# Study disputes "climate emergency"



## Happy Joe (Feb 7, 2021)

Per a study by Dr Indur Goklany for the Global Warming Policy Foundation... (found in Breitbart news).

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/02/07/delingpole-study-disputes-earth-climate-emergency/

I'm sure this will be argued pro and con (mostly con) in the media but it looks like moderation & sense may have a chance over panic mongers.

IMO, climate change has been happening since well before the start of the last ice age and will likely continue forever; whether mankind is involved or not.

Enjoy!


----------



## Aunt Bea (Feb 7, 2021)

I don't know if climate change is a hoax or not but IMO it makes sense to develop sustainable renewable sources of energy.

Anything that reduces pollution, creates new clean jobs and makes us stronger more independent as a nation seems like a no-brainer to me.

My biggest concern is for the people that get chewed up and spit out every time we take a leap forward with new technology and replace old jobs with new ones.


----------



## Phoenix (Feb 7, 2021)

The climate emergency is real.  It's not a matter of opinion.  There is solid science.  One can see it for one's self.


----------



## Lewkat (Feb 7, 2021)

Right now in my climate, it is snowing like crazy which is  to be expected for February.


----------



## Pink Biz (Feb 7, 2021)

*Poppycock! I wouldn't trust anything published in Breitbart News.*


----------



## Gaer (Feb 7, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> Per a study by Dr Indur Goklany for the Global Warming Policy Foundation... (found in Breitbart news).
> 
> https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/02/07/delingpole-study-disputes-earth-climate-emergency/
> 
> ...


Well stated!  Climate change and violent, chaotic, disruptive activity on this planet is and will be a constant feature.


----------



## Happy Joe (Feb 8, 2021)

IMO, information is where you find it, I do not discount reports simply because of the intermediary/reporter (even CNN).  Some reports just need more investigation to see the degree of actual fact at their base, IMO... I tend to question most media reports especially those obviously promoting a fearful agenda.   Decisions based on fear are rarely optimal, IMO.

The normal state of climate is change, sometimes violent sometimes not, always has been (as far as accepted studied can tell) and always will be, IMO.

The sky is obviously not falling, very fast, and reports based on modeling are rarely more than indicators of *potential* scenarios, IMO.
(If you feel the need to panic; panic slowly)... while doing all that you personally can to alleviate potential disruptors.

Challenge; How much can you lower your personal greenhouse gas emissions/energy consumption?
Are you still using incandescent lighting, or have you converted to LED lights; relatively cheap, (they pay for themselves over time) and easy?
Do you have water conservation shower heads in your bath(s)?
Does your vehicular fuel consumption average more or less than than 1.3 gal/day (US average)?
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10308

Enjoy!


----------



## Don M. (Feb 8, 2021)

We could use some "global warming" here, in the Midwest, this month.  This Polar Vortex hit here a couple of days ago, and it may be the 3rd week of February before we see any temperatures above freezing.....miserably cold for the next 10+ days.


----------



## Jeni (Feb 8, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> MO, information is where you find it, I do not discount reports simply because of the intermediary/reporter (even CNN). Some reports just need more investigation to see the degree of actual fact at their base, IMO... I tend to question most media reports especially those obviously promoting a fearful agenda. Decisions based on fear are rarely optimal, IMO.
> 
> The normal state of climate is change, sometimes violent sometimes not, always has been (as far as accepted studied can tell) and always will be, IMO.


I agree totally this push to force people into decisions that are not well thought out by pushing only fear and hysteria will not end well...

The world has been changing for millions of years while human may have added to ........ how much ?  

I for one am totally sick of those pushing fear to call all others as non- believers and science deniers and so forth 
if the ONLY argument people have is resort to calling names and cancel culture...... perhaps you should dwell on that and rework your argument.


----------



## Happy Joe (Feb 8, 2021)

Don M said" We could use some "global warming" here, in the Midwest, this month."

My mother used to tell stories about having to go out on winter days during the depression, and collect the live stock, that walked over the fences on the crusty snowdrifts... (in Iowa).

Enjoy!


----------



## fmdog44 (Feb 8, 2021)

The issue is not so much climate change rather, is it man made or natural?


----------



## Judycat (Feb 8, 2021)

Whatever they say. I hate the clearing of the forests, the shrinking of animal habitats, and the need to cover everything with asphalt and cement more.


----------



## Gaer (Feb 8, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> Don M said" We could use some "global warming" here, in the Midwest, this month."
> 
> My mother used to tell stories about having to go out on winter days during the depression, and collect the live stock, that walked over the fences on the crusty snowdrifts... (in Iowa).
> 
> Enjoy!


Haha!  My horses did that in Colorado.  The snow was up to the eaves.  The packed snow they could walk on top and go anywhere.
We dug tunnels through the snow to bring them hay and water.
Unbelievable!
but this was 20 years ago!


----------



## Nathan (Feb 8, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> Per a study by Dr Indur Goklany for the Global Warming Policy Foundation... (found in Breitbart news).


Climate Change has been argued to death, Breitbart is so obviously slanted in it's opinion pieces that I wouldn't trust them to check on sports ....or the weather.  
Any hack media outlet can dredge up some hack scientist or "expert" to testify to whatever the script calls for.

Climate Change has been documented by real scientists, and the overwhelming majority worldwide agree  that it is real.

yea yea, the conspiracy promoters will whip up their cock & bull scenarios but that's just to obscure reality, which, if you control people's perception of reality, then you control people.


----------



## JonDouglas (Feb 8, 2021)

When "global warming" lost its resonance, traction and resultant funding, the name was changed to "climate change".  This is somewhat ironic since climate has always changed.  That said, some of the climate change advocates and positions are hilariously stupid. Among the most ribald is the subject of cow farts and how they are ruining our atmosphere and climate.  These same geniuses have forgotten that this and other continents were long populated by far more animals (e.g., bison) farting into the wind.  As for morons wanting to get rid of carbon dioxide, it is somewhat smart to remember that everything you eat owes its existence to carbon dioxide.  As with all of these great endeavors, "follow the money" and remember that money attracts all nature of grifters, especially those with a socio-political agenda.


----------



## Murrmurr (Feb 8, 2021)

fmdog44 said:


> The issue is not so much climate change rather, is it man made or natural?


More specifically, is it being *aided or hurried* by humans? 
Currently, because everybody got scared of nuclear energy, we're back to relying heavily on coal.


----------



## Phoenix (Feb 8, 2021)

Don M. said:


> We could use some "global warming" here, in the Midwest, this month.  This Polar Vortex hit here a couple of days ago, and it may be the 3rd week of February before we see any temperatures above freezing.....miserably cold for the next 10+ days.


Tell you what, you can have ours from this coming summer when everything burns up here again.


----------



## Don M. (Feb 8, 2021)

Phoenix said:


> Tell you what, you can have ours from this coming summer when everything burns up here again.


I have learned that there is NO ideal year round weather...anywhere.  Every area has its good, and bad, traits.  Unless a person is wealthy enough to own multiple properties, and can travel freely between them, one must be prepared to put up with what nature gives.


----------



## Gaer (Feb 8, 2021)

Have any of you noticed, over the years, that weather has more meaning in your life?
When I was young, it could be a blizzard and 40 below, HECK!  Who cared?
Weather had NO INFLUENCE AT ALL on dampering anything we wanted to do!
Now, If I look outside and see 8 inches of snow, I just stay inside!
Anyone else notice this?


----------



## Nathan (Feb 8, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> When "global warming" lost its resonance, traction and resultant funding, the name was changed to "climate change".  This is somewhat ironic since climate has always changed.  That said, some of the climate change advocates and positions are hilariously stupid. Among the most ribald is the subject of cow farts and how they are ruining our atmosphere and climate.  These same geniuses have forgotten that this and other continents were long populated by far more animals (e.g., bison) farting into the wind.  As for morons wanting to get rid of carbon dioxide, it is somewhat smart to remember that everything you eat owes its existence to carbon dioxide.*  As with all of these great endeavors, "follow the money" and remember that money attracts all nature of grifters, especially those with a socio-political agenda.*


Yes, please DO follow the money, take an unbiased look at which grifters would benefit from obscuring the truth and spreading uncertainty and doubt.      The big petro-chemical energy companies don't deny global warming, hell- it's primarily their scientists that pioneered the whole matter.
ExxonMobil, Chevron...all the big energy producers are ready to respond and make "green" possible, and profitable, they have just been needing the political leadership to be stable.   They now have that.


----------



## peramangkelder (Feb 8, 2021)




----------



## JonDouglas (Feb 8, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Yes, please DO follow the money, take an unbiased look at which grifters would benefit from obscuring the truth and spreading uncertainty and doubt.      The big petro-chemical energy companies don't deny global warming, hell- it's primarily their scientists that pioneered the whole matter.
> ExxonMobil, Chevron...all the big energy producers are ready to respond and make "green" possible, and profitable, they have just been needing the political leadership to be stable.   They now have that.


Just a quick thought about global warming:  It happens between glacial periods, which is a period we're happily not in.  Second, corporations will follow the political winds for all the obvious reasons. 

Also, your political bias didn't go unnoticed.


----------



## Phoenix (Feb 8, 2021)

Don M. said:


> I have learned that there is NO ideal year round weather...anywhere.  Every area has its good, and bad, traits.  Unless a person is wealthy enough to own multiple properties, and can travel freely between them, one must be prepared to put up with what nature gives.


And we can try to  do the things we need to do fix the things we humans have caused.


----------



## Nathan (Feb 8, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Just a quick thought about global warming:  It happens between glacial periods, which is a period we're happily not in.  Second, corporations will follow the political winds for all the obvious reasons.
> 
> Also, your political bias didn't go unnoticed.


So  if don't buy the "anti" argument then it is _me_ that has a bias?  Cute.   

Like I said, the global warming climate change issue has been argued to the point of absurdity.    You can look to your grifters to feed you what you wish to hear.


----------



## JonDouglas (Feb 8, 2021)

Nathan said:


> So  if don't buy the "anti" argument then it is _me_ that has a bias?  Cute.
> 
> Like I said, the global warming climate change issue has been argued to the point of absurdity.    You can look to your grifters to feed you what you wish to hear.


When you are opining about "green", I hope you can remember that "green energy"  is a fallacy.  Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form and time.  Also, you might be well served to learn how and to what extent batteries pollute our environment.  Good luck to you and please turn off all your electricity if you're really that "greeen".


----------



## Don M. (Feb 8, 2021)

Phoenix said:


> And we can try to  do the things we need to do fix the things we humans have caused.



If only it was that easy.  Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, humans have been releasing pollutants at a pace that exceeds the capacity of nature to compensate.  Even today, things like the Amazon rain forest...which has been the best mechanism to absorb the excess CO2...is being decimated at an increasing pace.  More and more scientists are saying we have reached the "tipping point", beyond which, there is little we can do to reverse the damage.  Even if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether, today, and went back to bicycles, etc., the damage has been done.  

People of our age may notice more drastic changes in weather patterns.....and it will be an inconvenience.  But, those who inhabit the planet at the end of the century, and beyond, will the ones who really begin to feel the effects.  When the oceans rise enough to inundate most of our coastal cities, more than 1/4 of our population will have to relocate, and trillions of dollars in real estate and infrastructure will be lost.  Florida and most of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts will be under water.   Much of rest of the world will have similar problems.  Couple the effects of climate change on our planet, and add in ever rising populations, and the future is going to be a real mess.


----------



## Liberty (Feb 9, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> When you are opining about "green", I hope you can remember that "green energy"  is a fallacy.  Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form and time.  Also, you might be well served to learn how and to what extent batteries pollute our environment.  Good luck to you and please turn off all your electricity if you're really that "greeen".


Yes, second this.. like my hub says "where do they think the electricity really comes from to power these "green" cars?  He's an electrical engineer...lol.


----------



## JonDouglas (Feb 9, 2021)

Liberty said:


> Yes, second this.. like my hub says "where do they think the electricity really comes from to power these "green" cars?  He's an electrical engineer...lol.


When you've lived long enough, you remember times past when "experts" said bad environmental things were going to happen if we didn't take drastic action. It seems almost every decade brings us more stupid predictions of  gloom and doom.

A Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”  That was in the 1970s.
In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.
Stanford University biologist and author Paul Erlich emphatically declare, "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”  The idiot also said something to the effect that England may not exist in the year 2000.”  It should be noted that Erlich won a lot of awards and had legions of followers.
Some 45 years ago, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization was reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., once wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.
The U.S. Geological Survey once said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.  Right now it looks like we've got at least a century's worth.
The U.S. government once closed the U.S. patent office because "experts" thought that everything that could be invented, had been.
Some years back, the global warming zealots were proclaiming "the science is settled" just as nature showed them it wasn't when coastal cities didn't go underwater as predicted.
You can be reasonably sure it's probably BS when they say you must hurry and do something because time is short.  That something usually means separating you from your money, either directly or indirectly (e.g., thru taxes to the government.)


----------



## Ruby Rose (Feb 9, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> Don M said" We could use some "global warming" here, in the Midwest, this month."
> 
> My mother used to tell stories about having to go out on winter days during the depression, and collect the live stock, that walked over the fences on the crusty snowdrifts... (in Iowa).
> 
> Enjoy!


Because of our deep cold at this time, my son-in-law with the help of his skidsteer has been dropping 1,000 lb round bales in the fields for the horses to keep them warm.They are all wearing their extra coats, I tell you.


Don M. said:


> We could use some "global warming" here, in the Midwest, this month.  This Polar Vortex hit here a couple of days ago, and it may be the 3rd week of February before we see any temperatures above freezing.....miserably cold for the next 10+ days.


----------



## Jeni (Feb 9, 2021)

What I have noticed in my area is the change of time frame for the bad weather of winter i was discussing with a friend so we both researched 
and found our recollection was correct.
 in my early years the brunt of snow etc happened in Nov- DEC .... 
through my early adult years it was more Dec- Jan ......... now we get bigger storms etc in Feb- Mar .......... 
perhaps it is a calendar change..........


----------



## asp3 (Feb 9, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> When "global warming" lost its resonance, traction and resultant funding, the name was changed to "climate change".  This is somewhat ironic since climate has always changed.  That said, some of the climate change advocates and positions are hilariously stupid. Among the most ribald is the subject of cow farts and how they are ruining our atmosphere and climate.  These same geniuses have forgotten that this and other continents were long populated by far more animals (e.g., bison) farting into the wind.  As for morons wanting to get rid of carbon dioxide, it is somewhat smart to remember that everything you eat owes its existence to carbon dioxide.  As with all of these great endeavors, "follow the money" and remember that money attracts all nature of grifters, especially those with a socio-political agenda.



Please read the following review of the science showing your comparison is incorrect.

https://mrdrscienceteacher.wordpress.com/2019/09/21/bison-vs-cow-greenhouse-gas-emissions/


----------



## Phoenix (Feb 9, 2021)

Don M. said:


> If only it was that easy.  Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, humans have been releasing pollutants at a pace that exceeds the capacity of nature to compensate.  Even today, things like the Amazon rain forest...which has been the best mechanism to absorb the excess CO2...is being decimated at an increasing pace.  More and more scientists are saying we have reached the "tipping point", beyond which, there is little we can do to reverse the damage.  Even if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether, today, and went back to bicycles, etc., the damage has been done.
> 
> People of our age may notice more drastic changes in weather patterns.....and it will be an inconvenience.  But, those who inhabit the planet at the end of the century, and beyond, will the ones who really begin to feel the effects.  When the oceans rise enough to inundate most of our coastal cities, more than 1/4 of our population will have to relocate, and trillions of dollars in real estate and infrastructure will be lost.  Florida and most of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts will be under water.   Much of rest of the world will have similar problems.  Couple the effects of climate change on our planet, and add in ever rising populations, and the future is going to be a real mess.


I didn't say it's easy.   But if we want to survive, it's a must.  All life on this planet depends on us to make it right.


----------



## Kathleen’s Place (Feb 9, 2021)

There are as many views and scientific professional opinions on climate control as there are for the corona virus and how to deal with it.

my personal opinion is that we need to do all that we possibly can so there are still resources for our great grandchildren and beyond


----------



## Nathan (Feb 9, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> When you are opining about "green", I hope you can remember that "green energy"  is a fallacy.  Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it just changes form and time.  Also, you might be well served to learn how and to what extent batteries pollute our environment.  Good luck to you and please turn off all your electricity if you're really that "greeen".


You're making assumptions upon assumptions, the doublespeak you subscribe to apparently has a specific connotation attached to the word "green", I guess I need to choose my words carefully when conversing with the "anti" crowd.
By the way, your condescending attitude hasn't gone unnoticed, that appears to be a common trait for those who have bathed their brain cells in the conspiracy koolaid.


----------



## asp3 (Feb 9, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> When you've lived long enough, you remember times past when "experts" said bad environmental things were going to happen if we didn't take drastic action. It seems almost every decade brings us more stupid predictions of  gloom and doom.
> 
> A Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”  That was in the 1970s.
> In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.
> ...



If one takes the timetable for statements and takes the supposed Patent Bureau statement which is reported to have happened in 1899 you've provided 10 bad predictions over the course of 100 years.  How many predictions did turn out to be true during those years and how many provided underestimates of what eventually happened?

Here are my responses to the predictions you listed.

-----------------------------------------------

*A Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was in the 1970s.*

It was Harvard biochemist Dr George Wald giving a speech at University of Maryland reported on in the New York Times Nov 19, 1970.  He said that pollution, overpopulation and the possibility of nuclear war would case this is to happen.  He said that unless we took immediate action that civilization would end in 15 to 30 years.

We did take action, we reduced nuclear arms, created nuclear arms treaties and also reduced pollution.  We have dropped population growth from 2.1 % worldwide in 1970 to 1.1 % worldwide.  So his call to action was answered.  The area we haven't dealt with that well is overpopulation but we've almost cut the population growth in half.  It has been dropping since 1971 so we did take action there as well.

*In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.*

I haven't found enough information on this one to respond to it.  If you can provide a link to the original statement I'll see what I can do.

*Stanford University biologist and author Paul Erlich emphatically declare, "The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.” The idiot also said something to the effect that England may not exist in the year 2000.” It should be noted that Erlich won a lot of awards and had legions of followers.*

It would be nice if you could post your disagreements with people's opinions without calling them idiots.  Someone can make a statement that didn't turn out to be true without being an idiot.  Please attack ideas and not people.

As for the starvation statement this excellent article from the Smithsonian Magazine included it in an article as to why the first US Earth Day predictions didn't come true.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...dictions-come-true-its-complicated-180958820/

I do agree that Paul Erlich didn't do a good job of making predictions and I would question any of his claims overall.

*Some 45 years ago, C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization was reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."*

Obviously this statement is wrong, but I couldn't find enough about it to provide a context for it.  Interestingly enough this is listed in a number of articles that say that climate change is simply a ruse for implementing socialism along with a number of the other statements you listed.

*In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”*

This statement has also not turned out to be true.  The most unfortunate thing about this statement is the source has been removed from the internet.

*Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., once wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”*

The statement was actually made by Dr. Ripley during a joint hearing before the subcommittee on the Smithsonian Institution Sept 23, 1969.  One can see it here https://books.google.com/books?id=DjAVAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false

I couldn't find anything in the archives with him giving his reasons for the statement so I can't see if some of the things he based his predictions on were changed.

*Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.*

I found the original article at https://ceiba.org.mx/publicaciones/...osphere/1970_Biosphere_ScientificAmerican.pdf but wasn't able to find a good explanation for the table in my scanning of the article.  However the summary of the article is "Materials such as metals and concrete are not renewable.  Man's problem is to devise cycles that will conserve resources of this kind and at the same time prevent their accumulation as solid waste."  There's a good chance the chart didn't play out because we have devised these cycles.  In additon we have reduced copper use for example in 1982 by chaging the percentage used in pennies in 1982 from 95% to 2.5%.

The article also said that plastics might start replacing some metals which may have taken place as well.  So it's my take that we reacted properly to the prediction and changed our ways to prevent it from happening.  Once again the prediction might have been right if we didn't change our behavior.

*The U.S. Geological Survey once said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. Right now it looks like we've got at least a century's worth.*

Please provide the source for the 10 year supply prediction, I couldn't find one.

*The U.S. government once closed the U.S. patent office because "experts" thought that everything that could be invented, had been.*

Can you please supply a source for your information.  This article seems to indicate it's bunk.  https://www.laserfocusworld.com/tes...5061/everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been

In addition the questionable information is that a the commissioner of the US Patent Office said that in 1899 and resigned, not that the patent office was closed.  The article above seems to indicate the original quote and story about the resignation is bunk.

*Some years back, the global warming zealots were proclaiming "the science is settled" just as nature showed them it wasn't when coastal cities didn't go underwater as predicted.*

Once again please supply the source for this one.

---------------------------------------

Based on what you've written on the forum I think you are knowledgeable enough to know that when predictions are made based on science there are often further studies to either confirm the reasons for the predictions.  There are also often studies done to prevent negative predictions from happening by seeing what can be done to address them.

In my opinion one can't just look at whether a prediction was right or wrong.  One also needs to look at how that opinion affected the future course of scientific exploration and whether or not there were benefits from such predictions even if they were wrong.


----------



## Nathan (Feb 9, 2021)

An impartial overview of the Climate Change denial effort:

*Climate change denial*, or *global warming denial* is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[4][5][6] Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "*climate change skeptics*",[7][5] which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description.[8][9][10] Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action.[11] Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism,[12][13] pseudoscience,[14] or propaganda.[15]

The campaign to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" organized by industrial, political and ideological interests, and supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers to manufacture uncertainty about global warming.[16][17][18]

The politics of global warming have been affected by climate change denial and the political global warming controversy, undermining the efforts to act on climate change or adapting to the warming climate.[19][15][20] Those promoting denial commonly use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none.[21][22]

Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO
2 emissions.[23] Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States.[15][24][25][26] More than 90% of papers skeptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.[27]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial


----------

