaphors by UK newspapers to describe and denigrate climate change . In: Public Understanding of Science . tape 21 , no. 3 , 2012, p. 323-339 , doi : 10.1177 / 0963662510385061 .
- See also Brigitte Nerlich: 'Climategate': Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis . In: Environmental Values . tape 19 , 2010, p. 419-442 , doi : 10.3197 / 096327110X531543 .
- Shaun W. Elsasser, Riley E. Dunlap: Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 754-776 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764212469800 .
- Stephan Lewandowsky et al .: The 'Alice in Wonderland' mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism . In: Synthesis . tape 195 , 2018, p. 175-1196 , doi : 10.1007 / s11229-016-1198-6 .
- Arguments and Refutations, German. In: Skeptical Science . Retrieved June 26, 2017.
- See G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook: Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, p. 450 f.
- John Cook et al .: Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence . In: PLOS ONE . tape 12 , no. 5 , 2017, doi : 10.1371 / journal.pone.0175799 .
- Sander van der Linden et al .: Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change . In: Global Challenges . tape 1 , no. 2 , 2017, p. 1600008 , doi : 10.1002 / gch2.201600008 .
- Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term . Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here pp. 141f.
- Cf. G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook: Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, p. 451 f.
- Sven Ove Hansson: Science denial as a form of pseudoscience . In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science . tape 63 , 2017, p. 39-47, p. 41 , doi : 10.1016 / j.shpsa.2017.05.002 .
- Iselin Medhaug et al: Reconciling controversies about the 'global warming hiatus' . In: Nature . tape 545 , 2017, p. 41–47 , doi : 10.1038 / nature22315 .
- James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 172.
- James Lawrence Powell: The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York 2012, p. 171 f.
- Cf. G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook: Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, pp. 452–454.
- See also Lawrence Torcello: The Ethics of Belief, Cognition, and Climate Change Pseudoskepticism: Implications for Public Discourse . In: Topics in Cognitive Science . tape 8 , 2016, p. 19–48, here 22 f ., doi : 10.1111 / tops.12179 .
- See G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook: Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, p. 454.
- Cf. G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook: Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, pp. 454–456.
- G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook: Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, p. 453 u. 456.
- Aaron M. McCright et al .: Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union . In: Environmental Politics . tape 25 , no. 2 , 2016, p. 338–358 , doi : 10.1080 / 09644016.2015.1090371 .
- European Perceptions of Climate Change (EPCC) : Topline findings of a survey conducted in four European countries in 2016 , p. 18.
- Volker Mrasek: Statistics Tricks: How Climate Change Skeptics Calculate Global Warming. In: Spiegel Online . January 23, 2009, accessed October 7, 2018 .
- Michael Brüggemann : The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal , Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term. Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here pp. 143f.
- Umweltbundesamt (Ed.): And it is still warming up - what is behind the debate about climate change? (PDF; 3.4 MB).
- Michael Brüggemann: The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term. Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here p. 153.
- Stefan Rahmstorf , Hans Joachim Schellnhuber : The climate change. Diagnosis, prognosis, therapy. Beck, Munich 2007, p. 85.
- Nadja Podbregar, Karsten Schwanke , Harald Frater: Weather, Climate, Climate Change: Knowledge for a world in upheaval. Berlin / Heidelberg 2009, p. 31.
- European Perceptions of Climate Change (EPCC) : Topline findings of a survey conducted in four European countries in 2016 , p. 19.
- Michael Brüggemann: The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term. Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here pp. 143–145.
- Axel Bojanowski : respected meteorologist switches to climate skeptics , in: spiegel.de, May 5, 2014.
- Joshua Beer: European Study: How Right-Wing Populists Combat Climate Protection. www.faz.net, February 26, 2019
- Miranda Schreurs : Climate change denial in the United States and the European Union . In: MJ Peterson (Ed.): Contesting Global Environmental Knowledge, Norms, and Governance . Routledge 2019, 89-109, p. 91, doi: 10.4324 / 9781315166445-6 .
- Riley Dunlap et al .: The Political Divide on Climate Change: Partisan Polarization Widens in the US In: Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development . tape 58 , no. 5 , 2016, p. 4–23 , doi : 10.1080 / 00139157.2016.1208995 .
- See Spencer Weart: Global Warming. How skepticism became denial . In: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists . tape 67 , no. 1 , 2011, p. 41-50 , doi : 10.1177 / 0096340210392966 .
- Stefan Rahmstorf , Hans Joachim Schellnhuber : The climate change. 6th edition 2007, p. 85.
- Justin Farrell: Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement . In: Nature Climate Change . tape 6 , 2016, p. 370-374 , doi : 10.1038 / nclimate2875 .
- Kirsti M. Jylhä: Denial Versus Reality of Climate Change . In: Dominick A. DellaSala, Michael A. Goldstein (Eds.) Encylopedia of the Anthropocene, Volume 2. Climate Change . Elsevier 2018, 487–492, p. 488.
- Alan McLintic: The motivation behind science denial . In: The New Zealand Medical Journal . tape 132 , no. 1504 , 2019, pp. 88–94, here p. 90 .
- Stephen Lewandowsky et al: NASA Faked the Moon Landing - Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax . In: Psychological Science . tape 24 , no. 5 , 2013, p. 622-633 , doi : 10.1177 / 0956797612457686 .
- Joshua Rosenau: Science denial: a guide for scientists . In: Trends in Microbiology . tape 20 , no. 12 , 2012, p. 567-569 , doi : 10.1016 / j.tim.2012.10.002 .
- Stephan Lewandowsky: Future Global Change and Cognition . In: Topics in Cognitive Science . tape 8 , 2016, p. 7-18 , doi : 10.1111 / tops.12188 .
- Lawrence Torcello: The Ethics of Belief, Cognition, and Climate Change Pseudoskepticism: Implications for Public Discourse . In: Topics in Cognitive Science . tape 8 , 2016, p. 19-48 , doi : 10.1111 / tops.12179 .
- Michael Brüggemann: The media and the climate lie. False skepticism and real denial. In: Volker Lilienthal, Irene Neverla (Hrsg.): "Lügenpresse": Anatomy of a political battle term. Cologne 2017, pp. 137–157, here p. 146.
- Cf. Naomi Oreskes , Erik Conway: Die Machiavellis der Wissenschaft (Original: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming). Weinheim 2014, especially p. 318 f.
- Kirsti Häkkinen, Nazar Akrami: Ideology and climate change denial . In: Personality and Individual Differences . tape 70 , 2014, pp. 62–65, here p. 62 , doi : 10.1016 / j.paid.2014.06.030 .
- Kirsti M. Jylhä: Denial Versus Reality of Climate Change . In: Dominick A. DellaSala, Michael A. Goldstein (Eds.) Encylopedia of the Anthropocene, Volume 2. Climate Change . Elsevier 2018, 487–492, p. 490.
- Roldan Muradian, Unai Pascual: Ecological economics in the age of fear . In: Ecological Economics . tape 169 , doi : 10.1016 / j.ecolecon.2019.106498 .
- Philip Mirowski : Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown . Verso 2014, p. 337.
- Paul G. Bain et al .: Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers . In: Nature Climate Change . tape 2 , p. 600-603 , doi : 10.1038 / nclimate1532 .
- See Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al.: Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990-2015 . In: Journal of Cleaner Production . tape 167 , 2017, p. 229–241, here: p. 237 f ., doi : 10.1016 / j.jclepro.2017.08.066 .
- Lorraine Whitmarsh: Skepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time . In: Global Environmental Change . tape 21 , 2011, p. 690-700, here 698 f ., doi : 10.1016 / j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016 .