|
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.〔〔 Climate change skepticism and ''climate change denial'' form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change.〔: "There is debate over which term is most appropriate... Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves "skeptics"... Yet skepticism is...a common characteristic of scientists, making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics...It seems best to think of skepticism-denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW...and others in complete denial"〕 Climate change denial can also be implicit, when individuals or social groups accept the science but divert their attention to less difficult topics rather than take action.〔 Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism.〔 〕〔 〕 In the global warming controversy, campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science has been described as a "denial machine" of industrial, political and ideological interests, supported by conservative media and skeptical bloggers in manufacturing uncertainty about global warming.〔: "From the outset, there has been an organized "disinformation" campaign… to "manufacture uncertainty" over AGW … especially by attacking climate science and scientists … waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks … often assisted by a small number of 'contrarian scientists. … greatly aided by conservative media and politicians … and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers. This 'denial machine' has played a crucial role in generating skepticism toward AGW among laypeople and policy makers "〕〔: "ICE and the Global Climate Coalition lobbied hard against a global treaty to curb greenhouse gases, and were joined by a central cog in the denial machine: the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank. .... the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers"〕 In the public debate, phrases such as ''climate skepticism'' have frequently been used with the same meaning as ''climate denialism''.〔 The labels are contested: those actively challenging climate science commonly describe themselves as "skeptics", but many do not comply with scientific skepticism and, regardless of evidence, continue to deny the validity of human caused global warming.〔 Although there is a scientific consensus that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, the politics of global warming has been impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate.〔: "Even though climate science has now firmly established that global warming is occurring, that human activities contribute to this warming... a significant portion of the American public remains ambivalent or unconcerned, and many policymakers (especially in the United States) deny the necessity of taking steps to reduce carbon emissions...From the outset, there has been an organized "disinformation" campaign... to generate skepticism and denial concerning AGW."〕〔〔: "Despite a high degree of consensus amongst publishing climate researchers that global warming is occurring, and that it is anthropogenic, this discourse, promoted largely by non-scientists, has had a significant impact on public perceptions of the issue, fostering the impression that elite opinion is divided as to the nature and extent of the threat."〕 Typically, public debate on climate change denial may have the appearance of legitimate scientific discourse, but does not conform to scientific principles.〔 〕〔 Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of emissions. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States.〔〔: "The campaign has been waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks... These actors are greatly aided by conservative media and politicians, and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers."〕〔David Michaels (2008) ''Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health''.〕〔 See, e.g., p31 ''ff'', describing industry-based advocacy strategies in the context of climate change denial, and p73 ''ff'', describing involvement of free-market think tanks in climate-change denial.〕 Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (£77 million) was anonymously donated, some by conservative billionaires via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, to more than 100 organisations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change. In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation. Investigative journalists have revealed internal documents showing that since the late 1970s, oil companies were aware that burning oil and gas could cause climate change and global warming. Despite this evidence, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, leading experts to compare this strategy to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by tobacco companies.〔〔 ==Terminology== "Climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" refer to denial, dismissal or unwarranted doubt of the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, its significance, or its connection to human behavior, in whole or in part.〔: "'Climate scepticism' and 'climate denial' are readily used concepts, referring to a discourse that has become important in public debate since climate change was first put firmly on the policy agenda in 1988. This discourse challenges the views of mainstream climate scientists and environmental policy advocates, contending that parts, or all, of the scientific treatment and political interpretation of climate change are unreliable."〕〔 Though there is a distinction between skepticism which indicates doubting the truth of an assertion and outright denial of the truth of an assertion, in the public debate phrases such as "climate scepticism" have frequently been used with the same meaning as climate denialism or contrarianism.〔: "Climate scepticism in the sense of climate denialism or contrarianism is not a new phenomenon, but it has recently been very much in the media spotlight. …. Such disagreements are not new but the emails provided climate sceptics, in the sense of deniers or contrarians, with a golden opportunity to mount a sustained effort aimed at demonstrating the legitimacy of their views. This allowed them to question climate science and climate policies based on it and to promote political inaction and inertia. …. footnote 1. I shall use 'climate sceptics' here in the sense of 'climate deniers', although there are obvious differences between scepticism and denial (see Shermer, 2010; Kemp, et al., 2010). However, 'climate sceptic' and 'climate scepticism' were commonly used during the 'climategate' debate as meaning 'climate denier'."〕〔: "Within the community of scientists and others concerned about anthropogenic climate change, those whom Inhofe calls skeptics are more commonly termed contrarians, naysayers and denialists."〕 The terminology emerged in the 1990s. Even though all scientists adhere to scientific skepticism as an inherent part of the process, by mid November 1995 the word "skeptic" was being used specifically for the minority who publicised views contrary to the scientific consensus. This small group of scientists presented their views in public statements and the media, rather than to the scientific community.〔 "Indeed, the 'skeptic' scientists14 were perceived to be all the more credible precisely ''because'' their views were contrary to the consensus of peer-reviewed science. 14. All scientists are skeptics because the scientific process demands continuing questioning. In this report, however, the scientists we refer to as 'skeptics' are those who have taken a highly visible public role in criticizing the scientific consensus on ozone depletion and climate change through publications and statements addressed more to the media and the public than to the scientific community."〕〔 At the 16 Nov 1995 United States House Science Subcommittee on Energy hearing, Pat Michaels testified of "a small minority" opposing the IPCC assessment, and said "that the so-called skeptics were right".〕 This usage continued. In his December 1995 article ''The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial '', Ross Gelbspan said industry had engaged "a small band of skeptics" to confuse public opinion in a "persistent and well-funded campaign of denial". His 1997 book ''The Heat is On'' may have been the first to concentrate specifically on the topic.〔: "The term 'climate scepticism' emerged in around 1995, the year journalist Ross Gelbspan authored perhaps the first book focusing directly on what would retrospectively be understood as climate scepticism."〕 In it, Gelbspan discussed a "pervasive denial of global warming" in a "persistent campaign of denial and suppression" involving "undisclosed funding of these 'greenhouse skeptics' " with "the climate skeptics" confusing the public and influencing decision makers.〔 p. 3 "But some individuals do not want the public to know about the immediacy and extent of the climate threat. They have been waging a persistent campaign of denial and suppression that has been lamentably effective." pp. 33–34 "The campaign to keep the climate change off the public agenda involves more than the undisclosed funding of these 'greenhouse skeptics.' In their efforts to challenge the consensus scientific view….." p. 35 "If the climate skeptics have succeeded in confusing the general public, their influence on decision makers has been, if anything, even more effective p. 173 "pervasive denial of global warming"〕 A November 2006 CBC Television documentary on the campaign was titled "The Denial Machine".〔: "''The Denial Machine'' investigates the roots of the campaign to negate the science and the threat of global warming. It tracks the activities of a group of scientists, some of whom previously consulted for Big Tobacco, and who are now receiving donations from major coal and oil companies. … The documentary shows how fossil fuel corporations have kept the global warming debate alive long after most scientists believed that global warming was real and had potentially catastrophic consequences. … ''The Denial Machine'' also explores how the arguments supported by oil companies were adopted by policy makers in both Canada and the U.S. and helped form government policy."〕〔: "The ideological justification for this came from the sceptics (e.g., Lomborg 2001a,b) and from the industrial 'denial machine'. … CBC Television Fifth Estate, November 15, 2006, The Climate Denial Machine, Canada.〕 In 2007 journalist Sharon Begley reported on the "denial machine",〔 a phrase subsequently used by academics.〔〔 In addition to ''explicit denial'', social groups have shown ''implicit denial'' by accepting the scientific consensus, but failing to come to terms with its implications or take action to reduce the problem.〔: "Climate change denial is most conspicuous when it is explicit, as it is in controversies over climate education. The idea of implicit (or "implicatory") denial, however, is increasingly discussed among those who study the controversies over climate change. Implicit denial occurs when people who accept the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change on the intellectual level fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Such people are in denial, so to speak, about climate change."〕 This was exemplified in Kari Norgaard's study of a village in Norway affected by climate change, where residents diverted their attention to other issues. The terminology is debated: most of those actively rejecting the scientific consensus use the terms ''skeptic'' and ''climate change skepticism'', and only a few have expressed preference for being described as deniers,〔: "There is debate...about how to refer to the positions that reject, and to the people who doubt or deny, the scientific community's consensus on...climate change. Many such people prefer to call themselves skeptics and describe their position as climate change skepticism. Their opponents, however, often prefer to call such people climate change deniers and to describe their position as climate change denial... "Denial" is the term preferred even by many deniers."〕〔: "Many climate change deniers call themselves climate 'skeptics'...However, refusing to accept the overwhelming 'preponderance of evidence' is not skepticism, it is ''denial'' and should be called by its true name... The use of the term 'climate skeptic' is a distortion of reality...Skepticism is healthy in both science and society; denial is not."〕 but the word "skepticism" is incorrectly used, as scientific skepticism is an intrinsic part of scientific methodology.〔〔: "many who deny the consensus on climate change are not really skeptics but rather contrarians who practice "a kind of one-sided skepticism that entails simply rejecting evidence that challenges one's preconceptions" (Mann 2012:26)"〕 The term ''contrarian'' is more specific, but used less frequently. In academic literature and journalism, the terms ''climate change denial'' and ''climate change deniers'' have well established usage as descriptive terms without any pejorative intent. Both the National Center for Science Education and historian Spencer R. Weart recognise that either option is problematic, but have decided to use "climate change denial" rather than "skepticism".〔: "Recognizing that no terminological choice is entirely unproblematic, NCSE — in common with a number of scholarly and journalistic observers of the social controversies surrounding climate change — opts to use the terms "climate changer deniers" and "climate change denial""〕〔 (footnote 136a ): "I do not mean to use the term "denier" pejoratively—it has been accepted by some of the group as a self-description—but simply to designate those who deny any likelihood of future danger from anthropogenic global warming."〕 Terms related to ''denialism'' have been criticised for introducing a moralistic tone, and potentially implying a link with Holocaust denial. There have been claims that this link is intentional, which academics have strongly disputed.〔 The usage of "denial" long predates the Holocaust, and is commonly applied in other areas such as HIV/AIDS denialism: the claim is described by John Timmer of ''Ars Technica'' as itself being a form of denial.〔: "some of the people who deserve that label are offended by it, thinking it somehow lumps them in with holocaust deniers. But that in its own way is a form of denial; the word came into use before the holocaust, and... denialism has been used as a label for people who refuse to accept the evidence for all sorts of things: HIV causing AIDS, vaccines being safe, etc."〕 In December 2014, an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism–which is "foundational to the scientific method"–with denial–"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration", and the behavior of those involved in political attempts to undermine climate science. They said "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetrating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry." The letter was taken up by the advocacy group Face the Facts as the basis for an online petition to news media.〔〔(Face the Facts petition )〕 In June 2015 Media Matters for America were told by the ''New York Times'' Public Editor that the newspaper was increasingly tending to use "denier" when "someone is challenging established science", but assessing this on an individual basis with no fixed policy, and would not use the term when someone was "kind of wishy-washy on the subject or in the middle." The executive director of the Society of Environmental Journalists said that while there was reasonable skepticism about specific issues, she felt that denier was "the most accurate term when someone claims there is no such thing as global warming, or agrees that it exists but denies that it has any cause we could understand or any impact that could be measured." 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Climate change denial」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|