Thongchai Thailand

Anti Fossil Fuel Activists wary of Climate Change Denialists

Posted on: June 17, 2018

  1. Wikipedia: The global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is used in climate change deniers to legitimize controversy to dispute consensus. Global warming conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons, or both.
  2. Oxford University: While scientists have alerted the public and policy makers to the dangers of continuing carbon emission, policy proposals intended to curb carbon emission and thereby mitigate climate change have been resisted by a segment of the public. Most alarming are those who oppose solutions to climate change because they believe, or at least claim to believe, that anthropogenic climate change is not really happening and that climate scientists are lying and their data are fake.
  3. Sage Journal: Climate change conspiracy theories are motivated by the desire to deny an unwelcome conclusion. They are more contentious than other types of conspiracy theories. Climate change conspiracy theories are more politically motivated, dividing opinion across the left-right continuum. Empirical evidence suggests that climate change conspiracy theories are harmful, steering people away from environmentally friendly initiatives. They therefore present a significant challenge for governments and environmental activists trying to convince people to take action against global warming.
  4. Rational Wiki: Anthropogenic human-caused global warming, is the rising average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. Global warming denialism refers to fossil fuel industry-funded claims that global warming is: not happening, not caused by humans, or not significant enough to be a threat. They highlight hypothetical positive effects ( grow crops in the Arctic) while ignoring strong evidence for negative effects (crops will have lower nutrient levels). Deniers should not be confused with those that accept that anthropogenic global warming is a major threat, but may hold reasonable doubt about the effectiveness of proposed climate action.
  5. European Journal of American Studies: The concerted effort to discredit the scientific consensus over man-made global warming has been continuing for two decades in the United States, and shows no sign of weakening. It is very often described as an attempt on the part of corporate America, most notably the fossil fuel industries, to hinder governmental regulations on their activities. The US climate denial movement is complex, not just the mere defense of the oil and gas industries. There are additional factors which have been instrumental in blocking strong climate action. First, climate denial stems from the strong ideological commitment of small-government conservatives and libertarians to laisser-faire and their strong opposition to regulation. Second, in order to disarm their opponents, US climate deniers often rest their case on the defense of the American way of life, defined by high consumption and ever-expanding material prosperity. The US climate denial movement is best understood in these terms.
  6. Bioscience Journal: Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears are a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: