Solidni overview :))

Climate Denier: "There's no relationship between CO2 and temperature whatsoever! #ClimateHoax"

Anyone Who Considers the Scientific Evidence (AWCSE): "Except... we can see in the geological record the two are very closely related🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but temperature change precedes CO2 change, so it's temperature that influences CO2, not the other way around. #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... we can clearly see they are mutually-reinforcing feedbacks, and anyway, from laboratory experiments we know that CO2 absorbs heat. You can literally do a DIY experiment at home and see it for yourself with your own eyes🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but that's just in a lab environment, we don't have proof that it works it in the real world... The real world isn't a greenhouse! #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... it has been observed in the real world for over 200 years. Moreover, Earth is presently warming at an unprecedented pace alongside rapid CO2 increases🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but that's a good thing, higher average temperatures and higher CO2 is good for plants! I ♥️ plants and I ♥️CO2! #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... higher average temperatures are changing weather patterns, and increasing the vapour pressure deficit, which is not good for plants, as it's a key factor in plant stress, drought severity, and wildfire risk... In fact, it's long been predicted that the land sink growth will slow down alongside warming, just as we have observed 🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but CO2's warming effect saturates... further increases in concentration will have a smaller warming influence #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... The absorption band widens at higher CO2 levels, allowing more heat to be trapped, especially in the upper atmosphere where saturation hasn’t occurred🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK, but we're currently in a CO2 famine. Without CO2 Earth would be too cold for humans #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... you started by saying CO2 doesn't influence temperature! Now you're admitting it does increase temperature!🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but it's been warmer before, like during the Medieval Warm Period. So warmer temperatures are fine for humans. #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... the most recent scientific assessments of Holocene *global* surface temperatures show that it was NOT this warm for at least 125,000 years, probably much longer. Human beings, and certainly modern civilization and agricultural societies, have likely never experienced global temperatures this high, and it's only getting hotter...🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but warmer temperatures are good. People like warmer climates and there will be less Cold Deaths #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... our infrastructure is not built for a much warmer climate, and it's warming very quickly. Our systems of production and cultures have evolved along the climate boundaries we've seen for the last few hundreds of years or longer. And the risks of heat stress, productivity losses, and damages from extreme weather are getting worse. We're on track for nearly 3C of warming above the pre-Industrial era by end of this Century... more if we don't reduce emissions🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but there's no way of knowing what the global temperature was before the Industrial era. There were no satellites and very few weather stations #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... you just said a minute ago that it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period... so clearly you DO think it's possible to determine pre-Industrial Global Surface Temperatures...🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but the data showing it's warmer today is manipulated by climate scientists to suit their agenda and so they can receive grant money. I've seen the original raw station data from earlier this Century; they adjusted it afterwards to fit their narrative #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... there are similar data points from numerous independent assessments and scientific agencies all over the world... including corroborating non-temperature readings like the long term Cherry Blossom records in Japan. It would be virtually impossible for all these distinct scientific efforts to be in cahoots, secretly manipulating the data in a synchronized way...🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but a lot of this data is from ghost stations - there actually isn't real data coming from those stations #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... you *just* said you had seen the original raw data, which you claimed was real prior to manipulation! No matter how you slice it, the world is warming ..🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but the warming is because of the Urban Heat Island effect, not GHGs. #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... we have temperature records from rural areas and remote areas like the Arctic and Antarctica - where there are no cities - that show warming too... so clearly UHI can't explain all the warming, and you've already admitted above that GHGs warm the planet..🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but there's no such thing as "global average temperature" - that is a meaningless term #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... once again you're contradicting what you just said a moment ago! Besides, we have tens of thousands of weather stations around the world, including in the oceans on floating buoys, not to mention satellite data and other proxies... Computer modelling can give us a fairly precise sense of global average temperature, especially for recent decades..🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but the models are unreliable - all the models have been wrong so far. #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... the models have actually been pretty solid. Check out this chart showing early modelling estimates of global temperature trends based on assumptions about CO2 emissions trends...pretty close to the mark!🤷‍♂️"

Climate Denier: "OK... but there's no relationship between CO2 and temperature whatsoever! #ClimateHoax"

AWCSE: "Except... oh FFS, never mind."

x.com
https://x.com/ryankatzrosene/status/1890247352155263235?s=46&t=nwPQW0MLXH-jm2eAzTizTA

Tohle je husty overview

Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015

Abstract
Denial of scientific findings is neither a new nor an unexplored phenomenon. In the area of environmental science and policy though, the research on denial has not been systematically summarized and analyzed. This article reviews 161 scientific articles on environmental and climate science denial published in peer reviewed international journals in the last 25 years and aims to both identify research gaps and enable learning on the phenomenon. Such knowledge is needed for the increasingly important task to provide effective response to science denial, in order to put an end to its influence on environmental policy making. The review, which is based on articles found in the databases Web of Science, Scopus and Philosopher's Index, shows that denial by far is most studied in relation to climate change, with a focus on Anglo-American countries, where this form of denial is most common. Other environmental issues and other geographical areas have received much less scientific attention. While the actors behind climate science denial, their various motives and the characteristics of their operations have been thoroughly described, more comparative research between issues and countries is needed in order to draw reliable conclusions about the factors explaining the peculiarities of denial. This may in turn lay the ground for developing and actually testing the effectiveness and efficiency of strategies to counter environmental science denial. Irrespective of the ambitions of environmental goals, science-based policies are always preferable. The scientific community therefore needs to increase its efforts to dismantle false claims and to disclose the schemes of denialists.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617317821?via=ihub

Ehm related. Novy vyzkum Nature: na sitich jsou casteji banovani konzervativci. Proc? Casteji sdili dezinformace.

Abstract
In response to intense pressure, technology companies have enacted policies to combat misinformation1,2,3,4. The enforcement of these policies has, however, led to technology companies being regularly accused of political bias5,6,7. We argue that differential sharing of misinformation by people identifying with different political groups8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 could lead to political asymmetries in enforcement, even by unbiased policies. We first analysed 9,000 politically active Twitter users during the US 2020 presidential election. Although users estimated to be pro-Trump/conservative were indeed substantially more likely to be suspended than those estimated to be pro-Biden/liberal, users who were pro-Trump/conservative also shared far more links to various sets of low-quality news sites—even when news quality was determined by politically balanced groups of laypeople, or groups of only Republican laypeople—and had higher estimated likelihoods of being bots. We find similar associations between stated or inferred conservatism and low-quality news sharing (on the basis of both expert and politically balanced layperson ratings) in 7 other datasets of sharing from Twitter, Facebook and survey experiments, spanning 2016 to 2023 and including data from 16 different countries. Thus, even under politically neutral anti-misinformation policies, political asymmetries in enforcement should be expected. Political imbalance in enforcement need not imply bias on the part of social media companies implementing anti-misinformation policies.

Differences in misinformation sharing can lead to politically asymmetric sanctions | Nature
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07942-8

Populist far right discursive-institutional tactics in European regional decarbonization

What rhetorical strategies are populist far-right parties using to delay regional decarbonization? This paper focuses on three populist far-right parties—the Conservative People's Party of Estonia (EKRE), Alternative for Germany (AfD), and Poland's Law and Justice (PiS)—and the discursive-institutional tactics each used from 2014 to 2021 to delay decarbonization of their carbon-intensive regions. We identify three discursive-institutional tactics used by populist far-right actors to delay decarbonization: (1) politicizing decarbonization, (2) reframing cultural values to form alliances with anti-decarbonization movements, and (3) dismantling key decarbonization institutions. We show that the populist far-right discursive-institutional tactics in European regional decarbonization are prevalent and vary widely. The politics of backlash against the EU-driven progressive public policies and anti-democratic rhetoric, including xenophobia and national sovereignty discourses are commonly used by these three populist far right parties to mobilize counternarratives against climate change and regional decarbonization. EKRE and PiS typically portray themselves as the protectors of social insurance and safety for vulnerable groups affected by regional decarbonization. PiS and AfD harness regional identity to mobilize civic engagement against decarbonization. All three parties work to empty and dismantle key decarbonization institutions. Overall, our findings suggest that carbon-intensive regions are particularly susceptible to the discursive tactics and institutional work of populist far-right parties, and may therefore provide opportunities for these parties to constrain decarbonization more broadly.

Redirecting
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0962629823001142

Rising temperatures and the rise of the far right. What disasters happen when they meet?

In recent years, the far right has done everything in its power to accelerate the heating: an American president who believes it is a hoax has removed limits on fossil fuel production. The Brazilian president has opened the Amazon and watched it burn. In Europe, parties denying the crisis and insisting on maximum combustion have stormed into office, from Sweden to Spain. On the brink of breakdown, the forces most aggressively promoting business-as-usual have surged – always in defense of white privilege, against supposed threats from non-white others. Where have they come from?

The first study of the far right in the climate crisis, White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism presents an eye-opening sweep of a novel political constellation, and reveals its deep historical roots. Fossil-fueled technologies were born steeped in racism. None loved them more passionately than the classical fascists. As such forces rise to the surface, some profess to have the solution – closing borders to save the climate. Epic and riveting, White Skin, Black Fuel traces a future of political fronts that can only heat up.

White Skin, Black Fuel: On the Danger of Fossil Fascism | Verso Books
https://www.versobooks.com/products/2520-white-skin-black-fuel

The fracking revolution, Rice said, “has powered our economy and prevented us from being reliant on foreign sources of natural gas – all the while driving over 60% of the emissions reduction the United States experienced since the turn of the century by displacing coal-fired power generation”.

The key word here is “emissions”, by which Rice means carbon dioxide. And indeed fracked gas, when burned in a power plant, produces fewer emissions than coal. But there’s another major greenhouse gas – methane – and that’s basically what “natural gas” consists of. When it leaks from a well or a pipeline, it’s 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, molecule per molecule, at trapping heat.

And so much is leaking that – when you combine those emissions with the carbon that still comes from burning gas – America’s total contribution to global warming has probably not gone down at all over the last two decades. Far from being a boon, natural gas has been a trap, one that the industry now wants to catch the rest of the globe in.

Joe Biden just did the rarest thing in US politics: he stood up to the oil industry | Bill McKibben | The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/07/joe-biden-big-oil-lng-permits?CMP=share_btn_tw

ABSTRACT
Most obvious and explicitly illustrated by the politics of the Trump administration in the US, but also evident in Europe, far-right nationalism have merged with climate change denialism. This merge is just starting to get scholarly attention, despite this research may provide new and important knowledge of resistance towards effective climate politics as well as of broader political issues such as democracy, human rights and diversity. Sweden has high credentials in both environmental politics as well as in welcoming refugees, but these values and politic has of lately been heavily challenged by the neo-fascist party Sweden Democrats. This chapter deals with the environmental communication in this political landscape from 2013 and onwards with a specific focus on climate change denialism of Sweden Democrats (SD). Since two consecutive elections, SD are firmly placed in an unneglectable swing role that Swedish governments both of liberal-conservative and social democratic-green shapes have needed to consider. In this chapter we focus empirically on the period 2013–2017 and follow the arguments from and work by SD politicians. The chapter discuss how and in what way far-right and climate change denialist groups have merged with focus on anti-establishment rhetoric, marketing of doubts, industrial/breadwinner masculinities and nationalism.

The Far Right and Climate Change Denial | 8 | Denouncing environmental
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781351104043-8/far-right-climate-change-denial-martin-hultman-anna-bj%C3%B6rk-tamya-viinikka

Neni to primo o klimtau, ale ty dezinformacni sceny se prolinaj. Tady databaze internich dokumentu o toxickych substancich a dukazy o manipulovani chemickym prumyslem - napr kolem PCB a azbestu.

TOXIC DOCS
Columbia University and the City University of New York
Millions of Pages of Previously Classified Documents on Industrial Poisons (and Counting)
Free of Charge. Open to All.

Blazingly fast searches of once-secret industry documents
Columbia University's Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health, located at its Mailman School of Public Health, and the City University of New York's Graduate Center are proud to jointly present ToxicDocs. This dataset and website contain millions of pages of previously secret documents about toxic substances. They include secret internal memoranda, emails, slides, board minutes, unpublished scientific studies, and expert witness reports -- among other kinds of documents -- that emerged in recent toxic tort litigation.

We’re constantly adding material from lawsuits involving lead, asbestos, silica, and PCBs, among other dangerous substances. Innovations in parallel and cloud computing have made conversion of these documents into machine-readable, searchable text a far faster process than would have been the case just a decade ago.

Toxic Docs
https://www.toxicdocs.org/

Starsi Nafeez Ahmed na Le Monde Diplomatique

New evidence reveals how a tightly concentrated global network of politicians and corporations with close ties to the Trump administration is working on behalf of powerful US fossil fuel interests in Britain and Europe.

Several candidates who were in the running to become the next British Prime Minister — Boris Johnson, Jeremy Hunt, Dominic Raab, Michael Gove, Andrea Leadsom, and Steve Baker — are part of this pro-Trump network.

The evidence comes thanks to a network map produced by independent investigative media outlet DeSmog UK, exposing for the first time the astonishing array of connections between President Donald Trump, right-wing lobbies in the US, and far-right parties in the UK and Europe.

Published after a leaked recording showed US secretary of state Mike Pompeo threatening to interfere in British democracy to block opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, the map unveils the extent to which US corporate lobbies with a direct line to senior Trump officials are backing both mainstream British politicians and European far-right extremists.

How US climate deniers are working with far-right racists to hijack Brexit for Big Oil, by Nafeez Ahmed (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, June 2019)
https://mondediplo.com/outsidein/brexit-climate-deniers