Co-infection by De-nihilism
(Adapted from The Climate Pandemic: How Climate Disruption Threatens Human Survival)

Just as viral pandemics can spawn dangerous secondary bacterial infections, the climate pandemic has been co-infected by “de-nihilists.” They are so named because of their nihilistic rejection of established science and their destructiveness.

They are by no means a major percentage of the population. One survey found only about 9% of respondents are “dismissive” of global heating.[1] However, their disinformation campaigns have warped media coverage and hindered progress toward effective legislation.

The Climate Pandemic cover

Irrationally, de-nihilists manage to hold two contradictory beliefs without suffering the pangs of cognitive dissonance: On the one hand, they are perfectly willing to accept the science of meteorology and weather forecasting. But on the other, they reject climate science and climate projections—even though both meteorology and climate science arise from the same fundamental geophysical principles and use the same scientific methodology.

The massive research effort to understand climate disruption shows how illegitimate is de-nihilists’ dismissal of climate science:

The science of climate disruption is universally accepted by responsible organizations. For example, national academies of science worldwide have formally acknowledged that humans are responsible for climate disruption, with not a single academy disputing that reality.[2] And 31 scientific societies have issued a consensus letter reaffirming the reality of human-caused climate disruption.[3] Also, almost all climate scientists agree that humans are causing global heating, with the level of consensus being greater among scientists with greater expertise.[4]

By contrast, the willfully ignorant de-nihilists have not gathered any valid data; and almost none lack the training to authoritatively analyze climate data or scientists’ conclusions from those data.

Dissecting the de-nihilists

De-nihilists can be divided into three overlapping groups: the political, the paid, and the paranoid.

The political de-nihilists had their intellectual origins some four decades ago, as detailed in the book Merchants of Doubt, by historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.

Back then, a cadre of free market ideologues and Cold-War-era scientists became motivated to oppose environmentalism by the reality that the market system does not take into account what economists call “negative externalities.” These externalities include the environmental and human damage from climate disruption. Oreskes and Conway wrote:

Accepting that by-products of industrial civilization were irreparably damaging the global environment was to accept the reality of market failure. It was to acknowledge the limits of free market capitalism. . . . So our Cold Warriors. . . who had dedicated their lives to fighting Soviet Communism, joined forces with the self-appointed defenders of the free market to blame the messenger, to undermine science, to deny the truth, and to market doubt. People who began their careers as fact finders ended them as fact fighters.[5]

Political de-nihilists can be distinguished by their shrill rhetoric. They denounce “climate alarmists,” “global warming hysteria,” “liberal elites,” and “bureaucratic mandates.” They charge that climate science is a self-enriching industry that supports shaky science.

The Republican Party is the US home of political de-nihilists. Over the years, the partisan gap between Democrats and Republicans has widened, polls have found. Far more Democrats than Republicants accept the reality of climate disruption.[6] [7]

As a result, Democrats and Republicans have far different policy priorities. One survey found that the vast majority of liberal Democrats (88%) and moderate/conservative Democrats (68%) think global warming should be a high or very high priority. However, a much lower percentage of liberal/moderate Republicans (38%) and conservative Republicans (12%) believe so.[8] Republicans have ranked climate disruption at or near the bottom of policy priorities for more than a decade, according to Pew Research Center surveys.[9]

Globally, right-wing parties are also hostile to climate-saving policies, found an analysis by researchers Ben and Matthew Lockwood. Measuring right-wing representation in countries, they found that the greater such representation the weaker the countries’ climate policies.[10] Said Matthew Lockwood:

Conventional center-right political parties have always been more reluctant to adopt strong climate policies, but the rise of right-wing populist parties and movements represents a threat of a different order. Our research suggests that while right-wing populists taking over mainstream center-right parties is relatively rare, when they have done so, as with Donald Trump in the US, the impacts on climate policy have been strongly negative.[11]

Political de-nihilists have falsely claimed that mitigating climate disruption would devastate economies. However, environmental economists found that the health benefits alone of mitigating climate disruption would far outweigh the costs.[12]

Their computer models included emissions, air quality, and the monetary value of health impacts—revealing that “the health co-benefits substantially outweighed the policy cost of achieving the target for all of the scenarios that we analysed.” Epidemiologist Philip Landrigan commented on their findings in The Lancet:

Political and economic arguments against [emphasis added] climate mitigation and pollution control are typically based on short-sighted, one-sided, and self-serving calculations that consider only the tangible, concrete, and relatively easily counted costs of controlling emissions. This report’s carefully crafted conclusion that the health and economic benefits of climate mitigation significantly outweigh its costs provides a powerful rebuttal to those arguments.[13]

A UN report estimated global health savings from limiting temperature rise to 2°C at about $54 trillion, compared to the $22 trillion cost of achieving the necessary greenhouse gas reduction.[14]

And as discussed earlier, investing in decarbonizing the world economy could have yielded considerable profit.

Conservative de-nihilism’s deep roots

Political de-nihilism is rooted in political conservatism. It is the same conservatism that fueled denial of the COVID-19 pandemic, wrote economist Paul Krugman. He summarized the right-wing media view on the pandemic:

It’s a hoax, or anyway no big deal. Besides, trying to do anything about it would destroy the economy. . . it’s very similar to the Trump/right-wing line on climate change. Here’s what Trump tweeted back in 2012: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make US manufacturing noncompetitive.” It’s all there: it’s a hoax, doing anything about it will destroy the economy, and let’s blame China.[15]

The psychology of conservatives also drives political de-nihilism, wrote political philosopher Adrian Bardon in his book The Truth About Denial.[16] While conservatives believe in small government, preventing climate disruption invariably requires large-scale government action, wrote Bardon. Thus, working to prevent climate disruption “presents a clear and present threat to the heart of this small-government ideology,” he wrote.

There is also a deeper psychological basis for conservative de-nihilism, wrote Bardon. Studies have shown that “conservatives are more sensitive to risk, to threatening stimuli, and to negative images and messages,” he wrote. They are also “more likely across a wide range of issues to favor conventional social attitudes and oppose scientific progress.” And their “protective response to threatening information is to circle the ideological wagons.”

This fear is exemplified by then-President Trump’s attitude toward environmental activists, as when he declared:

These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives. We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country or eradicate our liberty.[17]

Fundamentally alien groups

The fact that scientists tend to be liberal adds to the gulf between conservatives and researchers, noted Bardon. Conservative politics, de-nihilist media, and a closed culture produce a “self-reinforcing feedback loop of increasing emotional commitment to a (counter)-factual world view,” he wrote. Political differences render each group “fundamentally alien” to the other, wrote Bardon.

As wildfires, floods and other disasters rendered climate disruption’s impacts more obvious, many political de-nihilists have turned to blaming immigration for environmental damage. They claim that immigrants from developing nations who ruined their own countries threaten to do the same in developed nations. Wrote environmental reporter Oliver Milman in The Guardian:

This wrapping of ecological disaster with fears of rampant immigration is a narrative that has flourished in far-right fringe movements in Europe and the US and is now spilling into the discourse of mainstream politics.[18]

Blaming of immigrants for environmental degradation has been dubbed “ecobordering” by political scientists who analyzed the communications of 22 European far-right parties. They wrote that the blaming

. . .seeks to obscure the primary driving causes of the ecological crisis in the entrenched production and consumption practices of Global North economies, whilst simultaneously shifting blame on to migration from the Global South where ecological degradation has been most profound.[19]

Dollars for de-nihilists

The paid de-nihilists include individuals, elected officials, and groups supported by the fossil fuel industry and conservative donors and foundations.[20] [21] The fossil fuel industry, of course, stands to lose immense amounts of money if climate policies lead to reduced fossil fuel use. The most prominent de-nihilist conservative and libertarian groups include:

These organizations have aimed to distort communications about climate disruption, as documented by sociologist Justin Farrell. He analyzed more than 40,000 printed texts of 164 such organizations. He found that the disinformation from corporate-funded organizations significantly polarized the discussion of climate disruption.[25] [26]

De-nihilists denouncing “warmism”

The paranoid de-nihilists are those for whom “warmists,” as they pejoratively call climate advocates, are heretical, much as the church saw Galileo as a heretic for his assertions that the sun was the center of the solar system. Like Galileo, “warmists” are upsetting de-nihilists’ deeply held beliefs in the primacy of fossil fuels and invalidity of climate science.

Psychologist Per Espen Stoknes described the paranoid de-nihilists’ beliefs in his book What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming:

They claim there are active attempts to silence them from voicing their honest opinion against the mainstream. They see a dogmatic climate fundamentalism that strangles free thought. And that peer review of scientific journals works just like Stalinist censorship in stifling legitimate dissent. In their own eyes, they are victims persecuted by the dogmatic majority. But they have the courage to stand up for what is now politically incorrect.

Even though paranoid de-nihilists are a freely vocal group, “they still fancy a story about themselves as victims of suppression,” wrote Stoknes. “The most active of them like to view themselves as the lone dissident voices, articulate clearheaded heroes, mavericks, and fearless guardians of the obscured and abused Truth.”[27]

Paranoid de-nihilists also tend to be conspiracy theory buffs who reject science in general, found a survey by psychologists. Such conspiracists are emphatically not open to evidence, commented the researchers, who wrote: “Providing additional scientific information may only amplify the rejection of such evidence, rather than foster its acceptance.”[28]

In another survey, researchers found that “endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the [FBI] killed Martin Luther King, Jr.) predicted rejection of climate science as well as other scientific findings.”[29]

De-nihilists have also embraced the conspiracy group QAnon’s theories, found analysts tracing de-nihilist social media posts. Said Michel Khoo, an author of the study, “We’ve observed climate deniers shift their focus over several months from climate change to QAnon greatest hits, such as COVID-19 conspiracies and anti-Black Lives Matter content and disinformation.”[30]

US conservatives are particularly prone to both de-nihilism and conspiracy theories, found a global survey of more than 5,000 people in 25 countries about their belief in four popular conspiracies:

The survey found that US conservatives—compared to those in any other nation—showed the strongest correlation between climate de-nihilism and belief in the conspiracy theories.[31]

Paranoid de-nihilists have wrongly claimed that climatologists are publishing only results that support climate disruption and hiding evidence against it. One study refuting that claim examined 1,154 experimental results from a sample of 120 papers, finding no evidence of this publication bias.[32] The biologist conducting the analysis found that all results were reported, even those that were not statistically significant or that showed no positive effects.

Co-author John Hollander wrote in The Conversation that “we reject the accusation made by climate change sceptics and can confirm that there is no publication bias in climate change research.”[33]

Of course, the paranoid de-nihilists are not likely to accept the study, given that it was published in a scientific journal.

Manufacturing uncertainty, spreading falsehoods

A major weapon in the de-nihilist arsenal of deceit is manufacturing uncertainty about climate disruption, wrote sociologists in the book Climate Change and Society:

Over time, manufacturing uncertainty has evolved into “manufacturing controversy,” creating the impression that there is major debate and dissent within the scientific community over the reality of anthropogenic climate change. . . . By creating the appearance of controversy within the public realm, denialists are able to appeal to values such as freedom of speech, fairness to both sides, and respecting minority viewpoints to add legitimacy to their claims—thereby bypassing the scientific realm in which peer review and accumulating knowledge eventually lead to the rejection of discredited claims.[34]

A prime de-nihilist tactic is to use patently false assertions to seek to discredit climate science. An example is a deception-riddled Heartland Institute commentary titled “The 6 Biggest Reasons I’m a Climate-Change Skeptic—And Why You Should Be a Skeptic Too.” The Heartland commentary questioned climate scientists’ predictive ability, the validity of their climate models, and the accuracy of their data. It even asserted that a warming climate might be a good thing.[35]

Author Ethan Siegel, who documented numerous patent falsehoods in the commentary, commented: “If the only way you can make your argument for your desired policy position is to tell lies or distort what we actually know, then no amount of reasoning will change your mind.”[36]

Fake climate experts

Unqualified “experts” provide ammunition for de-nihilists in misleading books, reports, and non-peer-reviewed articles. The authors of such material have never done research on climate disruption and lack academic credentials. Or, if the “expert” is a journalist, they have never covered climate disruption for a reputable outlet.

A good example of fake expertise is a fallacious report What Rising CO2 Means for Global Food Security by the de-nihilist CO2 Coalition. Declaring CO2 a “miracle molecule,” the report asserted that the continuing increase in CO2 levels “is essential for securing future food security” and that slowing the increase “because of the risks of predicted climate changes must also consider the risks of limiting its benefits to agricultural [sic], nature and humanity.”

The report ignores the catastrophic effects of higher CO2 levels, such as drought.[37] It also ignores that CO2’s fertilization effect decreases over time as plants adapt; and that increased CO2 spurs growth of weeds that compete for water and fertilizer.

De-nihilists media also tout scientific-sounding journal articles, despite their flaws. One such article purported to prove that global heating is natural. It was published in the journal GeoResJ by researchers John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy.[38]

The paper had the impressive-sounding title “The Application of Machine Learning for Evaluating Anthropogenic Versus Natural Climate Change.” The authors listed affiliation with the authoritative-sounding Institute of Public Affairs and the Climate Modeling Laboratory.

However, the Institute is not a scientific organization but an industry-funded de-nihilist think tank. And the Climate Modeling Laboratory lists only three members, including Abbot and Marohasy.[39] Its cited publications deal almost entirely with rainfall forecasts rather than climate modeling. Abbot also listed James Cook University as an affiliation, but is no longer affiliated with the university. And the journal GeoResJ has ceased publication.

The paper was criticized as “junk science” by climate researchers contacted by reporter Graham Readfearn. Readfearn quoted climate modeler Benjamin Henley as saying: “The paper is seriously flawed and should be retracted by the journal”; that the authors used an “extremely unscientific approach”; and that “the conclusions are not supported by the results.”[40]

In reality, only a few percent of scientific papers in legitimate journals reject the reality of global heating. And those are almost certain to be invalid. For example, when physicist Rasmus Benestad and colleagues analyzed the 38 such papers, they found all of them to be flawed.[41]

 “Every single one of those [papers] had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” co-author Katharine Hayhoe was quoted as saying.[42]

De-nihilists also compile lists of patently fake experts who espouse their views. One such list was the headline-making letter signed by 300 so-called scientists urging then-President Trump to abandon the Paris climate agreement. When Abraham investigated the list, he found that “hardly anyone on the list was a climate scientist; many were not even natural scientists. It is almost as though anyone with a college degree . . . was qualified to sign that letter.”[43]

Academic de-nihilists discounted

There does exist a very small cadre of academic de-nihilists with scientific credentials whose work is cited by de-nihilist bloggers and politicians. Their work has been discounted by reputable climate scientists and is not considered a legitimate contribution to the field.

One such academic, physicist Henrik Svensmark, has published papers contending that cosmic rays and sunspots are the major climate disruption causes. However, his critics point out that the effect is infinitesimally small and can be discounted.[44]

Two other de-nihilist academics are climate scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer. Their published research papers have used satellite sensor data to claim that the Earth is not warming as fast as other researchers have found. However, their work has major errors that have rendered their conclusions invalid, as documented by climate scientist and journalist John Abraham. He pointed out that satellite data are unreliable for measuring global temperatures because of their poor calibration and other technical shortcomings.[45]

In one paper, Spencer outlined his arguments against climate disruption, declaring that “the science of global warming is far from settled” and “uncertainties over the possible role of Mother Nature in recent warming all combine to make climate change beliefs as much faith-based as science-based.[46]

In analyzing that white paper, scientist/journalist Dana Nuccitelli exposed Spencer’s arguments against climate disruption as “a variety of long-debunked myths.” For example, Spencer argued that CO2 cannot be harmful because it is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Of that assertion, Nuccitelli wrote:

No scientist should ever claim that carbon pollution is benign because it’s only present in the atmosphere in trace amounts. For example, arsenic can be deadly if present in trace amounts in water; Spencer probably wouldn’t drink from a water source with 400 ppm of arsenic. This is an easily refuted, scientifically useless argument whose sole purpose seems to be fooling non-experts.[47]

The website Skeptical Science lists and debunks many other de-nihilist climate myths:[48]

Theoretical physicist Steven Koonin is perhaps the most seemingly authoritative academic de-nihilist. His book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters calls into question the conclusion of almost all climate scientists that climate disruption is a major and existential threat.[49] The book asserts that:

While conservative organizations, media, and academics praised the book, climate scientists denounced it as inaccurate, as well as Koonin’s other claims over the years.[50]

Environmental economist Gary Yohe charged Koonin with “making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and unqualified statements about supposed uncertainties that he thinks scientists have buried under the rug,” in an article in Scientific American.

In the article, Yohe refuted Koonin’s misstatements about heat waves, global temperature increases, ice sheet melting, climate disruption’s economic impact, sea-level rise, and wildfires.[51]

Koonin is an outlier—one of the extremely rare de-nihilist academic voices amid thousands of climate scientists who have spent their professional lives in detailed study of the climate.

And while Koonin accuses climate scientists as overplaying the effects of climate disruption, the truth is that they have historically downplayed it (see Why the Scientists Failed).

 Malignorant media

Sympathetic media have aided and abetted de-nihilist misinformation. Their reach not only includes the outlets themselves, but their social media presence. For example, an analysis of media Facebook posts by the Center for Countering Digital Hate identified what they called “The Toxic Ten.” Those publishers are responsible for 69% of all users’ interactions with de-nihilist content on Facebook, found the Center. The ten media outlets are:

These outlets had 186 million followers and garnered millions of dollars in ad revenue, found the Center’s study.[52]

Facebook and other social media have allowed these and other de-nihilist sources to spread climate misinformation with little oversight, charged Greg Bensinger in The New York Times:

Even with the rapid shift in public opinion and the outward signs of global warming in recent years, social media companies have been slow to adapt, allowing sometimes blatant disinformation to flourish unchecked on their sites. Under Facebook company guidelines, climate content may be categorized as opinion and subject to no more scrutiny than peer-reviewed scientific research.[53]

One analysis of Facebook posts documented the extensive reach of such misinformation. Climate misinformation had been viewed from 818,000 to 1.36 million times daily, and only 3.6% of the content had been fact-checked, found an analysis by the group Stop Funding Heat.[54]

Twitter has also been an insidious purveyor of de-nihilist misinformation. When the investigative journalism website DeSmog analyzed more than 300,000 tweets between 2005 and 2020, it a change from outright denial of climate disruption:

Our research found that climate denial has evolved into a softer, more insidious type of misinformation, one that focuses on denying urgency and action, one that targets the solutions more than anything else. Key elements of this strategy include promoting confusion, doomist perspectives, conspiracy theories, and fabricating lies to convince the public that there is no real need for climate change policy. . .[55]

De-nihilist echo chambers

De-nihilist blogs and books also serve as de-nihilist echo chambers. The blogs largely cite one another, as exemplified by a study by biologists.[56] They analyzed how 90 climate blogs—both scientific and de-nihilist—covered the status of polar bears and retreating sea ice. They found that the de-nihilist blogs drew material mostly from their fellow bloggers rather than scientific papers. And 80% of those blogs drew from one blog by a purported polar bear expert who “has neither conducted any original research nor published any articles in the peer-reviewed literature” on polar bears, wrote the researchers.

Similarly, de-nihilist books constitute exercises in journalistic self-stimulation. In seeking to make a case against climate science, they heavily reference de-nihilist articles, blogs, and websites. They cite few, if any, peer-reviewed scientific papers and government and scientific association reports.

The bad science promoted by de-nihilists and their media has translated into bad policy. Then-President Trump’s decision to abandon the Paris Agreement was based on unsound arguments originally made by the oil and gas industry decades ago. These arguments include that the agreement would be bad for the US economy, would exacerbate poverty, and would fail to reduce global heating. They were based on deeply flawed reports by economists in the pay of the American Petroleum Institute (API).[57]

The API has heavily supported a long-term effort to mislead the public about climate science—as revealed in a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report The Climate Deception Dossiers.

The UCS report cites an API “Global Climate Science Communications Plan” as evidence the API sought to mislead on climate science. The plan declared that:

“Victory will be achieved” when “uncertainties in climate science . . . become part of the conventional wisdom”; when media coverage recognizes “the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current ‘conventional wisdom’”; and when industry leaders “understand uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy.”[58] [59]

Of course, the “uncertainties” that the plan sought to promote were actually API-manufactured falsehoods about the reality of climate disruption.

De-nihilists harassing scientists

De-nihilists have attacked the characters of climate scientists by promoting fake conspiracies and casting false aspersions. One example is the myth that climate scientists are biased because of their funding support. Former Senator Rick Santorum exemplified this baseless position when, he declared on CNN: “If there was no climate change, we’d have a lot of scientists looking for work. The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive . . . from people who support their agenda.”[60]

Of course, the government grants supporting climate science are not predicated on any position on climate disruption. And scientists are not reaping large financial rewards by garnering lucrative government grants. In dismissing that myth, journalist Anthony Sherwood wrote, “there’s not much gravy on this train.” In reality, such grants pay for equipment, supplies, and a salary incredibly modest by comparison to, say, that of oil company executives.[61]

De-nihilists also level personal attacks on climate scientists (see Why the Scientists Failed). Climate scientist Michael Mann described the strategy of such attacks:

On the eve of a critical congressional vote, hearing, or climate policy summit, a late-breaking “scandal” suddenly erupts. Individual scientists are typically charged with claims of misconduct, fraud, or data manipulation, and soon enough, right-wing blogs, climate-denying websites, and the conservative establishment media are trumpeting the accusations. In time, more objective media outlets are forced to cover the uproar, lending it credibility and oxygen, even as it is responsibly dissected.[62]

The harassing legal tactics de-nihilists use on climate scientists are exemplified by a 2016 incident involving then-Congressman Lamar Smith. He subpoenaed the correspondence of states’ attorneys general and environmental groups such as the UCS regarding the investigation of ExxonMobil’s knowledge of the risks of climate disruption.[63]

“Mr. Smith makes no claim that our organization violated any law or regulation; he simply demands to see our correspondence,” wrote then-president of the UCS Ken Kimmel in The New York Times. “This is a deeply troubling request. It is, in effect, a bullying tactic that threatens the work that advocacy groups like mine do under the protection of the First Amendment.”[64]

A classic case of individual harassment was the filing of a suit by the attorney general of Virginia to obtain Michael Mann’s emails, as well as the bringing of subsequent legal action against him.[65]

“In all, I’ve been through roughly a dozen investigations prompted by climate change deniers,” wrote Mann in The Washington Post. “Each time, I’ve been exonerated. Investigators find that my methods are sound and my data is replicable. (And, indeed, I’ve been recognized by the scientific community with numerous awards and accolades for my work.) But by then, much time has been lost, expense has been incurred and I’ve endured abuse and vilification.”[66]

While de-nihilists have sought to thwart policies to avoid climate disruption, they have ridden the societal wave of climate science denial, rather than powered it. The energy source for that wave has been the vast power of the fossil fuel industry.

 [1] Leiserowitz, Anthony, Edward Maibach, Seth Rosenthal, John Kotcher, Liz Neyens, Jennifer Marlon, Jennifer Carman, Karine Lacroix, and Matthew Goldberg. “Global Warming’s Six Americas, September 2021.” Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (September 2021).

[2] Gleick, Peter. “Joint Statements on Climate Change from National Academies of Science around the World.” Significant Figures by Peter Gleick blog (January 17, 2017).

[3] American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Thirty-One Top Scientific Societies Speak With One Voice on Global Climate Change” EurekAlert! (June 28, 2016).

[4] Myers, Krista F., Peter T Doran, John Cook, John E Kotcher, and Teresa A Myers. “Consensus Revisited: Quantifying Scientific Agreement on Climate Change and Climate Expertise among Earth Scientists 10 Years Later.” Environmental Research Letters 16, no. 10 (October 20, 2021).

[5] Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik Conway. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press, 2010.

[6] Fears, Darryl, and Emily Guskin. “The Strong Winds of Climate Change Have Failed To Move the Opinions of Many Americans.” The Washington Post (November 12, 2021).

[7] Saas, Lydia. “Global Warming Attitudes Frozen since 2016.” Gallup (April 5, 2021).

[8] Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, S. Rosenthal, J. Kotcher, J. Carman, L. Neyens, M. Goldberg, K. Lacroix, and J. Marlon. Politics & Global Warming, April 2022, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication (July 7, 2022).

[9] Pew Research Center. “After Seismic Political Shift, Modest Changes in Public’s Policy Agenda” (January 24, 2017).

[10] Lockwood, Ben, and Matthew Lockwood. “How Do Right-Wing Populist Parties Influence Climate and Renewable Energy Policies? Evidence from OECD Countries.” Global Environmental Politics (April 6, 2022).

[11] University of Warwick. “New Research into Threat Posed to Climate Change Policies by the Rise of the Populist Right” (April 14, 2022).

[12] Markandya, Anil, Jon Sampedro, Steven J Smith, Rita Van Dingenen, Cristina Pizarro-Irizar, Iñaki Arto, Mikel González-Eguino, K. E. O. Todd-Brown, C. W. Rowe, W. R. Wieder, J. C. Carey, M. B. Machmuller, and B. L. Snoek. “Health Co-Benefits from Air Pollution and Mitigation Costs of the Paris Agreement: A Modelling Study.” The Lancet 2, no. 3 (March 2018).

[13] Landrigan, Philip. “The Health and Economic Benefits of Climate Mitigation and Pollution Control.” The Lancet, 2, no. 3 (March 2018).

[14] UN Environment Programme. Global Environment Outlook. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

[15] Krugman, Paul. “Covid-19 Brings Out All the Usual Zombies.” The New York Times (March 28, 2020).

[16] Bardon, Adrian. The Truth about Denial: Bias and Self-Deception in Science Politics, and Religion. Oxford University Press, 2019.

[17] Forgey, Quint. “Trump Cautions Davos against Heeding ‘Prophets of Doom’ on Climate Change.” Politico (January 20, 2020).

[18] Milman, Oliver. “Climate Denial Is Waning on the Right. What’s Replacing It Might Be Just as Scary.” The Guardian (November 21, 2021).

[19] Turner, Joe and Dan Bailey. “‘Ecobordering’: Casting Immigration Control as Environmental Protection.” Environmental Politics (April 29, 2021).

[20] Brulle, Robert J. “Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of US Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations.” Climatic Change (December 21, 2013).

[21] Fischer, Douglas. “’Dark Money’ Funds Climate Change Denial Effort.” Scientific American (December 23, 2013).

[22] Union of Concerned Scientists. Global Warming Skeptic Organizations (2013).

[23] Fitzsimmons, Jill. “Meet the Climate Denial Machine.” Media Matters for America (November 28, 2012).

[24] DeSmog. Climate Disinformation Database.

[25] Farrell, Justin. “Corporate Funding and Ideological Polarization about Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, No. 1 (January 5, 2016).

[26] Farrell, Justin. “Network Structure and Influence of the Climate Change Counter-Movement.” Nature Climate Change 6 (November 30, 2015).

[27] Stoknes, Per Espen. What We Think About When We Try Not To Think About Global Warming: Toward a New Psychology of Climate Action. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2015.

[28] Lewandowsky, Stephan, Giles E. Gignac, and Klaus Oberauer. “The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science.” PLOS ONE, 8, no. 10 (October 2013).

[29] Lewandowsky, Stephan, Klaus Oberauer, and Giles E, Gignac. “NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax.” Psychological Science 24, no. 5 (March 26, 2013).

[30] Khoo, Michael. “Climate, Clicks, Capitalism, and Conspiracists.” Friends of the Earth (August 27, 2020).

[31] Hornsey, Matthew J., Emily A. Harris, and Kelly S. Fielding. “Relationships among Conspiratorial Beliefs, Conservatism and Climate Scepticism across Nations.” Nature Climate Change (May 7, 2018).

[32] Harlos, Christian, Tim C. Edgell, and Johan Hollander. “No Evidence of Publication Bias in Climate Change Science.” Climatic Change 140 (December 28, 2016).

[33] Hollander, Johan. “We Looked At 1,154 Climate Science Results and Found No Evidence of ‘Publication Bias’.” The Conversation (October 5, 2017).

[34] Dunlap, Riley E. and Aaron M. McCright. “Challenging Climate Change: The Denial Climate Movement,” in Dunlap, Riley E. and Robert J Brulle, eds. Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives, Oxford University Press, 2015.

[35] Haskins, Justin. “Commentary: The 6 Biggest Reasons I’m a Climate-Change Skeptic—And Why You Should Be a Skeptic Too.” Blaze Media (July 23, 2017).

[36] Siegel, Ethan. “Heartland's '6 Reasons To Be A Climate-Change Skeptic' Are Six Demonstrable Falsehoods.” Forbes (July 2, 2017).

[37] CO2 Coalition. What Rising CO2 Means for Global Food Security (February, 2019).

[38] Abbot, John, and Jennifer Marohasy. “The Application of Machine Learning for Evaluating Anthropogenic Versus Natural Climate Change.” GeoResJ 14 (December 2017).

[39] The Climate Modelling Laboratory.

[40] Readfearn, Graham, “Why the IPA's Claim Global Warming is Natural is 'Junk Science',” August 25, 2017.

[41] Benestad, Rasmus. “Learning From Mistakes in Climate Research.” Theoretical and Applied Climatology 126, no. 3-4 (August 20, 2015).

[42] Foley, Katherine Ellen. “Those 3% of Scientific Papers That Deny Climate Change? A Review Found Them All Flawed.” Quartz (September 5, 2017).

[43] Abraham, John. “Just Who Are These 300 'Scientists' Telling Trump To Burn The Climate?” The Guardian (February 27, 2017).

[44] Wallace, Tim. “Cosmic Ray Theory of Global Warming Gets Cold Response.” Cosmos (December 22, 2017).

[45] Abraham, John. “More Errors Identified in Contrarian Climate Scientists’ Temperature EstimatesThe Guardian (May 11, 2017).

[46] Spencer, Roy W. A Guide to Understanding Global Temperature Data (July 2016).

[47] Nuccitelli, Dana. “These Are the Best Arguments from the 3% of Climate Scientist 'Skeptics.' Really.” The Guardian (July 25, 2016).

[48] Skeptical Science. Global Warming & Climate Change Myths.

[49] Koonin, Steven E. Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters. BenBella Books, 2021.

[50] DeSmog. “Steve Koonin.”

[51] Yohe, Gary. “A New Book Manages to Get Climate Science Badly Wrong.” Scientific American (May 13, 2021).

[52] Center for Countering Digital Hate. The Toxic Ten: How Ten Fringe Publishers Fuel 69% of Digital Climate Change Denial” (November 2, 2021).

[53] Bensinger, Greg. “Social Media Is Polluted With Climate Denialism.” The New York Times (November 12, 2021).

[54] Stop Funding Heat. In Denial—Facebook’s Growing Friendship with Climate Misinformation (November 2021).

[55] Levantesi, Stella, and Giulio Corsion. “Climate Deniers Are Using These Four Major Scare Tactics to Stop Climate Action.” DeSmog (November 16, 2021).

[56] Harvey, Jeffrey A., Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen et al. “Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy.” BioScience (November 29, 2017).

[57] Franta, Benjamin. “Trump Pulled Out the Oil Industry Playbook and Players for Paris.” The Guardian (July 26, 2017).

[58] Walker, Joe. “Draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan.”

[59] Union of Concerned Scientists. The Climate Deception Dossiers (2015).

[60] CNN. “Santorum Claims Climate Scientists ‘Driven by Money’” (November 26, 2018).

[61] Sherwood, Anthony. “Scientists Getting Filthy Rich on Climate Change? Here Are The Facts.” Huffington Post (May 26, 2016).

[62] Mann, Michael. “Open Season on Climate Science.” Undark (February 17, 2017).

[63] Goldman, Gretchen. “House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Defends ExxonMobil, Subpoenas Union of Concerned Scientists: An FAQ.” Union of Concerned Scientists (July 13, 2016).

[64] Kimmel, Ken. “When Subpoenas Threaten Climate Science.” The New York Times (July 19, 2016).

[65] Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. “Perspectives of Scientists Who Become Targets: Michael Mann” (July 20, 2017).

[66] Mann, Michael. “I’m a Scientist Who Has Gotten Death Threats. I Fear What May Happen under Trump.” The Washington Post (December 16, 2016).