1 2 National Center for Science Education 2010Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFNational_Center_for_Science_Education2010 (trợ giúp): "The first pillar of climate change denial—that climate change is bad science—attacks various aspects of the scientific consensus about climate change … there are climate change deniers:
1 2 Powell 2012, tr. 170–173: "Anatomy of Denial—Global warming deniers…. throw up a succession of claims, and fall back from one line of defense to the next as scientists refute each one in turn.
1 2 3 Dunlap 2013, tr. 691–698: "There is debate over which term is most appropriate… Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves "skeptics"… Yet skepticism is…a common characteristic of scientists, making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics…It seems best to think of skepticism-denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW…and others in complete denial"
1 2 National Center for Science Education 2012Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFNational_Center_for_Science_Education2012 (trợ giúp): "Climate change denial is most conspicuous when it is explicit, as it is in controversies over climate education.
1 2 Dunlap 2013, tr. 691–698: "From the outset, there has been an organized "disinformation" campaign… to "manufacture uncertainty" over AGW … especially by attacking climate science and scientists … waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks … often assisted by a small number of 'contrarian scientists. … greatly aided by conservative media and politicians … and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers. This 'denial machine' has played a crucial role in generating skepticism toward AGW among laypeople and policy makers "
↑ Begley 2007Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFBegley2007 (trợ giúp): "ICE and the Global Climate Coalition lobbied hard against a global treaty to curb greenhouse gases, and were joined by a central cog in the denial machine: the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank..... the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers"
1 2 Nerlich 2010, tr. 419, 437: "Climate scepticism in the sense of climate denialism or contrarianism is not a new phenomenon, but it has recently been very much in the media spotlight.
↑ Oreskes, Naomi (2007). “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?”. Trong DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. tr. 65–66. ISBN978-0-262-54193-0.
↑ “CLIMATE CHANGE 2014: Synthesis Report. Summary for Policymakers” (PDF). IPCC. Truy cập ngày 7 tháng 3 năm 2015. The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together
↑ Dunlap 2013: "Even though climate science has now firmly established that global warming is occurring, that human activities contribute to this warming… a significant portion of the American public remains ambivalent or unconcerned, and many policymakers (especially in the United States) deny the necessity of taking steps to reduce carbon emissions…From the outset, there has been an organized "disinformation" campaign… to generate skepticism and denial concerning AGW."
1 2 3 Jacques, Dunlap & Freeman 2008, tr. 351: "Conservative think tanks…and their backers launched a full-scale counter-movement… We suggest that this counter-movement has been central to the reversal of US support for environmental protection, both domestically and internationally.
1 2 Painter & Ashe 2012: "Despite a high degree of consensus amongst publishing climate researchers that global warming is occurring, and that it is anthropogenic, this discourse, promoted largely by non-scientists, has had a significant impact on public perceptions of the issue, fostering the impression that elite opinion is divided as to the nature and extent of the threat."
↑ Dunlap 2013: "The campaign has been waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks… These actors are greatly aided by conservative media and politicians, and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers."
↑ David Michaels (2008) Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health.
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "'Climate scepticism' and 'climate denial' are readily used concepts, referring to a discourse that has become important in public debate since climate change was first put firmly on the policy agenda in 1988.
1 2 National Center for Science Education 2012Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFNational_Center_for_Science_Education2012 (trợ giúp): "There is debate…about how to refer to the positions that reject, and to the people who doubt or deny, the scientific community's consensus on…climate change.
↑ Rennie 2009: "Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists."
↑ Brown 1996, tr. 9, 11 "Indeed, the 'skeptic' scientists14 were perceived to be all the more credible precisely because their views were contrary to the consensus of peer-reviewed science. 14. All scientists are skeptics because the scientific process demands continuing questioning. In this report, however, the scientists we refer to as 'skeptics' are those who have taken a highly visible public role in criticizing the scientific consensus on ozone depletion and climate change through publications and statements addressed more to the media and the public than to the scientific community."
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "The term 'climate scepticism' emerged in around 1995, the year journalist Ross Gelbspan authored perhaps the first book focusing directly on what would retrospectively be understood as climate scepticism."
↑ Gelbspan 1998 p. 3 "But some individuals do not want the public to know about the immediacy and extent of the climate threat. They have been waging a persistent campaign of denial and suppression that has been lamentably effective." pp. 33–34 "The campaign to keep the climate change off the public agenda involves more than the undisclosed funding of these 'greenhouse skeptics.' In their efforts to challenge the consensus scientific view….." p. 35 "If the climate skeptics have succeeded in confusing the general public, their influence on decision makers has been, if anything, even more effective p. 173 "pervasive denial of global warming"
↑ CBC News: the fifth estate 2007Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFCBC_News:_the_fifth_estate2007 (trợ giúp): "The Denial Machine investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of a group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big Tobacco, and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies. … The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. … The Denial Machine also explores how the arguments supported by oil companies were adopted by policy makers in both Canada and the U.S. and helped form government policy."
1 2 Orlóci 2008, tr. 86, 97: "The ideological justification for this came from the sceptics (e.g., Lomborg 2001a,b) and from the industrial 'denial machine'. … CBC Television Fifth Estate, November 15, 2006, The Climate Denial Machine, Canada.
1 2 Begley 2007Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFBegley2007 (trợ giúp): "If you think those who have long challenged the mainstream scientific findings about global warming recognize that the game is over, think again. … outside Hollywood, Manhattan and other habitats of the chattering classes, the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion. 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. 'They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,' says former senator Tim Wirth"
↑ Washington 2013, tr. 2: "Many climate change deniers call themselves climate 'skeptics'…However, refusing to accept the overwhelming 'preponderance of evidence' is not skepticism, it is denial and should be called by its true name… The use of the term 'climate skeptic' is a distortion of reality…Skepticism is healthy in both science and society; denial is not."
1 2 O’Neill, Saffron J.; sjoneill@unimelb.edu.au; Boykoff, Max (28 tháng 9 năm 2010). “Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (39): E151–E151. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.151O. ISSN0027-8424. PMID20807754. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010507107. Truy cập ngày 2 tháng 6 năm 2015. Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial… However, skepticism forms an integral part of the scientific method, and, thus, the term is frequently misapplied in such phrases as "climate change skeptic."
↑ Mann, Michael E. (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. ISBN0-231-52638-5. Skepticism plays an essential role in the progress of science… Yet…in the context of the climate change denial movement… the term skeptic has often been co-opted to describe those who simply deny, rather than appraise critically.
↑ Jenkins 2015, tr. 229: "many who deny the consensus on climate change are not really skeptics but rather contrarians who practice "a kind of one-sided skepticism that entails simply rejecting evidence that challenges one's preconceptions" (Mann 2012:26)"
↑ National Center for Science Education 2012Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFNational_Center_for_Science_Education2012 (trợ giúp): "Recognizing that no terminological choice is entirely unproblematic, NCSE — in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms "climate changer deniers" and "climate change denial""
↑ Weart 2015Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015 (trợ giúp) footnote 136a: "I do not mean to use the term "denier" pejoratively—it has been accepted by some of the group as a self-description—but simply to designate those who deny any likelihood of future danger from anthropogenic global warming."
↑ Timmer 2014Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFTimmer2014 (trợ giúp): "some of the people who deserve that label are offended by it, thinking it somehow lumps them in with holocaust deniers.
↑ Weart 2015aLỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015a (trợ giúp): "From the late 1940s into the 1960s, many of the papers cited in these essays carried a thought-provoking footnote: "This work was supported by the 'Office of Naval Research.'
↑ Weart 2015aLỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015a (trợ giúp): Global Warming Becomes a Political Issue (1980–1983); "In 1981, Ronald Reagan took the presidency with an administration that openly scorned their concerns. He brought with him a backlash that had been building against the environmental movement. Many conservatives denied nearly every environmental worry, global warming included. They lumped all such concerns together as the rants of business-hating liberals, a Trojan Horse for government regulation." For details, see Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2
↑ Weart 2015Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015 (trợ giúp): Breaking into Politics (1980–1988), "Sherwood Idso, who published arguments that greenhouse gas emissions would not warm the Earth or bring any other harm to climate. Better still, by fertilizing crops, the increase of CO2 would bring tremendous benefits."
↑ Weart 2015Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015 (trợ giúp) The Summer of 1988: "A new breed of interdisciplinary studies was showing that even a few degrees of warming might have harsh consequences, both for fragile natural ecosystems and for certain agricultural systems and other human endeavours…. The timing was right, and the media leaped on the story. Hansen's statements, especially that severe warming was likely within the next 50 years, got on the front pages of newspapers and were featured in television news and radio talk shows….. The story grew as the summer of 1988 wore on. Reporters descended unexpectedly upon an international conference of scientists held in Toronto at the end of June. Their stories prominently reported how the world's leading climate scientists declared that atmospheric changes were already causing harm, and might cause much more; the scientists called for vigorous government action to restrict greenhouse gases.
↑ Weart 2015Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015 (trợ giúp): "Environmentalist organizations continued… lobbying and advertising efforts to argue for restrictions on emissions. The environmentalists were opposed, and greatly outspent, by industries that produced or relied on fossil fuels. Industry groups not only mounted a sustained and professional public relations effort, but also channeled considerable sums of money to individual scientists and small conservative organizations and publications that denied any need to act against global warming."
1 2 3 4 Begley 2007Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFBegley2007 (trợ giúp): "Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming… Then they claimed that any warming is natural… Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.
1 2 Weart 2015Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015 (trợ giúp): "The technical criticism most widely noted in the press came in several brief "reports" — not scientific papers in the usual sense — published between 1989 and 1992 by the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. The anonymously authored pamphlets… [claimed] that proposed government regulation would be "extraordinarily costly to the U.S. economy," they insisted it would be unwise to act on the basis of the existing global warming theories… In 1989 some of the biggest corporations in the petroleum, automotive, and other industries created a Global Climate Coalition, whose mission was to disparage every call for action against global warming."
1 2 Conway & Oreskes 2010: "Millions of pages of documents released during tobacco litigation…show the crucial role that scientists played in sowing doubt about the links between smoking and health risks. These documents…also show that the same strategy was applied not only to global warming, but to a laundry list of environmental and health concerns, including asbestos, secondhand smoke, acid rain, and the ozone hole."
↑ Weart 2015Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015 (trợ giúp): "Scientists noticed something that the public largely overlooked: the most outspoken scientific critiques of global warming predictions did not appear in the standard peer-reviewed scientific publications. The critiques tended to appear in venues funded by industrial groups, or in conservative media like the Wall Street Journal."
↑ Weart 2011, tr. 46: "At some point they were no longer skeptics — people who would try to see every side of a case — but deniers, that is, people whose only interest was in casting doubt upon what other scientists agreed was true."
↑ Weart 2011, tr. 47: "As the deniers found ever less scientific ground to stand on, they turned to political arguments. Some of these policy arguments were straightforward, raising serious questions about the efficacy and expense of proposed carbon taxes and emission-regulation schemes. But leading deniers also resorted toad hominem tactics… On each side, some people were coming to believe that they faced a dishonest conspiracy, driven by ideological bias and naked self-interest"
↑ Jacques, Dunlap & Freeman 2008, tr. 349–385: "Environmental scepticism encompasses several themes, but denial of the authenticity of environmental problems, particularly problems such as biodiversity loss or climate change that threaten ecological sustainability, is its defining feature"
1 2 (Hamilton 2011, tr. 104–106): "the tactics, personnel and organisations mobilised to serve the interests of the tobacco lobby in the 1980s were seamlessly transferred to serve the interests of the fossil-fuel lobby in the 1990s. Frederick Seitz… the task of the climate sceptics in the think tanks and PR companies hired by fossil fuel companies was to engage in 'consciousness lowering activities', to 'de-problematise' global warming by describing it as a form of politically driven panicmongering." For the tobacco company memo, see “Original "Doubt is our product…" memo”. University of California, San Francisco. 21 tháng 8 năm 1969. Truy cập ngày 19 tháng 3 năm 2010.
↑ Conway & Oreskes 2010, tr. 105: "As recently as 2007, the George Marshall Institute continued to insist that the damages associated with acid rain were always "largely hypothetical," and that "further scientific investigation revealed that most of them were not in fact occurring." The Institute cited no studies to support this extraordinary claim."
↑ Weart 2015Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015 (trợ giúp): "Public support for environmental concerns in general seems to have waned after 1988."
↑ Weart 2015Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFWeart2015 (trợ giúp): "A study of American media found that in 1987 most items that mentioned the greenhouse effect had been feature stories about the science, whereas in 1988 the majority of the stories addressed the politics of the controversy. It was not that the number of science stories declined, but rather that as media coverage doubled and redoubled, the additional stories moved into social and political areas…Before 1988, the journalists had drawn chiefly on scientists for their information, but afterward they relied chiefly on sources who were identified with political positions or special interest groups."
↑ Begley 2007Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFBegley2007 (trợ giúp): "Individual companies and industry associations—representing petroleum, steel, autos and utilities, for instance—formed lobbying groups…[the Information Council on the Environment's] game plan called for enlisting greenhouse doubters to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact," and to sow doubt about climate research just as cigarette makers had about smoking research.... The coal industry's Western Fuels Association paid Michaels to produce a newsletter called World Climate Report, which has regularly trashed mainstream climate science."
↑ Cox, Robert (2009). Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere. Sage. tr. 311–312. to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases
↑ Michael A. Milburn; Sheree D. Conrad (tháng 1 năm 1998). The Politics of Denial. MIT Press. tr. 216–. ISBN978-0-262-63184-6. Here again, as in the case of ozone depletion, economic and psychological forces are operating to produce a level of denial that threatens future generations.
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "Academics took note of the discourse when they began to analyse media representations of climate change knowledge and its effect on public perceptions and policy-making, but in the 1990s, they did not yet focus on it as a coherent and defined phenomenon. This changed in the 2000s, when McCright and Dunlap played an important role in deepening the concept of climate scepticism."
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "McCright and Dunlap played an important role in deepening the concept of climate scepticism. Examining what they termed a 'conservative countermovement' to undermine climate change policy…McCright and Dunlap went beyond the study of media representations of climate change knowledge to give a coherent picture of the movement behind climate scepticism in the US."
↑ Antilla 2005: "At the centre of this climate backlash is a group of dissident scientists. The number of these climate sceptics is greater in the US than in any other country. Although the peer-reviewed scientific literature agrees with the IPCC, within the media—wherefrom the majority of adults in the US are informed about science—claims that are dismissive of anthropogenic climate change are prominently featured."
↑ Jenkins 2015, tr. 243: "the community of climate change contrarians also includes a host of amateurs, from talk radio hosts to newspaper columnists to bloggers. In particular, the tremendous growth of the Internet has given sustenance to the contrarian movement"
1 2 Rennie 2009: "Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources.
↑ Rennie 2009: " According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce."
↑ Rennie 2009: "from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models.
↑ Rennie 2009: "Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then."
↑ Rennie 2009: "Claim 4: The sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes of global warming.
↑ Rennie 2009: "But in defiance of the naysayers who want to chalk the recent warming up to natural cycles, there is insufficient evidence that enough extra solar energy is reaching our planet to account for the observed rise in global temperatures."
↑ Rennie 2009: "Claim 5: Climatologists conspire to hide the truth about global warming by locking away their data.
↑ White, Rob (2012). Climate Change from a Criminological Perspective. Springer Science & Business Media. tr. 49. ISBN1-4614-3640-0. many Americans, including many American politicians and decision-makers, are increasingly viewing climate change as a "left-wing plot"–part of the "one-world socialist agenda" or a "conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth." Just as Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma proclaimed on the Senate floor that "[g]lobal warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people", many Americans believe that climate change is "a cynical hoax perpetrated by climate scientists… greedy for grants."
↑ Rennie 2009: "If there were a massive conspiracy to defraud the world on climate (and to what end?), surely the thousands of e-mails and other files stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and distributed by hackers on November 20 would bear proof of it.
↑ Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). “Expert credibility in climate change” (PDF). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. PMC2901439. PMID20566872. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
↑ Rennie 2009: "Climatologists are frequently frustrated by accusations that they are hiding their data or the details of their models because, as Gavin Schmidt points out, much of the relevant information is in public databases or otherwise accessible—a fact that contrarians conveniently ignore when insisting that scientists stonewall their requests."
↑ Rennie 2009: "Claim 7: Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don't produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable, prudent ways to address climate change than reducing our carbon footprint."
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "We focused on the marked differences in what climate sceptics are sceptical about … (1) trend sceptics (who deny the global warming trend), (2) attribution sceptics (who accept the trend, but either question the anthropogenic contribution saying it is overstated, negligent or non-existent compared to other factors like natural variation, or say it is not known with sufficient certainty what the main causes are) and (3) impact sceptics (who accept human causation, but claim impacts may be benign or beneficial, or that the models are not robust enough) and/or question the need for strong regulatory policies or interventions.
↑ Dunlap & Jacques 2013, tr. 702: "These books reject evidence that global warming is occurring, that human actions are the predominant cause of global warming, and/or that global warming will have negative impacts on human and natural systems.
↑ “NCSE Tackles Climate Change Denial”. National Center for Science Education. 13 tháng 1 năm 2012. Truy cập tháng 7 năm 2015. Science education is under attack… by climate change deniers, who ignore a mountain of evidence gathered over the last fifty years that the planet is warming and that humans are largely responsible. These deniers attempt to sabotage science education with fringe ideas, pseudoscience, and outright lies.
↑ Lahsen, Myanna (Winter 2005). “Technocracy, Democracy, and the U.S. Climate Politics: The Need for Demarcations”. Science, Technology, & Human Values 30: 137–169. doi:10.1177/0162243904270710. Numerous high-ranked officers in the Clinton-Gore administration sought to dismiss all critics of the climate paradigm as "pseudoscientists"
↑ Brown 1996, tr. 28: "As the scientific fringe has become institutionalized, professionalized, and lionized… One finds that a fundamental difference between the traditional scientific establishment and the emerging "skeptic" establishment relates to their ultimate scientific goals.
↑ Morrison, David. The Parameters of Pseudoscience, Skeptical Inquirer, Volume 37.2, March/April 2013. Book review of The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe, by Michael D. Gordin.
1 2 Dunlap 2013: "From the outset, there has been an organized "disinformation" campaign… to "manufacture uncertainty" over AGW, especially by attacking climate science and scientists.
↑ Antilla 2005: "One problematic trend of the US media has been the suggestion that substantive disagreement exists within the international scientific community as to the reality of anthropogenic climate change; however, this concept is false…Although the science of climate change does not appear to be a prime news topic for most of the 255 newspapers included in this study…articles that framed climate change in terms of debate, controversy, or uncertainty were plentiful."
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "Media analysis of climate change reporting was always of interest to academics but from the mid-2000s, it became one of the key areas of research interest, highlighting a tendency to give undue weight to voices questioning the science of climate change."
↑ Antilla 2005: "Not only were there many examples of journalistic balance that led to bias, but some of the news outlets repeatedly used climate sceptics—with known fossil fuel industry ties—as primary definers"
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "news coverage of scepticism is mostly limited to the USA and the UK…the type of sceptics who question whether global temperatures are warming are almost exclusively found in the US and UK newspapers.
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "in the USA and the UK… sceptical voices generally appear in much higher numbers… in France, the UK and the USA… right-leaning newspapers are much more likely to include uncontested sceptical voices."
↑ Gifford R. (2011). “The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation”. Am Psychol 66 (4): 290–302. PMID21553954. doi:10.1037/a0023566.
↑ Jacques, Dunlap & Freeman 2008, tr. 352: "While these CTTs sometimes joined corporate America in directly lobbying against environmental policies, their primary tactic in combating environmentalism has been to challenge the need for protective environmental policy by questioning the seriousness of environmental problems and the validity of environmental science."
↑ Borowy, Iris (2014). Defining Sustainable Development for Our Common Future: A History of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Routledge. tr. 44. Corporations and conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, Marshall Institute], the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute waged campaigns to obscure scientific evidence about acid rain, ozone depletion and climate change and, thereby, to prevent or rollback environmental, health and safety regulations.
↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "The work by McCright and Dunlap has highlighted the effectiveness of organized climate sceptic groups in influencing US policy making in the 1990s and early 2000s, including their central role in the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the US Congress"
↑ Antilla 2005: "A number of large corporations that profit substantially from fossil fuel consumption, such as ExxonMobil, provide financial support to their political allies in an effort to undermine public trust in climate science."
↑ Justin Farrell, Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change.
↑ Sample, Ian (2 tháng 2 năm 2007). “Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study”. London: The Guardian. Truy cập ngày 16 tháng 8 năm 2007. The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
↑ Bradsher, Keith (7 tháng 12 năm 1999). “Ford Announces Its Withdrawal From Global Climate Coalition”. New York Times. Truy cập ngày 21 tháng 7 năm 2013. the Ford Motor Company said today that it would pull out of the Global Climate Coalition, a group of big manufacturers and oil and mining companies that lobbies against restrictions on emissions of gases linked to global warming.
↑ Gillis, Justin; Schartz, John (21 tháng 2 năm 2015). “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher”. The New York Times. Truy cập ngày 7 tháng 3 năm 2015. newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests. He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as "deliverables" that he completed in exchange for their money.
↑ Goldenberg, Suzanne (21 tháng 2 năm 2015). “Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry”. The Guardian. Truy cập ngày 7 tháng 3 năm 2015. Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers… the biggest single funder was Southern Company, one of the country’s biggest electricity providers that relies heavily on coal.
↑ Schwartz, John (25 tháng 2 năm 2015). “Lawmakers Seek Information on Funding for Climate Change Critics”. The New York Times. Truy cập ngày 7 tháng 3 năm 2015. Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said last week that a contract provision with funders of Dr. Soon’s work that appeared to prohibit disclosure of funding sources "was a mistake." "We will not permit similar wording in future grant agreements"
↑ Justin Gillis; Leslie Kaufman (15 tháng 2 năm 2012). “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science”. The New York Times. Truy cập ngày 16 tháng 2 năm 2012. plans to promote a curriculum that would cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet.
↑ Lever-Tracy 2010, tr. 255: "In sum, we see that manufacturing uncertainty over climate change is the fundamental strategy of the denial machine […] As we reflect on the evolution of climate science and policy-making over the past few decades, we believe the denial machine has achieved considerable success – especially in the US but internationally as well.
1 2 Corcoran, Terence (6 tháng 1 năm 2010). “The cool down in climate polls”. Financial Post. Angus Reid surveyed people…before and after Copenhagen. The drop off in public support for the idea that global warming is a fact mostly caused by human activity looks most pronounced in Canada. In November, 63% of Canadians supported global warming as a man-made phenomenon. By Dec. 23, that support had fallen 52%… A similar trend has been noted in the United States, where confidence in global warming theory has dropped to 46%… down from 51% in July last year. In Britain, only 43% believe man-made global warming is a fact, down from… 55% in July. In all three countries, there are signs of growing skepticism.
↑ White, Rob (2012). Climate Change from a Criminological Perspective. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN1-4614-3640-0. belief that climate change is "real" and confidence in climate science has surprisingly decreased… Angus Reid polls conducted in December 2009 found declining support for climate change…in Britain, Canada, and the United States.
↑ Antilla 2005: "the popular press uses a number of methods to frame climate science as uncertain, including ‘through the practice of interjecting and emphasizing controversy or disagreement among scientists’… In order to provide balance while reporting on climate change, some journalists include rebuttals by experts who, often through think-tanks, are affiliated with the fossil fuel industry.
↑ Begley 2007Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFBegley2007 (trợ giúp): "polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do."
↑ Begley 2007Lỗi harv: không có mục tiêu: CITEREFBegley2007 (trợ giúp): "A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong.
1 2 Cook, John và đồng nghiệp (15 tháng 5 năm 2013). “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”. Environmental Research Letters 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Contributing to this "consensus gap" are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists....The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is "… on the point of collapse" while "… the number of scientific 'heretics' is growing with each passing year" A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a minuscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
