American Senator Jim Inhofe, a known climate change denier, displayed a snowball on the U.S. Senate floor in winter 2015, saying "it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable".^[1] The director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies quickly reacted and distinguished local weather in a single location from global climate change.^[2]

Climate change denial (also global warming denial or climate denial) is pseudoscientific^[3] dismissal or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change. Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.^[4][5][6] Climate change denial includes doubts about the extent to which climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.^[7][8][9] To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their belief or action.^[10] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,^[11][12] pseudoscience,^[13] or propaganda.^[14]

Many issues that are settled in the scientific community, such as human responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them—an ideological phenomenon academics and scientists call climate change denial. Climate scientists, especially in the United States, have reported government and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work and hide scientific data, with directives not to discuss the subject publicly. The fossil fuels lobby has been identified as overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on global warming.^[15][16]

Industrial, political and ideological interests organize activity to undermine public trust in climate science.^[17][18][19] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates, ultraconservative think tanks, and ultraconservative alternative media, often in the U.S.^{[14][20][21][22]} More than 90% of papers that are skeptical of climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.^[23] Climate change denial is undermining efforts to act on or adapt to climate change, and exerts a powerful influence on the politics of global warming and the manufactured global warming controversy.^[24][25]

In the 1970s, oil companies published research that broadly concurred with the scientific community's view on global warming. Since then, for several decades, oil companies have been organizing a widespread and systematic climate change denial campaign to seed public disinformation, a strategy that has been compared to the tobacco industry's organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking. Some of the campaigns are even carried out by the same people who previously spread the tobacco industry's denialist propaganda.^[26][27][28]

Terminology

One deceptive approach is cherry picking data from short time periods to assert that global average temperatures are not rising. Blue trendlines show short-term countertrends that mask longer-term warming trends that are shown by red trendlines.^[29] Such representations have been applied to the so-called global warming hiatus (blue dots, 1998–2013).^[30]

"Climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" refer to pseudoscientific denial, dismissal, or doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part.^[31][32] Though there is a distinction between skepticism about and outright denial of an assertion, in the public debate phrases such as "climate skepticism" have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism or contrarianism.^[33][34]

The terminology emerged in the 1990s. Even though all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as an inherent part of the process, by November 1995 the word "skeptic" was being used specifically for the minority who publicized views contrary to the scientific consensus. This small group of scientists presented their views in public statements and the media rather than to the scientific community.^[35][36] This usage continued.^[37] In his December 1995 article "The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial", Ross Gelbspan said industry had engaged "a small band of skeptics" to confuse public opinion in a "persistent and well-funded campaign of denial".^[38] His 1997 book The Heat is On may have been the first to concentrate specifically on the topic.^[39] In it, Gelbspan discussed a "pervasive denial of global warming" in a "persistent campaign of denial and suppression" involving "undisclosed funding of these 'greenhouse skeptics'" with "the climate skeptics" confusing the public and influencing decision makers.^[40]

The 2006 CBC Television documentary The Denial Machine is about this campaign.^[41][42] In 2007, journalist Sharon Begley reported on the "denial machine",^[43] a phrase academics subsequently used.^[18][42]

In addition to explicit denial, social groups have shown implicit denial by accepting the scientific consensus but failing to "translate their acceptance into action".^[10] This was exemplified in Kari Norgaard's study of a village in Norway affected by climate change, where residents diverted their attention to other issues.^[44]

The terminology is debated: most of those actively rejecting the scientific consensus use the terms skeptic and climate change skepticism, and only a few have expressed preference for being described as deniers,^[32][45] but the word "skepticism" is incorrectly used, as scientific skepticism is an intrinsic part of scientific methodology.^[46][47][48] The term contrarian is more specific but less frequently used. In academic literature and journalism, the terms "climate change denial" and "climate change deniers" have well-established usage as descriptive terms without any pejorative intent.^[49] Both the National Center for Science Education and historian Spencer R. Weart recognize that both options are problematic, but have decided to use "climate change denial" rather than "skepticism".^[49][50]

Terms related to "denialism" have been criticized for introducing a moralistic tone and potentially implying a link with Holocaust denial.^[46][51] It has been claimed that this link is intentional, which academics have strongly disputed.^[52] The usage of "denial" long predates the Holocaust, and is commonly applied in other areas, such as HIV/AIDS denialism; John Timmer of Ars Technica describes the claim as itself a form of denial.^[53]

In December 2014, an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. It contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration"—and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. It said: "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."^[52][54] In June 2015, The New York Times's public editor told Media Matters for America that the Times was increasingly using "denier" when "someone is challenging established science", but assessing this on an individual basis with no fixed policy, and would not use the term when someone was "kind of wishy-washy on the subject or in the middle". The executive director of the Society of Environmental Journalists said that while there was reasonable skepticism about specific issues, she felt that "denier" was "the most accurate term when someone claims there is no such thing as global warming, or agrees that it exists but denies that it has any cause we could understand or any impact that could be measured."^[55]

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry letter inspired a petition by climatetruth.org^[56] in which signers were asked to "Tell the Associated Press: Establish a rule in the AP Stylebook ruling out the use of 'skeptic' to describe those who deny scientific facts." On 22 September 2015, the Associated Press announced "an addition to AP Stylebook entry on global warming" that advised "to describe those who don't accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from human-made forces, use 'climate change doubters' or 'those who reject mainstream climate science'. Avoid use of 'skeptics' or 'deniers.'"^[57][58] On 17 May 2019, The Guardian also rejected use of the term "climate skeptic" in favor of "climate science denier".^[59]

Categories

Characteristics of science denial (including climate science denial)

Climate change denial sign in Sudbury, Canada (2016)

In 2004, Stefan Rahmstorf described how the media give the misleading impression that climate change is still disputed within the scientific community, attributing this impression to climate change skeptics' PR efforts. He identified different positions that climate skeptics argue, which he used as a taxonomy of climate change skepticism.^[60] (Later the model was also applied to denial.^[61])

1. Trend sceptics or deniers (who deny there is global warming), [and] argue that no significant climate warming is taking place at all, claiming that the warming trend measured by weather stations is an artefact due to urbanisation around those stations ("urban heat island effect").
2. Attribution sceptics or deniers (who accept the global warming trend but see natural causes for this), [and] doubt that human activities are responsible for the observed trends. A few of them even deny that the rise in the atmospheric CO₂ content is anthropogenic [while others argue that] additional CO₂ does not lead to discernible warming [and] that there must be other—natural—causes for warming.
3. Impact sceptics or deniers (who think global warming is harmless or even beneficial).
   — ^[61][60]

This taxonomy has been used in social science for analysis of publications, and to categorize climate change skepticism and climate change denial.^[62][63] Sometimes, a fourth category, "consensus denial", is added, for people who question the existence of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming.^[61]

The National Center for Science Education describes climate change denial as disputing differing points in the scientific consensus, a sequential range of arguments from denying the occurrence of climate change, accepting that but denying any significant human contribution, accepting these but denying scientific findings on how this would affect nature and human society, to accepting all these but denying that humans can mitigate or reduce the problems.^[7] James L. Powell provides a more extended list,^[9] as does climatologist Michael E. Mann in "six stages of denial", a ladder model whereby deniers have over time conceded acceptance of points, while retreating to a position that still rejects the mainstream consensus:^[64]

1. CO₂ is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small, and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and future projected human effects on Earth's climate are not negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological fix is bound to come along when we really need it.^[64]

Journalists and newspaper columnists including George Monbiot^[65][66][67] and Ellen Goodman,^[66] among others,^[68][69] have described climate change denial as a form of denialism.^[70]

Chris and Mark Hoofnagle have defined denialism in this context as the use of rhetorical devices "to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists." This process characteristically uses one or more of the following tactics:^[5][71][72]

1. Allegations that scientific consensus involves conspiring to fake data or suppress the truth: a global warming conspiracy theory.
2. Fake experts, or individuals with views at odds with established knowledge, at the same time marginalizing or denigrating published topic experts. Like the manufactured doubt over smoking and health, a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, some of them the same people.
3. Selectivity, such as cherry-picking atypical or even obsolete papers, in the same way that the MMR vaccine controversy was based on one paper: examples include discredited ideas of the medieval warm period.^[72]
4. Unworkable demands of research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the field or exaggerating uncertainty while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models.
5. Logical fallacies.

In 2015, environmentalist Bill McKibben accused U.S. President Barack Obama (widely regarded as strongly in favor of action on climate change^[73]) of "Catastrophic Climate-Change Denial" for his approval of oil-drilling permits in offshore Alaska. According to McKibben, Obama also "opened huge swaths of the Powder River basin to new coal mining." McKibben calls this "climate denial of the status quo sort", where Obama denies "the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground."^[74]

A study assessed public perception and action on climate change on grounds of belief systems, and identified seven psychological barriers affecting behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship: cognition, ideological world views, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, discredence toward experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes.^[75][76]

Various groups, including the National Center for Science Education, have described climate change denial as a form of pseudoscience.^[77][78][79]

Discussing specific aspects of climate change science

The Fourth National Climate Assessment ("NCA4", U.S., 2017) includes charts^[80] illustrating how human factors—not various natural factors that have been investigated—are the predominant cause of observed global warming.

Campaigns by climate change deniers portray scientists as disagreeing about global warming,^[81] but datasets from various scientific organizations show pairwise correlations of 1850+/1880+ datasets exceeding 99.1%.

Climate change denial opposes the results of academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused global warming. The level of scientific consensus positively correlates with expertise in climate science.^{[82][83][84][85]}

Some climate change denial groups say that because CO₂ is only a trace gas in the atmosphere (roughly 400ppm, or 0.04%, 4 parts per 10,000) it can only have a minor effect on the climate. Scientists have known for over a century that even this small proportion has a significant warming effect, and doubling the proportion leads to a large temperature increase.^[86] The scientific consensus, as summarized by the IPCC fourth assessment report, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other reports, is that human activity is the leading cause of climate change. The burning of fossil fuels accounts for around 30 billion tons of CO₂ each year, which is 130 times the amount produced by volcanoes.^[87] Some groups allege that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas, and is left out of many climate models.^[86] While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the very short atmospheric lifetime of water vapor (about 10 days) compared to that of CO₂ (hundreds of years) means that CO₂ is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapour acts as a feedback, not a forcing, mechanism.^[88] Water vapor has been incorporated into climate models since their inception in the late 1800s.^[89]

Climate denial groups may also argue that global warming stopped recently, a global warming hiatus, or that global temperatures are actually decreasing, leading to global cooling. These arguments are based on short term fluctuations, and ignore the long-term pattern of warming.^[90]

A further case used by some groups and prominent deniers such as William Happer argues the existence of a greenhouse gas saturation effect, which would significantly decrease the warming potential of further gases released into the atmosphere. Such an effect does exist in some form, as demonstrated in Happer's research.^[91] However, the output of this effect on net global warming is likely negligible.^[92]

During a May 2018 meeting of the United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Alabama's Representative Mo Brooks claimed that sea level rise is caused not by melting glaciers but rather by coastal erosion and silt that flows from rivers into the ocean.^[93]

Climate change denial literature often features the suggestion that we should wait for better technologies before addressing climate change, when they will be more affordable and effective.^[94]

Playing up the potential non-human causes

Climate denial groups often point to natural variability, such as sunspots and cosmic rays, to explain the warming trend.^[95] According to these groups, there is natural variability that will abate over time, and human influences have little to do with it. These factors are already taken into account when developing climate models, and the scientific consensus is that they cannot explain the observed warming trend.^[96]

Solar variation

Main article: solar variation

Some deniers argue that solar variation is a significant contributor to the observed global warming, which would reduce the relative importance of human-made causes. However, this is not supported by scientific consensus on climate change. Scientists reject the notion that the warming observed in the global mean surface temperature record since about 1850 is the result of solar variations: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."^[97]

The consensus position is that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m² since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m² for the net anthropogenic forcing.^[98] The IPCC Third Assessment Report found that, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four, decades."^[99]

A few studies say that the present level of solar activity is historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors. Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation. Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to 70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years, however they said "that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", and concluded that "at the most 30% of the strong warming since [1970] can be of solar origin".^[100] Others have disagreed with the study, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years.^[101] They concluded that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the variable Sun."^[102]

Using studies that are flawed

Dennis T. Avery, a food policy analyst at the Hudson Institute, wrote an article titled "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares"^[103] published in 2007, by the Heartland Institute. The list was immediately called into question for misunderstanding and distorting the conclusions of many of the named studies and citing outdated, flawed studies that had long been abandoned. Many of the scientists included in the list demanded their names be removed.^[104][105] At least 45 scientists had no idea they were included as "co-authors" and disagreed with the conclusions of the document.^[106] The Heartland Institute refused these requests, stating that the scientists "have no right—legally or ethically—to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree".^[106]

Attempts to discredit IPCC reports and processes

Further information: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change § Challenges and controversies

Deniers have generally attacked either the IPCC's processes, scientist or the synthesis and executive summaries; the full reports attract less attention.

In 2005, the House of Lords Economics Committee wrote, "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations." It doubted the high emission scenarios and said that the IPCC had "played-down" what the committee called "some positive aspects of global warming".^[107] The main statements of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government.^[108]

On 10 December 2008, a report was released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority members, under the leadership of the Senate's most vocal global warming denier Jim Inhofe. It says it summarizes scientific dissent from the IPCC.^[109] Many of its statements about the numbers of individuals listed in the report, whether they are actually scientists, and whether they support the positions attributed to them, have been disputed.^{[110][111][112]}

Connections to other debates

History

In 1959, a scientist working for Shell suggested in a New Scientist article that carbon cycles are too vast to upset Nature's balance.^[191] By 1966 however, a coal industry research organization, Bituminous Coal Research Inc., published its finding that if then prevailing trends of coal consumption continue, "the temperature of the earth's atmosphere will increase and that vast changes in the climates of the earth will result." "Such changes in temperature will cause melting of the polar icecaps, which, in turn, would result in the inundation of many coastal cities, including New York and London."^[192] In a discussion following this paper in the same publication, a combustion engineer for Peabody Coal, now Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal supplier, added that the coal industry was merely "buying time" before additional government air pollution regulations would be promulgated to clean the air. Nevertheless, the coal industry for decades thereafter publicly advocated the position that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial for the planet.^[192]

In response to increasing public awareness of the greenhouse effect in the 1970s, conservative reaction built up, denying environmental concerns which could lead to government regulation. In 1977 the first Secretary of Energy, Republican James Schlesinger, suggested President Jimmy Carter take no action regarding a climate change memo, citing uncertainty.^[193] With the 1981 Presidency of Ronald Reagan, global warming became a political issue, with immediate plans to cut spending on environmental research, particularly climate-related, and stop funding for CO₂ monitoring. Reagan appointed as Secretary of Energy James B. Edwards, who said that there was no real global warming problem. Congressman Al Gore had studied under Revelle and was aware of the developing science: he joined others in arranging congressional hearings from 1981 onwards, with testimony by scientists including Revelle, Stephen Schneider and Wallace Smith Broecker. The hearings gained enough public attention to reduce the cuts in atmospheric research.^[194] A polarized party-political debate developed. In 1982, Sherwood B. Idso published his book Carbon Dioxide: Friend or Foe? which said increases in CO₂ would not warm the planet, but would fertilize crops and were "something to be encouraged and not suppressed", while complaining that his theories had been rejected by the "scientific establishment". An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report in 1983 said global warming was "not a theoretical problem but a threat whose effects will be felt within a few years", with potentially "catastrophic" consequences.^[195] The Reagan administration reacted by calling the report "alarmist", and the dispute got wide news coverage. Public attention turned to other issues, then the 1985 finding of a polar ozone hole brought a swift international response. To the public, this was related to climate change and the possibility of effective action, but news interest faded.^[196]

Public attention was renewed amidst summer droughts and heat waves when James Hansen testified to a Congressional hearing on 23 June 1988,^[197][198] stating with high confidence that long-term warming was underway with severe warming likely within the next 50 years, and warning of likely storms and floods. There was increasing media attention: the scientific community had reached a broad consensus that the climate was warming, human activity was very likely the primary cause, and there would be significant consequences if the warming trend was not curbed.^[199] These facts encouraged discussion about new laws concerning environmental regulation, which was opposed by the fossil fuel industry.^[200]

From 1989 onwards industry-funded organizations including the Global Climate Coalition and the George C. Marshall Institute sought to spread doubt among the public, in a strategy already developed by the tobacco industry.^{[177][175][178]} A small group of scientists opposed to the consensus on global warming became politically involved, and with support from conservative political interests, began publishing in books and the press rather than in scientific journals.^[201] This small group of scientists included some of the same people that were part of the strategy already tried by the tobacco industry.^[176] Spencer Weart identifies this period as the point where legitimate skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified, and those spreading mistrust about these issues became deniers.^[202] As their arguments were increasingly refuted by the scientific community and new data, deniers turned to political arguments, making personal attacks on the reputation of scientists, and promoting ideas of a global warming conspiracy.^[203]

With the 1989 fall of communism and the environmental movement's international reach at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, the attention of U.S. conservative think tanks, which had been organized in the 1970s as an intellectual counter-movement to socialism, turned from the "red scare" to the "green scare" which they saw as a threat to their aims of private property, free trade market economies and global capitalism. As a counter-movement, they used environmental skepticism to promote denial of the reality of problems such as loss of biodiversity and climate change.^[204]

The campaign to spread doubt continued into the 1990s, including an advertising campaign funded by coal industry advocates intended to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact",^[205][206] and a 1998 proposal written by the American Petroleum Institute intending to recruit scientists to convince politicians, the media and the public that climate science was too uncertain to warrant environmental regulation.^[207] The proposal included a US$5,000,000 multi-point strategy to "maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours on Congress, the media and other key audiences", with a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'".^[208]

In 1998, Gelbspan noted that his fellow journalists accepted that global warming was occurring, but said they were in "'stage-two' denial of the climate crisis", unable to accept the feasibility of answers to the problem.^[209] A subsequent book by Milburn and Conrad on The Politics of Denial described "economic and psychological forces" producing denial of the consensus on global warming issues.^[210]

These efforts by climate change denial groups were recognized as an organized campaign beginning in the 2000s.^[211] The sociologists Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright played a significant role in this shift when they published an article in 2000 exploring the connection between conservative think tanks and climate change denial.^[212] Later work would continue the argument specific groups were marshaling skepticism against climate change – a study in 2008 from the University of Central Florida analyzed the sources of "environmentally skeptical" literature published in the United States. The analysis demonstrated that 92% of the literature was partly or wholly affiliated with a self-proclaimed conservative think tanks.^[213] A later piece of research from 2015 identified 4,556 individuals with overlapping network ties to 164 organizations which are responsible for the most efforts to downplay the threat of climate change in the U.S.^[214][215]

A 2022 study found that the public substantially underestimates the degree of scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.^[216] Studies from 2019–2021^{[217][84][85]} found scientific consensus to range from 98.7–100%.

Research found that 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to be 37–43%. Researchers have called this misperception a false social reality, a form of pluralistic ignorance.^[218][219]

Gelbspan's Boiling Point, published in 2004, detailed the fossil-fuel industry's campaign to deny climate change and undermine public confidence in climate science.^[220] In Newsweek's August 2007 cover story "The Truth About Denial", Sharon Begley reported that "the denial machine is running at full throttle", and said that this "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign" by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry had "created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change."^[43]

Referencing work of sociologists Robert Antonio and Robert Brulle, Wayne A. White has written that climate change denial has become the top priority in a broader anti-environmental regulation agenda being pursued by neoliberals.^[221] In 2005, climate change skepticism was most prominently seen in the United States, where the media disproportionately featured views of the climate change denial community.^[222] In addition to offline media, the contrarian movement benefited from the growth of the internet, having gained some of its support from internet bloggers, talk radio hosts and newspaper columnists.^[223]

The New York Times and others reported in 2015 that oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause climate change and global warming since the 1970s but nonetheless funded deniers for years.^[26][27] Dana Nuccitelli wrote in The Guardian that a small fringe group of climate deniers were no longer taken seriously at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, in an agreement that "we need to stop delaying and start getting serious about preventing a climate crisis."^[224] However, The New York Times says any implementation is voluntary and will depend on any future world leaders—and every Republican U.S. presidential candidate in 2016 questioned or denied the science of climate change.^[225]

Ernesto Araújo, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs appointed by the newly elected president Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro called global warming a plot by "cultural Marxists"^[226] and has eliminated the Climate Change Division of the ministry.^[227]

Alexandre Lopez-Borrull, a lecturer in Information and Communication Sciences at the Open University of Catalonia, noted in 2023 increases in climate change denial, particularly among supporters of the far right.^[228] Climate change deniers threatened meteorologists, accusing them of causing a drought, falsifying thermometer readings, and cherry-picking warmer weather stations to misrepresent global warming.^[228] Also in 2023, CNN reported that meteorologists and climate communicators internationally were receiving increased harassment and false accusations that they are lying about or controlling the weather, inflating temperature records to make climate change seem worse, and changing color palettes of weather maps to make them look more dramatic.^[229] Tagesschau described this as a global phenomenon.^[230] Jennie King, head of Climate Research and Policy at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, said that growth of such conspiracy theories is "logical evolution of the broader trend around pushback on institutions" that supposedly are trying to "enact some insidious agenda".^[229] Meanwhile, after Elon Musk's 2022 takeover of Twitter, key figures in the company who ensured trusted content was prioritized were removed, and climate scientists received a large increase in hostile, threatening, harassing and personally abusive tweets from deniers.^[231]

Denial networks

Emotional and psychological aspects

The director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication said that one "almost couldn't design a worse fit for our underlying psychology or our institutions of decision-making" than dealing with climate change—owing primarily to the short-term focus of humans and their institutions.^[252] Florida Republican Tom Lee described the emotional impact and reactions of individuals to climate change, saying "If these predictions do bear out, that it's just economically daunting. ... That's why I use the term emotionally shut down, because I think you lose people at hello a lot of times in the Republican conversation over this."^[253]

Personal reactions to climate change may include anxiety, depression, despair, dissonance, uncertainty, insecurity, and distress, with one psychologist suggesting that "despair about our changing climate may get in the way of fixing it."^[254] The American Psychological Association has urged psychologists and other social scientists to work on psychological barriers to taking action on climate change.^[255] The immediacy of a growing number of extreme weather events, and tax incentives for energy efficiency and for purchasing electric vehicles, are thought to motivate people to deal with climate change.^[252]

A study published in PLOS Climate studied defensive and secure forms of national identity—respectively called "national narcissism"^{[Note 1]} and "secure national identification"^{[Note 2]}—for their correlation to support for policies to mitigate climate change and to transition to renewable energy.^[256] The researchers concluded that secure national identification tends to support policies promoting renewable energy; however, national narcissism was found to be inversely correlated with support for such policies—except to the extent that such policies, as well as greenwashing, enhance the national image.^[256] Right-wing political orientation, which may indicate susceptibility to climate conspiracy beliefs, was also concluded to be negatively correlated with support for genuine climate mitigation policies.^[256]

Public opinion

Results of a Yale Climate Connection-reported survey in 31 countries of public opinion, specifically among Facebook users, on the causes of climate change^[257]

Results of a survey overseen by the United Nations Development Programme on belief in whether climate change presents a climate emergency^[258]

Public opinion on climate change is significantly affected by media coverage of climate change, and the effects of climate change denial campaigns. Campaigns to undermine public confidence in climate science have decreased public belief in climate change, which in turn have affected legislative efforts to curb CO₂ emissions.^[259] Another reason why the public is skeptical about climate change is their lack of knowledge.^[260]

United States

Further information: Climate change policy of the United States

In a 2006 ABC News/Time/Stanford Poll, 56% of Americans correctly answered that average global temperatures had risen over the previous three years. However, in the same poll, two-thirds said they believed that scientists had "a lot of disagreement" about "whether or not global warming is happening".^[261]

From 2001 to 2012, the number of Americans who said they believe in anthropogenic global warming decreased from 75 percent to 44 percent.^[262]

Democrats and Republicans have long differed in views of climate change, with the gap widening in the late 2010s,^[263] with Democrats three times more likely to view it as human-caused.^[264]

The sharp divide over the existence of and responsibility for global warming and climate change falls largely along political lines.^[265] Overall, 60% of Americans surveyed said oil and gas companies were "completely or mostly responsible" for climate change.^[265]

Opinion about human causation of climate change increased substantially with education among Democrats, but not among Republicans.^[266] Conversely, opinions favoring becoming carbon neutral declined substantially with age among Republicans, but not among Democrats.^[266]

National political divides on the seriousness of climate change consistently correlate with political ideology, with right-wing opinion being more negative.^[267]

A study found that public climate change policy support and behavior are significantly influenced by public beliefs, attitudes and risk perceptions.^[268] As of March 2018 the rate of acceptance among U.S. TV forecasters that the climate is changing has increased to ninety-five percent. The number of local television stories about global warming has also increased, by fifteen-fold. Climate Central has received some of the credit for this because they provide classes for meteorologists and graphics for television stations.^[269]

The popular media in the U.S. gives greater attention to climate change skeptics than the scientific community as a whole, and the level of agreement within the scientific community has not been accurately communicated.^{[270][271][272]} In some cases, news outlets have allowed climate change skeptics to explain the science of climate change instead of experts in climatology.^[273] US and UK media coverage differ from that presented in other countries, where reporting is more consistent with the scientific literature.^[274][275] Some journalists attribute the difference to climate change denial being propagated, mainly in the US, by business-centered organizations employing tactics worked out previously by the US tobacco lobby.^{[177][276][277]}

Denial of climate change is most prevalent among white, politically conservative men in the US.^[278][279] In France, the US and the UK, the opinions of climate change skeptics appear much more frequently in conservative news outlets than other news, and in many cases those opinions are left uncontested.^[280]

The efforts of Al Gore and other environmental campaigns have focused on the effects of global warming and have managed to increase awareness and concern, but despite these efforts, the number of Americans believing humans are the cause of global warming was holding steady at 61% in 2007, and those believing the popular media was understating the issue remained about 35%.^[281] A recent poll from 2015 suggests that while Americans are growing more aware of the dangers and implications of climate change for future generations, the majority are not worried about it.^[282] From a survey conducted in 2004, it was found that more than 30% of news presented in the previous decade showed equal attention to both human and non human contributions to global warming.^[283]

In 2018, the National Science Teachers Association urged teachers to "emphasize to students that no scientific controversy exists regarding the basic facts of climate change."^[284]

Europe

At least 72% of Chinese, American and European respondents to a 2020−2021 European Investment Bank climate survey stated that climate change had an impact on everyday life.

Climate change denial has been promoted by several far-right European parties, including Spain's Vox, Finland's far-right Finns Party, Austria's far-right Freedom Party, and Germany's anti-immigration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD).^[285]

In April 2023, French political scientist Jean-Yves Dormagen indicates that it is the modest and conservative classes that are the most restive, and therefore climate-skeptical, to climate change.^[286] In a study by the Jean-Jaurès Foundation published the same month, climate skepticism is compared to a new populism whose representative lately would be Steven E. Koonin, as well as for others their spokesman.^[287][288]

Lobbying

Percentage of documents taking each overall position on climate change as real and human-caused, 1977-2014^[289]

Efforts to lobby against environmental regulation have included campaigns to manufacture doubt about the science behind climate change, and to obscure the scientific consensus and data.^[290] These efforts have undermined public confidence in climate science, and impacted climate change lobbying.^[14][259]

The political advocacy organizations FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity, funded by brothers David and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, were important in supporting the Tea Party movement and in encouraging the movement to focus on climate change.^[291]

Other conservative organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation, Marshall Institute, Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute were significant participants in these lobbying attempts, seeking to halt or eliminate environmental regulations.^[292][293]

This approach to downplay the significance of climate change was copied from tobacco lobbyists; in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to lung cancer, to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation. Lobbyists attempted to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. They worked to discredit the scientists involved, to dispute their findings, and to create and maintain an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. "'Doubt is our product,' boasted a now infamous 1969 industry memo. Doubt would shield the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades to come."^[294] In 2006, George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian about similarities between the methods of groups funded by Exxon, and those of the tobacco giant Philip Morris, including direct attacks on peer-reviewed science, and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.^[65]

Former National Academy of Sciences president Frederick Seitz, who, according to an article by Mark Hertsgaard in Vanity Fair, earned about US$585,000 in the 1970s and 1980s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,^[295] went on to chair groups such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project and the George C. Marshall Institute alleged to have made efforts to "downplay" global warming. Seitz stated in the 1980s that "Global warming is far more a matter of politics than of climate." Seitz authored the Oregon Petition, a document published jointly by the Marshall Institute and Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in opposition to the Kyoto protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed:^[65]

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. ... We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.

George Monbiot wrote in The Guardian that this petition, which he criticizes as misleading and tied to industry funding, "has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth". Efforts by climate change denial groups played a significant role in the eventual rejection of the Kyoto protocol in the US.^[296]

Monbiot has written about another group founded by the tobacco lobby, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), that now campaigns against measures to combat global warming. In again trying to manufacture the appearance of a grass-roots movement against "unfounded fear" and "over-regulation", Monbiot states that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to halt [climate change] than any other body".^[65]

The work of economic consultancy Charles River Associates forecasting the impact on employment of the 2003 Climate Stewardship Act was criticized by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2005 for using unrealistic economic assumptions and producing directionally incorrect estimates.^[297] A 2021 study concluded their work from the 1990s to the 2010s overestimated predicted costs and ignored potential policy benefits, and was often presented by politicians and lobbyists as independent rather than sponsored by the fossil fuel industry. Other papers published during that time by economists at MIT and Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, also with funding from the fossil fuel industry, produced similar conclusions.^[298]

Funding for scientists and networks who are deniers

In 2015, according to The New York Times and others, oil companies knew that burning oil and gas could cause global warming since the 1970s but, nonetheless, funded deniers for years.^[338][339]

Several large corporations within the fossil fuel industry provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about the trustworthiness of climate science.^[340] ExxonMobil and the Koch family foundations have been identified as especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism.^[341] The bankruptcy of the coal company Cloud Peak Energy revealed it funded the Institute for Energy Research, a climate denial think tank, as well as several other policy influencers.^[342][343]

After the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) offered British, American and other scientists $10,000 plus travel expenses to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute had received more than US$1.6 million from Exxon, and its vice-chairman of trustees was former head of Exxon Lee Raymond. Raymond sent letters that alleged the IPCC report was not "supported by the analytical work." More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration.^[344]

The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt, provide documentation for the assertion that professional deniers have tried to sow seeds of doubt in public opinion in order to halt any meaningful social or political progress to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions. The fact that only half of the American population believes global warming is caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these deniers.^[345] One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.^[346]

The Global Climate Coalition was an industry coalition that funded several scientists who expressed skepticism about global warming. In the year 2000, several members left the coalition when they became the target of a national divestiture campaign run by John Passacantando and Phil Radford at Ozone Action. According to The New York Times, when Ford Motor Company was the first company to leave the coalition, it was "the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to respond to global warming".^[347][348] After that, between December 1999 and early March 2000, the GCC was deserted by Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, energy firm the Southern Company and General Motors.^[349] The Global Climate Coalition closed in 2002, or in their own words, 'deactivated'.^[350]

Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate change denier Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants to Soon from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007, totaled $274,000, and from ExxonMobil totaled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon, acknowledging that he received this money, stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".^[16] In February 2015, Greenpeace disclosed papers documenting that Soon failed to disclose to academic journals funding including more than $1.2 million from fossil fuel industry related interests including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation and the Southern Company.^{[351][352][353]}

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, has said that deniers such as Michaels are lobbyists more than researchers, and "I don't think it's unethical any more than most lobbying is unethical," he said. He said donations to deniers amounts to "trying to get a political message across".^[354]

Global warming denier Reid Bryson said in June 2007, "There is a lot of money to be made in this ... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide'."^[355] Similar positions have been advanced by University of Alabama, Huntsville climate scientist Roy Spencer, Spencer's University of Alabama, Huntsville colleague and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott,^[356] Accuracy in Media,^[357] and Ian Plimer.^[358]

Richard Lindzen, a professor of Meteorology at MIT has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services",^[359] as well as funding from US federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and NASA.^[360] Lindzen has criticized the scientific consensus on global climate change. He has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.^[361]

There is evidence that some of those alleging climate change conspiracy theories are part of well-funded misinformation campaigns designed to manufacture controversy, undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and downplay the projected effects of global warming.^[362][363] Individuals and organisations kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists had reached their conclusions. These doubts have influenced policymakers in both Canada and the US, and have helped to form government policies.^[363]

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.

— S. Begley, Newsweek^[364]

Between 2002 and 2010, the combined annual income of 91 climate change counter-movement organizations—think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations—was roughly $900 million.^[365][366] During the same period, billionaires secretively donated nearly $120 million (£77 million) via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.^[367][368]

Robert Brulle analysed the funding of 91 organizations opposed to restrictions on carbon emissions, which he termed the "climate change counter-movement". Between 2003 and 2013, the donor-advised funds Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, combined, were the largest funders, accounting for about one quarter of the total funds, and the American Enterprise Institute was the largest recipient, 16% of the total funds. The study also found that the amount of money donated to these organizations by means of foundations whose funding sources cannot be traced had risen.^{[369][370][371]}

As of the end of 2019, in the United States, 97 percent of the coal industry's political contributions and 88 percent of the oil and gas industries' contributions had gone to Republicans,^[372][373] leading economist Paul Krugman to call the Republicans "the world's only major climate-denialist party".^[374]

Effects on public opinion and climate inaction

False balance in climate science: Representation of climate change sceptics among climate scientists (97% believing climate change to be real, 3% denying), and Fox News guests (31% real, 69% denying). Based on IPCC report coverage between August 1 2013 and October 1 2013.^[396]

Climate change conspiracy theories and denial have resulted in poor action or no action at all to effectively mitigate the damage done by global warming. In some countries like the United States of America, 40% of Americans believed (ca. 2017) that climate change is a hoax^[397] in spite of the fact that there is a 100% consensus among climate scientists that it is not according to a report in 2019.^[83]

A study in 2015 stated: “Exposure to conspiracy theories reduced people’s intentions to reduce their carbon footprint, relative to people who were given refuting information."^[398]

In 2023, an increase in climate change denial was noted, particularly among supporters of the far right.^[399] Climate change deniers threatened meteorologists, accusing them of causing a drought, falsifying thermometer readings, and cherry-picking warmer weather stations to misrepresent global warming.^[399] Similarly, after Elon Musk's 2022 takeover of Twitter, key figures in the company who ensured trusted content was prioritized were removed, and climate scientists received a large increase in hostile, threatening, harassing and personally abusive tweets from deniers.^[400]

Manufactured uncertainty over climate change, the fundamental strategy of climate change denial, has been very effective, particularly in the US. It has contributed to low levels of public concern and to government inaction worldwide.^[25][401] An Angus Reid poll released in 2010 indicates that global warming skepticism in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom has been rising.^[402][403] There may be multiple causes of this trend, including a focus on economic rather than environmental issues, and a negative perception of the United Nations and its role in discussing climate change.^[404]

Another cause may be weariness from overexposure to the topic: secondary polls suggest that the public may have been discouraged by extremism when discussing the topic,^[402] while other polls show 54% of U.S. voters believe that "the news media make global warming appear worse than it really is."^[405] A poll in 2009 regarding the issue of whether "some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming" showed that 59% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely", with 35% believing it was "very likely".^[404]

According to Tim Wirth, "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry. ... Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."^[177] This approach has been propagated by the US media, presenting a false balance between climate science and climate skeptics.^[406] Newsweek reports that the majority of Europe and Japan accept the consensus on scientific climate change, but only one third of Americans considered human activity to play a major role in climate change in 2006; 64% believed that scientists disagreed about it "a lot."^[407] A 2007 Newsweek poll found these numbers were declining, although majorities of Americans still believed that scientists were uncertain about climate change and its causes.^[408]

Rush Holt wrote a piece for Science, which appeared in Newsweek:

For more than two decades scientists have been issuing warnings that the release of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO₂), is probably altering Earth's climate in ways that will be expensive and even deadly. The American public yawned and bought bigger cars. Statements by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and others underscored the warnings and called for new government policies to deal with climate change. Politicians, presented with noisy statistics, shrugged, said there is too much doubt among scientists, and did nothing.^[409]

Deliberate attempts by the Western Fuels Association "to confuse the public" have succeeded in their objectives. This has been "exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue". According to a Pew poll in 2012, 57% of the US public are unaware of, or outright reject, the scientific consensus on climate change.^[81] Some organizations promoting climate change denial have asserted that scientists are increasingly rejecting climate change, but this notion is contradicted by research showing that 97% of published papers endorse the scientific consensus, and that percentage is increasing with time.^[81]

Social psychologist Craig Foster compares climate change denialists to flat-earth believers and the reaction to the latter by the scientific community. Foster states, "the potential and kinetic energy devoted to counter the flat-earth movement is wasteful and misguided ... I don't understand why anybody would worry about the flat-earth gnat while facing the climate change mammoth ... Climate change denial does not require belief. It only requires neglect."^[410]

In 2016, Aaron McCright argued that anti-environmentalism—and climate change denial specifically—has expanded to a point in the US where it has now become "a central tenet of the current conservative and Republican identity".^[411]

On the other hand, global oil companies have begun to acknowledge the existence of climate change and its risks.^[412] Still top oil firms are spending millions lobbying to delay, weaken or block policies to tackle climate change.^[413]

Manufactured climate change denial is also influencing how scientific knowledge is communicated to the public. According to climate scientist Michael E. Mann, "universities and scientific societies and organizations, publishers, etc.—are too often risk averse when it comes to defending and communicating science that is perceived as threatening by powerful interests".^[414][415]

Responses to denialism

Temperature data: Global average temperature datasets from various scientific organizations show substantial agreement concerning the progress and extent of global warming: pairwise correlations of 1850+/1880+ datasets exceed 99.1%.

Causation: The Fourth National Climate Assessment ("NCA4", USGCRP, 2017) includes charts^[416] illustrating how human factors, especially accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, are the predominant cause of observed global warming.

The documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle received criticism from several experts. George Monbiot described it as "the same old conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years".^[417] Similarly, in response to James Delingpole, Monbiot stated that his Spectator article was "the usual conspiracy theories about the 'powerful and very extensive body of vested interests' working to suppress the truth, which presumably now includes virtually the entire scientific community and everyone from Shell to Greenpeace and The Sun to Science".^[418] Some Australian meteorologists also weighed in, saying that the film made no attempt to offer a "critical deconstruction of climate science orthodoxies", but instead used various other means to suggest that climate scientists are guilty of lying or are seriously misguided. Although the film's publicist's asserted that "global warming is 'the biggest scam of modern times'", these meteorologists concluded that the film was "not scientifically sound and presents a flawed and very misleading interpretation of the science".^[419]

Former UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs David Miliband presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film and stated "There will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me."^[420]

National Geographic fact-checked 6 persistent scientific conspiracy theories. Regarding the persistent belief in a global warming hoax they note that the Earth is continuing to warm and the rate of warming is increasing as documented in numerous scientific studies. The rise in global temperature and its rate of increase coincides with the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity. Moreover, global warming is causing Arctic sea ice to thaw at historic rates, many species of plants are blooming earlier than expected, and the migration routes of many birds, fish, mammals, and insects are changing.^[421]

The role of emotions and persuasive argument

Presenting data and other facts is less effective in motivating people to act to mitigate climate change, than financial incentives and social pressure involved in showing people climate-related actions of other people.^[422]

The strongest factors in self-reported changes in opinion about global warming were Republican party identification, seeing others experience impacts of global warming, and learning more about global warming.^[423]

Climate denial "is not simply overcome by reasoned argument", because it is not a rational response. Attempting to overcome denial using techniques of persuasive argument, such as supplying a missing piece of information, or providing general scientific education may be ineffective. A person who is in denial about climate is most likely taking a position based on their feelings, especially their feelings about things they fear.^[424]

Academics have stated that "It is pretty clear that fear of the solutions drives much opposition to the science."^[309]

It can be useful to respond to emotions, including with the statement "It can be painful to realise that our own lifestyles are responsible", in order to help move "from denial to acceptance to constructive action."^{[424][425][426]}

See also

• Agnotology
• Anti-environmentalism
• CO2 Coalition – advocacy organization whose claims conflict with the scientific consensus
• Environmental skepticism
• Global warming controversy
• Media coverage of climate change
• Motivated reasoning
• Political activities of the Koch family
• Renewable energy commercialization: Non-technical barriers to acceptance
• Right-wing antiscience
• Semmelweis reflex
• Skeptical Science - website to counter arguments by global warming deniers
• Tobacco industry playbook
• Films:
  • Climate Change Denial Disorder, satirical parody film about a fictional disease
  • Before the Flood, documenting climate change denial and lobbying processes

Notes

References

Sources

• Begley, Sharon (13 August 2007). "The Truth About Denial". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 21 October 2007. (MSNBC single page version, archived 20 August 2007)
• Boslough, Mark (5 December 2014). "Deniers are not Skeptics". Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Archived from the original on 16 March 2019. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
• Brown, R. G. E. Jr. (23 October 1996). "Environmental science under siege: Fringe science and the 104th Congress, U. S. House of Representatives" (PDF). Report, Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science. Washington, D.C.: U. S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 September 2007.
• CBC News: the fifth estate (2007). "The Denial Machine". Archived from the original on 12 March 2007. Retrieved 29 July 2015.
• Conway, Erik; Oreskes, Naomi (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. US: Bloomsbury. p. 170. ISBN 978-1-59691-610-4.
• Diethelm, Pascal; McKee, Martin (January 2009). "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?". European Journal of Public Health. 19 (1): 2–4. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139. PMID 19158101.
• Dunlap, Riley E. (2013). "Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction". American Behavioral Scientist. 57 (6): 691–698. doi:10.1177/0002764213477097. S2CID 147126996. Archived from the original on 10 November 2021. Retrieved 27 May 2015.
• Dunlap, R. E.; Jacques, P. J. (2013). "Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection". American Behavioral Scientist. 57 (6): 699–731. doi:10.1177/0002764213477096. PMC 3787818. PMID 24098056.
• Gelbspan, Ross (December 1995). "The heat is on: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial". Harper's Magazine. Archived from the original on 7 March 2016. Retrieved 2 June 2015.
• Gelbspan, Ross (1998). The heat is on : the climate crisis, the cover-up, the prescription. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. ISBN 978-0-7382-0025-5.
• Hamilton, Clive (2011). Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84977-498-7. Archived from the original on 23 March 2021. Retrieved 16 March 2016.
• Jacques, P.J.; Dunlap, Riley E.; Freeman, M. (2008). "The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism". Environmental Politics. 17 (3): 349–385. Bibcode:2008EnvPo..17..349J. doi:10.1080/09644010802055576. S2CID 144975102.
• Jenkins, Stephen H. (2015). Tools for Critical Thinking in Biology. Oxford University Press. pp. 229, 243. ISBN 978-0-19-998104-5. Archived from the original on 22 March 2021. Retrieved 16 March 2016.
• Lever-Tracy, Constance (2010). Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-203-87621-3. Archived from the original on 6 May 2016. Retrieved 12 July 2015.
• National Center for Science Education (15 January 2016). "Why Is It Called Denial?". National Center for Science Education. Archived from the original on 7 December 2022. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
• Nerlich, Brigitte (2010). "'Climategate': Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis". Environmental Values. 19 (4): 419–442. doi:10.3197/096327110x531543. S2CID 145473725. Archived from the original on 10 November 2021. Retrieved 4 July 2015.
• Orlóci, L. (2008). "Vegetation displacement issues and transition statistics in climate warming cycle". Community Ecology. 9 (1): 83–98. doi:10.1556/comec.9.2008.1.10. Archived from the original on 10 November 2021. Retrieved 29 July 2015.
• Painter, James; Ashe, Teresa (2012). "Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007". Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (4): 044005. Bibcode:2012ERL.....7d4005P. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044005.
• Powell, James Lawrence (2012). The Inquisition of Climate Science. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-15719-3. Archived from the original on 1 June 2021. Retrieved 12 July 2015.
• Rennie, John (30 November 2009). "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 19 October 2017. Retrieved 7 July 2015.
• Timmer, John (16 December 2014). "Skeptics, deniers, and contrarians: The climate science label game". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2 October 2017. Retrieved 14 June 2017.
• Vaidyanathan, Gayathri (2014). "What Have Climate Scientists Learned from 20-Year Fight with Deniers?". Scientific American. Archived from the original on 20 August 2021. Retrieved 23 January 2016.
• Washington, Haydn (2013). Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-53004-3.
• Weart, Spencer R. (February 2015). "The Public and Climate, cont". The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. Archived from the original on 10 February 2015. Retrieved 18 June 2022.
• Weart, Spencer R. (June 2015). "Government: The View from Washington, DC". The Discovery of Global Warming. American Institute of Physics. Archived from the original on 29 June 2016. Retrieved 18 July 2015.
• Weart, Spencer (2011). "Global warming: How skepticism became denial" (PDF). Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 67 (1): 41–50. Bibcode:2011BuAtS..67a..41W. doi:10.1177/0096340210392966. S2CID 53607015. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 June 2015.
• IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; Reisinger, A. (eds.). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. ISBN 978-92-9169-122-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• IPCC TAR WG1 (2001). Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J.; Dai, X.; Maskell, K.; Johnson, C.A. (eds.). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80767-8. Archived from the original on 15 December 2019. Retrieved 18 December 2019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 0-521-01495-6)

Wikiquote has quotations related to Climate change denial.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Climate change denial.