Ad
related to: what's the real reason behind climate change denial articles
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Climate change denial (also global warming denial) is a form of science denial characterized by rejecting, refusing to acknowledge, disputing, or fighting 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 ]
The idea of "soft" or implicit climate change denial became prominent in the mid-2010s, but variations of the same concept originated earlier. An article published by National Center for Science Education referred to "implicit" denial: Climate change denial is most conspicuous when it is explicit, as it is in controversies over climate education.
A 1979 panel said, “We have no reason to doubt global warming will happen and no reason to think changes will be small.” Had Reagan not become president, things would have been different.
The effects of climate change are worsening in every part of the U.S., according to the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a breakdown of the latest in climate science coming from 14 different ...
For example, climatologist Kevin E. Trenberth has published widely on the topic of climate variability and has exposed flaws in the publications of other scientists. [6] [7] [8] For past debates and controversies on scientific details see for example: History of climate change science#Discredited theories and reconciled apparent discrepancies ...
Many YouTubers undermining climate action no longer call global warming a hoax, but they are sowing doubt over the science, solutions and impacts of the crisis. What is ‘new denial?’
Climate experts and politicians were dismayed about the denial onstage, as the climate crisis helped fuel an unprecendented tropical storm in the California desert in recent days.
According to Brulle, it was "the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the funding behind climate change denial." [ 9 ] Brulle's study estimated that the 91 organizations he examined had a total annual income of just above $900 million, and that the vast majority of funds donated to such organizations came from ...