Annotated Bibliography
What is human-made climate change denial, what kind of argumentative strategies and reasons to deny climate change exist, which famous representatives disagree with the scientific proven climate discussion and how are climate change denial institutions constructed and linked in order to influence, convince and confuse the public view on climate change?
Climate change is a major topic in the today’s society, as the affects become more present in the media and devastating weather extremes such as hurricanes and heat waves more severe. Even though scientific evidence clearly points out in which way the human lifestyle and overconsumption impacts the earth atmosphere’s constitution by increasing the amount of greenhouse gases, there are still many climate change deniers even among famous celebrities and influential representatives of the politics. At first, I intended to explore the impact of modern technologies and united global political strategies and to what extend the climate strategies might prevent the climate change from getting worse. After I realized, that all the governments unfortunately pursue different strategies without a unified procedure or program and some of them do not act with full intention and engagement to prevent the consequences, I started to wonder why the awareness of such an important topic under the elected representatives varies and turns out to be that concerning. Throughout this adventure of researching, this disagreement within the politics was the decisive question that lead to climate change denial. Climate change denial, also known as global warming denial is denial or dismissal of the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extend of the influence of the human society, its effects on the environment and humans or the potential of adaption to global warming by human actions. This definition for climate change denial already represents a detailed explanation for why some individuals, industries and governments might be less engaged and willing to realize the potential of adaption to the climate change by human actions and adjustments.
Some other intriguing questions for the research project arose from that definition including what kind of argumentative strategies might influence the social society’s opinion on the climate change debate and what motives exist to deny the human-caused global warming, even though it obviously can be considered scientifically proven. In order to understand the argumentative strategies and different views on this evidently debatable topic myself, it evolved to a challenging adventure for me to research critically and pick reliable controversial sources. My aim is to get to know more about which methods exist in order to convince the public’s opinion of the climate change denial and how to disprove their claims. After this introduction by showing the discussion issues, it is important to provide well known examples for climate change deniers and which arguments they present to the public. In the end it is important to get to know the reasons for why climate change denial exist and especially why deniers tend to expose the current human society and future generations to existence dangers by spreading false incentive and what kind of motives exist. In the end it is important to show the different institutions hidden behind the open climate change denial campaigns in order to actually understand how the whole denial construct works and which parties are integrated.
The first article by Rachel Schrear and Kayleen Devlin was published by the BBC Reality Check and focuses on conspiracy theories about the climate change including actual examples such as tweets and comments out of the internet. In the media different myths or false information about this topic exist, that are divided into four viewpoints in the argumentation against the current scientific proven opinion in the argumentation of the climate change. As a result of this presented basic denial information and about how to disprove the arguments of climate change denial, already in the beginning of this whole research paper the readers of the research project have a clear opinion about this whole denial topic and can transfer this argumentative information in order to identify and questions the following examples of famous climate change deniers with their strategies and the motives of climate change denial.
Hence, the next step in the structure is to provide the controversy debating journal by Piers Corbyn, who claims that man-made climate change does not exist. Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist and Director of WeatherAction long range forecast. Moreover he has a first year degree in Physics and published numerous peer-review scientific papers. Whereas the mainstream media claims that 97% of the scientific experts believe in human-caused global warming, Corbyn is convinced that the CO2 levels are rather an effect than a cause of changes in climate and temperature. As I illustrated before how the denial strategies work, it is important for the reader himself to identify the same denial patterns and critically examine this debating journal.
This represented skepticism with its common denial patterns about the human-caused climate change is even part of the today’s political agenda and definitely a debatable topic. The following two TV shows, as an excerpt of the press conference of the G7 in France on the 26th of August in 2019 and a report published by the MSNBC, thematizes the opinion and view of the former US president Donald Trump, who is a famous and influential climate change denier. According to the MSNBC TV report Trump does not agree with the former president Obama talking about the global warming as a money making industry and labels it a ‘hoax’, that could cause severe problems to the American industry and economy. Overall these actual examples perfectly reflect the first article published by the BBC, which discusses and examines the argumentative strategies of climate change deniers. As a result of the denial there are certain outcomes, which is the next topic to discuss in the research project. Moreover it is important to see in which way conservative politicians are only a small part of the whole denial construct, which the last scholarly source will illustrate.
In order to present the consequences of climate change denial, there is this very exciting and useful article published by the New York Times. It goes in-depth on how different social groups and private businesses with own financial and personal interests influence the public opinion about the correlation between human consumption and climate change, with all the major threats that already occur in today’s society. There are multiple climate change deniers as the presented examples show, who question science for profit, political advantage or ego satisfaction. This whole process of climate change denial is similar to the tobacco companies, that confused the public about the dangers of smoking and the correlation between smoking and cancer. These companies already knew that smoking cause lung cancer, but tried to keep the public uninformed by spending large sums, so that they could still make profit.
The last scholarly source included in my research project is supposed to sum up the whole information about climate change denial by showing the connections of the different conservative and climate change contrarian institutions in order to understand how the different pieces fit together and build a strong group of human-caused climate change deniers. By doing that, it is possible to see the whole web beyond the simple contrarian scientists of the whole climate change denial appearance. All the institutions, that cause uncertainty within the public about the climate change, support and are connected to each other. Overall there are politics, the fossil fuel industry, conservative foundations and the media, that are all connected to the conservative think tanks and linked to the front groups. All these institutions unite and spread their false information by sponsoring astroturf organizations and campaigns and the use of media as an echo chamber.
Schrear, Rachel and Devlin, Kayleen. “COP26: The truth behind the new climate change denial.”, BBC Reality Check, BBC News, November 17 2021,
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59251912
As a whole, this article focuses on conspiracy theories about the climate change and about the four different myths, that exist about the topic in the media.
There is the claim of a ‘grand solar minimum’ that will halt global warming, as the century’s past temperature rise is just a part of the Earth’s natural cycle and has nothing to do with human behavior and that the cycle will regulate itself without human intervention. Everything relies on a weaker phase of the sun, which is proven wrong and just part of the climate change denial strategy according to the authors. The fundamental role of the sun in global warming is also one of the main arguments of Piers Corbyn. The layer of atmosphere with the increasing amount of greenhouse gases around the earth prevent heat from leaving the atmosphere, which is why the human caused particles in the air cause global warming.
The second claim that global warming is good and makes the earth more habitable is not totally true either. On the one hand it is true that some inhospitable cold parts of the world could become easier to live in, but on the other hand the higher temperatures might cause extreme weather conditions, might affect living conditions in other parts of the world and also the ability to grow crops. Moreover sea levels will rise with migration as a result and according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change benefits from fewer cold days will be outweighed by more frequent and extreme heat waves.
Another idea that spreads is that climate change will make people poorer, because fossil fuels are essential for economic growth and a limited use of these fundamental resources will reduce the economic growth and increase the living costs. However, there are much more climate friendly renewable alternatives powered by wind and solar which could provide even cheaper electricity than electricity powered by limited resources. Facing damage by natural disasters and extreme temperatures to facilities and supplies might even cause the global economy to shrink even more, which is definitely a major concern for deniers to focus on.
The last claim, which Trump also used in the G7 press conference in Paris 2019, includes the unreliability of renewable energy sources. Blackouts and the animal reaction on these technologies such as wind turbines causing deaths of birds are considered to be avoidable. Fossil fuel-powered plants on the contrary kill many more animals and especially the affects of rising sea levels, deforestation and wild fires caused by the global warming are a lot more dangerous.
Corbyn, Piers. “Man-Made Climate Change Does not Exist”, readingunidebating.wordpress, bundestag.de, September 19 2019,
This debating journal by Piers Corbyn claims that man-made climate change does not exist and CO2 levels are an effect not a cause, which contradicts to 97% of the scientific experts, who believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Overall the CO2 concentration of the earth’s atmosphere is 0.04% and the human influence on the CO2 concentration is 4%. According to Crobyn, this tiny amount of human greenhouse gas impact, which can be illustrated by the 316ft high Big Ben tower in relation to the 28mm CO2 in the atmosphere and only 2mm of human contribution to that CO2, can not be the reason for the global warming. Instead of searching changes of the CO2 concentration in human behavior, Corbyn claims that this increase in the last 100 years is supposed to be an after effect of medieval warming and part of the natural climate changes in the year millions of earth’s history. He says, that the CO2 concentration is mainly the result of changing sea temperature. As the large scale ocean circulation varies and more greenhouses get released. Especially when it comes to the causes of changing climate and temperature, the sun’s radiation is considered to be the main factor.
In general all these false claims, that the human society is the main influential factor of the CO2 concentration of the earth’s atmosphere and that CO2 is the main controller of temperature and climate, result in a huge damage for ordinary people as the control policies and taxes represent an unnecessary burden according to the view of Piers Corbyn.
Trump, Donald. “President Trump on Climate Change”, YouTube, C-Span, August 26 2019,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl1Rnz4zNkg
This skepticism about the human-caused climate change is even part of the today’s political agenda, which is why this source thematizes the view of the former US president Donald Trump. He tweeted climate change skepticism at least 115 times and said that the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make the US manufacturing non-competitive. As the United States are the main number one fossil fuel energy producer as Trump reveals and there are a couple of pipelines that have not been able to get approved for many years, there is a lot more potential to increase oil and gas export in the future.
Trump, Donald. “Donald Trump Believes Climate Change Is A Hoax”, YouTube, MSNBC, June 2 2017,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqgMECkW3Ak
Even though Trump, who claims himself an environmentalist with more knowledge about the environment than most people, wants to increase the export of natural and limited resources, which might be a factor of climate change due to the release of greenhouse gases, he still insists that he wants the cleanest water on earth and the cleanest air on earth. With the wealth created by the energy production Trump is meant to support and care for many individuals, which wouldn’t be possible. He also claims, that regenerative energies such as windmills are simply based on a dream and frankly not working too well, which is why he doesn’t want the economy of his country to get slowed down, as many people rely on support generated through the great wealth.
Krugman, Paul. “The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial - Risking civilization for profit, ideology and ego”, New York Times, November 26 2018,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/climate-change-denial-republican.html
This article published by the New York Times describes the threats of personal and industrial interests for profit, political advantage and ego satisfaction on the human society. The source shows how climate denialism is represented in the same denial patterns, as businesses with financial interests try to keep up the reputation of their market. These companies spent large sums to a handful of scientist and front groups, who express climate skepticism. As already depicted, the Republican Party under Donald Trump insists, that there is no alternative to prevent climate change affect without destroying the economy. Their ideology of the natural climate change without any environmental concerns requires less government regulations and effort to work out a new concept for a reduction of greenhouse gases.
Krugman also asserts that ego for opposing action such as the impression that tough guys do not need renewable energy is another factor besides greed and opportunism and considered to be a sin, as climate change with the worst impact might kill the whole human civilization. The process of spreading false information to the human society is comparable to the cigarette industry. Cigarettes are proven to cause lung cancer but still kill people because of concealed science. Hence, depravity of climate denial such as Donald Trump does “makes him a bad person” to risk the life of the current human society and future generations, as stated in the source.
Dryzek, John S. And Norgaard, Richard B and Schlosberg, David. “The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society”, 2011,
This scholarly source illustrates the links of all the different climate change denial institutions within one graphic and tries to explain how all these connections lead to publicity in order to confuse the public about the climate change and the anthropogenic global warming.
The fossil fuel industry provides funding for individual contrarian scientists in order to combat for their industries, even though it is obvious, that fossil fuels are the major source of greenhouse gases. These private companies tried to use lobbying to oppose or weaken various measures and to influence the government in the past.
Another group includes conservative philanthropists, foundations and think tanks as a denial machine of the conservative establishment. These conservative think tanks are a very fundamental and highly effective component of the climate change denial machine. They sponsor ‘educational events’ for politicians, provide institutional bases for leading contrarians and produce a vest range of anti-climate change material with the help of media, denial campaigns and contrarian scientists.
The contrarian scientists, who have grown in size and diversity, are represented in areas such as scientific advisors, press conferences, public lectures and political briefings. They are presented as ‘objective’ experts in the conservative media and sponsored by conservative institutions. In general manufacturing uncertainty is most successful when well-known experts convince the public about climate science denial.
The front groups are the preferred corporation shield with public anti-environmental activities. They are sponsored by oil companies, automobile manufacturers and industrial associations. All the public campaigns claiming that climate change is a theory and not a fact are run by these front groups but have unknown sources of financial support.
The conservative media, which is often hosted by contrarian scientists, assaults the science and spreads massages with a powerful persuasive and multifaceted media apparatus. The aim is to decline the public belief in climate change and trust in actual climate scientists. The echo chamber gives frequent opportunities for contrarian scientists and other representatives to disparage climate change and present them as experts.
In the end there are the conservative politicians with a skeptical view on climate change, as they are scared of government regulations on free market. These government representatives include former US president Donald Trump as mentioned before and Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Climate change denial throughout the most powerful branch of the US governments undermines climate science especially as representatives of fossil fuel industries and conservative think tanks are allowed to spread their climate change denial.