The underlying reason people dismiss climate science, it turns out, has more to do with political identity than logic. In fact, the more intelligent people are, the more polarized they tend to be on climate change. When they’re challenged, Democrats and Republicans alike simply use their smarts to justify their beliefs. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing.

It’s not just that Democrats and Republicans in Congress have different priorities when it comes to the climate crisis — they also use different styles of persuasion. A study published in the journal Environmental Politics earlier this month breaks down the differences along partisan lines. With the help of machine learning, Guber and her colleagues analyzed millions upon millions of words from Congressional floor speeches from 1996 until 2015.

They found that Democrats tend to make arguments about climate change backed up by facts and evidence, while Republicans tend to tell stories, using imagery, emotional appeals, and humor to sway people to their side. According to Guber, Republicans are “communicating in ways that may ultimately be more effective.”

One chilly day in February 2015, Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, unwrapped a snowball on the Senate floor. After noting that he kept hearing the previous year was the hottest on record, he held it up, asking “You know what this is? It’s a snowball, just from outside here. So it’s very, very, cold out. Very unseasonable.” Then he threw it at the Senate president. “Catch this!”

Inhofe’s speech was widely ridiculed. The Daily Show’s host Jon Stewart mocked Inhofe by saying, “Clearly if global warming was a problem, I would only be able to grab lava balls.”

Sure, Inhofe was conflating weather with climate. But it’s hard to contradict the existence of a snowball, Guber said. It was ridiculous, but it got a lot of attention.

“That’s a prime example of using that vivid imagery to communicate something about climate change that certainly isn’t true,” she said, “but the truth of it doesn’t really matter to the audience.”

https://grist.org/climate/the-surprising-reasons-why-people-ignore-the-facts-about-climate-change

Networks of Opposition: A Structural Analysis of U.S.Climate Change Countermovement Coalitions 1989–2015*
Robert J. Brulle, Brown University

The climate change countermovement (CCCM) in the United States has exerted an important influence on delaying efforts to address climate change. Analyses of this countermovement have primarily focused on the role of conservative think tanks. Expanding this research, this article initiates an examination of the structure of key political coalitions that worked to oppose climate action. In conjunction with their allied trade associations, these coalitions have served as a central coordination mechanism in efforts opposed to mandatory limits on carbon emissions. These coalitions pool resources from a large number of corporations and execute sophisticated political and cultural campaigns designed to oppose efforts to address climate change. Through an analysis of twelve prominent CCCM coalitions from 1989 to 2015, I show that over 2,000 organizations were members of these coalitions and that a core of 179 organizations belonged to multiple coalitions. Organizations from the coal and electrical utility sectors were the most numerous and influential organizations in these coalitions. The article concludes with suggestions for further research to expand understanding of complex social movements and countermovements...

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/soin.12333

Riaditeľ komunikačného odboru Philip Morris Victor Han v memorande pre Ellen Merlo uviedol: " Bez významnej, koncentrovanej snahy odhaliť slabosti EPA, bez úsilia o vybudovanie podstatných a rozumných pochybností ... prakticky všetky ostatné snahy ... značne stratia na efektivite."
V roku 1993 by nikto nepokladal EPA za dokonalú organizáciu, nikto by si nemyslel, že neexistujú zbytočné regulácie, ktoré treba zrušiť; tvrdili to aj jej obhajcovia. Tabakový priemysel však nechcel, aby EPA pracovala lepšie a rozumnejšie; chceli ju zlikvidovať. Han prišiel k záveru, že "dôveryhodnosť EPA je možné zničiť. No nie iba na základe samotného pasívneho fajčenia. To musí byť časťou mozaiky, ktorá sústredí úsilie všetkých nepriateľov EPA proti nej v jednej chvíli." Táto mozaika bola čoskoro vytvorená.
"Vedecký odpad" sa stal hlavnou komunikačnou linkou Stevena J. Milloya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy ) a skupiny nazvanej TASSC - The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition - ktorej cieľom je, v protiklade s jej názvom, nie napredovanie vedy, ale jej diskreditácia. Milloy, ktorý sa neskôr stal komentátorom Fox News, bol spojený s Cato Institute a ešte predtým bol lobistom vo firme Multinational Business Service (MBS), ktorú začiatkom deväťdesiatych rokov najala Philip Morris aby jej pomohla pri obrane pasívneho fajčenia. Medzi hlavných vedeckých poradcov TASSC patrili Fred Singer a Fred Seitz. Milloy písal články pre Wall Street Journal a iné periodiká obhajújúce záujmy veľkého biznisu, vytvoril webovú stránku JunkScience.com (VedeckýOdpad.com) ktorá bez problémov útočila na akúkoľvek vedu, ktorá sa zaoberala zdravím a životným prostredím. Nezáležalo na tom, kto vedu robil, či EPA, WHO, Americká národná akadémia vied, alebo uznávaní vedci na univerzitách. Ak výsledky ohrozovali bezpečnosť nejakého biznisu. Milloy na nich zaútočil.
Prístupom "analýzou k paralýze" sa snažili znefunkčniť normálne fungovanie vedeckých výskumov, požadovali stopercentné potvrdenia výsledkov, žiadali aby EPA stanovila hranicu pod ktorou fajčenie neškodí, obviňovali EPA a vedcov zo zadržiavania informácií, chceli od nich obrovské množstvá záznamov a analýz, zahlcovali ich nezmyselnými požiadavkami. Analýzou k paralýze.
Ako sa v tom mal bežný človek vyznať?! Aj dnes... ako sa má v tom bežný človek vyznať?

Veda či paveda? - Anton Kovalčík (blog.sme.sk)
https://antonkovalcik.blog.sme.sk/c/511594/veda-ci-paveda.html

Jinak koukam, ze po Fredu Singerovi letos umrela take dalsi vyznamna postava klima dezinformacniho hnuti, Singeruv spolupracovnik Dennis Avery

Dennis Avery was a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute, director of the Center for Global Food Issues, and a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute. With Dr. S. Fred Singer, he was coauthor of Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years, which spent weeks on The New York Times best-seller list in early 2007.
Avery was the author of Global Food Progress 1991 (Hudson Institute, 1991) and Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming (Hudson Institute, 1995). The second edition of Saving the Planet was published in 2000.
Avery wrote a weekly column on environmental issues that was widely regarded across the country and internationally. He was quoted in publications ranging from Time and The Washington Post to The Farm Journal. Avery’s article, “What’s Wrong with Global Warming?” was published in the August 1999 issue of Reader’s Digest.

Who We Are - Dennis Avery (1936 - 2020) | Heartland Institute
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/dennis-avery

Corporations faced with proof that they are hurting people or the planet have a long history of denying evidence, blaming victims, complaining of witch hunts, attacking their critics’ motives, and otherwise rationalizing their harmful activities. Denial campaigns have let corporations continue dangerous practices that cause widespread suffering, death, and environmental destruction. And, by undermining social trust in science and government, corporate denial has made it harder for our democracy to function. Barbara Freese, an environmental attorney, confronted corporate denial years ago when cross-examining coal industry witnesses who were disputing the science of climate change. She set out to discover how far from reality corporate denial had led society in the past and what damage it had done. Her resulting, deeply-researched book is an epic tour through eight campaigns of denial waged by industries defending the slave trade, radium consumption, unsafe cars, leaded gasoline, ozone-destroying chemicals, tobacco, the investment products that caused the financial crisis, and the fossil fuels destabilizing our climate. Some of the denials are appalling (slave ships are festive). Some are absurd (nicotine is not addictive). Some are dangerously comforting (natural systems prevent ozone depletion). Together they reveal much about the group dynamics of delusion and deception. Industrial-Strength Denial delves into the larger social dramas surrounding these denials, including how people outside the industries fought back using evidence and the tools of democracy. It also explores what it is about the corporation itself that reliably promotes such denial, drawing on psychological research into how cognition and morality are altered by tribalism, power, conflict, anonymity, social norms, market ideology, and of course, money. Industrial-Strength Denial warns that the corporate form gives people tremendous power to inadvertently cause harm while making it especially hard for them to recognize and feel responsible for that harm.

http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AA2813C3E4CFAF786356F06D4A065C7E

Dalsi

Oil: Power Past Impossible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4KvOJlu5Xo

American Petroleum Institute a jeho spin

Together, We’re On It
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8CnhwP5Zqg

Journalists have long written about the inordinate power of the fossil fuel industry over energy policy—its ability to get its way in legislation, regulation, elections and courtrooms. This work shows the "how" of this familiar theme: how industry operates with collective force and efficiency across society; how ordinary Americans who are in the way are left to suffer with little or no recourse; and, perhaps most importantly, how industry has thwarted the ability of our democracy to respond to the climate crisis. Choke Hold is a comprehensive explanatory account of all these things.
..

https://www.amazon.com/Choke-Hold-Industrys-against-Climate-ebook/dp/B079M1BSQJ

After eight months of investigation, InsideClimate News presents this history of Exxon's engagement with the emerging science of climate change. The story spans four decades, and is based on primary sources including internal company files never before seen, interviews with former company employees, and other evidence.
It describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then pivoted to work at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.

Library Genesis: Neela Banerjee, John H. Cushman Jr, David Hasemyer, Lisa Song - EXXON: The Road Not Taken
http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=EE916A9AFFF12AFA2BD2B4C5F03C6A34

TUHO: Jinak Crandall byla byvala zena Freda Singera

When Seitz joined them he provided SEPP with the tobacco link: he was the Emeritus-President of the Rockefeller University, and also a secret consultant to RJ Reynolds Tobacco. All of the SEPP leaders were active in the Republican conservative circles and zealous Cold War warriors.
A Frontline documentary says that SEPP was initially organised and promoted by APCO & Associates a PR firm which, at that time, was totally directed and controlled by Philip Morris (through its corporate lawfirm Arnold & Porter). [APCO also created The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), and the junkscience.com web site for Philip Morris.]
However, Singer clearly was a reluctant shill for the tobacco industry: he only agreed to work for them in attacking the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Assessment of passive smoking [ETS — as a Class A carcinogen] and was only persuaded when British-American Tobacco's PR firm, Shadwick, suggested that he could remain at arms-length by putting out (in January 1995) a press-release along the lines of the "The 5 Scientific Myths of 1995".
This narrowed attack was directed at the scientific establishment (rather than being in support of tobacco) and it used 'junk-science' claims and highly dubious material from other tobacco-lobby sources (namely the CRS report) to suggest that passive smoke was not a problem. This approach allowed SEPP to hide behind 'scientific' claim that the EPA had over-reacted on such questions as the health threat from radon and ozone depletion, and had relied on the impossible standards of "zero-risk" (Delaney Clause).
Before long his new organization attracted funding from a large number of industrial groups which were interested in climate-denial and anti-activism attacks in areas of the environment and public-health.
APCO specialised in this sort of 'coalition-building' activity for the tobacco industry, but Singer was not willing to be identified as a tobacco-friendly scientist, so he only worked for the cigarette industry at a distance — always careful to put at least one policy/scientific organisation between himself and the source of his funds.
In 1992 he was the principle author of a report prepared for the Tobacco Institute (via the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution) entitled "The EPA and the Science of Environmental Tobacco Smoke". However when the document finally appeared it was buried in a longer and more varied attack on the EPA, and supposedly authored by Kent Jeffreys, one of the staffers at the Institute. Singer was only credited as "Principle Researcher".
SEPP's President, Fred Seitz, another climate denier, worked primarily through the gung-ho, Star-Wars, nuclear-energy promoting, George C Marshall Institute which was heavily funded by the main contractors to the Department of Defence. It's main agenda was to attack communism both from the USSR, and from 'liberal activists' in the USA, which it portrayed as "fellow travellers". Seitz was much closer to tobacco than Singer since he had worked for RJ Reynolds Tobacco as a consultant for decades, and had also done some work for Philip Morris.

Corporate Corruption of Science - S Fred Singer
https://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN183/00972.html

Ze stranek Science Corruption, stary ale solidne obsahly katalog.

From this base, and with organisational help from the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Singer, Crandall and Gerhard Stohrer created the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) in 1990. However Crandall was still using the Washington Institute "editorial director" title in August 1991.
SEPP then sought additional funds from the tobacco and general industrial corporations wishing to fight the activists on global climate change. She became SEPP's nominal director and spokesperson, and later helped in the creation of the Heidelberg Appeal and with the International Center for Scientific Ecology.
SEPP and the Global Science Coalition (a coalition of industrial groups) joined forces both in the Heidelberg Appeal scam and the corporate coalition attempts to destabilize the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. During this time Crandall used the title of "publicist" with the Global Science Communications Team. The Global Climate Coalition had been created by major energy and chemical companies (aided by the National Manufacturers' Association) as the key organizer of serious attempts at disrupting the summit.
In 1993, after Rio, Crandall helped run the SEPP/ICSE conference in Paris and a later seminar at the George Mason University, both of which were aimed at extending the influence of the Heidelberg Appeal project and promoting the idea that the regulators depended on 'junk-science' in their determinations. She worked with Tom Borelli and Gerard Wirz of Philip Morris on these projects.
Crandall was also high on the list of prominent scientific commentators who Philip Morris decided were available (for a generous fee) to put their bylines on propaganda articles and editorials promoted to compliant newspapers. The memo lists her credentials as:

https://www.sciencecorruption.com/ATN167/01357.html

Tomas Zdechovsky, europoslanec za Kdu-Csl (mj jeden z tech, kteri se blokovi usneseni k eu carbon neutralni do rolu 2050 a dostaval potom za to celkem kour)


Po Shellenberger, Michael Moore a spol prichazi vypointovany zaver

Zmíněné případy ukazují, že mezi progresivními klimatickými aktivisty vládne atmosféra naprosté konformity, kde není prakticky žádný prostor pro pochybování a odlišné názory. Není proto divu, že se ostrakizace nevyhýbá dokonce ani lidem na progresivní straně politického spektra, mezi něž patří všichni tři pánové Shellenberger, Pielke a Moore, o nichž byla řeč v tomto článku.

Ale tím to zřejmě neskončí. Hon na čarodějnice, tedy klimatické odpadlíky, začal ve velkém stylu. Je jen otázka času, kdo se stane jejich další obětí. Tipoval bych Grétu Thunbergovou. Bude jí k tomu stačit jeden nesouhlas a zakopnutí v nastolené agendě. A její pomyslné sochy budou okamžitě strženy. Nevěříte?

Ekologický aktivismus aneb koho příště mediálně upálit - Blog iDNES.cz
https://zdechovsky.blog.idnes.cz/blog.aspx?c=754902

Fossil Fuel Advocates’ New Tactic: Calling Opposition to Arctic Drilling ‘Racist’ | InsideClimate News
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21072020/fossil-fuel-arctic-drilling-alaska

A year ago, the Ohio legislature rammed through a law to save four unprofitable nuclear and coal-fired power plants from retirement, while it rolled back energy efficiency and renewable targets and passed on the $1.3 billion cost to customers. Opponents of the HB6 law, which included an unlikely alliance of environmentalists and the natural gas industry, began to organize a referendum to repeal it, saying it amounted to a corporate bailout for the utility player FirstEnergy.

What ensued was an aggressive and bizarre counter-campaign launched by a set of mysterious actors that didn’t disclose their donors, all singularly focused on preventing the referendum from gathering enough signatures before its deadline. One single-issue group began running ads with false claims that the Chinese government had orchestrated the referendum. Another group, Generation Now, hired the Democratic firm Fieldworks to deploy “petition blockers” who stood near signature gatherers and tried to discourage people from signing the referendum. At one point there was a physical confrontation between a referendum staffer and a petition blocker, and police responded.

http://www.motherjones.com/...y-spent-millions-to-protect-polluters-then-they-got-busted-by-the-fbi/