• úvod
  • témata
  • události
  • tržiště
  • diskuze
  • nástěnka
  • přihlásit
    registrace
    ztracené heslo?
    TUHODezinformace o klimatu // Time to fight back // evidence.ninja
    Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. - Voltaire
    Jedním ze zásadních důvodů, proč je klimatická změna tak obtížné téma je obrovské množství dezinformací, které ho obklopuje. Sociologové identifikovali široké dezinformační hnutí, které je z části organizované fosilním průmyslem. Množství empirických důkazů ukazuje, že fosilní průmysl ročně vynakládá obrovské množství prostředků za cílem oddálit nebo neutralizovat politiky směřující k regulaci spotřeby fosilních paliv.
    Jak se ale v takové debatě vyznat? Jaká je česká debata v kontextu světa? Ale hlavně jaké subjekty se do dezinformací zapojují, jaké techniky a jaké prostředky používají k neutralizaci veřejné diskuze.
    rozbalit záhlaví
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    “A tidal wave of hostile messaging:” The billions spent each year by fossil fuel industry demonising renewables
    The head of energy policy in the world’s fourth biggest economy says the fossil fuel industry is spending billions of dollars each year promoting its own technologies and demonising renewables, far more than the wind, solar and battery storage industries combined.

    David Hochschild, the chair of the California Energy Commission, who leads energy policy in the world’s fourth biggest economy, says the renewables industry needs to learn how to stand and fight against the more than $US4 billion ($A5.7 billion) spent each year by the fossil fuel industry on communications and public affairs.
    "A tidal wave of hostile messaging:" The billions spent each year by fossil fuel industry demonising renewables
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-tidal-wave-of-hostile-messaging-the-billions-spent-each-year-by-the-fossil-fuel-industry-demonising-renewables/
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    ‘MAGA Gathers in European Parliament to Attack EU Laws
    The European far-right rubbed shoulders with pro-Trump groups in Brussels.

    Joey Grostern on Feb 6, 2026

    BRUSSELS – Groups aligned with Donald Trump’s administration rallied against “online censorship” and “extreme environmentalism” as they took to the stage at an event held in the heart of the European Parliament earlier this week.

    The meeting in Brussels comes amid reports that the U.S. State Department is poised to fund MAGA-aligned think tanks and charities across Europe to further Trump’s agenda overseas.

    At the one-day conference run by the Political Network for Values (PNfV) on 4 February, speakers from the Heritage Foundation, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Family Watch International, and other U.S. conservative Christian groups defended what they described as “basic truths […] such as love of God, country and family.”

    US Fossil Fuel Koch & MAGA Tanton Networks with Russia versus EU European Union | Education Training Society
    https://educationtrainingsociety.wordpress.com/2026/02/12/us-fossil-fuel-koch-maga-tanton-networks-with-russia-versus-eu-european-union/
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    TADEAS: a doplneni: ADDENDUM: The Czech and Slovak Context

    Overview: Why This Narrative Matters in CZ/SK Right Now

    Both the Czech Republic and Slovakia are at a critical juncture in wind energy development. The Czech Republic has virtually no onshore wind capacity and is now planning a major buildout — ČEZ alone is planning 16 turbines at Ralsko (115 MW), and the outgoing Fiala government passed "acceleration zones" legislation to fast-track renewable energy permitting. Slovakia is even further behind, with only two operational wind installations (Cerová and Ostrý vrch near Myjava), but plans for 24 new projects totaling 942 MW are in the pipeline for 2025+. This makes both countries fertile ground for anti-wind narratives — the population has almost no lived experience with turbines, making fear-based messaging particularly effective.

    Epoch Times Czech (epochtimes.cz) — The Primary Amplification Channel

    The Czech edition of the Epoch Times is the single most important channel bringing the Mattsson/infrasound narrative into the Czech information space. Key examples:

    January 23, 2025: epochtimes.cz published a long article titled "Infrazvuk z pohledu fyzika: Neslyšitelné nebezpečí?" (Infrasound from a physicist's perspective: Inaudible danger?) written by German anti-wind activist Dieter Böhme, who self-describes as being active in "citizen initiatives against wind energy in Thuringia and across Germany." The article argues that DIN measurement standards deliberately exclude low frequencies from modern turbines, and that the wind industry has effectively captured the standards-setting process. Source: epochtimes.cz

    February 5, 2026 (3 days ago): epochtimes.cz published a two-part article about a Strasbourg court ruling from November 2025, in which a French court found wind turbines to be the "direct and unambiguous cause" of stress and anxiety for a particular plaintiff. The article frames this as a vindication of the infrasound health claims and explicitly references infrazvuk pod 20 hertzů (infrasound below 20 Hz) as the key mechanism. Notably, the article itself acknowledges that "studies conducted so far have not been able to prove a direct relationship between infrasound and health damage" — but this caveat is buried deep in the text. Source: epochtimes.cz

    The same Epoch Times article was immediately republished on czechia.news-pravda.com ("Pravda Česko"), a site that sits alongside content about "TV Bureš" (a derogatory term for the commercial media) and pro-Russian analysis. This represents the typical amplification pattern: Epoch Times produces the content, and it cascades into the wider Czech disinformation ecosystem. Source: czechia.news-pravda.com

    Czech Anti-Wind Websites

    nechcemevetrnouelektrarnu.cz ("We don't want a wind turbine") — A local opposition site that features a dedicated section on health impacts, referencing German Deutschlandfunk Kultur reporting and promoting the "Wind Turbine Syndrome" concept. The site explicitly frames the Green Deal as a globalist plot: "Vláda pod vlivem nikým nevolené Evropské komise prosazuje tyto zcela nesmyslné, neekologické, neekonomické, zdraví a přírodě škodící technologie" (The government, under the influence of the unelected European Commission, promotes these completely nonsensical, anti-ecological, anti-economic technologies that harm health and nature). It goes further: "globalistí s jejich posluhujícími vládami podvedli lidi na Západě" (globalists with their servile governments have deceived people in the West). This language places the anti-wind narrative squarely within the broader anti-EU, anti-globalist conspiratorial framework that dominates Czech disinformation. Source: nechcemevetrnouelektrarnu.cz

    nasepravda.cz ("Our Truth") — Published a January 2026 article titled "Větrné elektrárny: o čem se nemluví" (Wind turbines: what no one talks about) that weaves together claims about infrazvuk, PFAS chemicals, the French court ruling, and the acceleration zones legislation, framing the entire energy transition as a threat to public health. Source: nasepravda.cz

    Comment sections on mainstream Czech energy sites (such as oenergetice.cz) show the narrative has penetrated into public discourse. Under an article about ČEZ's Ralsko wind park project, commenters confidently state: "Infrazvuk z VTE prokazatelně poškozuje lidské zdraví" (Infrasound from wind turbines demonstrably damages human health) and cite specific distance thresholds ("do 300 metrů nebezpečná neobyvatelná zóna" — within 300 meters, a dangerous uninhabitable zone). Source: oenergetice.cz comments

    The Slovak Context

    Slovakia's anti-wind movement is newer but rapidly growing, driven by the same narrative toolkit.

    Daniel Máčovský is described as the loudest critic of wind energy in Slovakia. He has compiled a book containing "36 complete scientific studies, over 800 links to professional articles, and nearly 700 reference sources" documenting alleged negative impacts of turbines. In an interview with Hlavné správy (a Slovak alternative media outlet with a documented pro-Russian lean), he states that infrasound "does not decrease even 15 kilometers from the source, passes through walls and hills" and that "90 percent of people don't even realize their health problems are connected to wind turbines." He references Professor Žiaran, a Slovak acoustics professor, for academic credibility. Significantly, the interview was republished on zapravdu.sk ("For Truth"), another site in the Slovak alternative media space. Source: zapravdu.sk

    The Slovak context is particularly interesting because Slovakia has virtually zero wind energy experience — only two installations with a combined capacity of roughly 3 MW. This means the entire debate is being conducted on the basis of fear rather than lived experience. The narrative follows a classic pattern: "look what is happening elsewhere" (citing German, French, and Scandinavian cases), "our government wants to force this on us" (linking to Green Deal obligations), and "they are hiding the truth" (invoking suppressed science and industry cover-ups).

    The pro-wind side in Slovakia (SPP, W.E.B. Windenergie, ZSE's "Za Vietor" initiative) is actively pushing back, referencing the WHO position and the 2023 Woolcock Institute double-blind study. But these counter-narratives exist primarily on corporate and industry sites, while the anti-wind narrative flows through the much more emotionally engaging alternative media ecosystem.

    The Narrative Pattern in CZ/SK — A Summary

    The Mattsson research and the "Separating Myth from Fact" lecture fit into a well-established Czech and Slovak disinformation template that works as follows:

    1. Scientific kernel: A legitimate but narrow finding from a credible institution (Uppsala University) is extracted from its context. In this case: "infrasound from modern turbines propagates further than older models predicted."

    2. Authority laundering: The finding is presented as if it proves health harms, despite the researcher not being a health scientist and the broader scientific literature not supporting the health claims. The Uppsala University branding provides credibility.

    3. First amplification: The content is picked up by Epoch Times (Swedish edition first, then Czech/German editions), vindkraftsupplysningen.se (linked to Sweden Democrats), and international anti-wind networks (Wind Concerns, Principia Scientific International).

    4. Local adaptation: Czech and Slovak sites repackage the content with local context — referencing Czech noise regulations, the Ralsko project, the acceleration zones legislation, and Slovak NECP targets. Local "experts" (Máčovský in SK) and local opposition groups (nechcemevetrnouelektrarnu.cz in CZ) provide domestic credibility.

    5. Political framing: The health claims are woven into the broader anti-EU, anti-Green Deal, anti-globalist narrative that dominates Czech and Slovak disinformation. Wind turbines become yet another example of "Brussels forcing harmful policies on our nations." This intersects with existing anti-Western sentiment, pro-nuclear advocacy (Dukovany is a totemic issue in CZ), and rural identity politics.

    6. Comment section seeding: Key claims ("infrazvuk prokazatelně poškozuje zdraví," "15 km dosah") become accepted shorthand in online discussions, gaining the status of "common knowledge" that no longer requires sourcing.

    What Makes CZ/SK Particularly Vulnerable

    — Near-zero existing wind infrastructure means no population has direct experience to compare against the fear narratives.
    — Strong existing anti-EU sentiment (especially in CZ under Babiš, and in SK under Fico) provides a ready political framework for opposing "Brussels-mandated" renewables.
    — The nuclear energy debate (Dukovany expansion in CZ, Mochovce in SK) creates a natural "either/or" framing where wind is positioned as the unwanted alternative.
    — Epoch Times has well-established Czech and Slovak editions that serve as primary vehicles for introducing Western anti-wind content into the local information space.
    — The Czech and Slovak alternative media ecosystems (Parlamentní listy, Hlavné správy, zapravdu.sk, nasepravda.cz, etc.) are highly interconnected and provide rapid amplification of anti-wind content.

    Additional Czech/Slovak Sources

    Epoch Times CZ — Infrasound from a physicist's perspective (Jan 2025)
    Epoch Times CZ — Wind turbines: court sees them as "unambiguous cause" (Feb 2026)
    Pravda Česko — Republished Epoch Times article (Feb 2026)
    nechcemevetrnouelektrarnu.cz — Health impacts of wind turbines
    nasepravda.cz — Wind turbines: what no one talks about (Jan 2026)
    oenergetice.cz — ČEZ Ralsko project and comment section
    zapravdu.sk — Máčovský interview on Slovak wind opposition
    pro-vetrniky.cz — Czech fact-check on infrasound (Hnutí DUHA / National Reference Lab)
    Czech National Institute of Public Health (SZÚ) — 2007 assessment of wind turbine health risks (PDF)
    W.E.B. Windenergie CZ — Myths and facts on noise and infrasound
    Za Vietor (SK) — What is infrasound and is it harmful?
    SPP Slovakia — FAQ on wind energy and health
    TADEAS
    TADEAS --- ---
    TADEAS: letmy research by claude

    Analysis: "Separating Myth from Fact on Wind Turbine Noise"
    In the context of climate disinformation

    The Document

    This was a lecture delivered on October 8, 2025, in Copenhagen by Professor Ken Mattsson of Uppsala University's Department of Information Technology (not acoustics or health sciences). It was organized by Landsforeningen Naboer til Kæmpevindmøller (LNtK) — the Danish "National Association of Neighbors to Giant Wind Turbines," an anti-onshore-wind advocacy group founded in 2009. The seminar took place during Denmark's EU Presidency and has been promoted by anti-wind organizations across Europe.

    The Underlying Research — What's Legitimate, What's Not

    The credible part: Mattsson's core academic work is in computational mathematics — specifically, finite difference methods for solving partial differential equations (SBP-SAT methods). He has been working in this field for over 25 years. His tool SoundSim360 uses these numerical methods to simulate sound propagation in 3D, accounting for atmospheric conditions and terrain. The peer-reviewed paper ("Efficient finite difference modeling of infrasound propagation in realistic 3D domains: Validation with wind turbine measurements") was published in Applied Acoustics on ScienceDirect. The mathematical modeling methodology itself appears to be sound, and the paper was co-authored with colleagues from Uppsala and other Swedish institutions.

    Where the credibility gets strained: Mattsson's research demonstrates that infrasound from modern (larger) wind turbines propagates further than older, simpler models predicted. That is a narrow technical finding about sound propagation modeling. However, in the Copenhagen lecture and in media interviews, Mattsson makes a much larger leap — implying that this infrasound poses serious health risks. Statements like "Sound power levels stated by manufacturers are one of the biggest lies" cross from science into advocacy.

    Crucially, Mattsson is not a health researcher, epidemiologist, or acoustician specializing in human health effects. He is a computational mathematician. His expertise qualifies him to say infrasound travels further than previously modeled; it does not qualify him to draw health conclusions.

    Research Funding

    Based on what Mattsson himself has stated publicly:

    He received funding from FORMAS (the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development — a legitimate government research funder) to develop tools for wind farm and traffic noise simulation. The commercialization of SoundSim360 is being supported by UU Invest AB (Uppsala University's investment company) and UU Innovation, which won the VentureChallenge 2024 award. His earlier work on sound propagation was done partly at FOI (the Swedish Defence Research Agency).

    There is no evidence of fossil fuel industry funding for the core research. The funding sources appear to be standard Swedish public research funding and university innovation support. However, the commercial angle is important — Mattsson and Eriksson are actively trying to commercialize SoundSim360, which creates a financial incentive to demonstrate that existing noise models are inadequate (thereby creating a market for their superior tool).

    The Disinformation Ecosystem Around It

    This is where things get really concerning. The research itself sits at the center of a well-documented disinformation amplification chain:

    1. vindkraftsupplysningen.se — The website that published the most detailed English-language account of Mattsson's Copenhagen lecture. According to a ruling by the Swedish media ombudsman (Medieombudsmannen), vindkraftsupplysningen.se's bank account was linked to Kent Ekeroth, a Sweden Democrats (SD) politician known for the "iron pipe scandal." Ekeroth, together with the site's contact person Madeleine Staaf Kura, produced anti-wind power films for Samnytt (an SD-adjacent outlet) that featured climate skeptics and people connected to the nuclear industry, claiming wind turbines emit microplastics and harmful infrasound. Source: Medieombudsmannen ruling

    2. Epoch Times — The Uppsala University news page itself lists epochtimes.se as one of the sources covering the story. Epoch Times Germany has run ads claiming wind turbines produce "nefarious health effects" and quoted advisors from the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the UK's leading climate denial group. The Epoch Times is a far-right international media outlet affiliated with the Falun Gong movement that has promoted conspiracy theories including QAnon, anti-vaccine misinformation, and climate science denial. Sources: DeSmog investigation, Global Witness investigation

    3. Wind Concerns and similar anti-wind sites have amplified the findings, pairing Mattsson's work with the discredited research of Mariana Alves-Pereira and the concept of "Wind Turbine Syndrome" — a condition not recognized by the WHO or any major health authority.

    4. The EU Petition — While the European Parliament's PETI committee did hear the petition (September 25, 2025), this is a petitions committee that hears citizen concerns. Being heard there does not constitute scientific endorsement. The Commission committed to a written response within three months.

    What the Scientific Consensus Actually Says

    The overwhelming weight of evidence points in a very different direction from what the anti-wind movement claims:

    A 2023 double-blind randomized crossover study published in Environmental Health Perspectives exposed 37 adults to simulated wind turbine infrasound for 72-hour periods and found no effects on sleep quality or dozens of other psychological, behavioral, and physiological endpoints. The lead researcher stated: "We couldn't find any sign of any effects which would be consistent with infrasound causing the hypothesized wind turbine syndrome." Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

    A 2021 review commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment, updating evidence through mid-2020, concluded that annoyance was the most important consequence of wind turbine sound, with sound levels being the primary factor. Source: PMC / Int J Environ Res Public Health

    Multiple systematic reviews found no evidence of a specific health effect from the low-frequency or infrasound component of wind turbine noise. Source: Acoustics Australia / Springer

    No included study in the major systematic reviews directly investigated health effects from infrasound exposure specifically, though the subject has been widely debated. Source: PLOS One systematic review

    The WHO (2018) found only low-quality or no evidence of health impacts from wind turbine noise beyond annoyance.

    Summary Assessment

    Mattsson's math/modeling: Legitimate computational science from a credible university.

    The infrasound propagation finding: Plausible — larger turbines likely do produce more infrasound that travels further than older models predicted.

    Health claims derived from it: Not supported by Mattsson's expertise or the broader scientific literature.

    The document/lecture: Mixes legitimate modeling research with unsupported health implications, delivered through an anti-wind advocacy platform.

    Research funding: Appears to be public Swedish funding (FORMAS), not fossil fuel money, though commercialization incentives exist.

    Amplification ecosystem: Heavily amplified by documented climate disinformation networks (SD-linked sites, Epoch Times, anti-wind advocacy groups).

    Bottom line: The core research on sound propagation modeling is not "climate disinformation" per se — it is a legitimate (if narrow) technical finding. But the way it is being framed, presented, and amplified is very much part of the anti-renewable-energy disinformation ecosystem. The leap from "infrasound travels further than old models predicted" to "wind turbines are making people sick and must be stopped" is not supported by the scientific evidence, and the document's delivery through anti-wind advocacy channels and amplification by known disinformation outlets like the Epoch Times should be major red flags.

    Key Sources

    Uppsala University IT Department news article
    Ken Mattsson — Uppsala University staff profile
    UU Invest — SoundSim360 VentureChallenge 2024 profile
    Medieombudsmannen ruling on vindkraftsupplysningen.se and SD links
    DeSmog — Epoch Times climate denial advertising in Europe
    Global Witness — Epoch Times climate disinformation on Meta
    Marshall et al. (2023) — double-blind infrasound study, Environmental Health Perspectives
    van den Berg et al. (2021) — Health effects of wind turbine sound: an update
    Schmidt & Klokker (2014) — Systematic review, PLOS One
    EDMO — Wind turbine disinformation narratives in Europe
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Russia’s strategic interests in controlling domestic dissent, undermining NATO countries, and advancing its emissions-intensive economic model drive its information manipulation activities related to climate change and the environment.
    Russia deploys a variety of influence tools–ranging from state media, to social media manipulation, to domestic censorship, to witting and unwitting proxies–to advance these messages.
    Kremlin information manipulation intersects with climate issues in a variety of areas: undermining climate science, controlling domestic environmental activism, exploiting disasters in NATO countries, influencing the Arctic and African climate hotspots, slowing and shaping the green transition, and stoking climate polarization in Western democracies.
    Russian climate-related influence efforts capitalize on pre-existing grievances and divisions, often converging with far-right rhetoric, unhealthy digital ecosystems, and fossil fuel industry interests. Amid worsening climate impacts, rapid AI development, and weakened US pushback, subnational, European, and nongovernmental actors will be key to countering Russian information manipulation on climate change.

    Putin, Permafrost, and Propaganda: Russian Information Manipulation in a Changing Climate - The Council on Strategic Risks
    https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/2025/12/01/putin-permafrost-and-propaganda-russian-information-manipulation-in-a-changing-climate/
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Brzyy vychazi masivni systematicky globalni prehled klima-obsturkcnich siti. Vysledek vyzkumu stovek autoru z celeho sveta.

    Climate Obstruction A Global Assessment

    Edited by J. Timmons Roberts, Carlos R. S. Milani, Jennifer Jacquet, and Christian Downie

    Brings together nearly one hundred scholars and experts to advance our understanding of efforts by organized interests to slow or block policies on climate change

    Includes sector-by-sector documentation of obstruction efforts, including by the fossil fuel industries, utilities, agribusiness, transportation, public relations, and organizations on the political far right

    Analyzes the surge in regulatory and litigation efforts and civil society movements around the world to curb climate obstruction, which can guide more effective action in the future


    https://global.oup.com/academic/product/climate-obstruction-9780197787151
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    The People against the Sun? Ideology and Strategy in Far-Right Parties' Climate Obstruction of Solar Energy
    ABSTRACT
    Far-right parties increasingly mobilize against climate action. While scholarship has initially focused on explicit climate denialism, by now research analyzes the opposition against specific climate policies. This article studies far-right parties’ positions on solar energy, the fastest growing renewable energy source in Europe. First, we examine the crucial case of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a prominent example of climate obstruction. Second, we explore ten additional far-right parties from eight western European countries as shadow cases. Methodologically, we analyze 61 manifestos (2014–2023). The article makes three key contributions: First, it shows how far-right parties frame solar power. Second, it underlines the heterogeneity of positions among far-right parties over space and time. Third, it argues that variation in opposition and support indicates that positions towards solar power are driven rather by strategic considerations than by a common coherent ideological stance – an important finding for understanding far-right climate obstruction more broadly.

    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2025.2458380
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    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
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    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
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Revealed: US climate denial group working with European far-right parties | Climate crisis | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/22/us-thinktank-climate-science-deniers-working-with-rightwingers-in-eu-parliament-heartland-institute
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    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
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Trump Megadonor Tim Dunn Has a Plan More Extreme Than Project 2025
    The Texas fracking billionaire wants to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to advance climate denial and other far-right priorities

    Trump Megadonor Tim Dunn Has a Plan More Extreme Than Project 2025 - DeSmog
    https://www.desmog.com/2024/10/23/trump-project-2025-tim-dunn-crownquest-convention-states/
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    In our mind, the foremost barrier to combattingmisinformation in the US is the intense political polarizationthat, of course, is related intimately to decreasing social capital,rising inequality, declining trust in science, and an increas-ingly fractionated media landscape. While still debating thesources of polarization, political scientists agree that it hasreached unprecedented levels and stems more from Republi-cans moving far to the right than Democrats moving to the left(Mann & Ornstein, 2016). The rise of “negative partisanship,”in particular, has created a situation in which Republicans andDemocrats are likely to regard the opposing party as a threat tothe nation and view its followers in highly negative terms (PewResearch Center, 2016).9In this context, Republicans’ skepti-cism about Russian meddling in the last election and especiallytheir increasingly favorable views of Russia and Putin may notbe so surprising; anything and anyone keeping Democrats outof office is acceptable (Riley, 2017).This intense political polarization in the US is abetted by threefactors largely beyond the scope of Lewandowsky et al. (2017).First is the intentional promotion of misinformation in the pow-erful conservative echo chamber, ranging from the conspiracytheories of Infowars and Rush Limbaugh to the consistent liesand exaggerations about liberal politicians and Democratic can-didates spread on Fox News, Breitbart, and talk radio (Benkler,Faris, Roberts, & Zuckerman, 2017). Second is the utility ofmisinformation (especially systemic lies but also, increasingly,shock and chaos) to powerful political and economic interests(e.g., the Koch Brothers and fossil fuels corporations) and theirconsequent and unrelenting support for it, which was only brieflytouched on by Lewandowsky et al. (2017). Third is the insti-tutionalization of “false equivalence” in so-called mainstreamfollowers

    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-57700-005
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    TUHO: It is a view shared by a number of far-right MEPs, including Romania’s Cristian Terhes who earlier this year told the European Parliament in a debate on climate change that the world is witnessing “the imposition of a utopian, criminal ideology, which requires us to totally destroy our way of life in the name of madness: zero-carbon emissions.”

    Terhes is also an anti-vaxxer and is behind the International Covid Summit, whose opening anthem calls on parents to shield their children from perceived tyrannies. “We’ll be free until the day we die” are among the anthem’s lyrics.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Far-right fossil fuel company allies pressure US supreme court to shield firms in unprecedented campaign | Oil and gas companies | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/09/fossil-fuel-allies-pressuring-supreme-court
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    TUHO: Despite Advertising Carbon Capture, ExxonMobil Saw Marginal Role for It in Fighting Climate Change
    Internal documents unearthed by a U.S. Senate panel show the oil giant modeled up to 500 CCS sites operating globally by 2050, far fewer than rival Shell.
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    Vowles, K & Hultman, M (2022) Dead White men vs. Greta Thunberg: Nationalism, Misogyny, and Climate Change Denial in Swedish far-right Digital Media, Australian Feminist Studies, 36:110, 414-431, DOI:10.1080/08164649.2022.2062669
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    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
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    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
    TUHO
    TUHO --- ---
    For fossil fuel ideologues, sowing misinformation about wind and solar power is proving to be an effective stall tactic. Public opinion surveys show that renewable energy remains popular with a bipartisan majority of Americans; in a poll from The Washington Post and the University of Maryland, seven out of 10 people said they'd be comfortable with a wind farm in their own community. But in New Jersey—where Morano's group has gone so far as to buy billboards reading "Save Whales Stop Windmills"—nearly half of all the state's residents now believe that such a connection probably exists, according to an August poll from Monmouth University

    Climate-Science Deniers, Right-Wing Think Tanks, and Fossil Fuel Shills Are Plotting Against the Clean Energy Transition | Sierra Club
    https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2024-1-spring/feature/climate-science-deniers-fossil-fuel-shills-plot-against-green-energy
    Kliknutím sem můžete změnit nastavení reklam