View source for Climate change denial

{{short description|Denial of the scientific consensus on climate change}}
{{pp-move}}
{{pp|small=yes}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2021}}
<noinclude>
[[File:Senator James Inhofe throws a snowball in the Senate.webm|thumb|upright=1.30|thumbtime=1:09|start=0:26|On the floor of the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]], Republican Senator [[Jim Inhofe]] displayed a snowball—on 26 February 2015, in winter—as evidence the globe was not warming,<ref name=CNN_20150227>{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Ted |date=February 27, 2015 |title=Inhofe brings snowball on Senate floor as evidence globe is not warming |agency=CNN |url=https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230407052944/https://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change/ |archive-date=April 7, 2023 |url-status=live }}</ref> in a year that was found to be Earth's warmest on record at the time.<ref name=NASA_re2015_20160120>{{cite web |title=NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Warm Temperatures in 2015 |url=https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/ |publisher=NASA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231229081034/https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015/ |archive-date=29 December 2023 |date=20 January 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> The director of [[NASA]]'s [[Goddard Institute for Space Studies]] distinguished ''local'' weather in a single location in a single week from ''global'' climate change.<ref name=Guardian_20150226>{{cite news |last1=Woolf |first1=Nicky |title=Republican Senate environment chief uses snowball as prop in climate rant |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/senate-james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change |work=The Guardian |date=26 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231021221844/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/26/senate-james-inhofe-snowball-climate-change |archive-date=21 October 2023 |url-status=live }}</ref> ]]</noinclude>

'''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.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last1=Diethelm |first1=P. |last2=McKee |first2=M. |date=2008 |title=Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? |url=https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139 |journal=The European Journal of Public Health |language=en |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=2–4 |doi=10.1093/eurpub/ckn139 |pmid=19158101 |issn=1101-1262|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hartley |first=Sophie |date=2025-02-17 |title=Tactics Used by Fossil Fuel Companies to Suppress Critique and Obstruct Climate Action |url=https://commonslibrary.org/tactics-used-by-fossil-fuel-companies-to-suppress-critique-and-obstruct-climate-action/ |access-date=2025-04-12 |website=The Commons Social Change Library |language=en-AU}}</ref> Climate change denial includes unreasonable doubts about the extent to which climate change is [[causes of climate change|caused by humans]], its [[Effects of global warming|effects on nature and human society]], and the potential of [[adaptation to global warming]] by human actions.<ref name="ncse-pillars">{{cite web |author=National Center for Science Education |date=4 June 2010 |title=Climate change is good science |url=http://ncse.com/climate/denial/climate-change-is-good-science |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424170135/http://ncse.com/climate/denial/climate-change-is-good-science |archive-date=24 April 2016 |access-date=21 June 2015 |publisher=National Center for Science Education}}
</ref><ref name="NCSE-why-denial">{{cite web | author=National Center for Science Education | title=Why Is It Called Denial? | publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]] | url=https://ncse.ngo/why-it-called-denial | date=15 January 2016 | access-date=17 February 2023 | archive-date=7 December 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221207055409/https://ncse.ngo/why-it-called-denial | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Powell |first=James Lawrence |url=https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-inquisition-of-climate-science/9780231157186 |title=The inquisition of climate science |date=2011 |publisher=Columbia university press |isbn=978-0-231-15718-6 |location=New York}}</ref>{{rp|170–173}} To a lesser extent, climate change denial can also be implicit when people accept the science but [[Cognitive dissonance|fail to reconcile it with their belief or action]].<ref name="NCSE-why-denial" /> Several studies have analyzed these positions as forms of [[denialism]],<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal |last=Dunlap |first=Riley E. |date=2013 |title=Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764213477097 |journal=American Behavioral Scientist |language=en |volume=57 |issue=6 |pages=691–698 |doi=10.1177/0002764213477097 |s2cid=147126996 |issn=0002-7642|url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{rp|691–698}} [[pseudoscience]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ove Hansson |first1=Sven |author-link=Sven Ove Hansson |year=2017 |title=Science denial as a form of pseudoscience |journal=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science |volume=63 |pages=39–47 |bibcode=2017SHPSA..63...39H |doi=10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002 |pmid=28629651}}</ref> or [[propaganda]].<ref name="Jacques2008">{{Cite journal |last1=Jacques |first1=Peter J. |last2=Dunlap |first2=Riley E. |last3=Freeman |first3=Mark |date=2008 |title=The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644010802055576 |journal=Environmental Politics |language=en |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=349–385 |doi=10.1080/09644010802055576 |bibcode=2008EnvPo..17..349J |s2cid=144975102 |issn=0964-4016|url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{rp|351}}

Many issues that are settled in the scientific community, such as human responsibility for climate change, 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 [[Politicization of science#Global warming|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 climate change.<ref name="Stoddard">{{cite journal |last1=Stoddard |first1=Isak |last2=Anderson |first2=Kevin |last3=Capstick |first3=Stuart |last4=Carton |first4=Wim |last5=Depledge |first5=Joanna |last6=Facer |first6=Keri |last7=Gough |first7=Clair |last8=Hache |first8=Frederic |last9=Hoolohan |first9=Claire |last10=Hultman |first10=Martin |last11=Hällström |first11=Niclas |last12=Kartha |first12=Sivan |last13=Klinsky |first13=Sonja |last14=Kuchler |first14=Magdalena |last15=Lövbrand |first15=Eva |display-authors=etal |date=18 October 2021 |title=Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve? |url=https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104 |journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources |language=en |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=653–689 |doi=10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104 |issn=1543-5938 |s2cid=233815004 |access-date=31 August 2022 |last16=Nasiritousi |first16=Naghmeh |last17=Newell |first17=Peter |last18=Peters |first18=Glen P. |last19=Sokona |first19=Youba |last20=Stirling |first20=Andy |last21=Stilwell |first21=Matthew |last22=Spash |first22=Clive L. |last23=Williams |first23=Mariama |hdl=1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d|hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Vidal">{{cite news |last=Vidal |first=John |date=27 June 2011 |title=Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon}}</ref>

Industrial, political and ideological interests organize activity to undermine public trust in climate science.<ref>{{Cite web |last=ClimateWire |first=Gayathri Vaidyanathan |title=What Have Climate Scientists Learned from 20-Year Fight with Deniers? |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-have-climate-scientists-learned-from-20-year-fight-with-deniers/ |access-date=2024-02-05 |website=Scientific American |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Newsweek denial machine">{{cite magazine|last=Begley|first=Sharon|author-link=Sharon Begley|url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482|title=The Truth About Denial|magazine=[[Newsweek]]|date=13 August 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071021024942/http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482|archive-date=21 October 2007}} ([https://web.archive.org/web/20070820002929/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/page/0/ MSNBC single page version, archived 20 August 2007])</ref><ref name=":7">{{Cite journal |last1=Painter |first1=James |last2=Ashe |first2=Teresa |date=2012 |title=Cross-national comparison of the presence of climate scepticism in the print media in six countries, 2007–10 |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=044005 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044005 |issn=1748-9326|doi-access=free |bibcode=2012ERL.....7d4005P }}</ref><ref name=":3" />{{rp|691–698}} Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the [[Koch network|Koch brothers]], industry advocates, ultraconservative [[think tank]]s, and [[Alternative media (U.S. political right)|ultraconservative alternative media]], often in the U.S.<ref name="Jacques2008" />{{rp|351}}<ref name="Hoggan">{{cite book |title=Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tQYjQzOkYK0C&q=Climate+Cover-Up:+The+Crusade+to+Deny+Global+Warming |first1=James |last1=Hoggan |first2=Richard |last2=Littlemore |publisher=Greystone Books |location=Vancouver |isbn=978-1-55365-485-8 |year=2009 |access-date=19 March 2010 |archive-date=30 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210630123321/https://books.google.com/books?id=tQYjQzOkYK0C&q=Climate+Cover-Up:+The+Crusade+to+Deny+Global+Warming |url-status=live }} See, e.g., pp. 31 ''ff'', describing industry-based advocacy strategies in the context of climate change denial, and p73 ''ff'', describing involvement of free-market think tanks in climate-change denial.</ref><ref name=":3" /> More than 90% of papers that are skeptical of climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Xifra | first1 = Jordi | year = 2016 | title = Climate Change Deniers and Advocacy: A Situational Theory of Publics Approach | journal = [[American Behavioral Scientist]] | volume = 60 | issue = 3| pages = 276–287 | doi = 10.1177/0002764215613403 | hdl = 10230/32970 | s2cid = 58914584 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> Climate change denial is undermining efforts to [[climate change mitigation|act on or adapt to climate change]], and exerts a powerful influence on the [[politics of climate change]].<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":3" />{{rp|691–698}}

In the 1970s, [[Petroleum industry|oil companies]] published research that broadly concurred with the scientific community's view on climate change. Since then, for several decades, oil companies have been organizing a widespread and systematic [[ExxonMobil climate change denial|climate change denial campaign]] to seed public disinformation, a strategy that has been compared to the [[tobacco industry]]'s [[Tobacco industry playbook|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.<ref name="NYT-20151105">{{cite news |last=Egan |first=Timothy |author-link=Timothy Egan |date=5 November 2015 |title=Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/opinion/fossil-fools.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210815075740/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/opinion/fossil-fools.html |archive-date=15 August 2021 |access-date=9 November 2015 |work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name="TG-20150708">{{cite news |last=Goldenberg |first=Suzanne |date=8 July 2015 |title=Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151116155511/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding |archive-date=16 November 2015 |access-date=9 November 2015 |work=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref><ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger 'Shell knew': oil giant's 1991 film warned of climate change danger] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170424174806/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/28/shell-knew-oil-giants-1991-film-warned-climate-change-danger |date=24 April 2017 }}, ''The Guardian''</ref>

== Terminology ==
''Climate change denial'' refers to denial, dismissal, or doubt of the [[Scientific consensus on climate change|scientific consensus on the rate and extent of climate change]], its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part.<ref name=":7" /><ref name="NCSE-why-denial" /> Climate denial is a form of [[science denial]]. It can also take [[Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] forms.<ref name="NCSE">{{cite web |date=13 January 2012 |title=NCSE Tackles Climate Change Denial |url=http://ncse.com/climate-change-101/ncse-tackles-climate-change-denial |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160424171330/http://ncse.com/climate-change-101/ncse-tackles-climate-change-denial |archive-date=24 April 2016 |access-date=5 July 2015 |publisher=[[National Center for Science Education]]}}</ref><ref name="BrownM">Brown, Michael. [http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience.html Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190202203411/http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience.html|date=2 February 2019}}, ''[[Phys.org]]'', 26 September 2013</ref> The terms ''climate skeptics'' or ''contrarians'' are nowadays used with the same meaning as ''climate change deniers'' even though deniers usually prefer not to, in order to sow confusion as to their intentions.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Rennie |first=John |date=2009 |title=7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/7-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense/ |access-date=2024-01-30 |website=Scientific American |language=en}}</ref>

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.''<ref name="NCSE-why-denial" /><ref name="Washington p2">{{cite book |last=Washington |first=Haydn |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |publisher=Routledge |year=2013 |isbn=978-1-136-53004-3 |title-link=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand }}</ref>{{rp|2}} But the word "skepticism" is incorrectly used, as [[scientific skepticism]] is an intrinsic part of scientific methodology.<ref name="O'Neill Boykoff 2010">{{cite journal |last1=O'Neill |first1=Saffron J. |last2=Boykoff |first2=Max |date=28 September 2010 |title=Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian? |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=107 |issue=39 |pages=E151 |bibcode=2010PNAS..107E.151O |doi=10.1073/pnas.1010507107 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=2947866 |pmid=20807754 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Mann |first=Michael E. |title=The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-231-52638-8 }}</ref> In fact, all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as part of the scientific process that demands continuing questioning. Both options are problematic, but ''climate change denial'' has become more widely used than ''skepticism''.<ref name=":9">{{cite web | last=Weart | first=Spencer R. | work=The Discovery of Global Warming | title=Government: The View from Washington, DC | publisher=American Institute of Physics | date=June 2015 | url=https://www.aip.org/history/climate/Govt.htm | access-date=18 July 2015 |  archive-date=29 June 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160629213628/https://www.aip.org/history/climate/Govt.htm | url-status=live }}</ref><ref>Weart, S. (2015) {{cite web |date= |title=The Public and Climate, cont. footnote 136a |url=http://www.aip.org:80/history/climate/public2.htm#N_136a_ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150210183643/http://www.aip.org:80/history/climate/public2.htm#N_136a_ |archive-date=10 February 2015 |access-date=18 June 2022 |website=aip.org}} in: The Discovery of Global Warming</ref><ref name="NCSE-why-denial" />

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]] connotation.<ref name="NCSE-why-denial" />

The terminology evolved and emerged in the 1990s. By 1995 the word "skeptic" was being used specifically for the minority who publicized views contrary to the [[Scientific opinion on climate change|scientific consensus]]. This small group of scientists presented their views in public statements and the media rather than to the scientific community.<ref name=":4">{{cite news |last=Brown | first=R. G. E. Jr. |title=Environmental science under siege: Fringe science and the 104th Congress, U. S. House of Representatives. |work=Report, Democratic Caucus of the Committee on Science |publisher=U. S. House of Representatives |location=Washington, D.C. |date=23 October 1996 |url=http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Reports/environment_science_report_23oct96.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926222320/http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Reports/environment_science_report_23oct96.pdf |archive-date=26 September 2007 }}</ref>{{rp|9,11}}<ref name="Gelbspan 1998">{{cite book | last=Gelbspan | first=Ross | title=The heat is on : the climate crisis, the cover-up, the prescription | publisher=Perseus Books | location=Reading, MA | year=1998 | isbn=978-0-7382-0025-5 | url=https://archive.org/details/heatisonclim00gelb }}</ref>{{rp|69–70, 246}} Journalist [[Ross Gelbspan]] said in 1995 that industry had engaged "a small band of skeptics" to confuse public opinion in a "persistent and well-funded campaign of denial".<ref name="Gelbspan">{{cite magazine |first=Ross |last=Gelbspan |title=The heat is on: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial |url=http://www.sorryaboutthat.net/gelbspan.html |author-link=Ross Gelbspan |magazine=[[Harper's Magazine]] |date=December 1995 |access-date=2 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307042257/http://www.sorryaboutthat.net/gelbspan.html |archive-date=7 March 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref> His 1997 book ''The Heat is On'' may have been the first to concentrate specifically on the topic.<ref name=":7" /> In it, Gelbspan discusses 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.<ref name="Gelbspan 1998" />{{rp|3, 33–35, 173}}

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."<ref name="VerbalWarming">{{cite news |last1=Gillis |first1=Justin |title=Verbal Warming: Labels in the Climate Debate |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=12 February 2015 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/science/earth/in-climate-change-whats-in-a-name.html |access-date=30 June 2015 |archive-date=30 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211030013627/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/science/earth/in-climate-change-whats-in-a-name.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="CSI open letter">{{cite web | last=Boslough | first=Mark | author-link=Mark Boslough | title=Deniers are not Skeptics | website=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry | date=5 December 2014 | url=http://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics | access-date=7 July 2015 | archive-date=16 March 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190316073508/https://www.csicop.org/news/show/deniers_are_not_skeptics | url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2015, ''[[The New York Times]]''<nowiki/>'s public editor said 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".<ref name="MMfA 20150622">{{cite web |title=NY Times Public Editor: We're 'Moving In A Good Direction' On Properly Describing Climate Deniers |work=[[Media Matters for America]] |date=22 June 2015 |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/ny-times-public-editor-were-moving-good-direction-properly-describing-climate |first1=Andrew |last1=Seifter |first2=Joe |last2=Strupp |access-date=2 July 2015 |archive-date=23 April 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190423123917/https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2015/06/22/ny-times-public-editor-were-moving-in-a-good-di/204089 |url-status=live }}</ref>

A petition by climatetruth.org<ref name="Petition">{{cite web |title= AP: Deniers Are Not Skeptics! |website= Oil Change U.S. |location= [[Washington, D.C.]] |url= https://act.forecastthefacts.org/sign/ap_deniers_skeptics/ |access-date= 22 May 2019 |archive-date= 5 May 2021 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20210505144011/https://act.forecastthefacts.org/sign/ap_deniers_skeptics/ |url-status= live }}</ref> asked signers 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". In 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'".<ref name="APStyleBook">{{cite web |last= Colford |first= Paul |title= An addition to AP Stylebook entry on global warming |date= 22 September 2015 |access-date= 7 October 2019 |website= [[Associated Press]] | url=https://blog.ap.org/announcements/an-addition-to-ap-stylebook-entry-on-global-warming}}</ref><ref name="RealSkeptics">{{cite news | last=Schlanger | first=Zoë | title=The real skeptics behind the AP decision to put an end to the term 'climate skeptics' | magazine=[[Newsweek]] | date=24 September 2015 | url=https://www.newsweek.com/associated-press-climate-skeptic-climate-denier-stylebook-center-skeptical-376197 | access-date=22 May 2019 | archive-date=1 June 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601185733/https://www.newsweek.com/associated-press-climate-skeptic-climate-denier-stylebook-center-skeptical-376197 | url-status=live }}</ref> In May 2019, ''[[The Guardian]]'' also rejected use of the term "climate skeptic" in favor of "climate science denier".<ref name="GuardianDenier">{{cite news |last1=Carrington |first1=Damian |title=Why The Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |date=17 May 2019 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment | access-date=22 May 2019 | archive-date=6 October 2019 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191006183640/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment | url-status=live }}</ref>

In addition to ''explicit denial'', people have also shown ''implicit denial'' by accepting the scientific consensus but failing to "translate their acceptance into action".<ref name="NCSE-why-denial" /> This type of denial is also called [[soft climate change denial]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Smith |first=Devin |date=2016 |title=Living in the Web of Soft Climate Denial |url=https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/09/living-web-soft-climate-denial.html |access-date=2024-02-02 |website=New Economic Perspectives |language=en-US}}</ref>

== Categories and tactics ==
[[File:5 characteristics of science denial.svg|thumb|upright=1.35|Characteristics of science denial (including climate science denial)]]
[[File:2007- Climate change misinformation on Twitter or X.svg |thumb |upright=1.35 |Climate misinformation falls within categories such as ''●{{nbsp}}Global warming isn't happening. ●{{nbsp}}Humans aren't causing global warming. ●{{nbsp}}Climate impacts aren't bad. ●{{nbsp}}Climate solutions won't work. ●{{nbsp}}Climate science is unreliable.''<ref name=BostonUniv_20230523>{{cite web |last1=Colarossi |first1=Jessica |last2=Ricciardi |first2=Jackie |title=Tweets, Ads, and Lies: Researchers Are Fighting against Climate Misinformation |url=https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/tweets-ads-and-lies-researchers-are-fighting-against-climate-misinformation/ |publisher=Boston University |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241121034641/https://www.bu.edu/articles/2023/tweets-ads-and-lies-researchers-are-fighting-against-climate-misinformation/ |archive-date=21 November 2024 |date=23 May 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref>]]
In 2004, German climate scientist [[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 (general)|taxonomy]] of ''climate change skepticism''.<ref name="Rahmstorf 2004">Rahmstorf, S., 2004, [http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf The climate sceptics: Weather Catastrophes and Climate Change—Is There Still Hope For Us?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210910232238/http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pdf|date=10 September 2021}} (Munich: PG Verlag) pp. 76–83 [note: numbering not shown in original]</ref> Later the model was also applied to denial:<ref name="auto">{{cite journal |last=Björnberg |first=Karin Edvardsson |display-authors=et al |year=2017 |title=Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015 |journal=[[Journal of Cleaner Production]] |volume=167 |pages=229–241 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2017JCPro.167..229B }}</ref><ref name=":7" /><ref name="Rahmstorf 2004" />
# ''Trend skeptics or deniers'' (who claim that no significant warming is taking place)'': "''Given that the warming is now evident even to laypeople, the ''trend skeptics'' are a gradually vanishing breed. They [...] claim that the warming trend measured by weather stations is an artefact due to urbanisation around those stations ([[urban heat island]] effect)."<ref name="Rahmstorf 2004" />
# ''Attribution skeptics or deniers'' (who accept the climate change trends but claim there are natural causes for this, not human-made ones): "A few of them even deny that the rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content is anthropogenic; they claim that the atmospheric carbon dioxide is released from the ocean by natural processes."<ref name="Rahmstorf 2004" />
# ''Impact skeptics or deniers'' (who think climate change is harmless or even beneficial, for example the "potential extension of agriculture into higher latitudes"<ref name="Rahmstorf 2004" />).
# Sometimes ''consensus denial'' is added, for people who question the existence of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.<ref name="auto" />

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.<ref name="ncse-pillars" /> [[James L. Powell]] provides a more extended list,<ref name=":2" />{{rp|170–173}} 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:<ref name="Mann2013p23">{{cite book |author=Michael E. Mann |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HK0CN6FVtfgC&pg=PA23 |title=The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines |publisher=Columbia University Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-231-52638-8 |page=23 |author-link=Michael E. Mann |access-date=12 July 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601184152/https://books.google.com/books?id=HK0CN6FVtfgC&pg=PA23 |archive-date=1 June 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>

{{blockquote|
# {{CO2}} is not actually increasing.
# Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing evidence of warming.
# Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.<ref name="Mann2013p23" /> }}

[[File:20200327 Climate change deniers cherry picking time periods.gif|thumb|upright=1.35 |One deceptive approach is [[cherry picking]] data from short time periods to assert that global average temperatures are not rising. {{blue|Blue trendlines}} show short-term countertrends that mask longer-term warming trends that are shown by {{red|red trendlines}}.<ref name="Grist_20111107">{{cite news |last1=Zimmerman |first1=Jess |date=7 November 2011 |title=Handy image shows how climate deniers manipulate data |url=https://grist.org/article/2011-11-07-handy-image-shows-how-climate-deniers-manipulate-data/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191001173511/https://grist.org/article/2011-11-07-handy-image-shows-how-climate-deniers-manipulate-data/ |archive-date=1 October 2019 |work=Grist}}</ref> Such representations have been applied to the so-called [[global warming hiatus]] (blue rectangle with {{blue|blue dots}}, upper right).<ref name="AtomicSci+2014">{{cite news |last1=Stover |first1=Dawn |date=23 September 2014 |title=The global warming 'hiatus' |url=https://thebulletin.org/2014/09/the-global-warming-hiatus/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200711032006/https://thebulletin.org/2014/09/the-global-warming-hiatus/ |archive-date=11 July 2020 |work=[[Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists]]}}</ref>]]
Climate change denial is a form of [[denialism]]. [[Chris Hoofnagle|Chris]] and Mark Hoofnagle have defined denialism in this context as the use of [[rhetorical device]]s "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:<ref name=":1" /><ref name="Liu">{{cite journal |last=Liu |first=D. W. C. |year=2012 |title=Science Denial and the Science Classroom |journal=[[CBE: Life Sciences Education]] |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=129–134 |doi=10.1187/cbe.12-03-0029 |pmc=3366896 |pmid=22665586}}</ref><ref name="Mark Hoofnagle Graun09">{{cite news |last=Hoofnagle |first=Mark |date=11 March 2009 |title=Climate change deniers: failsafe tips on how to spot them |newspaper=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier |url-status=live |access-date=30 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814201917/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2009/mar/10/climate-change-denier |archive-date=14 August 2021}}</ref>
# Allegations that scientific consensus involves conspiring to fake data or suppress the truth: a climate change conspiracy theory.
# Fake experts, or individuals with views at odds with established knowledge, at the same time marginalizing or denigrating published topic experts. Like the [[Doubt Is Their Product|manufactured doubt over smoking and health]], a few contrarian scientists oppose the climate consensus, some of them [[Merchants of Doubt|the same people]].
# Selectivity, such as [[cherry picking|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]].<ref name="Mark Hoofnagle Graun09" />
# Unworkable demands of research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the field or exaggerating uncertainty while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models.
# [[Formal fallacy|Logical fallacies]].
=== Discussing specific aspects of climate change science ===<!-- [[WP:NFCC]] violation: [[File:Karl 15 Temps before and after corrxnx.png|thumb|upright=1.5 |Temperature anomalies in an updated NOAA dataset show a continuing upward trend, with no evidence that global warming has recently stopped, as has been alleged.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/science/noaa-research-presents-evidence-against-a-global-warming-hiatus.html Global Warming 'Hiatus' Challenged by NOAA Research], ''The New York Times'', 4 June 2015. Quote: "Russell S. Vose, chief of the climate science division at NOAA's Asheville center, pointed out in an interview that while the corrections do eliminate the recent warming slowdown, the overall effect of the agency's adjustments has long been to raise the reported global temperatures in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by a substantial margin. That makes the temperature increase of the past century appear less severe than it does in the raw data. If you just wanted to release to the American public our uncorrected data set, it would say that the world has warmed up about 2.071 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880", Dr. Vose said. "Our corrected data set says things have warmed up about 1.65 degrees Fahrenheit. Our corrections lower the rate of warming on a global scale."</ref>]] -->
[[File:2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3.png|thumb|right|upright=1.35 |The [[Fourth National Climate Assessment]] ("NCA4", U.S., 2017) includes charts<ref name="4thNCA">{{cite journal |date=2017 |title=Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I – Chapter 3: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change |url=https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/3/ |url-status=live |publisher=U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) |pages=1–470 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190923190450/https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/3/ |archive-date=23 September 2019 |website=science2017.globalchange.gov}} Adapted directly from Fig. 3.3.</ref> illustrating how human factors—not various natural factors that have been investigated—are the predominant cause of observed global warming.]]
{{Multiple image
| align             = right
| direction         = vertical
| total_width       = 300
| image1            = 20200324 Global average temperature - NASA-GISS HadCrut NOAA Japan BerkeleyE.svg
| caption1          = Campaigns by climate change deniers portray scientists as disagreeing about global warming,<ref name="Cook" /> but datasets from various scientific organizations show [[:File:20200324 Global average temperature - NASA-GISS HadCrut NOAA Japan BerkeleyE.svg#Pairwise correlation|1880– pairwise correlations of the four longer-term datasets are at least 99.29%]].
| image2            = 20211103 Academic studies of scientific consensus - global warming, climate change - vertical bar chart - en.svg
| caption2          = Climate change denial opposes the results of academic studies of scientific agreement on human-caused climate change. The level of [[Scientific consensus on climate change|scientific consensus]] positively correlates with expertise in climate science.<ref name=Cook_2016>{{cite journal |last1=Cook |first1=John |last2=Oreskes |first2=Naomi |last3=Doran |first3=Peter T. |last4=Anderegg |first4=William R. L. |last5=Verheggen |first5=Bart |display-authors=4 |date=2016 |title=Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=11 |issue=4 |page=048002 |bibcode=2016ERL....11d8002C |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 |doi-access=free|hdl=1983/34949783-dac1-4ce7-ad95-5dc0798930a6 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Powell2019">{{cite journal |last1=Powell |first1=James Lawrence |author-link=James L. Powell |date=20 November 2019 |title=Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266 |journal=Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=183–184 |doi=10.1177/0270467619886266 |s2cid=213454806 |access-date=15 November 2020|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="EnvRschLtrs_20211019">{{cite journal |last1=Lynas |first1=Mark |last2=Houlton |first2=Benjamin Z. |last3=Perry |first3=Simon |title=Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature |journal=Environmental Research Letters |date=19 October 2021 |volume=16 |issue=11 |page=114005 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 |bibcode=2021ERL....16k4005L |s2cid=239032360 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name=Myers_2021>{{cite journal |last1=Myers |first1=Krista F. |last2=Doran |first2=Peter T. |last3=Cook |first3=John |last4=Kotcher |first4=John E. |last5=Myers |first5=Teresa A. |title=Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later |journal=Environmental Research Letters |date=20 October 2021 |volume=16 |issue=10 |page=104030 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774 |bibcode=2021ERL....16j4030M |s2cid=239047650 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
}}
{{Further|History of climate change science#Discredited theories and reconciled apparent discrepancies}}

Some politicians<ref name=USAtoday_20240221>{{cite news |last1=Byik |first1=Andre |title=The claim: Climate change is a 'hoax' because CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/21/co2-percentage-used-to-mislead-on-global-warming-fact-check/72539359007/ |newspaper=USA Today |date=21 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240221214623/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/02/21/co2-percentage-used-to-mislead-on-global-warming-fact-check/72539359007/ |archive-date=21 February 2024 |url-status=live }} Using example of Republican U.S. Representative [[Doug LaMalfa]].</ref> and climate change denial groups say that because {{CO2}} is only a trace gas in the atmosphere (0.04%), it cannot cause climate change.<ref name=Reuters_20240104>{{cite news |title=Fact Check: Share of CO2 in the atmosphere not a reflection of its climate impact |url=https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/share-co2-atmosphere-not-reflection-its-climate-impact-2024-01-04/ |work=Reuters |date=4 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240222205028/https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/share-co2-atmosphere-not-reflection-its-climate-impact-2024-01-04/ |archive-date=22 February 2024 |url-status=live }}</ref> But 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.<ref name=":5" /> Some groups allege that water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas, and is left out of many climate models.<ref name=":5" /> But while water vapor is a greenhouse gas, its very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days) compared to that of {{CO2}} (hundreds of years) means that {{CO2}} is the primary driver of increasing temperatures; water vapor acts as a feedback, not [[Radiative forcing|a forcing]], mechanism.<ref>{{cite web |last=Archer |first=David |date=6 April 2005 |title=Water vapour: feedback or forcing? |url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200601181505/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ |archive-date=1 June 2020 |access-date=5 September 2018 |website=RealClimate}}</ref>

Climate denial groups may also argue that global warming has stopped, that a [[global warming hiatus]] is in effect, 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.<ref name=":5" />

Some groups and prominent deniers such as [[William Happer]] argue that there is a greenhouse gas saturation effect that significantly decreases the warming potential of further gases released into the atmosphere. Such an effect does exist in some form, as Happer's research demonstrates,<ref>{{Cite arXiv |last1=van Wijngaarden |first1=W A |last2=Happer |first2=W |date=4 June 2020 |title=Dependence of Earth's Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases |class=physics.ao-ph |eprint=2006.03098}}</ref> but is likely negligible with respect to net global warming.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zhong |first1=W |last2=Haigh |first2=J D |date=27 March 2013 |title=The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide |url=https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.2072 |journal=Weather |volume=68 |issue=4 |pages=100–105 |doi=10.1002/wea.2072 |bibcode=2013Wthr...68..100Z |s2cid=121741093 |via=Wiley|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

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.<ref name=":5" /> The belief that [[technological innovation]] rather than widespread social change will offer solutions is sometime called [[Technological fix|techno-optimism]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hartley |first=Sophie |date=2025-02-17 |title=Tactics Used by Fossil Fuel Companies to Suppress Critique and Obstruct Climate Action |url=https://commonslibrary.org/tactics-used-by-fossil-fuel-companies-to-suppress-critique-and-obstruct-climate-action/ |access-date=2025-04-12 |website=The Commons Social Change Library |language=en-AU}}</ref>

==== Playing up the potential non-human causes ====
{{Further|History of climate change science#Solar variation}}

Climate denial groups often point to natural variability, such as [[sunspot]]s and cosmic rays, to explain the warming trend.<ref name=":5" /> According to these groups, there is natural variability that will abate over time, and human influence has little to do with it. But climate models already take these factors into account. The scientific consensus is that they cannot explain the observed warming trend.<ref name=":5" />

==== Playing up flawed studies ====
In 2007, the [[Heartland Institute]] published an article titled "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares" by [[Dennis T. Avery]], a food policy analyst at the [[Hudson Institute]].<ref>{{cite web |date=14 September 2007 |title=500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares |url=http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21978 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100714113226/http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/21978/500_Scientists_Whose_Research_Contradicts_ManMade_Global_Warming_Scares.html |archive-date=14 July 2010 |access-date=29 August 2010 |publisher=The Heartland Institute}}</ref> Avery's 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 on the list demanded their names be removed.<ref>{{cite news |last=Monbiot |first=George |date=8 December 2009 |title=The Real Climate Scandal |newspaper=The Guardian |url=http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091212121711/http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/ |archive-date=12 December 2009}}</ref><ref name="The Hindu">{{Cite news |last=Monbiot |first=George |author-link=George Monbiot |date=9 December 2009 |title=The climate denial industry seeks to dupe the public. It's working |newspaper=[[The Hindu]] |url=http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article62169.ece |access-date=3 September 2010}}</ref> At least 45 of them had no idea they were included as "co-authors" and disagreed with the article's conclusions.<ref name="Haldar">{{Cite book |last=Haldar, Ishita. |title=Global warming : the causes and consequences |date=2011 |publisher=Mind Melodies |isbn=978-93-80302-81-2 |location=New Delhi |pages=137 |oclc=695282079}}</ref> The Heartland Institute refused these requests, saying 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".<ref name="Haldar" />

==== Disputing IPCC reports and processes ====
{{Further|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 1996, climate change denier [[Frederick Seitz]] criticized the 1995 [[IPCC Second Assessment Report#Chapter 8: Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes|IPCC Second Assessment Report]], alleging corruption in the peer-review process. Scientists rejected his assertions; the presidents of the [[American Meteorological Society]] and [[University Corporation for Atmospheric Research]] described his claims as part of a "systematic effort by some individuals to undermine and discredit the scientific process".<ref name="ucarquarterly">{{cite web |date=25 July 1996 |editor=Rasmussen, C. |title=Special insert—An open letter to Ben Santer |url=http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060626011156/http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer96/insert.html |archive-date=26 June 2006 |access-date=24 June 2009 |publisher=UCAR Quarterly}}</ref>

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".<ref>{{cite web |title=Final Climate Change Report |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217020012/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf |archive-date=17 December 2008 |access-date=29 December 2008}}</ref> The main statements of the House of Lords Economics Committee were rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government.<ref>{{cite web |author=The Committee Office, House of Lords |date=28 November 2005 |title=House of Lords – Economic Affairs – Third Report |url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/7104.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101015221103/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/7104.htm |archive-date=15 October 2010 |access-date=29 August 2010 |publisher=Publications.parliament.uk}}</ref>

On 10 December 2008, the [[U.S. Senate]] [[Committee on Environment and Public Works]] minority members released a report under the leadership of the Senate's most vocal global warming denier, [[Jim Inhofe]]. It says it summarizes scientific dissent from the IPCC.<ref>{{Cite web |title=UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims |url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211130005/http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6 |archive-date=11 December 2008 |access-date=11 December 2008 |website=www.epw.senate.gov}}</ref> Many of its statements about the numbers of people listed in the report, whether they are actually scientists, and whether they support the positions attributed to them, have been disputed.<ref>{{cite web |title=How many on Inhofe's list are IPCC authors? |url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/how_many_inhofes_list_compared.php |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120127052050/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/how_many_inhofes_list_compared.php |archive-date=27 January 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=More on Inhofe's alleged list of 650 scientists |url=http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120122122923/http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php |archive-date=22 January 2012}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |date=15 December 2008 |title=Inhofe's 650 "dissenters" (make That 649... 648...) |url=http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/inhofes-650-quotdissentersquot-make-649-648 |magazine=The New Republic}}</ref> Inhofe also said that "some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor."<ref name="Inhofe-FactsAndScience2">Senator James Inhofe, Chairman of Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate.[http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=01d83873-cb56-4153-9b8d-f9dd65366b0c The Facts and Science of Climate Change]</ref>

==== Creating doubts about scientific publishing processes ====
{{Broader|Conflicts of interest in academic publishing}}
Some climate change deniers promote [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] alleging that the scientific consensus is illusory, or that climatologists are acting out of their own financial interests by causing undue alarm about a changing climate.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Uscinski |first1=Joseph E. |last2=Douglas |first2=Karen |last3=Lewandowsky |first3=Stephan |date=Sep 2017 |title=Climate Change Conspiracy Theories |journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science |volume=1 |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.328 |isbn=978-0-19-022862-0}}</ref> Some climate change deniers claim that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, that any evidence for a scientific consensus is faked,<ref name="Uscinski200172">{{cite journal |last1=Uscinski |first1=Joseph E. |last2=Douglas |first2=Karen |last3=Lewandowsky |first3=Stephan |date=Sep 27, 2017 |title=Climate Change Conspiracy Theories |url=https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-328 |journal=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.328 |isbn=9780190228620 |access-date=18 January 2021|url-access=subscription }}</ref> or that the peer-review process for climate science papers has become corrupted by scientists seeking to suppress dissent.<ref name="Uscinski200172" /> No evidence of such conspiracies has been presented. In fact, much of the data used in climate science is publicly available, contradicting allegations that scientists are hiding data or stonewalling requests.<ref name=":5" />

Some climate change deniers assert that the scientific consensus on climate change is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to attempt to [[Manufactured controversy|manufacture political and public controversy]] disputing this consensus.<ref name=":1" /> These people typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind climate change has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Goldenberg |first1=Suzanne |date=1 March 2010 |title=US Senate's top climate sceptic accused of waging 'McCarthyite witch-hunt' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/mar/01/inhofe-climate-mccarthyite |access-date=7 July 2015 |work=The Guardian}}</ref><ref name="Achenbach2">{{cite news |last=Achenbach |first=Joel |title=The Tempest |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html |access-date=2010-03-31 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> They promote harmful conspiracy theories alleging that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Goertzel |first=Ted |author-link=Ted Goertzel |date=June 2010 |title=Conspiracy theories in science |journal=EMBO Reports |volume=11 |issue=7 |pages=493–99 |doi=10.1038/embor.2010.84 |pmc=2897118 |pmid=20539311}}</ref>

''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' is a 2007 British [[polemic]]al [[documentary film]] directed by [[Martin Durkin (director)|Martin Durkin]] that denies the scientific consensus about the reality and causes of climate change, justifying this by suggesting that [[climatology]] is influenced by funding and political factors. The film strongly opposes the scientific consensus on climate change. It argues that the [[Scientific opinion on climate change|consensus on climate change]] is the product of "a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media".<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Great Global Warming Swindle from Channel4.com |url=http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/arguments.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070310162337/http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/arguments.html |archive-date=10 March 2007 |access-date=2007-03-12 |publisher=Channel 4.com}}</ref><ref name="Al Webb">{{Cite web |author=Al Webb |date=6 March 2007 |title=Global warming labeled a 'scam' |url=http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070308093308/http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070306-122226-6282r.htm |archive-date=8 March 2007 |work=The Washington Times}}</ref> The programme's publicity materials claim that man-made global warming is "a lie" and "the biggest scam of modern times."<ref name="Al Webb"/> The film received [[The Great Global Warming Swindle#Reactions from scientists|strong criticism from many scientists]] and others. Journalist [[George Monbiot]] called it "the same old conspiracy theory that we've been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years".<ref>{{cite web |date=30 January 2007 |title=Another Species of Denial |url=http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/01/30/another-species-of-denial |access-date=2014-01-02}}</ref>

The climate deniers involved in the [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]] ("Climategate") in 2009 claimed that researchers faked the data in their research publications and suppressed their critics in order to receive more funding (i.e. taxpayer money).<ref>{{cite book |last1=Greene |first1=R. |title=Conspiracy Theories: Philosophers Connect the Dots |last2=Robison-Greene |first2=R. |date=2020 |publisher=Open Court}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=McKie |first1=Robin |date=Nov 9, 2019 |title=Climategate 10 years on: what lessons have we learned? |url=https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned |access-date=18 January 2021}}</ref> Eight committees investigated these allegations and published reports, each finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.<ref name="6committees3">Six of the major investigations covered by secondary sources include: [http://www.deccanherald.com/content/6have 1233/uk-climategate-inquiry-largely-clears.html House of Commons Science and Technology Committee] (UK); [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/science/earth/08climate.html Independent Climate Change Review] (UK); [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html International Science Assessment Panel]  {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130509041910/http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/04/oxburgh-report-clears-controvers.html|date=May 9, 2013}} (UK); [https://web.archive.org/web/20100704031346/http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/07/by_juliet_eilperin_a_pennsylvania.html Pennsylvania State University] (US); [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-10899538 United States Environmental Protection Agency] (US); [https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/u-s-scientists-cleared-in-climategate-1.1031242 Department of Commerce] (US).</ref> According to the Muir Russell report, the scientists' "rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt", the investigators "did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments", but there had been "a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness."<ref>{{cite web |last=Jonsson |first=Patrik |date=7 July 2010 |title=Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged |access-date=17 Aug 2011 |publisher=Christian Science Monitor |page=2}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Russell |first=Sir Muir |date=July 2010 |title=The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review |url=http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200206132925/http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf |archive-date=6 February 2020 |access-date=17 Aug 2011 |page=11}}</ref> The scientific consensus that climate change is occurring as a result of [[Human impact on the environment|human activity]] remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.<ref name="scientificamerican2">Biello, David (Feb., 2010). "[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=negating-climategate Negating 'Climategate']". ''Scientific American''. '''(302)''':2. 16. {{ISSN|0036-8733}}.</ref>

=== Being "lukewarm" or "skeptical" ===
In 2012, [[Clive Hamilton]] published the essay "Climate change and the soothing message of luke-warmism".<ref name="Clive">{{cite web |author=[[Clive Hamilton]] |date=July 25, 2012 |title=Climate change and the soothing message of luke-warmism |url=https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-the-soothing-message-of-luke-warmism-8445 |access-date=July 11, 2020 |work=[[The Conversation (website)|The Conversation]]}}</ref> He defined luke-warmists as "those who appear to accept the body of climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening: emphasising uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow and cautious response. They are politically conservative and anxious about the threat to the social structure posed by the implications of climate science. Their 'pragmatic' approach is therefore alluring to political leaders looking for a justification for policy minimalism." He cited [[Ted Nordhaus]] and [[Michael Shellenberger]] of the [[Breakthrough Institute]], and also [[Roger A. Pielke Jr.]], [[Daniel Sarewitz]], [[Steve Rayner]], [[Mike Hulme]] and "the pre-eminent luke-warmist" Danish economist [[Bjørn Lomborg]].<ref name="Clive" />

Climate change skepticism, while in some cases professing to do research on climate change, has focused instead on influencing the opinion of the public, legislators and the media, in contrast to legitimate science.<ref name=":4" />{{rp|28}}

[[Pope Francis]] groups together four types of respondents rejecting climate change: those who "deny, conceal, gloss over or relativize the issue".<ref>Pope Francis, [https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/20231004-laudate-deum.pdf Laudate Deum], paragraph 5, published 4 October 2023, accessed 2 June 2024</ref>

=== Pushing for adaptation only ===
{{Broader|Climate change adaptation}}
The conservative [[National Center for Policy Analysis]], whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of [[climate change denier]]s, including Sherwood Idso and S. Fred Singer,<ref>{{cite web |title=Environmental Task Force |url=http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s162/s162i.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070206094712/http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s162/s162i.html |archive-date=6 February 2007 |access-date=14 April 2007 |publisher=[[National Center for Policy Analysis]]}}</ref> has said, "The growing consensus on climate change policies is that adaptation will protect present and future generations from climate-sensitive risks far more than efforts to restrict {{CO2}} emissions."<ref>{{cite web |last=Burnett |first=H. Sterling |date=19 September 2005 |title=Climate Change: Consensus Forming around Adaptation |url=http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba527/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929091359/http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba527/index.html |archive-date=29 September 2007 |access-date=14 April 2007 |publisher=[[National Center for Policy Analysis]]}}</ref>

The adaptation-only plan is also endorsed by oil companies like ExxonMobil. According to a Ceres report, "ExxonMobil's plan appears to be to stay the course and try to adjust when changes occur. The company's plan is one that involves adaptation, as opposed to leadership."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Logan |first1=Andrew |last2=Grossman |first2=David |date=May 2006 |title=ExxonMobil's Corporate Governance on Climate Change |url=http://www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_XOM_corp_gov_climate_change_053006.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060923200417/http://www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_XOM_corp_gov_climate_change_053006.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2006 |access-date=14 April 2007 |publisher=[[Ceres (organization)|Ceres]] & [[Investor Network on Climate Risk]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=15 May 2006 |title=Letter to Michael J. Boskin, Secretary Exxon Mobil Corporation |url=http://www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_INCR_letter_XOM_051806.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060923201956/http://www.ceres.org/pub/docs/Ceres_INCR_letter_XOM_051806.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2006 |access-date=14 April 2007 |publisher=[[Investor Network on Climate Risk]]}}</ref>

The [[George W. Bush]] administration also voiced support for an adaptation-only policy in 2002. "In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report [''U.S. Climate Action Report 2002''] to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects it says global warming will inflict on the American environment. In the report, the administration also for the first time places most of the blame for recent global warming on human actions—mainly the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." The report "does not propose any major shift in the administration's policy on greenhouse gases. Instead it recommends adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming."<ref>{{cite news |last=Revkin |first=Andrew C. |author-link=Andrew Revkin |date=3 June 2002 |title=Bush climate plan says adapt to inevitable Cutting gas emissions not recommended |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/06/03/MN215596.DTL |access-date=14 April 2007}}</ref> This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later;<ref>{{cite web |year=2007 |title=Climate Compendium: International Negotiations: Vulnerability & Adaptation |url=http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070701124215/http://www.cckn.net/compendium/int_vulnerability.asp |archive-date=1 July 2007 |access-date=14 April 2007 |publisher=Climate Change Knowledge Network & [[International Institute for Sustainable Development]] |df=dmy-all}}</ref> "The shift satisfies the Bush administration, which has fought to avoid mandatory cuts in emissions for fear it would harm the economy. 'We're welcoming a focus on more of a balance on adaptation versus mitigation', said a senior American negotiator in New Delhi. 'You don't have enough money to do everything.{{'"}}<ref>{{cite web |last=Revkin |first=Andrew C. |date=23 October 2002 |title=US Pullout Forces Kyoto Talks To Focus on Adaptation – Climate Talks Will Shift Focus From Emissions |url=http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4117&method=full |access-date=14 April 2007 |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Eilperin |first=Juliet |date=7 April 2007 |title=U.S., China Got Climate Warnings Toned Down |pages=A05 |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/06/AR2007040600291.html |access-date=30 December 2008}}</ref>

Some find this shift and attitude disingenuous and indicative of a bias against prevention (i.e. reducing emissions/consumption) and toward prolonging the oil industry's profits at the environment's expense. In an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing climate change, writer and environmental activist [[George Monbiot]] wrote: "Now that the dismissal of climate change is no longer fashionable, the professional deniers are trying another means of stopping us from taking action. It would be cheaper, they say, to wait for the impacts of climate change and then adapt to them".<ref>{{cite web |last=Monbiot |first=George |author-link=George Monbiot |date=December 2006 |title=Costing Climate Change |url=http://www.newint.org/columns/essays/2006/12/01/essay/ |access-date=14 April 2007 |work=[[New Internationalist]] |archive-date=8 June 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070608150126/http://www.newint.org/columns/essays/2006/12/01/essay/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Delaying climate change mitigation measures ===
{{Further|Economics of climate change mitigation|Economic analysis of climate change}}{{multiple image
| align             = right
| direction         = horizontal
| total_width       = 500
| image1            = 20220629 Public estimates of scientific consensus on climate change - horizontal bar chart.svg
| caption1          = A 2022 study found that the public in many countries substantially underestimates the degree of scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.<ref name=KingsCollegeReport_20220629>{{cite web |title=Public perceptions on climate change |url=https://peritia-trust.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/4-Climate-change_EU.pdf |website=PERITIA Trust EU – The Policy Institute of King's College London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220715062933/https://peritia-trust.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/4-Climate-change_EU.pdf |archive-date=15 July 2022 |page=4 |date=June 2022 |url-status=live }}</ref> Studies from 2019–2021<ref name=Powell_2019>{{cite journal |last1=Powell |first1=James |date=20 November 2019 |title=Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming  |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266?journalCode=bsta |journal=Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=183–184 |doi=10.1177/0270467619886266 |s2cid=213454806|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name="EnvRschLtrs_20211019"/><ref name="Myers_2021"/> found scientific consensus to range from 98.7–100%.
| image2            = 20220823 Public underestimation of public support for climate action - poll - false social reality.svg
| caption2          = 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]].<ref name=NatureComms_20220823>{{cite journal |last1=Sparkman |first1=Gregg |last2=Geiger |first2=Nathan |last3=Weber |first3=Elke U. |title=Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half |journal=Nature Communications |date=23 August 2022 |volume=13 |issue=1 |page=4779 (fig. 3) |doi=10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y |pmid=35999211 |pmc=9399177 |bibcode=2022NatCo..13.4779S }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Yoder |first1=Kate |title=Americans are convinced climate action is unpopular. They're very, very wrong. / Support for climate policies is double what most people think, a new study found. |url=https://grist.org/politics/americans-think-climate-action-unpopular-wrong-study/ |website=Grist |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829104543/https://grist.org/politics/americans-think-climate-action-unpopular-wrong-study/ |archive-date=29 August 2022 |date=29 August 2022 |url-status=live}}</ref>
}}

Climate change deniers often debate whether action (such as the restrictions on the use of [[fossil fuel]]s to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions) should be taken now or in the near future. They fear the economic ramifications of such restrictions. For example, in a 1998 speech, a staff member of the [[Cato Institute]], a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] [[think tank]], argued that emission controls' negative economic effects outweighed their environmental benefits.<ref name="taylorspeech">{{cite web |title=Global Warming, the Anatomy of a Debate: A speech by Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute |url=http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120124172640/http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html |archive-date=24 January 2012}}</ref> Climate change deniers tend to argue that even if global warming is caused solely by the burning of fossil fuels, restricting their use would damage the world economy more than the increases in global temperature.<ref name="PBSpalmer">{{cite web |title=What's up with the weather: the debate: Fred Palmer |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/palmer.html |access-date=13 April 2007 |work=[[Nova (American TV series)|Nova]] and [[Frontline (U.S. TV series)|Frontline]] |publisher=[[PBS]]}}</ref>

Conversely, the general consensus is that early action to reduce emissions would help avoid much greater economic costs later, and reduce the risk of catastrophic, irreversible change.<ref name="SternCh7">{{Cite book |author=Nicholas Stern |url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm |title=Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change |publisher=[[HM Treasury]], [[Cambridge University Press]] |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-521-70080-1 |editor1-last=Stern |editor1-first=Nicolas |editor1-link=Nicholas Stern |chapter=7. Projecting the Growth of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions |access-date=19 February 2014 |chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061209034440/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3F8/81/ch_7_projecting_growth_of_ghg_emissions.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071024003134/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm |archive-date=24 October 2007 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

Earlier, climate change deniers' online YouTube content focused on denying global warming, or saying such warming is not caused by humans burning fossil fuel.<ref name=Reuters_20240116/> As such denials became untenable, content shifted to asserting that climate solutions are unworkable, that global warming is harmless or even beneficial, and that the environmental movement is unreliable.<ref name=Reuters_20240116>{{cite news |title=YouTube making money off new breed of climate denial, monitoring group says |url=https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/youtube-making-money-off-new-breed-climate-denial-monitoring-group-says-2024-01-16/ |work=Reuters |date=16 January 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20240116115410/https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/youtube-making-money-off-new-breed-climate-denial-monitoring-group-says-2024-01-16/ |archive-date=16 January 2024 |url-status=live }}</ref>

A 2016 article in [[Science (journal)|''Science'']] made the case that opposition to climate policy was beginning to take a "rhetorical shift away from outright skepticism" and called this ''neoskepticism''. Rather than denying the existence of global warming, neoskeptics instead "question the magnitude of the risks and assert that reducing them has more costs than benefits." According to the authors, the emergence of neoskepticism "heightens the need for science to inform decision making under uncertainty and to improve communication and education."<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Stern |first1=Paul C. |last2=Perkins |first2=John H. |last3=Sparks |first3=Richard E. |last4=Knox |first4=Robert A. |date=2016 |title=The challenge of climate-change neoskepticism |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf6675 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=353 |issue=6300 |pages=653–654 |doi=10.1126/science.aaf6675 |pmid=27516588 |bibcode=2016Sci...353..653S |s2cid=19503400 |issn=0036-8075|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

There is a range of possible mitigation policies. Disagreement over the sufficiency, viability, or desirability of a given policy is not necessarily neoskepticism. But neoskepticism is marked by failure to appreciate the increased risks associated with delayed action.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Yirka |first1=Bob |last2=Phys.org |title=Panel offers advice on how to combat climate-change "neoskepticism" |url=https://phys.org/news/2016-08-panel-advice-combat-neoskepticism-climate.html |access-date=2024-02-07 |website=phys.org |language=en}}</ref> [[Gavin Schmidt]] has called neoskepticism a form of [[confirmation bias]] and the tendency to always take "as gospel the lowest estimate of a plausible range".<ref name=":23">{{Cite journal |last=Wendel |first=JoAnna |date=2016 |title=Climate Scientists' New Hurdle: Overcoming Climate Change Apathy |url=https://eos.org/articles/climate-scientists-new-hurdle-overcoming-climate-change-apathy |journal=Eos |volume=97 |doi=10.1029/2016EO057547 |issn=2324-9250|doi-access=free }}</ref> Neoskeptics err on the side of the least disruptive projections and least active policies and, as such, neglect or misapprehend the full spectrum of risks associated with global warming.<ref name=":23" />

In political terms, ''soft climate denial'' can stem from concerns about the [[Economics of global warming|economics]] and [[economic impacts of climate change]], particularly the concern that strong measures to combat global warming or mitigate its impacts will seriously inhibit [[economic growth]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Heatley |first1=Brian |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PGuPDwAAQBAJ |title=Facing Up to Climate Reality: Honesty, Disaster and Hope |last2=Read |first2=Rupert |last3=Foster |first3=John |publisher=Green House Publishing in association with London Publishing Partnership |year=2019 |isbn=978-1-907994-93-7 |editor-last=Foster |editor-first=John |pages=1–12 |chapter=Introduction: Looking for Hope between Disaster and Catastrophe |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PGuPDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 |via=[[Google Books]]}}</ref>{{rp|10}}

=== Promoting conspiracy theories ===
{{Further|Psychology of climate change denial#Conspiratorial beliefs}}[[File:Climate change denial in Sudbury.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35 |Climate change denial sign in Sudbury, Canada (2016)|left]]
Climate change denial is commonly rooted in a phenomenon known as [[conspiracy theory]], in which people misattribute events to a powerful group's secret plot or plan.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=McCauley |first1=Clark |last2=Jacques |first2=Susan |date=May 1979 |title=The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: A Bayesian analysis |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=37 |issue=5 |pages=637–644 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.37.5.637}}</ref> People with certain cognitive tendencies are also more drawn than others to conspiracy theories about climate change. Conspiratorial beliefs are more predominantly found in [[Narcissism|narcissistic people]] and those who consistently look for meanings or patterns in their world, including believers in [[paranormal]] activity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bruder |first1=Martin |last2=Haffke |first2=Peter |last3=Neave |first3=Nick |last4=Nouripanah |first4=Nina |last5=Imhoff |first5=Roland |date=2013 |title=Measuring Individual Differences in Generic Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Across Cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |volume=4 |page=225 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225 |issn=1664-1078 |pmc=3639408 |pmid=23641227 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Climate change conspiracy disbelief is also linked to lower levels of education and analytic thinking.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Swami |first1=Viren |last2=Voracek |first2=Martin |last3=Stieger |first3=Stefan |last4=Tran |first4=Ulrich S. |last5=Furnham |first5=Adrian |date=December 2014 |title=Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006 |journal=Cognition |volume=133 |issue=3 |pages=572–585 |doi=10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006 |issn=0010-0277 |pmid=25217762 |s2cid=15915194}}</ref><ref name=":72">{{Cite journal |last1=Douglas |first1=Karen M. |last2=Sutton |first2=Robbie M. |last3=Callan |first3=Mitchell J. |last4=Dawtry |first4=Rael J. |last5=Harvey |first5=Annelie J. |date=2015-08-18 |title=Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586 |journal=Thinking & Reasoning |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=57–77 |doi=10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586 |issn=1354-6783 |s2cid=146892686}}</ref>

Scientists are investigating which factors associated with conspiracy belief can be influenced and changed. They have identified "uncertainty, feelings of powerlessness, political cynicism, magical thinking, and errors in logical and probabilistic reasoning".<ref name="douglas20152">{{cite journal |last1=Douglas |first1=Karen M. |last2=Sutton |first2=Robbie M. |date=2015 |title=Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0096340215571908 |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |volume=71 |issue=2 |pages=98–106 |bibcode=2015BuAtS..71b..98D |doi=10.1177/0096340215571908 |s2cid=144008955 |access-date=25 January 2021}}</ref>

In 2012, researchers found that belief in other conspiracy theories was associated with being more likely to endorse climate change denial.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lewandowsky |first1=Stephan |last2=Oberauer |first2=Klaus |date=2013 |title=NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax |journal=[[Psychological Science (journal)|Psychological Science]] |volume=24 |issue=5 |pages=622–633 |doi=10.1177/0956797612457686 |pmid=23531484 |s2cid=23921773}}</ref> Examples of science-related conspiracy theories that some people believe include that [[Extraterrestrial life|aliens]] exist, [[Lancet MMR autism fraud|childhood vaccines are linked to autism]], [[Bigfoot]] is real, the government "adds [[Water fluoridation controversy|fluoride to drinking water for 'sinister' purposes]]", and the [[Moon landing conspiracy theories|moon landing was faked]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Than |first=Ker |date=2013-04-04 |title=Fact Checking 6 Persistent Science Conspiracy Theories |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/130404-american-conspiracy-theories-polls-debunk |access-date=22 May 2013 |website=National Geographic}}</ref>

Examples of alleged climate change conspiracies include:
* Aiming at [[New World Order (conspiracy theory)|New World Order]]: Senator [[James Inhofe]], a [[Republican Party (USA)|Republican]] from [[Oklahoma]], suggested in 2006 that supporters of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] such as [[Jacques Chirac]] are aiming at global governance.<ref>{{cite web |title=Senate Environment And Public Works Committee |url=http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070328212224/http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759 |archive-date=2007-03-28 |access-date=2007-03-25}}</ref> In his speech, Inhofe said: "So, I wonder: are the French going to be dictating U.S. policy?"<ref name="Inhofe2">{{Cite web |title=James M. Inhofe – U.S. Senator (OK) |url=http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070328212952/http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleases/climate.htm |archive-date=2007-03-28 |access-date=2007-03-23}}</ref> [[William M. Gray]] also claimed in 2006 that scientists support the scientific consensus on climate change because they were promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking [[world government]].<ref name="tempest">{{cite news |last=Achenbach |first=Joel |date=28 May 2006 |title=The Tempest |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html |access-date=23 April 2007 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref> He added that its purpose was to exercise political influence, to try to introduce world government, and to control people.<ref name="tempest" /><ref name="douglas20152" />
* To promote other types of energy sources: Some have claimed that the "threat of global warming is an attempt to promote [[nuclear power]]".<ref name="douglas20152" /> Another claim is that "because many people have invested in [[renewable energy]] companies, they stand to lose a lot of money if global warming is shown to be a myth. According to this theory, environmental groups therefore bribe climate scientists to doctor their data so that they are able to secure their financial investment in green energy."<ref name="douglas20152" />

== Psychology ==
{{See also|Effects of climate change on mental health|Climate psychology}}
{{excerpt|Psychology of climate change denial|file=no}}
A study published in [[PLOS|''PLOS One'']] in 2024 found that even a single repetition of a claim was sufficient to increase the ''perceived'' truth of both climate science-aligned claims and climate change skeptic/denial claims—"highlighting the insidious effect of repetition".<ref name=Jiang_PLOSONE_20240807/> This effect was found even among climate science endorsers.<ref name=Jiang_PLOSONE_20240807>{{cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yangxueqing |last2=Schwarz |first2=Norbert |last3=Reynolds |first3=Katherine J. |last4=Newman |first4=Eryn J. |title=Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers |journal=PLOS ONE |date=7 August 2024 |volume=19 |issue=8 |page=See esp. "Abstract" and "General discussion" |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0307294|doi-access=free |pmid=39110668 |pmc=11305575 |bibcode=2024PLoSO..1907294J }}</ref>

== Connections to other debates ==
=== Links with other environmental issues ===
Many of the climate change deniers have disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks, such as [[ozone depletion]], [[DDT#Environmental impact|DDT]], and [[passive smoking]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Peter Jacques |title=Environmental skepticism: ecology, power and public life |publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-7546-7102-2 |series=Global environmental governance series}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=George E. Brown |date=March 1997 |title=Environmental Science Under Siege in the U.S. Congress |journal=Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development |volume=39 |issue=2 |pages=12–31 |bibcode=1997ESPSD..39b..12B |doi=10.1080/00139159709604359}}</ref>

In the 1990s, the Marshall Institute began campaigning against increased regulations on environmental issues such as [[acid rain]], [[ozone depletion]], second-hand smoke, and the dangers of [[DDT]].<ref name=":9" /><ref name="requiem">{{cite book |last=Hamilton |first=Clive |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BdDTUvcFE1YC&pg=PT137 |title=Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change |publisher=Routledge |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84977-498-7 |author-link=Clive Hamilton |access-date=16 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210323031809/https://books.google.com/books?id=BdDTUvcFE1YC&pg=PT137 |archive-date=23 March 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="merchants of doubt">{{cite book |last1=Conway |first1=Erik |url=https://archive.org/details/merchantsofdoubt00ores |title=Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming |last2=Oreskes |first2=Naomi |publisher=Bloomsbury |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-59691-610-4 |location=US |url-access=registration}}</ref>{{rp|170}} In each case their argument was that the science was too uncertain to justify any government intervention, a strategy it borrowed from earlier efforts to downplay the health effects of tobacco in the 1980s.<ref name="Newsweek denial machine" /><ref name="merchants of doubt" />{{rp|170}} This campaign would continue for the next two decades.<ref name="merchants of doubt" />{{rp|105}}

=== Links with nationalism and right-wing groups ===
{{See also|Eco-fascism|Eco-nationalism#Ethnic Eco-nationalism vs. Civic Eco-nationalism|Right-wing antiscience}}
In 2023, an increase in climate change denial was noted, particularly among supporters of the [[Far-right politics|far right]].<ref name="PhysOrg_202305133">{{cite news |last1=Parry |first1=Roland Lloyd |last2=Rey |first2=Benedicte |last3=Laborda |first3=Adria |last4=Tan |first4=Kate |date=13 May 2023 |title=Meteorologists targeted in climate misinfo surge |url=https://phys.org/news/2023-05-meteorologists-climate-misinfo-surge.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230513180614/https://phys.org/news/2023-05-meteorologists-climate-misinfo-surge.html |archive-date=13 May 2023 |publisher=Phys.org}}</ref>

It has been suggested that climate change can conflict with a [[nationalism|nationalistic]] view because it is "unsolvable" at the national level and requires collective action between nations or between local communities, and that therefore populist nationalism tends to reject the science of climate change.<ref>{{cite web |date=15 November 2016 |title=Climate denial and the populist right |url=https://www.iied.org/climate-denial-populist-right |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190404200140/https://www.iied.org/climate-denial-populist-right |archive-date=4 April 2019 |access-date=4 March 2017 |website=International Institute for Environment and Development}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Harari |first=Yuval Noah |date=20 February 2017 |title=Transcript of "Nationalism vs. globalism: the new political divide" |url=https://www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_nationalism_vs_globalism_the_new_political_divide/transcript?language=en |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210330102111/https://www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_nationalism_vs_globalism_the_new_political_divide/transcript?language=en |archive-date=30 March 2021 |access-date=4 March 2017}}</ref>

The [[UK Independence Party]]'s policy on climate change has been influenced by climate change denier [[Christopher Monckton]] and by its energy spokesman [[Roger Helmer]], who has said, "It is not clear that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is anthropogenic."<ref>{{cite web |last=Helmer |first=Roger |author-link=Roger Helmer |date=14 October 2015 |title=Plenary Speech Climate Change October 14th 2015 |url=http://www.rogerhelmermep.co.uk/speeches/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170407061337/http://www.rogerhelmermep.co.uk/speeches/ |archive-date=7 April 2017 |access-date=6 March 2017}}</ref>

Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center posits that climate change denial is an important component of Trumpian historical consciousness, and "plays a significant role in the architecture of Trumpism as a developing philosophical system".<ref>{{cite web |date=10 November 2017 |title=Climate Change Denial as the Historical Consciousness of Trumpism: Lessons from Carl Schmitt |url=https://www.niskanencenter.org/climate-change-denial-historical-consciousness-trumpism-lessons-carl-schmitt/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210817084623/https://www.niskanencenter.org/climate-change-denial-historical-consciousness-trumpism-lessons-carl-schmitt/ |archive-date=17 August 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=Niskanen Center |language=en}}</ref>

Though climate change denial was apparently waning ''circa'' 2021, some right-wing nationalist organizations have adopted a theory of "environmental populism" advocating that natural resources be preserved for a nation's existing residents, to the exclusion of immigrants.<ref name="Guardian_20211121">{{cite news |last1=Milman |first1=Oliver |date=21 November 2021 |title=Climate denial is waning on the right. What's replacing it might be just as scary |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/21/climate-denial-far-right-immigration |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211121082038/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/21/climate-denial-far-right-immigration |archive-date=21 November 2021}}</ref><ref name=rusi20220522>{{cite web |url=https://rusi.org/research-event-recordings/recording-rise-far-right-climate-denial-eco-fascism |title=Recording: The Rise of the Far-Right: From Climate Denial to Eco-Fascism |author=Claudia Wallner |date=2022-05-11 |publisher=[[RUSI]] }}</ref><ref name=teenvogue202004>{{cite news |url=https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-is-ecofascism-explainer |title=Eco-fascism: What It Is, Why It's Wrong, and How to Fight It |author=Adryan Corcione |date=2020-04-30 |publisher=Teen Vogue }}</ref> Other such right-wing organizations have contrived new "green wings" that falsely assert that refugees from poor nations cause environmental pollution and climate change and should therefore be excluded.<ref name="Guardian_20211121" /><ref name=rusi20220522 /><ref name=teenvogue202004 />

A study published in ''[[PLOS|PLOS Climate]]'' studied two forms of [[national identity]]—defensive or "national narcissism" and "secure national identification"—for their correlation to support for policies to mitigate climate change and transition to [[renewable energy]].<ref name="PLOSClimate_20230608">{{cite journal |last1=Cislak |first1=Aleksandra |last2=Wójcik |first2=Adrian D. |last3=Borkowska |first3=Julia |last4=Milfont |first4=Taciano |date=8 June 2023 |title=Secure and defensive forms of national identity and public support for climate policies |journal=PLOS Climate |volume=2 |issue=6 |page=e0000146 |doi=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000146 |doi-access=free|hdl=10289/16820 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> The authors defined ''national narcissism'' as "a belief that one's national group is exceptional and deserves external recognition underlain by unsatisfied psychological needs". They defined ''secure national identification'' as "reflect[ing] feelings of strong bonds and solidarity with one's ingroup members, and sense of satisfaction in group membership". The researchers concluded that ''secure national identification'' tends to support policies promoting renewable energy, while ''national narcissism'' is inversely correlated with support for such policies—except to the extent that such policies, as well as [[greenwashing]], enhance the national image.<ref name="PLOSClimate_20230608" /> Right-wing political orientation, which may indicate susceptibility to climate conspiracy beliefs, was also found to be negatively correlated with support for genuine climate mitigation policies.<ref name="PLOSClimate_20230608" />

=== Conservative views ===
[[File:202303_I_worry_"a_great_deal"_about_climate_change_-_Gallup_survey.svg|thumb|Degrees of concern about the effects of climate change can vary with political affiliation. This is very evident in the US, were voters of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] worry much more about climate change than voters of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]].<ref name="Gallup_20230420">{{cite web |last1=Saad |first1=Lydia |date=20 April 2023 |title=A Steady Six in 10 Say Global Warming's Effects Have Begun |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/474542/steady-six-say-global-warming-effects-begun.aspx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230420123700/https://news.gallup.com/poll/474542/steady-six-say-global-warming-effects-begun.aspx |archive-date=20 April 2023 |publisher=Gallup, Inc.}}</ref> The gap has been widening since the late 2010s<ref name="PewSurvey_2020">{{cite web |date=13 February 2020 |title=As Economic Concerns Recede, Environmental Protection Rises on the Public's Policy Agenda / Partisan gap on dealing with climate change gets even wider |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/02/13/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-on-the-publics-policy-agenda/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210116155958/https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/02/13/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-on-the-publics-policy-agenda/ |archive-date=16 January 2021 |website=PewResearch.org |publisher=Pew Research Center}} (Discontinuity resulted from survey changing in 2015 from reciting "global warming" to "climate change".)</ref>

]]
One worldview that often leads to climate change denial is belief in free enterprise [[capitalism]].<ref name=":52">{{Cite journal |last=Gifford |first=Robert |date=2011 |title=The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. |journal=American Psychologist |language=en |volume=66 |issue=4 |pages=290–302 |doi=10.1037/a0023566 |issn=1935-990X |pmid=21553954 |s2cid=8356816}}</ref><ref name=":17">{{Cite journal |last1=Jylhä |first1=K. M. |last2=Stanley |first2=S. K. |last3=Ojala |first3=M. |last4=Clarke |first4=E. J. R |date=2023 |title=Science Denial: A Narrative Review and Recommendations for Future Research and Practice |journal=European Psychologist |volume=28 |issue=3 |pages=151–161 |doi=10.1027/1016-9040/a000487 |s2cid=254665552 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The "freedom of the commons" ([[tragedy of the commons]]), or the freedom to use [[natural resource]]s as a public good as it is practiced in free enterprise capitalism, destroys important ecosystems and their functions, and so having a stake in this worldview does not correlate with [[climate change mitigation]] behavior.<ref name=":52" /><ref name=":15">{{Cite news |last=Hall |first=David |date=October 8, 2019 |title=Climate explained: why some people still think climate change isn't real |url=https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763 |access-date=December 7, 2023 |work=The Conversation}}</ref> Political worldview plays an important role in environmental policy and action. Liberals tend to focus on environmental risks, while conservatives focus on the benefits of economic development.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last1=Lewandowsky |first1=Stephan |last2=Oberauer |first2=Klaus |date=August 2016 |title=Motivated Rejection of Science |url=https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/motivated-rejection-of-science(1f2a0ba7-baba-4d13-a2a8-f11df1a8b009).html |journal=Current Directions in Psychological Science |language=en |volume=25 |issue=4 |pages=217–222 |doi=10.1177/0963721416654436 |issn=0963-7214 |s2cid=53705050 |hdl-access=free |hdl=1983/493a3119-4525-430a-abb5-b0521440fb39}}</ref> Because of this difference, conflicting opinions on the acceptance of climate change arise.<ref name=":6" />

A study of climate change denial indicators in public opinion data from ten Gallup surveys from 2001 to 2010 shows that conservative white men in the U.S. are significantly more likely to deny climate change than other Americans.<ref name=":42">{{Cite journal |last1=McCright |first1=Aaron M. |last2=Dunlap |first2=Riley E. |date=October 2011 |title=Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States |journal=Global Environmental Change |language=en |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=1163–1172 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003|bibcode=2011GEC....21.1163M }}</ref><ref name=":16">{{Cite journal |last=Weddig |first=Catherine |date=September 15, 2022 |title=Climate Change Denial & Skepticism: A Review of the Literature |url=https://mediawell.ssrc.org/research-reviews/climate-change-denial-skepticism-a-review-of-the-literature/ |journal=Social Science Research Council |via=MediaWell}}</ref> Conservative white men who report understanding climate change very well are even more likely to deny climate change.<ref name=":42" />

Another reason for the discrepancy in climate change denial between liberals and conservatives is that "contemporary environmental discourse is based largely on moral concerns related to harm and care, which are more deeply held by liberals than by conservatives"; if the discourse is instead framed using moral concerns related to purity that are more deeply held by conservatives, the discrepancy is resolved.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Feinberg |first1=Matthew |last2=Willer |first2=Robb |date=January 2013 |title=The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes |journal=Psychological Science |language=en |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=56–62 |doi=10.1177/0956797612449177 |issn=0956-7976 |pmid=23228937 |s2cid=18348687}}</ref>

In the U.S., climate change denial largely correlates with [[political affiliation]].<ref name=":22">{{Cite journal |last1=Unsworth |first1=Kerrie L. |last2=Fielding |first2=Kelly S. |date=July 2014 |title=It's political: How the salience of one's political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support |url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/92654/1/Unsworth%20Fielding%202014%20How%20the%20salience%20of%20ones%20political%20identity%20changes%20climate%20change%20beliefs.pdf |journal=Global Environmental Change |language=en |volume=27 |pages=131–137 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.05.002|bibcode=2014GEC....27..131U }}</ref> This is partially because [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]] focus more on tighter government regulations and taxation, which are the basis for most environmental policy.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal |last=Stoknes |first=Per Espen |date=2014-03-01 |title=Rethinking climate communications and the "psychological climate paradox" |journal=Energy Research & Social Science |volume=1 |pages=161–170 |doi=10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.007 |bibcode=2014ERSS....1..161S |issn=2214-6296 |hdl-access=free |hdl=11250/278817}}</ref> Political affiliation also affects how different people interpret the same facts.<ref name=":02" /> More highly educated people are less likely to rely on their own interpretation and political ideology rather than on scientists' opinions.<ref name=":02" /> Therefore, political worldviews override expert opinion on the interpretation of climate facts and evidence of anthropogenic climate change.<ref name=":02" /><ref name=":16" />

Affiliation with a political group, especially in the U.S., is an important personal and social identity for many.<ref name=":32">{{Cite journal |last=Greene |first=Steven |date=June 1999 |title=Understanding Party Identification: A Social Identity Approach |journal=Political Psychology |language=en |volume=20 |issue=2 |pages=393–403 |doi=10.1111/0162-895X.00150 |issn=0162-895X}}</ref> Because of this, many people hold the popular values of their political affiliation, regardless of their personal beliefs, so as not to be ostracized by the group.<ref name=":32" /><ref name=":16" />

== History ==
{{globalize|section|date=February 2024}}
{{See also|History of climate change science|History of climate change policy and politics}}
{{quote box
| title = Typical storyline of deniers
| quote = {{font |font=Times New Roman |size=12pt | {{nbsp|5}}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.}}
| source = — [[Sharon Begley]], [[Newsweek]], 2007<ref>{{cite web|last=Begley|first=Sharon|title=The Truth About Denial|url=https://climateshift.com/newsweek-hoax.pdf|publisher=Newsweek|access-date=3 September 2011 |author2=Eve Conant |author3=Sam Stein |author4=Eleanor Clift |author5=Matthew Philips|page=20|date=13 August 2007}}</ref>
| align = right | width = 35% | border = 1px | fontsize = 100% | bgcolor = #fafafa | title_bg = #fafafa | title_fnt = #202060 | qalign = left | salign = right
}}

U.S. fossil fuel companies have known about global warming since at least the 1960s.<ref>{{cite web |first=March |last=Hudson |url=https://theconversation.com/us-firms-knew-about-global-warming-in-1968-what-about-australia-57878|work=The Conversation|year=2016|title=US firms knew about global warming in 1968 – what about Australia?|access-date=19 August 2018|archive-date=10 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011534/https://theconversation.com/us-firms-knew-about-global-warming-in-1968-what-about-australia-57878|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1966, a coal industry research organization, Bituminous Coal Research Inc., published its finding that if then prevailing trends of coal consumption continued, "the temperature of the earth's atmosphere will increase" and "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."<ref name="HuffPost Coal Knew Too">{{cite news|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coal-industry-climate-change_n_5dd6bbebe4b0e29d7280984f|title=Coal Knew, Too, A Newly Unearthed Journal from 1966 Shows the Coal Industry, Like the Oil Industry, Was Long Aware of the Threat of Climate Change|last=Young|first=Élan|work=Huffington Post|date=22 November 2019|access-date=24 November 2019|archive-date=22 February 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200222082535/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coal-industry-climate-change_n_5dd6bbebe4b0e29d7280984f|url-status=live}}</ref> 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 publicly advocated for decades thereafter the position that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial for the planet.<ref name="HuffPost Coal Knew Too" />

In response to increasing public awareness of the greenhouse effect in the 1970s, conservative reaction built up, denying environmental concerns that could lead to government regulation. In 1977, the first Secretary of Energy, [[James Schlesinger]], suggested President [[Jimmy Carter]] take no action regarding a climate change memo, citing uncertainty.<ref>{{cite news |last=Pattee |first=Emma |date=2022-06-14|title=The 1977 White House climate memo that should have changed the world |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/14/1977-us-presidential-memo-predicted-climate-change |work=The Guardian |access-date=2022-06-14}}</ref> During the [[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. Congressman [[Al Gore]] was aware of the developing science: he joined others in arranging congressional hearings from 1981 onward, with testimony from scientists including Revelle, [[Stephen Schneider (scientist)|Stephen Schneider]], and [[Wallace Smith Broecker]].<ref>Weart, S. (2015) [https://web.archive.org/web/20160629213628/https://www.aip.org/history/climate/Govt.htm#S7 Global Warming Becomes a Political Issue (1980-1983)] in: The Discovery of Global Warming</ref>

An [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|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.<ref name=":10">{{cite book|title = The Discovery of Global Warming|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=qX8yCpETS-IC&pg=PA141|publisher = Harvard University Press|year=2009|isbn = 978-0-674-04497-5|first = Spencer R.|last = Weart|access-date = 16 March 2016|archive-date = 1 June 2021|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210601211616/https://books.google.com/books?id=qX8yCpETS-IC&pg=PA141|url-status = live}}</ref> The Reagan administration called the report "alarmist" and the dispute was widely covered. Public attention turned to other issues, then the 1985 finding of a polar [[Ozone depletion|ozone hole]] brought a swift international response. To the public, [[ozone depletion and climate change|this was related to climate change]] and the possibility of effective action, but news interest faded.<ref>Weart, S. (2015) [https://web.archive.org/web/20160629155458/https://www.aip.org/history/climate/public2.htm#L_0400 Breaking into Politics (1980-1988)], in The Discovery of Global Warming  </ref>

Public attention was renewed amid summer droughts and heat waves when [[James Hansen]] testified to a Congressional hearing on 23 June 1988,<ref name="Hansen testimony">{{cite web |last=Hansen |first=James |title=Statement of Dr. James Hansen, director, NASA Goddard Institute for space studies |date=1988 |url=http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf |website=Climate Change ProCon.org |access-date=30 November 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110822055700/http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf|archive-date=22 August 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html | title=Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate | work=The New York Times | date=24 June 1988 | last1=Shabecoff | first1=Philip }}</ref> saying 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 trend was not curbed.<ref>Weart, S. (2015) [https://web.archive.org/web/20160629155458/https://www.aip.org/history/climate/public2.htm#S1988 The Summer of 1988], in: The Discovery of Global Warming</ref> These facts encouraged discussion about new environmental regulations, which the fossil fuel industry opposed.<ref name=":10" />

From 1989 onward, industry-funded organizations, including the [[Global Climate Coalition]] and the [[George C. Marshall Institute]], sought to spread doubt, in a strategy already developed by the tobacco industry.<ref name="Newsweek denial machine" /><ref name=":10" /><ref name="merchants of doubt" /> 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.<ref name=":10" /> Historian [[Spencer Weart]] identifies this period as the point where skepticism about basic aspects of climate science was no longer justified, and those spreading mistrust about these issues became deniers.<ref name="Weart 2011">{{cite journal |last=Weart |first=Spencer |title=Global warming: How skepticism became denial |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |volume=67 |issue=1 |year=2011 |url=http://www.staff.fcps.net/dgmartin/Global%20Warming%20-%20How%20Skepticism%20Became%20Denial.pdf |doi=10.1177/0096340210392966 |pages=41–50 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150610085845/http://www.staff.fcps.net/dgmartin/Global%20Warming%20-%20How%20Skepticism%20Became%20Denial.pdf |archive-date=10 June 2015 |bibcode=2011BuAtS..67a..41W |s2cid=53607015 }}</ref>{{rp|46}} As the scientific community and new data increasingly refuted their arguments, deniers turned to political arguments, making personal attacks on scientists' reputations, and promoting ideas of ''global warming conspiracies''.<ref name="Weart 2011" />{{rp|47}}

With the [[Revolutions of 1989|1989 fall of communism]], the attention of [[Conservatism in the United States|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" tactic, which they saw as a threat to their aims of private property, free trade market economies, and global capitalism. They used [[environmental skepticism]] to promote denial of environmental problems such as loss of [[biodiversity]] and climate change.<ref name="Jacques2008" />

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".<ref>{{cite news|last=Wald|first=Matthew L.|title=Pro-Coal Ad Campaign Disputes Warming Idea|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/business/pro-coal-ad-campaign-disputes-warming-idea.html|access-date=1 March 2013|newspaper=The New York Times|date=8 July 1991|archive-date=14 August 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814053921/https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/08/business/pro-coal-ad-campaign-disputes-warming-idea.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Newsweek denial machine" /> There was also a 1998 proposal by the [[American Petroleum Institute]] to recruit scientists to convince politicians, the media, and the public that climate science was too uncertain to warrant environmental regulation.<ref>{{cite book |last=Cox |first=Robert |year=2009 |title=Environmental Communication and the Public Sphere |publisher=Sage |pages=311–312}}</ref>

In 1998, journalists [[Ross Gelbspan]] noted that his fellow journalists accepted that global warming was occurring, but were in "'stage-two' denial of the [[climate crisis]]", unable to accept the feasibility of solutions to the problem.<ref name="Gelbspan 1998" />{{rp|3, 35, 46, 197}} His book, ''Boiling Point'', published in 2004, detailed the fossil-fuel industry's campaign to deny climate change and undermine public confidence in climate science.<ref name="Gelbspan 2004">{{cite web | last=Gelbspan | first=Ross | title=An excerpt from Boiling Point by Ross Gelbspan | website=Grist | date=22 July 2004 | url=http://grist.org/article/gelbspan-boiling/ | access-date=1 June 2015 | archive-date=10 November 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011301/https://grist.org/article/gelbspan-boiling/ | url-status=live }}</ref> 

In ''[[Newsweek]]''{{'s}} August 2007 cover story "The Truth About Denial", [[Sharon Begley]] reported that "the denial machine is running at full throttle", and 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."<ref name="Newsweek denial machine" />

=== Similarities with tobacco industry tactics ===
{{See also|Tobacco industry playbook}}
In 2006, [[George Monbiot]] published an article about similarities between the methods of groups funded by [[Exxon]] and those of the tobacco giant [[Altria Group|Philip Morris]], including direct attacks on [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] science and attempts to create public controversy and doubt.<ref name="denial_ind_guardian">{{cite news |last=Monbiot |first=George |author-link=George Monbiot |date=19 September 2006 |title=The denial industry |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070324072335/http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1 |archive-date=24 March 2007 |access-date=22 September 2017 |work=[[The Guardian]] |location=London}}</ref>

The approach to downplay climate change's significance was copied from [[tobacco lobbyists]], who attempted to prevent or delay the introduction of regulation in the face of scientific evidence linking tobacco to [[lung cancer]]. They attempted to discredit the research by creating doubt, manipulating debate, discrediting the scientists involved, disputing their findings, and creating and maintaining an apparent controversy by promoting claims that contradicted scientific research. Doubt shielded the tobacco industry from litigation and regulation for decades.<ref>{{cite news |last=Manjit |first=Kumar |date=18 October 2010 |title=Merchants of Doubt, By Naomi Oreskes & Erik M Conway |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/merchants-of-doubt-by-naomi-oreskes-amp-erik-m-conway-2109256.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200303011352/https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/merchants-of-doubt-by-naomi-oreskes-amp-erik-m-conway-2109256.html |archive-date=3 March 2020 |access-date=17 February 2013 |work=The Independent |location=London}}</ref>

For example, in 1992 an EPA report linked [[Passive smoking|secondhand smoke]] with lung cancer. In response, the tobacco industry engaged the [[APCO Worldwide]] public relations company, which set out a strategy of [[astroturfing]] campaigns to cast doubt on the science by linking smoking anxieties with other issues, including global warming, in order to turn public opinion against calls for government intervention. The campaign depicted public concerns as "unfounded fears" supposedly based only on "junk science" in contrast to their "sound science", and operated through [[front organization|front groups]], primarily the [[Advancement of Sound Science Center]] (TASSC) and its Junk Science website, run by [[Steven Milloy]]. A tobacco company memo read, "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."

During the 1990s, the tobacco campaign died away, and TASSC began taking funding from oil companies, including Exxon. Its website became central in distributing "almost every kind of climate-change denial that has found its way into the popular press."<ref name="requiem" />{{rp|104–106}} Monbiot wrote that TASSC "has done more damage to the campaign to halt [climate change] than any other body" by trying to manufacture the appearance of a grassroots movement against "unfounded fear" and "over-regulation".<ref name="denial_ind_guardian" />

=== Republican Party in the United States ===
[[File:202303 Global warming caused by human activities - Gallup survey.svg|thumb|upright=1.35 |Voters of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] in the U.S. are more likely to (correctly) agree that global warming is due to human activity than voters of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]]. This gap widened in the late 2010s.<ref name=PewSurvey_2020/>]]

{{quote box
| title = During the [[2020 California wildfires]]
| quote = It'll start getting cooler, you just watch. [...] I don't think science knows, actually.
| author = — Then U.S. President Donald Trump
| source = <br>September 13, 2020.<ref name=Politico_20200917>{{cite news |last1=Colman |first1=Zack |last2=Guillén |first2=Alex |title=Trump's climate change rollbacks to drive up U.S. emissions |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/17/trump-climate-rollbacks-increase-emissions-417311 |work=Politico |date=17 September 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210226023146/https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/17/trump-climate-rollbacks-increase-emissions-417311 |archive-date=26 February 2021 |url-status=live }}</ref>
| align = right | width = 35% | border = 1px | fontsize = 100% | bgcolor = #fafafa | title_bg = #fafafa | title_fnt = #202060 | qalign = left | salign = right
}}
The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party in the United States]] is unique in denying [[Global warming|anthropogenic climate change]] among conservative political parties in the Western world.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Båtstrand |first=Sondre |year=2015 |title=More than Markets: A Comparative Study of Nine Conservative Parties on Climate Change |journal=[[Politics and Policy]] |language=en |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=538–561 |doi=10.1111/polp.12122 |issn=1747-1346 |s2cid=143331308 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Chait |first=Jonathan |author-link=Jonathan Chait |date=27 September 2015 |title=Why Are Republicans the Only Climate-Science-Denying Party in the World? |url=http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170721045321/http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html |archive-date=21 July 2017 |access-date=20 September 2017 |magazine=[[New York (magazine)|New York]] }}</ref> In 1994, according to a leaked memo, the Republican strategist [[Frank Luntz]] advised members of the Republican Party, with regard to climate change, that "you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue" and "challenge the science" by "recruiting experts who are sympathetic to your view".<ref name="Newsweek denial machine" /> (In 2006, Luntz said he still believes "back [in] '97, '98, the science was uncertain", but now agreed with the scientific consensus.)<ref>{{cite web |date=13 November 2006 |title=Frontline: Hot Politics: Interviews: Frank Luntz |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/luntz.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027201035/https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/luntz.html |archive-date=27 October 2021 |access-date=19 March 2010 |publisher=PBS}}</ref> From 2008 to 2017, the Republican Party went from "debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Davenport |first1=Coral |last2=Lipton |first2=Eric |author-link2=Eric Lipton |date=3 June 2017 |title=How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170914183020/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html |archive-date=14 September 2017 |access-date=22 September 2017 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331 }}</ref> In 2011, "more than half of the Republicans in the House and three-quarters of Republican senators" said "that the threat of global warming, as a human-made and highly threatening phenomenon, is at best an exaggeration and at worst an utter 'hoax{{' "}}.<ref name="nyt20110227">{{cite news |last=Warner |first=Judith |author-link=Judith Warner |date=27 February 2011 |title=Fact-Free Science |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/magazine/27FOB-WWLN-t.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210705083022/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/magazine/27FOB-WWLN-t.html |archive-date=5 July 2021 |access-date=9 September 2017 |magazine=[[The New York Times Magazine]] |pages=11–12 }}</ref>

In 2014, more than 55% of congressional Republicans were reported to be climate change deniers.<ref name="msnbc20140512">{{cite news |last=Matthews |first=Chris |author-link=Chris Matthews |date=12 May 2014 |title=Hardball With Chris Matthews for May 12, 2014 |url=https://archive.org/details/MSNBCW_20140512_230000_Hardball_With_Chris_Matthews |work=[[Hardball With Chris Matthews]] |publisher=[[MSNBC]] |via=[[ProQuest]] |agency=[[NBC news]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=EarthTalk |date=22 December 2014 |title=How Does Climate Denial Persist? |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-climate-denial-persist/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210322100618/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-climate-denial-persist/ |archive-date=22 March 2021 |access-date=25 September 2017 |magazine=[[Scientific American]] }}</ref> According to [[PolitiFact]] in May 2014, [[Jerry Brown]]'s statement that "virtually no Republican" in Washington accepts climate change science was "mostly true"; PolitiFact counted "eight out of 278, or about 3 percent" of Republican members of Congress who "accept the prevailing scientific conclusion that global warming is both real and man-made."<ref>{{cite news |last=Kliegman |first=Julie |date=18 May 2014 |title=Jerry Brown says 'virtually no Republican' in Washington accepts climate change science |url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/18/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-says-virtually-no-republican-believes-/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170813152353/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/18/jerry-brown/jerry-brown-says-virtually-no-republican-believes-/ |archive-date=13 August 2017 |access-date=18 September 2017 |work=[[Tampa Bay Times]] |publisher=[[PolitiFact]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=McCarthy |first=Tom |date=17 November 2014 |title=Meet the Republicans in Congress who don't believe climate change is real |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/climate-change-denial-scepticism-republicans-congress |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170919234320/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/climate-change-denial-scepticism-republicans-congress |archive-date=19 September 2017 |access-date=18 September 2017 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] }}</ref>

In 2005, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that [[Philip Cooney]], a former [[fossil fuels lobby|fossil fuel lobbyist]] and "climate team leader" at the American Petroleum Institute and President George W. Bush's chief of staff of the [[Council on Environmental Quality]], had "repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents".<ref name="NYT">{{cite news |last=Revkin |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Revkin |date=8 June 2005 |title=Bush Aide Edited Climate Reports |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170923002103/https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D71338F93BA35755C0A9639C8B63 |archive-date=23 September 2017 |access-date=3 August 2007 |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref> [[Sharon Begley]] reported in ''Newsweek'' that Cooney "edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as 'lack of understanding' and 'considerable uncertainty'." Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon another lobbyist sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."<ref name="Newsweek denial machine" />
[[File:2021 Survey on existence of global warming and responsibility for climate change - bar chart.svg|thumb|upright=1.35 |The sharp divide over the existence of and responsibility for global warming and climate change falls largely along party lines in the US ([[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]] and [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]]).<ref name="Guardian_20211026">{{cite news |last1=McGreal |first1=Chris |date=26 October 2021 |title=Revealed: 60% of Americans say oil firms are to blame for the climate crisis |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/climate-change-poll-oil-gas-companies-environment |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026122356/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/climate-change-poll-oil-gas-companies-environment |archive-date=26 October 2021 |work=The Guardian |quote=Source: Guardian/Vice/CCN/YouGov poll. Note: ±4% margin of error.}}</ref> Overall, 60% of Americans surveyed in 2021 said oil and gas companies were "completely or mostly responsible" for climate change.<ref name="Guardian_20211026" />]]
In the 2016 U.S. election cycle, every [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] presidential candidate, and the Republican leader in the [[U.S. Senate]], questioned or denied climate change, and opposed U.S. government steps to address it.<ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html?_r=0 "Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211105144857/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climate-change-accord-paris.html?_r=0|date=5 November 2021}}. ''The New York Times'', 12 December 2015.</ref>

In 2016, Aaron McCright argued that [[anti-environmentalism]]—and climate change denial specifically—had expanded in the U.S. to become "a central tenet of the current conservative and Republican identity".<ref>{{cite news |author=Graham Redfearn |date=7 January 2016 |title=Era of climate science denial is not over, study finds |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/jan/07/era-of-climate-science-denial-is-not-over-study-finds |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814232317/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/jan/07/era-of-climate-science-denial-is-not-over-study-finds |archive-date=14 August 2021 |access-date=20 December 2016 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref>

In a 2017 interview, [[United States Secretary of Energy]] [[Rick Perry]] acknowledged the existence of climate change and impact from humans, but said that he did not agree that carbon dioxide was its primary driver, pointing instead to "the ocean waters and this environment that we live in".<ref>{{cite web |date=19 June 2017 |title=Energy Secty Rick Perry: {{CO2}} is not the main driver of climate change |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/energy-sec-rick-perry-says-co2-is-not-the-main-driver-of-climate-change.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200901145538/https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/energy-sec-rick-perry-says-co2-is-not-the-main-driver-of-climate-change.html |archive-date=1 September 2020 |access-date=9 September 2017 |website=[[CNBC]]}}</ref> The [[American Meteorological Society]] responded in a letter to Perry that it is "critically important that you understand that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the primary cause", pointing to conclusions of scientists worldwide.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Seitter |first1=Keith |title=AMS Letter to Perry |url=https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-position-letters/letter-to-doe-secretary-perry-on-climate-change/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201210194452/https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/ams-position-letters/letter-to-doe-secretary-perry-on-climate-change/ |archive-date=10 December 2020 |access-date=24 June 2017 |publisher=American Meteorological Society}}</ref>

Climate denial has started to decrease among the Republican Party leadership toward acknowledgment that "the climate is changing"; a 2019 study by several major think tanks called the climate right "fragmented and underfunded".<ref>{{cite web |last=Roberts |first=David |date=26 April 2019 |title=Don't bother waiting for conservatives to come around on climate change |url=https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/26/18512213/climate-change-republicans-conservatives |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211015134352/https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/26/18512213/climate-change-republicans-conservatives |archive-date=15 October 2021 |access-date=16 February 2020 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref>

Florida Republican [[Tom Lee (Florida politician)|Tom Lee]] described people's emotional impact and reactions to climate change, saying: "I mean, you have to be the Grim Reaper of reality in a world that isn't real fond of the Grim Reaper. That's why I use the term 'emotionally shut down', because I think I think you lose people at hello a lot times in the Republican conversation over this."<ref>{{cite web |date=21 October 2019 |title=Florida's GOP Has A Change Of Heart About Climate Change |url=https://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/florida-s-gop-has-change-heart-about-climate-change |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200808174857/https://health.wusf.usf.edu/post/florida-s-gop-has-change-heart-about-climate-change |archive-date=8 August 2020 |access-date=16 February 2020 |website=Health News Florida, WUSF |language=en}}</ref>

When a moderator at the [[2024 Republican Party presidential debates and forums|August 23, 2023, Republican presidential debate]] asked the candidates to raise their hands if they believed human behavior is causing climate change, none did.<ref name="APnews_20230824">{{cite news |last1=Peoples |first1=Ssteve |date=24 August 2023 |title=Presidential debate shows how GOP candidates are struggling to address concerns about climate change |url=https://apnews.com/article/republican-debate-climate-change-election-2024-6d8ff0b9fd9a57cf0659a6f973a107ab |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825074138/https://apnews.com/article/republican-debate-climate-change-election-2024-6d8ff0b9fd9a57cf0659a6f973a107ab |archive-date=25 August 2023 |work=AP News}}</ref> Entrepreneur [[Vivek Ramaswamy]] said, "the climate change agenda is a hoax" and that "more people are dying of climate change policies than they actually are of climate change"; none of his competitors challenged him directly on climate.<ref name="APnews_20230824" /> After investigating Ramaswamy's latter claim, a ''Washington Post'' fact check found no supporting evidence.<ref name="WashPost_20230825">{{cite news |last1=Kessler |first1=Glenn |date=25 August 2023 |title=Vivek Ramaswamy says 'hoax' agenda kills more people than climate change |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/25/vivek-ramaswamy-says-hoax-agenda-kills-more-people-than-climate-change/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230825104534/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/25/vivek-ramaswamy-says-hoax-agenda-kills-more-people-than-climate-change/ |archive-date=25 August 2023 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref>

== Denial networks ==
<noinclude>{{quote box
| title = The [[archetype]]s of climate change deniers
| quote = {{font |font=Times New Roman |size=12pt | {{nbsp|5}}The ''Paid Lobbyist'' (the [[coal industry]], among others, is fighting emission reductions), the ''[[Don Quixote]]'' (emotionally committed laypeople, frequently pensioners, but also including a few journalists – many of them literally fighting windmills), and the ''Eccentric Scientist'' (they are few and far between). All three groups act like lobbyists: from a thousand research results, they cherry-pick and present the three that happen to support their own position – albeit only with a liberal interpretation."}}
| source = — [[Stefan Rahmstorf]], 2004<ref name="Rahmstorf 2004" />
| align = right | width = 35% | border = 1px | fontsize = 100% | bgcolor = #fafafa | title_bg = #fafafa | title_fnt = #202060 | qalign = left | salign = right
}}</noinclude>

=== Conservative and libertarian think tanks ===
A 2000 article explored the connection between conservative think tanks and climate change denial.<ref name=":7" /> Research found that specific groups were marshaling skepticism against climate change; a 2008 University of Central Florida study found that 92% of "environmentally skeptical" literature published in the U.S. was partly or wholly affiliated with self-proclaimed conservative think tanks.<ref name="Jacques2008" />

In 2013, the [[Center for Media and Democracy]] reported that the [[State Policy Network]] (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.<ref>{{cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=14 November 2013 |title=Facebook and Microsoft help fund rightwing lobby network, report finds |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/facebook-microsoft-rightwing-lobby-network-spn |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190404200048/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/14/facebook-microsoft-rightwing-lobby-network-spn |archive-date=4 April 2019 |access-date=17 November 2013 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref>

Conservative and [[Libertarianism|libertarian]] think tanks in the U.S., such as [[The Heritage Foundation]], Marshall Institute, [[Cato Institute]], and the [[American Enterprise Institute]], were significant participants in lobbying attempts seeking to halt or eliminate environmental regulations.<ref>{{cite web |date=5 September 2019 |title=The Climate Denial Machine: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action |url=https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211104225444/https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action |archive-date=4 November 2021 |access-date=7 October 2019 |website=[[The Climate Reality Project]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Borowy |first=Iris |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=st9JAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA44 |title=Defining Sustainable Development for Our Common Future: A History of the World Commission on Environment and Development |publisher=Routledge |year=2014 |isbn=978-1-135-96122-0 |page=44 |access-date=9 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601200812/https://books.google.com/books?id=st9JAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA44 |archive-date=1 June 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news |last=Goldenberg |first=Suzanne |date=20 December 2013 |title=Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026160911/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change |archive-date=26 October 2021 |access-date=24 January 2020 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Brulle |first1=Robert |date=2014 |title=Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations |journal=[[Climatic Change (journal)|Climatic Change]] |volume=122 |issue=4 |pages=681–694 |bibcode=2014ClCh..122..681B |doi=10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 |s2cid=27538787}}</ref> During the same period, billionaires secretively donated nearly $120&nbsp;million (£77&nbsp;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.<ref>{{cite news |last=Goldenberg |first=Suzanne |date=14 February 2013 |title=Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525121334/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network |archive-date=25 May 2019 |access-date=24 January 2020 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Schultz |first=Colin |date=23 December 2013 |title=Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/ |url-status=live |journal=[[Smithsonian (magazine)|Smithsonian]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210917022059/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/ |archive-date=17 September 2021 |access-date=7 October 2019}}</ref>

=== Publishers, websites and networks ===

In November 2021, a study by the [[Center for Countering Digital Hate]] identified "ten fringe publishers" that together were responsible for nearly 70 percent of Facebook user interactions with content that denied climate change. Facebook said the percentage was overstated and called the study misleading.<ref name="Porterfield_11/2/2021">{{cite web|last=Porterfield|first=Carlie|date=November 2, 2021|title=Breitbart Leads Climate Change Misinformation On Facebook, Study Says|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/11/02/breitbart-leads-climate-change-misinformation-on-facebook-study-says/|access-date=November 3, 2021|website=[[Forbes]]}}</ref><ref name="Toxic_Ten_11/2/2021">{{cite web | date=November 2, 2021 | title=The Toxic Ten: How ten fringe publishers fuel 69% of digital climate change denial | publisher=[[Center for Countering Digital Hate]] | url=https://www.counterhate.com/toxicten | access-date=November 3, 2021 }}</ref>

The "toxic ten" publishers: ''[[Breitbart News]]'', ''[[The Western Journal]]'', [[Newsmax]], [[Townhall]], [[Media Research Center]], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', ''[[The Federalist (website)|The Federalist]]'', ''[[The Daily Wire]]'', [[RT (TV network)]], and ''The Patriot Post''.

''[[The Rebel Media]]'' and its director, [[Ezra Levant]], have promoted climate change denial and [[oil sands]] extraction in [[Alberta]].<ref name="Graves Beard 2019 p. 176">{{cite book | last1=Graves | first1=H. | last2=Beard | first2=D.E. | title=The Rhetoric of Oil in the Twenty-First Century: Government, Corporate, and Activist Discourses | publisher=Taylor & Francis | series=Routledge Studies in Rhetoric and Communication | year=2019 | isbn=978-1-351-05212-2 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kU-QDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT176 | access-date=26 April 2022 | page=176}}</ref><ref name="Craig_10/31/2016">{{Cite news|last=Craig|first=Sean|date=2016-10-31|title=UN offers The Rebel press accreditation for climate conference after environment minister's intervention|url=https://financialpost.com/news/the-un-offers-the-rebel-press-accreditation-for-climate-conference-after-environment-ministers-intervention|access-date=2020-11-13|website=[[Financial Post]]|language=en-CA }}</ref><ref name="Rowell_6/24/2017">{{cite web | last=Rowell | first=Andy | title=Rebel Media: From Promoting Tar Sands and Climate Denial to 'Bigoted Lunatics' | website=Oil Change International | date=June 24, 2017 | url=https://priceofoil.org/2017/06/24/rebel-media-from-promoting-tar-sands-and-climate-denial-to-bigoted-lunatics/ | access-date=April 23, 2022}}</ref><ref name="Kay_5/1/2017">{{cite web | last=Kay | first=Jonathan | title=How Climate Change Denial Set the Stage for Fake News | website=[[The Walrus]] | date=May 1, 2017 | url=https://thewalrus.ca/how-climate-change-denial-set-the-stage-for-fake-news/ | access-date=April 23, 2022}}</ref>

[[Anthony Watts (blogger)|Willard Anthony Watts]] is an American blogger who runs ''[[Watts Up With That?]]'', a climate change denial blog.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Farmer |first1=Thomas G. |last2=Cook |first2=John |author-link2=John Cook (Australian scientist)|title=Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |year=2013 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tbtEAAAAQBAJ|isbn=9789400757578 }}</ref>

A piece of research from 2015 identified 4,556 people with overlapping network ties to 164 organizations that were responsible for most efforts to downplay the threat of climate change in the U.S.<ref name="Eric Roston">{{cite web |author=Eric Roston |date=November 30, 2015 |title=Unearthing America's Deep Network of Climate Change Deniers |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing-america-s-deep-network-of-climate-change-deniers |url-access=subscription |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011740/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-30/unearthing-america-s-deep-network-of-climate-change-deniers |archive-date=10 November 2021 |access-date=6 March 2017 |website=[[Bloomberg News]]}}</ref><ref name="Justin Farrell">{{cite journal |last=Farrell |first=Justin |year=2015 |title=Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement |journal=[[Nature Climate Change]] |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=370–374 |bibcode=2016NatCC...6..370F |doi=10.1038/nclimate2875 |s2cid=18207833}}</ref>

==== Publications for school children ====
According to documents leaked in February 2012, [[The Heartland Institute]] is developing a [[curriculum]] for use in schools that frames climate change as a scientific controversy.<ref name="NYTHeartland">{{cite news |author=Justin Gillis |author2=Leslie Kaufman |date=15 February 2012 |title=Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/science/earth/in-heartland-institute-leak-a-plan-to-discredit-climate-teaching.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190402143045/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/science/earth/in-heartland-institute-leak-a-plan-to-discredit-climate-teaching.html |archive-date=2 April 2019 |access-date=16 February 2012 |newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |author1=Stephanie Pappas |author2=LiveScience |date=15 February 2012 |title=Leaked: Conservative Group Plans Anti-Climate Education Program |url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leaked-conservative-group |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120216082938/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leaked-conservative-group |archive-date=16 February 2012 |access-date=15 February 2012 |magazine=Scientific American}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Goldenberg |first=Suzanne |date=15 February 2012 |title=Heartland Institute claims fraud after leak of climate change documents |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/heartland-institute-fraud-leak-climate?guni=Article:in%20body%20link |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190404224601/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/heartland-institute-fraud-leak-climate?guni=Article:in |archive-date=4 April 2019 |access-date=23 October 2014 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref> In 2017, deputy director of the [[National Center for Science Education]] (NCSE) [[Glenn Branch]] wrote, "the Heartland Institute is continuing to inflict its climate change denial literature on science teachers across the country".<ref name="NCSE_Branch_6/5/2017">{{cite web |last=Branch |first=Glenn |date=5 June 2017 |title=The Heartbreak for Heartland Continues |url=https://ncse.com/blog/2017/06/heartbreak-heartland-continues-0018546 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190404200210/https://ncse.com/blog/2017/06/heartbreak-heartland-continues-0018546 |archive-date=4 April 2019 |access-date=16 September 2017 |website=NCSE}}</ref> Each significant claim was rated for accuracy by scientists who were experts on that topic. It was found that "the 'Key Findings' section are incorrect, misleading, based on flawed logic, or simply factually inaccurate".<ref name="Climate Feedback 2017">{{cite web |date=31 May 2017 |first=Emmanuel |last=Vincent |title=Report Heartland Institute sent to influence US teachers on climate change earns an "F" from scientists |url=https://science.feedback.org/report-heartland-institute-sent-to-influence-us-teachers-on-climate-change-earns-an-f-from-scientists/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240916055748/https://science.feedback.org/report-heartland-institute-sent-to-influence-us-teachers-on-climate-change-earns-an-f-from-scientists/ |archive-date=16 September 2024 |access-date=16 September 2024 |website=Science Feedback |publisher=[[Climate Feedback]]}}</ref> The NCSE has prepared Classroom Resources in response to Heartland and other anti-science threats.<ref name="NCSE_Classroom_2017">{{cite web |title=Classroom Resources |url=https://ncse.com/classroom-resources |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190515042234/https://ncse.com/classroom-resources |archive-date=15 May 2019 |access-date=16 September 2017 |website=NCSE}}</ref>

In 2023, Republican politician and Baptist minister [[Mike Huckabee]] published ''Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change'', which acknowledges global warming but minimizes the influence of [[Greenhouse gas emissions|human emissions]].<ref name="InsideClimateNews_20230731">{{cite news |last1=Gopal |first1=Keerti |date=31 July 2023 |title=Mike Huckabee's "Kids Guide to the Truth About Climate Change" Shows the Changing Landscape of Climate Denial |url=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31072023/huckabees-kids-guide-to-climate/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230731092032/https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31072023/huckabees-kids-guide-to-climate/ |archive-date=31 July 2023 |work=Inside Climate News}}</ref> Marketed as an alternative to mainstream education, the publication does not attribute authorship or cite scientific credentials.<ref name="InsideClimateNews_20230731" /> The NCSE's deputy director called the publication "propaganda" and "very unreliable as a guide to climate change for kids", saying it represented "present-day" [[Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere|atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide]] as 280 parts per million (ppm), which was true in 391 BC but short of 2023's actual concentration of 420 ppm.<ref name="NSCS_20230803">{{cite web |date=3 August 2023 |title=NCSE helps to expose climate change propaganda aimed at kids |url=https://ncse.ngo/ncse-helps-expose-climate-change-propaganda-aimed-kids |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230804025333/https://ncse.ngo/ncse-helps-expose-climate-change-propaganda-aimed-kids |archive-date=4 August 2023 |publisher=National Center for Science Education (NCSE)}}</ref>

In 2023, the state of Florida approved a public school curriculum including videos produced by conservative advocacy group [[PragerU]] that liken climate change skeptics to those who fought Communism and Nazism, imply renewable energy harms the environment, and say current global warming occurs naturally.<ref name="Guardian_20230810">{{cite news |last1=Milman |first1=Oliver |date=10 August 2023 |title=Videos denying climate science approved by Florida as state curriculum |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/10/florida-ron-desantis-climate-vidoes-school-curriculum |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230811045427/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/10/florida-ron-desantis-climate-vidoes-school-curriculum |archive-date=11 August 2023 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref>

Texas, which has a large influence on school textbooks published nationwide, proposed textbooks in 2023 that included more information about the climate crisis than editions a decade earlier.<ref name="SciAm_202310">{{cite magazine |last1=Worth |first1=Katie |date=13 October 2023 |title=Climate Misinformation Persists in New Middle School Textbooks |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-misinformation-persists-in-new-middle-school-textbooks/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231015044934/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-misinformation-persists-in-new-middle-school-textbooks/ |archive-date=15 October 2023 |magazine=Scientific American}} (subscription needed for original)</ref> But some books clouded the human causes of climate change and downplayed the role of fossil fuels, with Texas U.S. Representative [[August Pfluger]] emphasizing the importance of "secure, reliable energy" (oil and natural gas) produced in the [[Permian Basin (North America)|Permian Basin]].<ref name="SciAm_202310" /> In September 2023, Pfluger's Congressional website said, "we cannot allow the radical climate lobby to infiltrate Texas middle schools and brainwash our children", claiming that [[liquefied natural gas]] is "not only...good for our economy, but it's good for the environment".<ref name="SciAm_202310" /><ref name="Pfluger_20230922">{{cite web |last1=Pfluger |first1=August |date=22 September 2023 |title=Pfluger Fly-By Newsletter |url=https://pfluger.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=922 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231017033031/https://pfluger.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=922 |archive-date=17 October 2023 |website=pfluger.house.gov |publisher=United States House of Representatives}}</ref>

== Notable people who deny climate change ==

=== Politicians ===
{{quote box
| title = Donald Trump on sea level rise
| quote = {{font |font=Times New Roman |size=12pt | {{nbsp|5}}When they say that the seas will rise over the next 400 years — one-eighth of an inch, you know. Which means, basically you have a little more beachfront property, OK.}}
| source = — Donald Trump, 2 June 2024<ref name=EandEnews_20240603>{{cite news |last1=Cama |first1=Timothy |title=Trump eyes cutting Interior, 'environment agencies' |url=https://www.eenews.net/articles/trump-eyes-cutting-interior-environment-agencies/ |publisher=E & E News (by Politico) |date=3 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240605031020/https://www.eenews.net/articles/trump-eyes-cutting-interior-environment-agencies/ |archive-date=5 June 2024 |url-status=live }}</ref>
<br>(NOAA expected sea levels along U.S. coastlines to rise an average of 10 to 12 inches within three decades.<ref name=EandEnews_20240603/>)
| align = right | width = 35% | border = 1px | fontsize = 100% | bgcolor = #fafafa | title_bg = #fafafa | title_fnt = #202060 | qalign = left | salign = right}}
Acknowledgment of climate change by politicians, while expressing uncertainty as to how much of it is due to human activity, has been described as a new form of climate denial, and "a reliable tool to manipulate public perception of climate change and stall political action".<ref>{{cite web |last=Crist |first=Meehan |date=10 February 2017 |title=How the New Climate Denial Is Like the Old Climate Denial |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-new-rhetoric-of-climate-denial/516198/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190624053510/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/02/the-new-rhetoric-of-climate-denial/516198/ |archive-date=24 June 2019 |access-date=16 February 2020 |website=The Atlantic |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=16 March 2017 |title=Why News Outlets Only Sometimes Push Back Against Climate Denial |url=https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/why-news-outlets-only-sometimes-push-back-against-climate-denial |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601180610/https://www.mediamatters.org/new-york-times/why-news-outlets-only-sometimes-push-back-against-climate-denial |archive-date=1 June 2021 |access-date=16 February 2020 |website=Media Matters for America |language=en}}</ref>

In 2010, [[Donald Trump]] said, "With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the [[Nobel committee]] should take the [[Nobel Prize]] back from [[Al Gore]]....Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn't care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity." In 2012, Trump tweeted, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Schulman |first1=Jeremy |title=Every Insane Thing Donald Trump Has Said About Global Warming |url=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/12/trump-climate-timeline/ |access-date=25 January 2021 |publisher=Mother Jones}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Wong |first1=Edward |date=November 18, 2016 |title=Trump Has Called Climate Change a Chinese Hoax. Beijing Says It Is Anything But. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/world/asia/china-trump-climate-change.html |access-date=25 January 2021 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> By the early 2020s, Trump's administration generally changed the framing of the issue from ''denial'' to ''dismissal'': diminishing, ridiculing or rejecting the idea that climate change should be mitigated or even studied.<ref name=Bloomberg_20250617>{{cite news |last1=Rosten |first1=Eric |last2=Kahn |first2=Brian |title=America’s New Language of Climate Denial |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/decoding-climate-change-denial-under-trump-from-realism-to-clean-coal |agency=Bloomberg |date=17 June 2025 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20250617121308/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-17/decoding-climate-change-denial-under-trump-from-realism-to-clean-coal |archive-date=17 June 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>

On January 21, 2015, [[Jim Inhofe]] returned to chairing the [[Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works]] as part of a new Republican majority in the Senate. In response to [[NOAA]] and [[NASA]] reports that 2014 had been the warmest year globally in the [[temperature record]], he said, "we had the coldest in the western hemisphere in the same time frame", and attributed changes to a 30-year cycle, not human activity.<ref name="Cama 2101 2015">{{cite web |last=Cama |first=Timothy |date=January 21, 2015 |title=Sen. Inhofe takes charge of Environment Committee |url=https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230254-sen-inhofe-takes-charge-of-environment-committee/ |access-date=January 22, 2015 |website=The Hill |archive-date=January 24, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150124040112/http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/230254-sen-inhofe-takes-charge-of-environment-committee |url-status=live }}</ref> In a debate the same day about a bill for the [[Keystone Pipeline|Keystone XL pipeline]], Inhofe endorsed an amendment proposed by Senator [[Sheldon Whitehouse]], "Climate change is real and not a hoax", which passed 98–1. Inhofe clarified his view, saying, "Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will. There is archaeological evidence of that, there is biblical evidence of that, there is historical evidence of that", but added, "there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate."<ref name="Tulsa 21012015">{{cite web |last=Cappiello |first=Dina |date=January 21, 2015 |title=Senate says climate change real, but doesn't agree on cause |url=http://www.daytondailynews.com/ap/ap/top-news/senate-republicans-climate-change-not-a-hoax/njsm7/ |access-date=January 26, 2015 |work=[[Dayton Daily News]] |agency=The Associated Press}}</ref> On February 26, 2015, Inhofe brought a snowball to the Senate floor and tossed it before delivering remarks in which he said that environmentalists keep talking about global warming even though it keeps getting cold.<ref>{{cite web |last=Casteel |first=Chris |date=February 26, 2015 |title=Sen. Inhofe throws snowball on U.S. Senate floor |url=http://www.tulsaworld.com/sen-inhofe-throws-snowball-on-u-s-senate-floor/article_af064ad5-1c04-5c9d-8f48-0b7866280464.html |access-date=April 14, 2015 |work=Tulsa World |archive-date=May 30, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200530193152/https://www.tulsaworld.com/sen-inhofe-throws-snowball-on-u-s-senate-floor/article_af064ad5-1c04-5c9d-8f48-0b7866280464.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[File:Former Senator Tom Coburn- Paris Climate Agreement Was 'Poorly Negotiated'.webm|thumb|[[Tom Coburn]] on the 2015 [[Paris Agreement]] (a global effort to reduce carbon emissions), claiming it was 'poorly negotiated', in an interview with [[TheStreet]].]]
In 2017, former U.S. Senator [[Tom Coburn]] discussed the [[Paris Agreement]] and denied the scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. He claimed that [[sea level rise]] had been no more than 5&nbsp;mm in 25 years, and asserted there was now [[global cooling]]. In 2013, he said, "I am a global warming denier. I don't deny that."<ref name="Brown 2013">{{cite web |last=Brown |first=Alex |date=27 August 2013 |title=Tom Coburn Labels Himself a "Global Warming Denier" |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/tom-coburn-labels-himself-a-global-warming-denier/442146/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601192345/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/tom-coburn-labels-himself-a-global-warming-denier/442146/ |archive-date=1 June 2021 |access-date=23 October 2017 |website=The Atlantic}} citing [https://web.archive.org/web/20130827150105 /http://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/post.aspx/Coburn_on_revising_the_Constitution_global_warming/30-21971 TulsaWorld] [archived article]</ref>

Republican [[Jim Bridenstine]], the first elected politician to serve as [[NASA administrator]], had previously said that global temperatures were not rising. But a month after the Senate confirmed his NASA position in April 2018, he acknowledged that human emissions of greenhouse gases are raising global temperatures.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Frej |first1=Willa |date=18 May 2018 |title=Trump's NASA Chief Has Apparently Changed His Tune On Climate Change |url=https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-nasa-jim-bridenstine-climate-change_us_5afe9b49e4b0a046186a4f3b |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211119135047/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-nasa-jim-bridenstine-climate-change_n_5afe9b49e4b0a046186a4f3b |archive-date=19 November 2021 |access-date=18 May 2018 |work=Huffington Post}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Koren |first=Marina |date=17 May 2018 |title=Trump's NASA Chief: 'I Fully Believe and Know the Climate Is Changing' |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/trump-nasa-climate-change-bridenstine/560642/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180518011709/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/trump-nasa-climate-change-bridenstine/560642/ |archive-date=18 May 2018 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=The Atlantic |language=en-US}}</ref>

During a May 2018 meeting of the [[United States House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology]], 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.<ref>{{cite news |last=Waldman |first=Scott |date=17 May 2018 |title=Republican lawmaker: Rocks tumbling into ocean causing sea level rise |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/republican-lawmaker-rocks-tumbling-ocean-causing-sea-level-rise |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180517165517/http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/republican-lawmaker-rocks-tumbling-ocean-causing-sea-level-rise |archive-date=17 May 2018 |access-date=17 May 2018 |publisher=Science}}</ref>

In 2019, [[Ernesto Araújo]], the minister of foreign affairs appointed by [[Brazil]]'s newly elected president [[Jair Bolsonaro]], called global warming a plot by "[[cultural Marxists]]"<ref>{{cite news |last=Watts |first=Jonathan |date=15 November 2018 |title=Brazil's new foreign minister believes climate change is a Marxist plot |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/15/brazil-foreign-minister-ernesto-araujo-climate-change-marxist-plot |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191113045658/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/15/brazil-foreign-minister-ernesto-araujo-climate-change-marxist-plot |archive-date=13 November 2019 |access-date=25 January 2019 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> and eliminated the ministry's climate change division.<ref>{{cite web |last=Escobar |first=Herton |date=22 January 2019 |title=Brazil's new president has scientists worried. Here's why |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/brazil-s-new-president-has-scientists-worried-here-s-why |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190125183232/https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/brazil-s-new-president-has-scientists-worried-here-s-why |archive-date=25 January 2019 |access-date=25 January 2019 |website=Science {{!}} AAAS |language=en}}</ref>

{{Tweet
| name = Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
| username = RepMTG
| text = We live on a spinning planet that rotates around a much bigger sun along with other planets and heavenly bodies rotating around the sun that all create gravitational pull on one another while our galaxy rotates and travels through the universe. Considering all of that, yes our climate will change, and it's totally normal! ... Don't fall for the scam, fossil fuels are natural and amazing.
| date = Apr 15, 2023
| ID = 1647251668373839878
| image = Marjorie Taylor Greene 117th Congress portrait.jpeg
| width = 300px
| right = yes
| left =
}}
An April 15, 2023, tweet by Republican U.S. Representative [[Marjorie Taylor Greene]] said climate change was a "scam", that "fossil fuels are natural and amazing", and that "there are some very powerful people that are getting rich beyond their wildest dreams convincing many that carbon is the enemy".<ref name="MTG_tweet_20230415">{{Cite tweet |number=1647251668373839878 |user=RepMTG |title=Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 |first=Marjorie Taylor |last=Greene |date=April 15, 2023 |location=Hapeville, GA |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230418204120/https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1647251668373839878 |archive-date=April 18, 2023 |url-status=live|}} described in {{cite news |last1=Al-Arshani |first1=Sarah |date=April 16, 2023 |title=Marjorie Taylor Greene says climate change is a 'scam' and that fossil fuels are 'amazing' |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-fossil-fuels-amazing-climate-change-scam-2023-4 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230418011925/https://www.businessinsider.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-fossil-fuels-amazing-climate-change-scam-2023-4 |archive-date=April 18, 2023 |work=Business Insider}}</ref> Her tweet included a chart that omitted carbon dioxide and methane<ref name="MTG_tweet_20230415" />—the two most dominant greenhouse gas emissions.<ref name="EPA_GHGs">{{cite web |date=2016 |title=Overview of Greenhouse Gases |url=https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230417145459/https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases |archive-date=April 17, 2023 |website=EPA.gov |publisher=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency}} See pie chart for carbon dioxide and methane emissions totalling more than 90% of greenhouse gas emissions.</ref>

A 2024 analysis found 100 U.S. representatives and 23 U.S. senators—23% of the 535 members of Congress—to be climate change deniers, all the deniers being Republicans.<ref name=AmerProgress_20240718>{{cite web |last1=So |first1=Kat |title=Climate Deniers of the 118th Congress |url=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-of-the-118th-congress/ |publisher=American Progress |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240805204056/https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-of-the-118th-congress/ |archive-date=5 August 2024 |date=18 July 2024 |url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Scientists ===
American and New Zealand climate scientist [[Kevin Trenberth]] has published widely on climate change science and fought back against climate change misinformation for decades.<ref name=":022">{{cite book |last=Trenberth |first=K. E. |url=http://n2t.net/ark:/85065/d7sf3160 |title=A personal tale of the development of Climate Science. The life and times of Kevin Trenberth |year=2023 |publisher=Kevin E. Trenberth |isbn=978-0-473-68694-9}}</ref> He describes in his memoirs his "close encounters with deniers and skeptics"—with fellow [[meteorologist]]s or climate change scientists. These included [[Richard Lindzen]] ("he is quite beguiling but is criticized as "intellectually dishonest" by his peers"; Lindzen was a professor of meteorology at [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology|MIT]] and has been called a ''contrarian'' in relation to climate change and other issues.<ref name="Achenbach2006-06-05">{{cite news |last=Achenbach |first=Joel |date=June 5, 2006 |title=Global-warming skeptics continue to punch away |url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080618014350/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html |archive-date=June 18, 2008 |access-date=December 8, 2009 |work=[[The Seattle Times]] |df=mdy-all}}</ref>), [[Roy Spencer (meteorologist)|Roy Spencer]] (who has "repeatedly made errors that always resulted in lower temperature trends than were really present"), [[John Christy]] ("his decisions on climate work and statements appear to be heavily colored by his religion"), [[Roger A. Pielke Jr.|Roger Pielke Jr]], [[Christopher Landsea]], [[Patrick Michaels|Pat Michaels]] ("long associated with the [[Cato Institute]], he changed his bombastic tune gradually over time as climate change became more evident").<ref name=":022" />{{rp|95}}

[[Sherwood B. Idso]] is a natural scientist and is the president of the [[Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change]], which rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. In 1982 he 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". 

[[William M. Gray]] was a climate scientist ([[emeritus professor]] of [[atmospheric science]] at [[Colorado State University]]) who supported climate change denial: he agreed that global warming was taking place, but argued that humans were responsible for only a tiny portion of it and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle.<ref name="chill">{{cite web |last=Harsanyi |first=David |date=5 June 2006 |title=Chill out over global warming |url=http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807 |access-date=23 April 2007 |work=[[The Denver Post]]}}</ref><ref name="tempest" /><ref name="BBC">{{cite web |last=Gray |first=William M. |date=16 November 2000 |title=Viewpoint: Get off warming bandwagon |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm |access-date=10 November 2007 |publisher=[[BBC News]]}}</ref>

In 1998, [[Frederick Seitz]], an American physicist and former [[United States National Academy of Sciences|National Academy of Sciences]] president, wrote the [[Oregon Petition]], a controversial document in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. The petition and accompanying "Research Review of Global Warming Evidence" claimed that "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. [...] This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution".<ref name="denial_ind_guardian" /> In their book ''[[Merchants of Doubt]]'', the authors write that Seitz and a group of other scientists fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time, like the harmfulness of [[tobacco smoke]], [[acid rain]]s, [[Chlorofluorocarbon|CFCs]], [[pesticides]], and [[global warming]].<ref name="merchants of doubt" />{{rp|25–29}}

== Lobbying and related activities{{anchor|Tobacco lobby}} ==
{{Globalize|date=August 2019}}
[[File:Percentage of Climate Change presented as real and human caused by ExxonMobil, 1977-2014.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35 |Percentage of documents taking each overall position on climate change as real and human-caused, 1977–2014.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Supran |first1=Geoffrey |last2=Oreskes |first2=Naomi |date=2017 |title=Assessing ExxonMobil's climate change communications (1977–2014) |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=12 |issue=8 |pages=084019 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f |issn=1748-9326|doi-access=free |bibcode=2017ERL....12h4019S }}</ref> Blue=''acknowledge''; blue with lines=''acknowledge including reasonable doubt''; black=''acknowledge and doubt''; gray=''reasonable doubt''; red=''doubt''.]]
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.<ref name="Jacques2008" />{{rp|352}} These have undermined public confidence in climate science.<ref name="Jacques2008" />{{rp|351}}<ref name=":3" />

As of 2015, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the U.S.<ref name="denial industry">{{cite news |last=Readfearn |first=Graham |date=5 March 2015 |title=Doubt over climate science is a product with an industry behind it |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190529163355/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it |archive-date=29 May 2019 |access-date=6 May 2017 |newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref><ref name="book industry">{{cite book |last1=Washington |first1=Haydn |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qbVcIc8w6w4C&q=climate+change+denial+industry&pg=PA108 |title=Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand |last2=Cook |first2=John |publisher=Earthscan |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-84971-335-1 |page=108 |access-date=30 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110151048/https://books.google.com/books?id=qbVcIc8w6w4C&q=climate+change+denial+industry&pg=PA108 |archive-date=10 November 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref> Efforts by climate change denial groups played a significant role in the United States' rejection of the [[Kyoto Protocol]] in 1997.<ref name=":7" />

=== Fossil fuel companies and other private sector actors ===
Research conducted at an [[Exxon]] archival collection at the University of Texas and interviews with former Exxon employees indicate that the company's scientific opinion and its public posture toward climate change were contradictory.<ref>Jennings, Katie; Grandoni, Dino, & Rust, Susanne. (23 October 2015) [http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/ "How Exxon went from leader to skeptic on climate change research"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211108115302/https://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/ |date=8 November 2021 }}. ''Los Angeles Times''. Retrieved 26 October 2015.</ref> A systematic review of Exxon's climate modeling projections concluded that in private and academic circles since the late 1970s and early 1980s, ExxonMobil predicted global warming correctly and skillfully, correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age in favor of a "carbon dioxide induced super-interglacial", and reasonably estimated how much {{CO2}} would lead to dangerous warming.<ref name="Science_30230112">{{cite journal |last1=Supran |first1=G. |last2=Rahmstorf |first2=S. |last3=Oreskes |first3=N. |title=Assessing ExxonMobil's global warming projections |journal=Science |date=13 January 2023 |volume=379 |issue=6628 |pages=eabk0063 |doi=10.1126/science.abk0063 |pmid=36634176 |bibcode=2023Sci...379.0063S |s2cid=255749694 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Between 1989 and 2002, the [[Global Climate Coalition]], a group of mainly U.S. businesses, used aggressive lobbying and public relations tactics to oppose action to reduce [[greenhouse gas emissions]] and fight the [[Kyoto Protocol]]. Large corporations and trade groups from the oil, coal and auto industries financed the coalition. ''The New York Times'' reported, "even as the coalition worked to sway opinion [toward skepticism], its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted".<ref>Revkin, Andrew C. [https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210609002637/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html |date=9 June 2021 }}, ''The New York Times''. 23 April 2009.</ref> In 2000, the Ford Motor Company was the first company to leave the coalition as a result of pressure from environmentalists.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/07/business/ford-announces-its-withdrawal-from-global-climate-coalition.html |title=Ford Announces Its Withdrawal From Global Climate Coalition |work=The New York Times |access-date=21 July 2013 |first=Keith |last=Bradsher |date=7 December 1999  |archive-date=2 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002122740/https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/07/business/ford-announces-its-withdrawal-from-global-climate-coalition.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, the [[Southern Company]] and General Motors subsequently left the GCC.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3440&method=full|title= GCC Suffers Technical Knockout, Industry defections decimate Global Climate Coalition|access-date= 21 August 2013|archive-date= 14 June 2018|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180614195233/http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3440&method=full|url-status= live}}</ref> It closed in 2002.

From January 2009 through June 2010, the oil, coal and utility industries spent $500 million in lobby expenditures in opposition to legislation to address climate change.<ref name="nyt20101020">{{cite news |first=John M. |last=Broder |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html |title=Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith |newspaper=The New York Times |date=20 October 2010 |access-date=17 September 2017 |archive-date=5 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171005081232/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="cap20100927">{{cite web |title=Dirty Money, Oil Companies and Special Interests Spend Millions to Oppose Climate Legislation |first1=Daniel J. |last1=Weiss |first2=Rebecca |last2=Lefton |first3=Susan |last3=Lyon |date=27 September 2010 |access-date=17 September 2017 |url=https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/news/2010/09/27/8428/dirty-money/ |publisher=Center for American Progress Action Fund |archive-date=10 November 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011328/https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/news/2010/09/27/8428/dirty-money/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

A study in 2022 traced the history of an influential group of economic consultants hired by the petroleum industry from the 1990s to the 2010s to estimate the costs of various proposed climate policies. The economists used models that inflated predicted costs while ignoring policy benefits, and their results were often portrayed to the public as independent rather than industry-sponsored. Their work played a key role in undermining numerous major climate policy initiatives in the US over a span of decades. This study illustrates how the fossil fuel industry has funded biased economic analyses to oppose climate policy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Franta |first=Benjamin |date=2022 |title=Weaponizing economics: Big Oil, economic consultants, and climate policy delay |journal=Environmental Politics |language=en |volume=31 |issue=4 |pages=555–575 |doi=10.1080/09644016.2021.1947636 |issn=0964-4016|doi-access=free|bibcode=2022EnvPo..31..555F }} [[File:CC-BY icon.svg|50px]] Text was copied from this source, which is available under a [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License]</ref>

==== ExxonMobil ====
{{excerpt|ExxonMobil climate change denial|paragraphs=1-3}}

=== Attacks and threats towards scientists ===
Climate change deniers attacked the work of climate scientist [[Michael E. Mann]] for years. On 8 February 2024, Mann won a $1 million judgment for punitive damages in a defamation lawsuit filed in 2012 against bloggers who attacked his [[Hockey stick graph (global temperature)|hockey stick graph]] of the [[Northern Hemisphere]] temperature rise. One of the bloggers had called Mann's work "fraudulent", contrary to numerous investigations that had already cleared Mann of any misconduct and supported the validity of his research.<ref name="Nature 2024">{{cite journal |last=Tollefson |first=Jeff |date=2024-02-22 |title=Climatologist Michael Mann wins defamation case: what it means for scientists |journal=Nature |volume=626 |issue=8000 |pages=698–699 |doi=10.1038/d41586-024-00396-y |pmid=38337053 |bibcode=2024Natur.626..698T |s2cid=267579204 |issn=0028-0836}}</ref><ref name="Science re Mann">{{cite report |title=Jury rules for climate scientist Michael Mann in long-running defamation case |date=2024-02-08 |doi=10.1126/science.zuort15 |work=Science}}</ref>

After [[Elon Musk]]'s 2022 takeover of [[Twitter]] (now X), key figures at 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.<ref name="Guardian_202305143">{{cite news |last1=Fazackerley |first1=Anna |date=14 May 2023 |title=Climate crisis deniers target scientists for vicious abuse on Musk's Twitter |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/14/climate-crisis-deniers-target-scientists-abuse-musk-twitter |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230514155047/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/14/climate-crisis-deniers-target-scientists-abuse-musk-twitter |archive-date=14 May 2023 |work=The Guardian}}</ref>

In 2023, increases in climate change denial were reported, particularly on the [[Far-right politics|far right]].<ref name="PhysOrg_202305133" /> Climate change deniers threatened [[meteorologist]]s, accusing them of causing a drought, falsifying thermometer readings, and cherry-picking warmer weather stations to misrepresent global warming.<ref name="PhysOrg_202305133" /> Also in 2023, CNN reported that meteorologists and climate communicators worldwide were receiving increased harassment and false accusations that they were 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.<ref name="CNN_202305272">{{cite news |last1=Paddison |first1=Laura |date=27 May 2023 |title='Murderers' and 'criminals': Meteorologists face unprecedented harassment from conspiracy theorists |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/world/meteorologists-conspiracy-harassment-abuse-climate-intl/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230604045906/https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/27/world/meteorologists-conspiracy-harassment-abuse-climate-intl/index.html |archive-date=4 June 2023 |agency=CNN}}</ref> The German television news service [[Tagesschau (German TV programme)|Tagesschau]] called this a global phenomenon.<ref name="Schneider 2023 b8282">{{cite web |last=Schneider |first=Isabel |date=2023-09-14 |title=Anfeindungen von Klimaleugnern: Wettermoderatoren als neue Zielscheibe |url=https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/gesellschaft/angriffe-wettermoderatoren-100.html |access-date=2023-09-14 |website=Tagesschau |language=de}}</ref>

=== Funding for deniers ===
Journalists reported in 2015 that oil companies had known since the 1970s that burning oil and gas could cause climate change but nonetheless funded deniers for years.<ref name="NYT-20151105" /><ref name="TG-20150708" />

Several large fossil fuel corporations provide significant funding for attempts to mislead the public about climate science's trustworthiness.<ref name=":8"/> [[ExxonMobil]] and the [[Koch family foundations]] have been identified as especially influential funders of climate change contrarianism.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Farrell |first1=Justin |year=2015 |title=''Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change''. In |journal=[[Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]] |volume=113 |issue=1 |pages=92–97 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1509433112 |pmc=4711825 |pmid=26598653 |doi-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |date=16 May 2019 |title=A Major Coal Company Went Bust. Its Bankruptcy Filing Shows That It Was Funding Climate Change Denialism |url=https://theintercept.com/2019/05/16/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011539/https://theintercept.com/2019/05/16/coal-industry-climate-change-denial-cloud-peak-energy/ |archive-date=10 November 2021 |access-date=20 May 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Cloud Peak Energy |url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6006068-Cloud-Peak-Energy.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210322005344/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6006068-Cloud-Peak-Energy.html |archive-date=22 March 2021 |access-date=20 May 2019}}</ref>

After the IPCC released its [[IPCC Fourth Assessment Report|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 $1.6 million from Exxon, and its vice-chairman of trustees was former Exxon head [[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]].<ref>{{cite news |last=Sample |first=Ian |date=2 February 2007 |title=Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange |url-status=live |access-date=16 August 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161104143233/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange |archive-date=4 November 2016 }}</ref>

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 action to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions. That only half of the American population believes global warming is caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these deniers.<ref name="merchants of doubt" /> One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists who have opposed the near-universal consensus are funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.<ref name="merchants of doubt" />

The [[Global Climate Coalition]] was an industry coalition that funded several scientists who expressed skepticism about global warming. In 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. When [[Ford Motor Company]] left the coalition, it was regarded as "the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to respond to global warming".<ref name="Canvassing Works">{{cite web |title=Canvassing Works |url=http://www.canvassingworks.org/canvassingworks/2006/09/alumni_update_p.html |access-date=19 July 2013 |publisher=[[Canvassing Works]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Bradsher |first=Keith |date=7 December 1999 |title=Ford Announces Its Withdrawal From Global Climate Coalition |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/07/business/ford-announces-its-withdrawal-from-global-climate-coalition.html |access-date=21 July 2013}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite web |date=June 2022 |title=GCC Suffers Technical Knockout, Industry defections decimate Global Climate Coalition |url=http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3440&method=full}}</ref> The [[Global Climate Coalition]] closed in 2002.<ref name="org">{{cite web |date=19 April 2003 |title=globalclimate.org |url=http://globalclimate.org/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030419031622/http://globalclimate.org/ |archive-date=19 April 2003 |publisher=Global Climate}}</ref>

In early 2015, several media reports emerged saying that [[Willie Soon]], a popular scientist among climate change deniers, had failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 scientific papers published since 2008.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Gillis |first1=Justin |last2=Schartz |first2=John |date=21 February 2015 |title=Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211108123302/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html |archive-date=8 November 2021 |access-date=7 March 2015 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> They reported that he received a total of $1.25 million from ExxonMobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute, and a foundation run by the Koch brothers.<ref>{{cite news |last=Goldenberg |first=Suzanne |date=21 February 2015 |title=Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161110205426/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry |archive-date=10 November 2016 |access-date=7 March 2015 |work=The Guardian}}</ref> Documents obtained by [[Greenpeace]] under the [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information Act]] show that the [[Koch Family Foundations|Charles G. Koch Foundation]] gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Grants to Soon between 2001 and 2007 from the [[American Petroleum Institute]] totaled $274,000, and between 2005 and 2010 from [[ExxonMobil]] totaled $335,000. The Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation, and the [[Electric Power Research Institute]] also funded Soon. Acknowledging that he received this money, Soon said that he had "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".<ref name="Vidal"/> In 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 [[Koch family foundations#Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation|Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation]], and the Southern Company.<ref>{{cite news |last=Brahic |first=Catherine |date=25 February 2015 |title=Climate change sceptic's work called into question |work=[[New Scientist]] |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27028-climate-change-sceptics-work-called-into-question.html |access-date=17 March 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=McCoy |first=Terrence |date=23 February 2015 |title=Things just got very hot for climate deniers' favorite scientist |newspaper=[[Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/ |access-date=17 March 2015}}</ref><ref name="deeper">{{cite news |last1=Gillis |first1=Justin |last2=Schwartz |first2=John |date=21 February 2015 |title=Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html |url-status=live |url-access=limited |access-date=21 February 2015 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220102/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html |archive-date=2022-01-02}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' editor-in-chief [[Donald Kennedy]] 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 donations to deniers amount to "trying to get a political message across".<ref>{{cite news |last=Borenstein |first=Seth |date=27 July 2006 |title=Utilities Paying Global Warming Skeptic |publisher=[[CBS News]] from [[Associated Press]] |url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/ap/tech/mainD8J4GH300.shtml |access-date=14 April 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070303080433/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/27/ap/tech/mainD8J4GH300.shtml |archive-date=3 March 2007}}</ref>

[[Robert Brulle]] analyzed the funding of 91 organizations opposed to restrictions on carbon emissions, which he called the "climate change counter-movement". Between 2003 and 2013, the [[donor-advised fund]]s [[Donors Trust]] and [[Donors Capital Fund]], combined, were the largest funders, accounting for about a quarter of the funds, and the [[American Enterprise Institute]] was the largest recipient, with 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.<ref name="brulle2013">{{cite journal |last1=Brulle |first1=Robert J. |date=21 December 2013 |title=Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations |journal=[[Climatic Change (journal)|Climatic Change]] |volume=122 |issue=4 |pages=681–694 |bibcode=2014ClCh..122..681B |doi=10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7 |s2cid=27538787}}</ref><ref name="guardian20131220">{{cite news |last=Goldenberg |first=Suzanne |author-link=Suzanne Goldenberg |date=20 December 2013 |title=Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change |url-status=live |access-date=7 October 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026160911/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change |archive-date=26 October 2021}}</ref><ref name="frontline20121-23">{{cite news |date=23 October 2012 |title=Robert Brulle: Inside the Climate Change "Countermovement" |work=[[Frontline (U.S. TV series)|Frontline]] |publisher=[[PBS]] |url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/robert-brulle-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/ |url-status=live |access-date=21 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151024142621/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/robert-brulle-inside-the-climate-change-countermovement/ |archive-date=24 October 2015}}</ref>

== Effects on public opinion ==
[[File:False balance in climate science.png|thumb|upright=1.35 |False balance in climate science: Representation of climate change skeptics among climate scientists (97% believing climate change to be real, 3% denying), and American [[Fox News]] channel guests (31% real, 69% denying). Based on IPCC report coverage between August 1, 2013, and October 1, 2013.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Nuccitelli |first=Dana |date=2013-10-23 |title=Fox News defends global warming false balance by denying the 97% consensus |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/23/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism |access-date=2024-01-15 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref>]]
{{See also|Public opinion on climate change|Media coverage of climate change}}

[[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 has affected legislative efforts to curb {{CO2}} emissions.<ref name=":3" />

[[Climate change conspiracy theory|Climate change conspiracy theories]] and denial have resulted in [[Climate action|poor action or no action]] at all to effectively [[Climate change mitigation|mitigate the damage done by global warming]]. 40% of Americans believed (''ca.'' 2017) that climate change is a hoax<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Uscinski |first1=Joseph E. |last2=Olivella |first2=Santiago |date=October 2017 |title=The conditional effect of conspiracy thinking on attitudes toward climate change |journal=Research & Politics |language=en |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=205316801774310 |doi=10.1177/2053168017743105 |issn=2053-1680 |doi-access=free}}</ref> even though 100% of climate scientists (as of 2019) believe it is real.<ref name="Powell2019" />

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."<ref name="douglas20152" />

[[Manufactured controversy|Manufactured uncertainty]] over climate change, the fundamental strategy of climate change denial, has been very effective, particularly in the U.S. It has contributed to low levels of public concern and to government inaction worldwide.<ref name=":7" /><ref>{{Cite book |title=Routledge handbook of climate change and society |date=2010 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-203-87621-3 |editor-last=Lever-Tracy |editor-first=Constance |edition=1. publ |series=Routledge international handbooks |location=London}}</ref>{{rp|255}} A 2010 Angus Reid poll found that global warming skepticism in the U.S., Canada, and the United Kingdom has been rising.<ref name="CorcoranCoolDown">{{cite news |last=Corcoran |first=Terence |date=6 January 2010 |title=The cool down in climate polls |url=https://nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20110101080128/http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html |archive-date=1 January 2011 |access-date=27 January 2019 |website=[[Financial Post]] }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Climate Change from a Criminological Perspective |last=White |first=Rob |isbn=978-1-4614-3640-9 |publisher=Springer Science & Business Media |year=2012 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NgzIl7LvUVIC&pg=PA48 |access-date=4 July 2015 |archive-date=1 June 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601191634/https://books.google.com/books?id=NgzIl7LvUVIC&pg=PA48 |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref name="RasmussenPoll">{{cite web|url=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming|title=Americans Skeptical of Science Behind Global Warming|date=3 December 2009|publisher=Rasmussen Reports|access-date=11 January 2010|archive-date=26 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190326113952/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to [[Tim Wirth]], "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry.&nbsp;... Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."<ref name="Newsweek denial machine" /> American media has propagated this approach, presenting a false balance between climate science and climate skeptics.<ref name=":8"/> In 2006 ''[[Newsweek]]'' reported that most Europeans and Japanese accepted the consensus on scientific climate change, but only one third of Americans thought human activity plays a major role in climate change; 64% believed that scientists disagreed about it "a lot".<ref name="Newsweek denial machine" />

Deliberate attempts by the [[Western Fuels Association]] "to confuse the public" have succeeded. This has been "exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue". According to a 2012 Pew poll, 57% of Americans are unaware of, or outright reject, the scientific consensus on climate change.<ref name="Cook">{{cite journal |last=Cook|first=John |title=Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature |journal=Environmental Research Letters |volume=8 |issue=2 |pages= 024024|date=15 May 2013 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 |display-authors=etal |bibcode = 2013ERL.....8b4024C |doi-access=free }}</ref> Some organizations promoting climate change denial have asserted that scientists are increasingly rejecting climate change, but this is contradicted by research showing that 97% of published papers endorse the scientific consensus, and that percentage is increasing with time.<ref name="Cook" />

On the other hand, global oil companies have begun to acknowledge the existence of climate change and its risks.<ref>{{cite web|title=Oil Company Positions on the Reality and Risk of Climate Change|url=http://www.uwosh.edu/es/climate-change/oil-company-positions-on-the-reality-and-risk-of-climate-change|website=Environmental Studies|publisher=University of Oshkosh—Wisconsin|access-date=27 March 2016|archive-date=16 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160416075908/http://www.uwosh.edu/es/climate-change/oil-company-positions-on-the-reality-and-risk-of-climate-change|url-status=live}}</ref> Still, top oil firms are spending millions lobbying to delay, weaken, or block policies to tackle climate change.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report|title=Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report|last=Laville|first=Sandra|date=22 March 2019|work=The Guardian|access-date=25 October 2019|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|archive-date=22 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322003134/https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/mar/22/top-oil-firms-spending-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-says-report|url-status=live}}</ref>

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".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/an_interview_with_csicon_speaker_michael_mann |title=An Interview with CSICon Speaker Michael Mann |last=Boslough |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Boslough |date=20 October 2017 |publisher=Committee for Skeptical Inquiry |access-date=19 December 2017 |archive-date=16 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181116110456/https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/an_interview_with_csicon_speaker_michael_mann |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/the-real-reason-some-scientists-downplay-the-risks-of-climate-change|title=The real reason scientists downplay the risks of climate change|last1=Jamieson|first1=Dale|last2=Oppenheimer|first2=Michael|last3=Oreskes|first3=Naomi|date=25 October 2019|work=The Guardian|access-date=25 October 2019|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|archive-date=25 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211025205619/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/25/the-real-reason-some-scientists-downplay-the-risks-of-climate-change|url-status=live}}</ref>

{{multiple image
| align             = right
| direction         = horizontal
| total_width       = 500
| image1            = 2021 Public opinion on climate change - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.svg
| caption1          = Results of a survey in 31 countries of public opinion, specifically among [[Facebook]] users, on the causes of climate change<ref name=YaleCC_survey2021>{{cite book |last1=Leiserowitz |first1=A. |last2=Carman |first2=J. |last3=Buttermore |first3=N. |last4=Wang |first4=X. |last5=Rosenthal |first5=S. |last6=Marlon |first6=J. |last7=Mulcahy |first7=K. |display-authors=4 |title=International Public Opinion on Climate Change |date=June 2021 |publisher=Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and Facebook Data for Good |location=New Haven, CT |url=https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/international-climate-opinion-february-2021d.pdf |page=7 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210628140823/https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/international-climate-opinion-february-2021d.pdf |archive-date=28 June 2021 |url-status=live }}</ref>
| image2            = 20210126 Peoples' Climate Vote - Public belief in climate emergency - United Nations Development Programme.svg
| caption2          = Results of a survey overseen by the [[United Nations Development Programme]] on belief in whether climate change presents a climate emergency<ref name=UNsurvey_202101>● Survey results from: {{cite web |title=The Peoples' Climate Vote |url=https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/climate-and-disaster-resilience-/The-Peoples-Climate-Vote-Results.html |website=UNDP.org |publisher=United Nations Development Programme |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210128091326/https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/climate-and-disaster-resilience-/The-Peoples-Climate-Vote-Results.html |archive-date=28 January 2021 |date=26 January 2021 |url-status=live}} Fig. 3. <br />● Data re top emitters from: {{cite web |title=Historical GHG Emissions / Global Historical Emissions |url=https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?end_year=2018&start_year=1990 |website=ClimateWatchData.org |publisher=Climate Watch |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210521225317/https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?end_year=2018&start_year=1990 |archive-date=21 May 2021 |date=2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>
}}

===United States===
{{further|Climate change policy of the United States}}{{multiple image
| align             = right
| direction         = horizontal
| total_width       = 500
| image3            = 20220301 Opinions by political party - Climate change causation - Action for carbon neutral 2050 - Pew Research.svg
| caption3          = Opinion about human causation of climate change increased substantially with education among voters of the Democratic Party in the U.S., but not among voters of the Republican Party.<ref name=Pew_20220301/> Conversely, opinions favoring becoming carbon neutral declined substantially with age among Republicans, but not among Democrats.<ref name=Pew_20220301>{{cite web |last1=Tyson |first1=Alec |last2=Funk |first2=Cary |last3=Kennedy |first3=Brian |title=Americans Largely Favor U.S. Taking Steps To Become Carbon Neutral by 2050 / Appendix (Detailed charts and tables) |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/carbon-neutral-2050-appendix/ |website=Pew Research |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220418220503/https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/carbon-neutral-2050-appendix/ |archive-date=18 April 2022 |date=1 March 2022 |url-status=live }}</ref>
| image4            = 20220831 Climate change is a "major threat" to my country - Pew survey.svg
| caption4          = National political divides on the seriousness of climate change consistently correlate with political ideology, with right-wing opinion being more negative (survey of 19 countries).<ref name=Pew_20220831>{{cite web |last1=Poushter |first1=Jacob |last2=Fagan |first2=Moira |last3=Gubbala |first3=Sneha |title=Climate Change Remains Top Global Threat Across 19-Country Survey |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/08/31/climate-change-remains-top-global-threat-across-19-country-survey/ |website=pewresearch.org |publisher=Pew Research Center |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831225832/https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/08/31/climate-change-remains-top-global-threat-across-19-country-survey/ |archive-date=31 August 2022 |date=31 August 2022 | quote=Only statistically significant differences shown. |url-status=live }}</ref>
| image1            =
}}

A study found that public climate change policy support and behavior are significantly influenced by public beliefs, attitudes and risk perceptions.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Howe |first1=Peter D. |last2=Mildenberger |first2=Matto |last3=Marlon |first3=Jennifer R. |last4=Leiserowitz |first4=Anthony |date=1 January 2015 |title=Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA |url=http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2bz0416w |url-status=live |journal=Nature Climate Change |language=en |volume=5 |issue=6 |pages=596–603 |bibcode=2015NatCC...5..596H |doi=10.1038/nclimate2583 |issn=1758-678X |s2cid=54549073 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011216/https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2bz0416w |archive-date=10 November 2021 |access-date=29 April 2017}}</ref> As of March 2018 the rate of acceptance among U.S. TV forecasters that the climate is changing has increased to 95 percent. The number of local TV stories about global warming has also increased, by a factor of 15. [[Climate Central]] has received some credit for this, because it provides classes for meteorologists and graphics for TV stations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Morrison |first1=David |author-link1=David Morrison (astrophysicist) |year=2018 |title=Some Good News on Climate: A Big Shift among TV Weathercasters |journal=[[Skeptical Inquirer]] |volume=42 |issue=5 |page=6}}</ref>

Popular media in the U.S. gives greater attention{{Update inline|date=November 2024}} 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Boykoff |first1=M. |last2=Boykoff |first2=J. |date=July 2004 |title=Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press |url=http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Global Environmental Change Part A |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=125–136 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001 |bibcode=2004GEC....14..125B |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151106081048/http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf |archive-date=6 November 2015}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite journal |last=Antilla |first=Liisa |date=2005 |title=Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S095937800500052X |journal=Global Environmental Change |language=en |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=338–352 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.08.003 |bibcode=2005GEC....15..338A |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref name=":7" /> In some cases, news outlets have let climate change skeptics instead of experts in climatology explain the science of climate change.<ref name=":8" /> US and [[UK]] media coverage differ from that in other countries, where reporting is more consistent with the scientific literature.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dispensa |first1=Jaclyn Marisa |last2=Brulle |first2=Robert J. |author-link2=Robert Brulle |date=2003 |title=Media's social construction of environmental issues: focus on global warming – a comparative study |journal=[[International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy]] |volume=23 |issue=10 |pages=74–105 |doi=10.1108/01443330310790327 |issn=0144-333X |s2cid=144662365}}</ref><ref name=":7" /> Some journalists attribute the difference to climate change denial being propagated, mainly in the U.S., by business-centered organizations employing tactics worked out previously by the U.S. tobacco lobby.<ref name="Newsweek denial machine" /><ref>{{cite news |last=David |first=Adam |date=20 September 2006 |title=Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140211153615/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business |archive-date=11 February 2014 |access-date=12 January 2009 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Sandell |first=Clayton |date=3 January 2007 |title=Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=2767979&page=1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070219122415/http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=2767979&page=1 |archive-date=19 February 2007 |access-date=12 January 2009 |work=[[ABC News (United States)|ABC News]]}}</ref>

Denial of climate change is most prevalent among white, politically conservative men in the U.S.<ref name="Nelson 2020">{{cite journal |last1=Nelson |first1=Joshua |date=2020 |title=Petro-masculinity and climate change denial among white, politically conservative American males |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339047921 |journal=International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies |volume=17 |issue=4 |pages=282–295 |doi=10.1002/aps.1638 |issn=1556-9187 |s2cid=214241307 |via=ResearchGate}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Daggett |first=Cara |date=2018 |title=Petro-masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0305829818775817 |journal=Millennium: Journal of International Studies |language=en |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=25–44 |doi=10.1177/0305829818775817 |issn=0305-8298|url-access=subscription }}</ref> In [[France]], the U.S., and the U.K., climate change skeptics' opinions appear much more frequently in conservative news outlets than others, and in many cases those opinions are left uncontested.<ref name=":7" />

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".<ref>{{cite web |last=McKenna |first=Phil |date=13 September 2018 |title=National Teachers Group Confronts Climate Denial: Keep the Politics Out of Science Class |url=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13092018/science-teachers-climate-change-denial-nsta-national-association-position-statement-state-standards-heartland |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210728121000/https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13092018/science-teachers-climate-change-denial-nsta-national-association-position-statement-state-standards-heartland/ |archive-date=28 July 2021 |access-date=17 January 2020 |website=InsideClimate News |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Europe ===
[[File:20210824 Survey - climate change impact on daily life - European Investment Bank.svg|thumb|upright=1.35 | 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 (political party)|Vox]], Finland's far-right [[Finns Party]], Austria's far-right [[Freedom Party of Austria|Freedom Party]], and Germany's anti-immigration [[Alternative for Germany|Alternative for Deutschland]] (AfD).<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Maza |first=Cristina |date=11 November 2019 |title=Far-Right Climate Denial Is Growing in Europe |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/155669/far-right-climate-denial-growing-europe |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110170152/https://newrepublic.com/article/155669/far-right-climate-denial-growing-europe |archive-date=10 November 2021 |access-date=16 February 2020 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref>

In April 2023, French political scientist Jean-Yves Dormagen<!--Q84081979--> said that the modest and conservative classes were the most skeptical about climate change.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Plottu |first1=Pierre |last2=Macé |first2=Maxime |date=2023-04-23 |title=Climato-scepticisme : "Il y a un ressentiment anti-écologie auprès de populations qui se sentent stigmatisées" |url=https://www.liberation.fr/politique/climato-scepticisme-il-y-a-un-ressentiment-anti-ecologie-aupres-de-populations-qui-se-sentent-stigmatisees-20230423_RPK7YTLIVVCC5NVLAEWWHXIMLI/ |website=[[Libération]] |language=fr}}</ref> In a study by the Jean-Jaurès Foundation published the same month, climate skepticism was compared to a [[new populism]] whose representative and spokesman is [[Steven E. Koonin]].<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Bentolila |first1=Sacha |last2=Bornstein |first2=Roman |last3=Calatayud |first3=Benoît |date=2023-04-28 |title=Climatoscepticisme : le nouvel horizon du populisme français |url=https://www.jean-jaures.org/publication/climatoscepticisme-le-nouvel-horizon-du-populisme-francais/ |website=Fondation Jean-Jaurès |language=fr-FR}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Woessner |first=Géraldine |date=2023-04-08 |title=Steven Koonin, la coqueluche des climatosceptiques |url=https://www.lepoint.fr/environnement/steven-koonin-la-coqueluche-des-climatosceptiques-08-04-2023-2515425_1927.php |access-date=2023-05-10 |website=[[Le Point]] |language=fr}}</ref>

== Responses to denialism ==
{{How-to|date=November 2024}}
{{multiple image
| align             = right
| direction         = vertical
| total_width       = 250
| image1            = 20200324 Global average temperature - NASA-GISS HadCrut NOAA Japan BerkeleyE.svg
| caption1          = ''Temperature data:'' [[Instrumental temperature record|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 [[:File:20200324 Global average temperature - NASA-GISS HadCrut NOAA Japan BerkeleyE.svg#Pairwise correlation|99.1%]].
| image2            = 2017 Global warming attribution - based on NCA4 Fig 3.3 - single-panel version.svg
| caption2          = ''Causation:'' The [[Fourth National Climate Assessment]] ("NCA4", USGCRP, 2017) includes charts<ref>{{cite journal |title=Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I – Chapter 3: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change |url=https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/3/ |website=science2017.globalchange.gov |publisher=U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190923190450/https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/3/ |archive-date=23 September 2019 |date=2017 |pages=1–470 |url-status=live}} Adapted directly from Fig. 3.3.</ref> illustrating how human factors, especially accumulation in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases, are the predominant cause of observed global warming.
}}

=== The role of emotions and persuasive argument ===
{{multiple_image
| total_width       = 450
| image1            = 20230321 Effectiveness of techniques to motivate climate mitigation action - bar chart.svg
| caption1          = 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.<ref name=PNAS_20230321>{{cite journal |last1=Bergquist |first1=Magnus |last2=Thiel |first2=Maximilian |last3=Goldberg |first3=Matthew H. |last4=van der Linden |first4=Sander |title=Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: A second-order meta-analysis |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=21 March 2023 |volume=120 |issue=13 |page=e2214851120 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2214851120 |doi-access=free |pmid=36943888 |pmc=10068847 |bibcode=2023PNAS..12014851B }} (Table 1)<br>— Explained by {{cite magazine |last1=Thompson |first1=Andrea |title=What Makes People Act on Climate Change, according to Behavioral Science |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-people-act-on-climate-change-according-to-behavioral-science/ |magazine=Scientific American |date=19 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421034858/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-people-act-on-climate-change-according-to-behavioral-science/ |archive-date=21 April 2023 |url-status=live }}</ref>
| image2            = 20230612 Predictors of changing opinions about global warming - survey.svg
| caption2          = The strongest factors in self-reported changes in opinion about global warming in the United States were [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican party]] identification, seeing others experience impacts of global warming, and learning more about global warming.<ref name=ClimateComms_>Data from {{cite web |last1=Allew |first1=Matthew |last2=Marlon |first2=Jennifer |last3=Goldberg |first3=Matthew |last4=Maibach |first4=Edward |last5=Rosenthal |first5=Seth |last6=Aiken |first6=Emily |last7=Leiserowitz |first7=Anthony |display-authors=4 |title=Experience with global warming is changing people's minds about it |url=https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/experience-with-global-warming-is-changing-peoples-minds-about-it/ |publisher=Yale Program on Climate Change Communication |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230531182758/https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/experience-with-global-warming-is-changing-peoples-minds-about-it/ |archive-date=31 May 2023 |date=27 September 2022 |url-status=live }} ● Full technical article (pay wall): {{cite journal |last1=Allew |first1=Matthew |last2=Marlon |first2=Jennifer |last3=Goldberg |first3=Matthew |last4=Maibach |first4=Edward |last5=Rosenthal |first5=Seth |last6=Aiken |first6=Emily |last7=Leiserowitz |first7=Anthony |display-authors=4 |title=Changing minds about global warming: vicarious experience predicts self‑reported opinion change in the USA |journal=Climatic Change |date=4 August 2022 |volume=173 |issue=19 |page=19 |doi=10.1007/s10584-022-03397-w |bibcode=2022ClCh..173...19B |s2cid=251323601 |url=https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10584-022-03397-w|url-access=subscription }} (Fig. 2 on p. 12) ([https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GL3GXIKsE30aklRsDmYm6OX5ul_VME2k/view preprint])</ref>
}}

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.<ref name="Irish Times">{{cite news |last=Sharry |first=John |title=How to turn climate-change denial into acceptance and action |language=en |newspaper=[[The Irish Times]] |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/parenting/how-to-turn-climate-change-denial-into-acceptance-and-action-1.4058069 |url-status=live |access-date=16 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210323073048/https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/parenting/how-to-turn-climate-change-denial-into-acceptance-and-action-1.4058069 |archive-date=23 March 2021}}</ref>

Academics have stated that "It is pretty clear that fear of the solutions drives much opposition to the science."<ref name="phys.org">{{cite web |last=Lewandowsky |first=Stephan |author-link=Stephan Lewandowsky |date=17 April 2014 |title=From conspiracy theories to climate change denial, a cognitive psychologist explains |url=https://phys.org/news/2014-04-conspiracy-theories-climate-denial-cognitive.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011538/https://phys.org/news/2014-04-conspiracy-theories-climate-denial-cognitive.html |archive-date=10 November 2021 |access-date=16 February 2020 |website=phys.org |language=en-us}}</ref>

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."<ref name="Irish Times" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wong-Parodi |first1=Gabrielle |last2=Feygina |first2=Irina |date=8 January 2020 |title=Understanding and countering the motivated roots of climate change denial |journal=Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability |language=en |volume=42 |pages=60–64 |bibcode=2020COES...42...60W |doi=10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.008 |issn=1877-3435 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=O'Connor |first=Mary Catherine |date=26 April 2017 |title=How to Reason with the Climate Change Denier in Your Life |url=https://www.outsideonline.com/2176971/how-talk-climate-skeptic-or-denier-your-life |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601221639/https://www.outsideonline.com/2176971/how-talk-climate-skeptic-or-denier-your-life |archive-date=1 June 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=Outside Online |language=en}}</ref>

=== Following people who have changed their position ===
Some climate change skeptics have changed their positions regarding global warming. [[Ronald Bailey]], author of ''Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths'' (published in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up."<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Ronald Bailey |date=11 August 2005 |title=We're All Global Warmers Now |url=http://www.reason.com/links/links081105.shtml |url-status=dead |magazine=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason Online]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061024205457/http://www.reason.com/links/links081105.shtml |archive-date=24 October 2006 |access-date=27 April 2008}}</ref> By 2007, he wrote "Details like sea level rise will continue to be debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change [[Pollyanna principle|Pollyannaism]] is no longer looking very tenable."<ref>{{cite web |last=Bailey |first=Ronald |author-link=Ronald Bailey |date=2 February 2007 |title=Global Warming—Not Worse Than We Thought, But Bad Enough |url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/118479.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070410215537/http://www.reason.com/news/show/118479.html |archive-date=10 April 2007 |access-date=13 April 2007 |work=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]]}}</ref>

[[Jerry Taylor]] promoted climate denialism for 20 years as former staff director for the energy and environment task force at the [[American Legislative Exchange Council]] (ALEC) and former vice president of the [[Cato Institute]]. Taylor began to change his mind after climate scientist [[James Hansen]] challenged him to reread some Senate testimony. He became President of the [[Niskanen Center]] in 2014, where he is involved in turning climate skeptics into climate activists, and making the business case for climate action.<ref>{{cite web |last=Lerner |first=Sharon |date=28 April 2017 |title=How a Professional Climate Change Denier Discovered the Lies and Decided to Fight for Science |url=https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how-a-professional-climate-change-denier-discovered-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200723042233/https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how-a-professional-climate-change-denier-discovered-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/ |archive-date=23 July 2020 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=The Intercept |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=14 November 2018 |title=Former climate denier turned realist rallies businesses to take action |url=https://www.newhope.com/business-resources/former-climate-denier-turned-realist-rallies-businesses-take-action |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601201356/https://www.newhope.com/business-resources/former-climate-denier-turned-realist-rallies-businesses-take-action |archive-date=1 June 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=New Hope Network |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Ahmed |first=Amel |date=16 April 2018 |title=Ex-'Professional Climate Denier' Aims to Convince Conservatives Threat is Real |url=https://www.kqed.org/science/1922675/a-growing-faction-of-conservatives-are-challenging-gop-stance-on-climate-change |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210323075640/https://www.kqed.org/science/1922675/a-growing-faction-of-conservatives-are-challenging-gop-stance-on-climate-change |archive-date=23 March 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=KQED |language=en-us}}</ref>

[[Michael Shermer]], the publisher of ''[[Skeptic (U.S. magazine)|Skeptic]]'' magazine, reached a tipping point in 2006 as a result of his increasing familiarity with scientific evidence, and decided there was "overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic global warming". Journalist [[Gregg Easterbrook]], an early skeptic of climate change who authored the influential book ''A Moment on the Earth'', also changed his mind in 2006, and wrote an essay titled "Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over".<ref name="The Week">{{cite web |date=1 September 2010 |title=6 global warming skeptics who changed their minds |url=https://theweek.com/articles/491378/6-global-warming-skeptics-who-changed-minds |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210721201845/https://theweek.com/articles/491378/6-global-warming-skeptics-who-changed-minds |archive-date=21 July 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=[[The Week]] |language=en}}</ref> In 2006, he stated, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding global warming, from skeptic to convert."<ref name="Easterbrook">{{cite news |last=Easterbrook |first=Gregg |date=24 May 2006 |title=Finally Feeling the Heat |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24easterbrook.html |access-date=23 November 2009}}</ref>

In 2009, Russian president [[Dmitry Medvedev|Dmitri Medvedev]] expressed his opinion that climate change was "some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects". After the devastating [[2010 Russian wildfires]] damaged agriculture and left Moscow choking in smoke, Medvedev commented, "Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change."<ref name="The Week" />

[[Bob Inglis]], a former US representative for South Carolina, changed his mind in around 2010 after appeals from his son on his environmental positions, and after spending time with climate scientist Scott Heron studying [[coral bleaching]] in the [[Great Barrier Reef]].<ref>{{cite news |date=23 May 2017 |title=Why some Republicans are warming to climate action |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0523/Why-some-Republicans-are-warming-to-climate-action |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011718/https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0523/Why-some-Republicans-are-warming-to-climate-action |archive-date=10 November 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |work=Christian Science Monitor |issn=0882-7729}}</ref>

[[Richard A. Muller]], professor of physics at the [[University of California, Berkeley]], and the co-founder of the [[Berkeley Earth]] Surface Temperature project, funded by [[Koch family foundations|Charles Koch Charitable Foundation]], had been a prominent critic of prevailing climate science. In 2011, he stated that "following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."<ref>{{cite web |last=Banerjee |first=Neela |date=1 August 2012 |title=Climate-change denier changes his mind |url=https://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/climate-change-denier-changes-mind/news-story/e0433a661400feb82345e5d5108cc2ce |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210824124014/https://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/climate-change-denier-changes-mind/news-story/e0433a661400feb82345e5d5108cc2ce |archive-date=24 August 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=NewsComAu |language=en}}</ref>

"I used to be a climate-change skeptic", conservative columnist [[Max Boot]] admitted in 2018, one who believed that "the science was inconclusive" and that worry was "overblown". Now, he says, referencing the [[Fourth National Climate Assessment]], "the scientific consensus is so clear and convincing."<ref>{{cite news |last=Boot |first=Max |date=26 November 2018 |title=I was wrong on climate change. Why can't other conservatives admit it, too? |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/i-was-wrong-on-climate-change-why-cant-other-conservatives-admit-it-too/2018/11/26/11d2b778-f1a1-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210529211426/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/i-was-wrong-on-climate-change-why-cant-other-conservatives-admit-it-too/2018/11/26/11d2b778-f1a1-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html |archive-date=29 May 2021 |access-date=24 January 2020 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]}}</ref>

=== Effective approaches to dialogue ===
Explaining the techniques of science denial and misinformation, by presenting "examples of people using cherrypicking or fake experts or [[false balance]] to mislead the public", has been shown to inoculate people somewhat against misinformation.<ref>{{cite news |last=Nuccitelli |first=Dana |date=8 May 2017 |title=Study: to beat science denial, inoculate against misinformers' tricks |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/08/study-to-beat-science-denial-inoculate-against-misinformers-tricks |url-status=live |access-date=16 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210814094756/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/may/08/study-to-beat-science-denial-inoculate-against-misinformers-tricks |archive-date=14 August 2021 |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title=Oxford Research Encyclopedias: Climate science |encyclopedia=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science |publisher=Oxford University Press |access-date=16 February 2020 |last=Cook |first=John |date=26 October 2016 |language=en |doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.314 |isbn=978-0-19-022862-0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210906192636/https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-314 |archive-date=6 September 2021 |chapter=Countering Climate Science Denial and Communicating Scientific Consensus |chapter-url=https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-314 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Kwon |first=Diana |title=How to Debate a Science Denier |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-debate-a-science-denier/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211031220708/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-debate-a-science-denier/ |archive-date=31 October 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=Scientific American |language=en}}</ref>

Dialogue focused on the question of how belief differs from scientific theory may provide useful insights into how the scientific method works, and how beliefs may have strong or minimal supporting evidence.<ref>{{cite web |last=Lee |first=McIntyre |date=8 August 2019 |title=How to defend science to climate-change deniers and others who attack it (opinion) |url=https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/08/08/how-defend-science-climate-change-deniers-and-others-who-attack-it-opinion |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211106103052/https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2019/08/08/how-defend-science-climate-change-deniers-and-others-who-attack-it-opinion |archive-date=6 November 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=Inside Higher Ed |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Kendi |first=Ibram X. |date=1 January 2019 |title=What the Believers Are Denying |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/what-deniers-climate-change-and-racism-share/579190/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211101230127/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/what-deniers-climate-change-and-racism-share/579190/ |archive-date=1 November 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=The Atlantic |language=en-US}}</ref> Wong-Parodi's survey of the literature shows four effective approaches to dialogue, including "[encouraging] people to openly share their values and stance on climate change before introducing actual scientific climate information into the discussion."<ref>{{cite web |last=Renner |first=Ben |date=18 January 2020 |title=Study Reveals Four 'Pathways To Changing The Minds Of Climate Deniers' |url=https://www.studyfinds.org/study-reveals-four-pathways-to-changing-the-minds-of-climate-deniers/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307030904/https://www.studyfinds.org/study-reveals-four-pathways-to-changing-the-minds-of-climate-deniers/ |archive-date=7 March 2021 |access-date=17 February 2020 |website=Study Finds |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== Approaches with farmers ===
One study of climate change denial among farmers in Australia found that farmers were less likely to take a position of climate denial if they had experienced improved production from climate-friendly practices, or identified a younger person as a successor for their farm.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Nauges |first1=Céline |last2=Wheeler |first2=Sarah Ann |title=Farmers' climate denial begins to wane as reality bites |url=http://theconversation.com/farmers-climate-denial-begins-to-wane-as-reality-bites-103906 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211110011221/https://theconversation.com/farmers-climate-denial-begins-to-wane-as-reality-bites-103906 |archive-date=10 November 2021 |access-date=16 February 2020 |website=The Conversation |date=11 October 2018 |language=en}}</ref> Therefore, seeing positive economic results from efforts at climate-friendly agricultural practices, or becoming involved in intergenerational stewardship of a farm may play a role in turning farmers away from denial.

In the United States, rural climate dialogues sponsored by the [[Sierra Club]] have helped neighbors overcome their fears of political polarization and exclusion, and come together to address shared concerns about climate impacts in their communities. Some participants who start out with attitudes of anthropogenic climate change denial have shifted to identifying concerns which they would like to see addressed by local officials.<ref>{{cite web |date=7 December 2017 |title=Talking About Climate Change in Trump Country |url=https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2018-1-January-february/feature/talking-about-climate-change-trump-country |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210601223234/https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2018-1-January-february/feature/talking-about-climate-change-trump-country |archive-date=1 June 2021 |access-date=16 February 2020 |website=Sierra Club |language=en}}</ref>

=== Statements of well known people calling for climate action ===
{{further|List of statements by major scientific organizations about climate change}}

In May 2013 [[Charles III of the United Kingdom|Charles, Prince of Wales]] took a strong stance criticising both climate change deniers and corporate lobbyists by likening the Earth to a dying patient. "A scientific hypothesis is tested to absolute destruction, but medicine can't wait. If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can't wait for [endless] tests. He has to act on what is there."<ref>{{cite news |last=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=9 May 2013 |title=Charles: 'Climate change sceptics are turning Earth into dying patient' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/09/prince-charles-climate-change |access-date=10 May 2013 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London}}</ref>

=== Legal response ===
{{further information|Climate change litigation}}

The discovery that the fossil fuel industry spread climate change denialism, despite knowing about the risks. For example, as of February 2024 there are at least 32 ongoing lawsuits in the United States which seek damages against the fossil fuel industry, often based on misleading claims or direct harm attributable to climate change.<ref>{{cite web |title=Cases Underway to Make Climate Polluters Pay |url=https://climateintegrity.org/uploads/media/Legal-CaseChart-02222024.pdf |publisher=Center for Climate integrity |access-date=1 July 2025 |date=22 February 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Yoder |first1=Kate |title=Big Oil faces a flood of climate lawsuits — and they're moving closer to trial |url=https://grist.org/accountability/big-oil-climate-lawsuits-trials-attribution-science-exxon/ |work=Grist |date=8 March 2024 |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Winters |first1=Kate Yoder, Joseph |title=New documents show oil executives promoted natural gas as green — but knew it wasn't |url=https://grist.org/accountability/new-documents-bp-oil-companies-natural-gas-emissions/ |work=Grist |date=2 May 2024 |language=en-us}}</ref>

In June 2025, UN Special Rapporteur [[Elisa Morgera]] released a report that cites climate disinformation as a major obstacle to action, and among other actions, calls for criminalization of climate disinformation, as well as a ban on fossil-fuel lobbying and advertising.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lakhani |first1=Nina |last2=reporter |first2=Nina Lakhani Climate justice |title=UN expert urges criminalizing fossil fuel disinformation, banning lobbying |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/30/un-expert-urges-criminalizing-fossil-fuel-disinformation-banning-lobbying |access-date=30 June 2025 |work=The Guardian |date=30 June 2025}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{portal|Climate change}}
* {{annotated link|Agnotology}}
* {{annotated link|Anti-environmentalism}}
* {{annotated link|Climate movement}}
* {{annotated link|CO2 Coalition}}
* {{annotated link|Environmental skepticism}}
* {{annotated link|Individual action on climate change}}
* {{annotated link|Motivated reasoning}}
* {{annotated link|Right-wing antiscience}}
* {{annotated link|Semmelweis reflex}}
* {{annotated link|Skeptical Science}}
* Films:
** ''[[Climate Change Denial Disorder]]'', [[satire|satirical]] [[parody]] film about a [[fictional disease]]
** ''[[Before the Flood (film)|Before the Flood]]'', documenting climate change denial and lobbying processes

==Related publications==
* E. Elbeyi, K. Bruhn Jensen, M. Aronczyk, J. Asuka, G. Ceylan, J. Cook, G. Erdelyi, H. Ford, C. Milani, E. Mustafaraj, F. Ogenga, S. Yadin, P. N. Howard, S. Valenzuela (eds.) {{cite web |title=Information Integrity about Climate Science: A Systematic Review |publisher=International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) |url=https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/643ecb10be528d2c1da863cb/68541b1613026bbfd94181b9_SR2025.1%20-%20Information%20Integrity%20about%20Climate%20Science.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250619180946/https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/643ecb10be528d2c1da863cb/68541b1613026bbfd94181b9_SR2025.1%20-%20Information%20Integrity%20about%20Climate%20Science.pdf |archive-date=19 June 2025 |location=Zurich, Switzerland |doi=10.61452/BTZP3426 |date=June 2025 |url-status=live}} <!-- NOTE TO EDITORS: included URL and archive thereof, because doi didn't work "not found" -->

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

{{Wikiquote}}
{{Commons category|Climate change denial}}

{{Climate change}}
{{Disinformation}}
{{Conspiracy theories}}

[[Category:Climate change denial| ]]
[[Category:Climate change and society]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump]]
[[Category:Earth science conspiracy theories]]