ويکيپېډيا

د اقلیم له بدلون نه انکار

د اقلیم له بدلون نه انکار یا د نړیوالې تودوخې انکار، رد، ګوښه کول یا بې بنسټه شک دی چې د اقلیم د بدلون په اړه له ساینسي ټولنې سره په ټکر کې دی، په شمول د هغه حد چې دا د انسانانو له خوا رامنځته کیږي، په طبیعت او بشري ټولنې باندې د هغې اغېزې او د موافقیت احتمال، د انساني عمل په واسطه د نړۍ تودوخې ته. [۱][۲][۳][۴]

زیات هغه کسان چې د انتروپجنیک نړیوالې تودوخې په اړه د ساینسي اجماع په اړه بې بنسټه شکونه ردوي یا شکمن اقلیمي بدلونونه سم ګڼي، ساینس پوهانو یادونه کړې ده چې دا ناسم بیان دی.[۵][۶][۷][۸]

د اقلیم له بدلون نه انکار، هغه وخت رامنځته کېدی شي، کله چې افراد یا ټولنیزې ډلې ساینس ومني؛ مګر په دې سربېره شرایطو ته په رسېدو کې پاتې راځي یا د دوی منل په عمل کې ژباړي. د ټولنیزو علومو زیاتو مطالعاتو دا درېځونه د انکار، تخفیف او د پروپاګند ډولونو په توګه ارزولي دي.[۹][۱۰][۱۱][۱۲][۱۳]

په اقلیمي ساینس باندې د خلکو باور ته د زیان رسولو کمپاین، د صنعتي، سیاسي او ایډیالوژیکي ګټو له خوا (د انکار ماشین) سازمان په توګه تشرېح شوی او د محافظه کاره رسنیو او شکمنو بلاک ګرانو له خوا ملاتړ شوی، چې د نړیوالې تودوخې په اړه ناڅرګندتیا رامنځته کړي.[۱۴][۱۵][۱۶][۱۴]

د نړیوالې تودوخې سیاست، د اقلیم له بدلون نه انکار او د نړیوالې تودوخې سیاسي شخړې له خوا اغېزمن شوی، چې د اقلیم د بدلون په اړه د عمل کولو هڅې یا د تودوخې اقلیم سره سمون کمزوری کوي. هغه کسان چې انکار ته وده ورکوي، معمولاٌ ً د بیان تاکتیکونه کاروي، ترڅو د ساینسي شخړې بڼه ورکړي، چېرې چې هېڅ شتون نه لري. [۱۷][۱۸][۱۹][۲۰][۲۱]

د اقلیم په ساینس کې د خلکو باور کمزوري کولو لپاره تنظیم شویکمپاین، له محافظه کاره اقتصادي پالیسيو سره تړاو لري او د صنعتي ګټو له خوا د CO2 اخراج تنظیمولو لپاره ملاتړ کېږي.[۲۲]

په متحده ایالاتو کې د اقلیم د بدلون انکار د فوسیل فولس لابي(Fossil Fuels lobby)، کوچ برادرس(Koch brothers) او د صنعت مدافعین او محافظه کاره فکري مخزن (think tanks) سره تړاو لري. د اقلیم بدلون په اړه له ۹۰٪ نه زیات کاغذونه د ښي اړخ فکر کولو مخرن نه سرچینه اخلي.[۲۳][۲۴][۲۵][۲۶][۲۷]

لکه څنګه چې په دې وروستیو کې د ۱۹۷۰ز کال په څېر، د تیلو شرکتونو څېړنې خپرولې ،چې په پراخه توګه د نړیوالې تودوخې په اړه د ساینسي ټولنې نظر سره موافق دي. سره له دې، د تېلو شرکتونو د څو لسیزو راهیسې د عامه ناسمو معلوماتو خپرولو لپاره د اقلیم د بدلون انکار تنظیم کړی. یوه ستراتیژي چې د تنباکو صنعت له خوا د تنباکو څکولو خطرونو تنظیم شوي انکار سره پرتله شوې او ډېری وختونه ان د هغو اشخاصو له خوا ترسره کېږي ،چې مخکې یې د تنباکو صنعت د بندیز پروپاګند خپاراوه.[۲۸][۲۹][۳۰]

اصطلاحات

سمول

« د اقلیم د بدلون شک» او « د اقلیم د بدلون انکار» د نړیوالې تودوخې د کچې په اړه د ساینسي اجماع انکار، ګوښه کول یا بې بنسټه شک ته اشاره کوي، د هغه اهمیت له انسان سره په بشپړه توګه یا په یوه برخه کې تړاو لري. [۳۱][۳۲]

که څه هم د شک په منځ کې توپیر شته دی، چې د یوې ادعا په حقیقت کې شک او د یوې ادعا د رښتیني انکار څرګندونه کوي. په عامه بحثونو کې «د اقلیم شک» د اقلیم د انکار یا متضاد مفهوم په توګه کارول کېږي.[۳۳][۳۴]

په ۱۹۹۰ز کال کې اصطلاحات راڅرګند شول، که څه هم ټول ساینس پوهان د پروسې د یوې اصلي برخې په توګه ساینسي شک ته غاړه ږدي، خو په ۱۹۹۵ ز کال د نومبر په نیمایي کې د (شک) کلیمه، په ځانګړي توګه کارول کېده چې له ساینسي اجماع سره مخالف نظرونه یې خپاره کړي دي.[۳۵][۳۶][۳۷]

د ساینس پوهانو دې کوچنۍ ډلې، خپل نظرونه د ساینسي ټولنې پر ځای په عامه بیانونو او رسنیو کې وړاندې کړل. دا کار دوام لري. د ۱۹۹۵ز کال په دسمبر کې په یوه مقاله (تودوخه رڼایي ده)  کې راغلي: « د نړۍ د اقلیم تودوخه د انکار یو اور روښانه کوي»، راس جیلبسپان(Ross Gelbspan) وویل چې: صنعت د« پر له پسې او ښه تمویل شوي کمپاین» کې د عامه افکارو د مشغولولو لپاره د شک کوونکو یوه کوچنۍ ډله بوخته کړې وه.[۳۸][۳۹][۴۰]

په ۱۹۹۷ ز کال کې، د The Heat is on)) کتاب ممکن لومړنۍ کتاب وي، چې په ځانګړې توګه یې په موضوع (تودوخه) باندې تمرکز کړی دی.[۴۱][۴۲]

په دې کې، جیلبسپان د «انکار او فشار په پر له پسې کمپاین» کې «له نړیوالې تودوخې هراړخیزانکار» په اړه بحث وکړ، چې په کې د « شنو خونو شکمنو» ناڅرګنده تمویل شامل دی، «له  اقلیم شک کوونکو» سره چې خلک مغشوش کوي او پریکړه کوونکو باندې اغېزه کوي.[۴۳][۴۴][۴۵][۴۶][۴۷][۴۸][۴۹][۵۰][۵۱]

د ۲۰۰۶ ز کال په نومبر کې CBC تلویزیون مستند فلم د کمپاین په اړه د انکار ماشین نومول شوی و. په ۲۰۰۷ ز کې ژورنالیست شارون بیګلي « د انکار ماشین» په اړه راپور ورکړ، چې یوه جمله یې وروسته د اکاډمیکانو له خوا کارول کېږي.[۵۲][۵۳][۵۴][۵۵][۵۶][۵۷][۵۸][۵۹][۶۰][۶۱]

د انکار شبکه

سمول

متحده ایالات

سمول

د اقلیم د بدلون انکار صنعت په متحده ایالاتو کې خورا پیاوړی دي.

په ۲۰۱۶ ز کال کې د متحده ایالاتو په ټاکنو کې د جمهوري ریاست هر نوماند  د اقلیم بدلون پوښتنه رد کړه او د متحده ایالاتو مخالفت یې وکړ. د اقلیم بدلون ته د رسېدو لپاره د حکومت ګامونه، لکه څنګه چې په متحده ایالاتو کې د سنا جمهوري غوښتونکي مشریې لري.[۶۲][۶۳][۶۴][۶۵][۶۶][۶۷]

د پنټاګون راپور په ګوته کړې ده چې څنګه د اقلیم بدلون انکار ملي امنیت ګواښي.

په ۲۰۱۵ ز کال کې یوې مطالعې ۴۵۵۶ کسان په ګوته کړل چې له ۱۶۴ سازمانونو سره د شبکې اړیکې لري، چې په متحده ایالاتو کې د اقلیم د بدلون ګواښ کمولو لپاره د ډېرو هڅو مسؤلیت لري.[۶۸][۶۹][۷۰][۷۱][۷۲][۷۳][۷۴][۷۵][۷۶][۷۷][۷۸][۷۹][۸۰][۸۱][۸۲]

نړیوال

سمول

د کلیکسیټ (Clexit) ایتلاف ادعا کوي: « د یو نوي نړیوال سازمان، کوم چې د پاریس د نړیوالې تودوخې د قیمتي او خطرناک تړون د تصویب مخه نیسي».[۸۳][۸۴]

دا په ۲۶ هېوادونو کې غړي لري. د Guardian ورځپاڼې په وینا: « د کلیکسیټ مشران په پراخه کچه د تنباکو او فوسیل تېلو تمویل شوي سازمانونو کې ښکیل دي».[۸۵]

خپرونکي، ویب پاڼې

سمول

د ۲۰۲۱ ز کال په نومبر کې، له ډیجیټل کرکې سره د مبارزې مرکز(Center for Countering Digital Hate) له خوا یوې مطالعې « لس حاشیوي خپروونکو» په ګوته کړل چې په ګډه د شاوخوا ۷۰ سلنه فیسبوک کاروونکو له منځپانګې سره د اقلیم بدلون ردولو لپاره مسؤل وو.[۸۶][۸۷]

فیسبوک ویلي  دي چې: سلنه یې لوړه شوې او مطالعه یې بې لارې کوونکې(ګمراه کوونکې) وبلله.

د زهرجن لس (toxic ten) خپرونکي: بریټبارټ نیوز، ویستم ژورنال، نیوزمیکس، ټاون هال، د رسنیو څېړنیز مرکز، واشنګتن ټایمز، فدرالیسټ ، ډیلي وار، RT تلویزیون شبکه او پیټریټ پوسټ.

د نړیوالې تودوخې په اړه دلیلونه او درېځونه

سمول

د اقلیم د بدلون ځینې انکار کوونکي ډلې وایي چې: Co2 یوازې په اتموسفیر کې ټریس ګاز دی (تقریباٌ ۴۰۰ppm، یا ۰۰۴٪، په هرو ۱۰۰۰۰ برخوکې۴ )، نو دا په اقلیم باندې لږ اغېز لري.

ساینس پوهان له یوې پېړۍ راهیسې پوهېږي چې، ان دا کوچنۍکچه د تودوخې د پام وړ اغېزې لري او د تناسب دوه چنده کول د تودوخې د لوی زیاتوالي لامل کېږي. [۸۸]

ساینسي اجماع، لکه څنګه چې د IPCC څلورم ارزونې راپور، د متحده ایالاتو جیولوژیکي سروې او نورو راپورونو له خوا لنډیز شوی، دا دی چې د انسان فعالیت د اقلیم د بدلون لوی لامل دی.[۸۹]

د فوسیل سون توکو سوځول، هر کال شاوخوا ۳۰ ملیارده ټنه Co2 جوړوي، چې ۱۳۰ ځله دا مقدار د ولکانونو په واسطه تولیدېږي.

ځینې ډلې ادعا کوي چې د اوبو تبخیر د شنو خونو ډېر مهم ګاز دی او د ډېرو اقلیمي ماډلونو څخه پاتې دی.[۹۰]

په داسې حال کې چې د اوبو بخار د شنو خونو ګاز دی، د Co2 په پرتله د اوبو بخار اتموسفیر ژوند شاوخوا ۱۰ ورځې دی؛ په دې معنا چې Co2 د تودوخې د زیاتوالي اصلي عامل دی. د اوبو بخار د غبرګون په توګه کار کوي، نه د جبري میکانیزم په حیث. د اوبو بخارونه د ۱۸۰۰ ز کال په وروستیو کې د اقلیم په ماډلونو کې شامل شوي دي.[۹۱]

د اقلیم انکار ډلې ممکن دا استدلال هم وکړي، چې د نړۍ تودوخې په دې وروستیو کې بندې شوي، د نړیوالې تودوخې ځنډ(وقفه) یا دا چې د نړۍ تودوخه په حقیقت کې کمېږي، چې د نړیوال سړښت سبب ګرځي. دا دلیلونه د لنډ مهاله بدلونونو پر بنسټ ولاړ دي او د تودوخې اوږد مهاله بڼه له پامه غورځوي.[۹۲]

دا ګروپونه ډېری وختونه طبیعي تغییراتو ته اشاره کوي، لکه: د لمر ځایونه، کازمیکې وړانګې او د تودوخې ککړتیا تشرېح کولو لپاره. د دې ډلو په وینا: طبیعي بدلونونه شتون لري چې د وخت په تیریدو سره به کم شي او دا په انسان باندې لږه اغېزه لري. دا فکتورنه د مخه په پام کې نیول شوي دي. کله چې د اقلیم ماډلونه رامنځته شول او ساینسي اجماع دا ده، چې دوی نه شي کولی، د تودوخې لیدل شوې ککړتیا تشېح کړي.[۹۳][۹۴]

په ۲۰۱۸ ز کال د مې په میاشت کې، د ساینس، فضا او ټیکنالوژۍ په اړه د متحده ایالاتو د کور کمېټې په غونډه کې، د الاباما استازي مو بروکس ادعا وکړه چې:  د سمندر د سطحې لوړولی د ګلیشیرونو د خړوبولو له امله نه، بلکې د ساحلي تخریب او خټو له امله رامنځته کېږي چې له سیندونو نه سمندر ته تېریږي.[۹۵]

زیاتره ادبیات د اقلیم بدلون ردوي او دا وړاندیز کوي چې، موږ باید د اقلیم بدلون ته له رسیدو نه مخکې غوره ټیکنالوژیو ته انتظار وباسو، ځکه چې دا به ډېره ارزانه او اغېزمنه وي.[۹۶]

سرچينه

سمول
  1. ↑ National Center for Science Education 2010: "The first pillar of climate change denial—that climate change is bad science—attacks various aspects of the scientific consensus about climate change ... there are climate change deniers:
    • who deny that significant climate change is occurring
    • who ... deny that human activity is significantly responsible
    • who ... deny the scientific evidence about its significant effects on the world and our society ...
    • who ... deny that humans can take significant actions to reduce or mitigate its impact.Of these varieties of climate change denial, the most visible are the first and the second."
  2. ↑ "Why Is It Called Denial?". National Center for Science Education. 15 January 2016. Archived from the original on 26 May 2016. نه اخيستل شوی 21 January 2016.
  3. ↑ Powell 2012, pp. 170–173: "Anatomy of Denial—Global warming deniers ... . throw up a succession of claims, and fall back from one line of defense to the next as scientists refute each one in turn. Then they start over: 'The earth is not warming.' 'All right, it is warming but the Sun is the cause.' 'Well then, humans are the cause, but it doesn't matter, because it warming will do no harm. More carbon dioxide will actually be beneficial. More crops will grow.' 'Admittedly, global warming could turn out to be harmful, but we can do nothing about it.' 'Sure, we could do something about global warming, but the cost would be too great. We have more pressing problems here and now, like AIDS and poverty.' 'We might be able to afford to do something to address global warming some-day, but we need to wait for sound science, new technologies, and geoengineering.' 'The earth is not warming. Global warming ended in 1998; it was never a crisis.'
  4. ↑ Matthews, Paul (3 April 2015). "Why Are People Skeptical about Climate Change? Some Insights from Blog Comments". Environmental Communication (په انګليسي). 9 (2): 153–168. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.999694. ISSN 1752-4032. S2CID 143727181.
  5. ↑ Björnberg, Karin Edvardsson; et al. (2017). "Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015". Journal of Cleaner Production. 167: 229–241. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066.
  6. ↑ Washington 2013, p. 2: "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."
  7. ↑ O'Neill, Saffron J.; sjoneill@unimelb.edu.au; Boykoff, Max (28 September 2010). "Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (39): E151. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.151O. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010507107. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2947866. PMID 20807754. Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial ... However, skepticism forms an integral part of the scientific method and thus the term is frequently misapplied in such phrases as "climate change skeptic".
  8. ↑ National Center for Science Education 2012: "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."
  9. ↑ National Center for Science Education 2012: "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."
  10. ↑ Dunlap 2013, pp. 691–698: "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"
  11. ↑ Timmer 2014
  12. ↑ Ove Hansson, Sven (2017). "Science denial as a form of pseudoscience". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. 63: 39–47. Bibcode:2017SHPSA..63...39H. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002. PMID 28629651.
  13. ↑ Jacques, Dunlap & Freeman 2008, p. 351: "Conservative think tanks ... and their backers launched a full-scale counter-movement ... We suggest that this counter-movement has been central to the reversal of US support for environmental protection, both domestically and internationally. Its major tactic has been disputing the seriousness of environmental problems and undermining environmental science by promoting what we term 'environmental scepticism.'"
  14. ↑ ۱۴٫۰ ۱۴٫۱ Vaidyanathan 2014.
  15. ↑ Dunlap 2013, pp. 691–698: "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 policymakers".
  16. ↑ Begley 2007: "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"
  17. ↑ Dunlap 2013: "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."
  18. ↑ Jacques, Dunlap & Freeman 2008, p. 351: "Conservative think tanks ... and their backers launched a full-scale counter-movement ... We suggest that this counter-movement has been central to the reversal of US support for environmental protection, both domestically and internationally. Its major tactic has been disputing the seriousness of environmental problems and undermining environmental science by promoting what we term 'environmental scepticism.'"
  19. ↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "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."
  20. ↑ Hoofnagle, Mark (30 April 2007). "Hello Science blogs (Welcome to Denialism blog)". Archived from the original on 7 November 2016. نه اخيستل شوی 11 September 2013."Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism" and "5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic."
  21. ↑ Diethelm & McKee 2009
  22. ↑ Klein, Naomi (9 November 2011). "Capitalism vs. the Climate". The Nation. Archived from the original on 1 July 2015. نه اخيستل شوی 2 January 2012.
  23. ↑ Jacques, Dunlap & Freeman 2008, p. 351: "Conservative think tanks ... and their backers launched a full-scale counter-movement ... We suggest that this counter-movement has been central to the reversal of US support for environmental protection, both domestically and internationally. Its major tactic has been disputing the seriousness of environmental problems and undermining environmental science by promoting what we term 'environmental scepticism.'"
  24. ↑ Dunlap 2013: "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."
  25. ↑ David Michaels (2008) Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health.
  26. ↑ Hoggan, James; Littlemore, Richard (2009). Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Vancouver: Greystone Books. ISBN 978-1-55365-485-8. Archived from the original on 30 June 2021. نه اخيستل شوی 19 March 2010. 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.
  27. ↑ Xifra, Jordi (2016). "Climate Change Deniers and Advocacy: A Situational Theory of Publics Approach". American Behavioral Scientist. 60 (3): 276–287. doi:10.1177/0002764215613403. hdl:10230/32970. S2CID 58914584.
  28. ↑ Egan, Timothy (5 November 2015). "Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 15 August 2021. نه اخيستل شوی 9 November 2015.
  29. ↑ Goldenberg, Suzanne (8 July 2015). "Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 November 2015. نه اخيستل شوی 9 November 2015.
  30. ↑ 'Shell knew': oil giant's 1991 film warned of climate change danger Archived 24 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine., The Guardian
  31. ↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "'Climate skepticism' 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."
  32. ↑ National Center for Science Education 2012: "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."
  33. ↑ Nerlich 2010, pp. 419, 437: "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'."
  34. ↑ Rennie 2009: "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."
  35. ↑ Brown 1996, pp. 9, 11 "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."
  36. ↑ Gelbspan 1998, pp. 69–70, 246 At 16 November 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".
  37. ↑ Antilla 2005, p. footnote 5
  38. ↑ Gelbspan 1995
  39. ↑ Painter & Ashe 2012: "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."
  40. ↑ Gelbspan 1998 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"
  41. ↑ Dunlap 2013, pp. 691–698: "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 policymakers".
  42. ↑ Orlóci 2008, pp. 86, 97: "The ideological justification for this came from the sceptics (e.g., Lomborg 2001a,b) and from the industrial 'denial machine'. ... CBC Television Fifth Estate, 15 November 2006, The Climate Denial Machine, Canada.
  43. ↑ National Center for Science Education 2012: "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."
  44. ↑ Norgaard, Kari (2011). Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 1–4. ISBN 978-0-262-01544-8.
  45. ↑ National Center for Science Education 2012: "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."
  46. ↑ Washington 2013, p. 2: "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."
  47. ↑ O'Neill, Saffron J.; sjoneill@unimelb.edu.au; Boykoff, Max (28 September 2010). "Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (39): E151. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.151O. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010507107. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2947866. PMID 20807754. Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial ... However, skepticism forms an integral part of the scientific method and thus the term is frequently misapplied in such phrases as "climate change skeptic".
  48. ↑ Mann, Michael E. (2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-52638-8. Skepticism plays an essential role in the progress of science ... Yet ... in the context of the climate change denial movement ... the term skeptic has often been co-opted to describe those who simply deny, rather than appraise critically.
  49. ↑ Jenkins 2015, p. 229: "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)"
  50. ↑ National Center for Science Education 2012: "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 change deniers" and "climate change denial. The terms are intended descriptively, not in any pejorative sense, and are used for the sake of brevity and consistency with a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature."
  51. ↑ Weart 2015 footnote 136a Archived 4 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine.: "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."
  52. ↑ O'Neill, Saffron J.; sjoneill@unimelb.edu.au; Boykoff, Max (28 September 2010). "Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (39): E151. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.151O. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010507107. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2947866. PMID 20807754. Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial ... However, skepticism forms an integral part of the scientific method and thus the term is frequently misapplied in such phrases as "climate change skeptic".
  53. ↑ Anderegg, William R. L.; anderegg@stanford.edu; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob (19 July 2010). "Reply to O'Neill and Boykoff: Objective classification of climate experts". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107 (39): E152. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.152A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010824107. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 2947900.
  54. ↑ Gillis, Justin (12 February 2015). "Verbal Warming: Labels in the Climate Debate". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 30 October 2021. نه اخيستل شوی 30 June 2015.
  55. ↑ Timmer 2014: "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."
  56. ↑ Boslough 2014
  57. ↑ "NY Times Public Editor: We're 'Moving In A Good Direction' On Properly Describing Climate Deniers". Media Matters for America. 22 June 2015. Archived from the original on 23 April 2019. نه اخيستل شوی 2 July 2015.
  58. ↑ "AP: Deniers Are Not Skeptics!". Oil Change U.S. Washington, D.C. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. نه اخيستل شوی 22 May 2019.
  59. ↑ Colford, Paul (22 September 2015). "An addition to AP Stylebook entry on global warming". Associated Press. نه اخيستل شوی 7 October 2019.
  60. ↑ Schlanger, Zoë (24 September 2015). "The real skeptics behind the AP decision to put an end to the term 'climate skeptics'". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 1 June 2021. نه اخيستل شوی 22 May 2019.
  61. ↑ Carrington, Damian (17 May 2019). "Why The Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 6 October 2019. نه اخيستل شوی 22 May 2019.
  62. ↑ Conway & Oreskes 2010, p. 170: "The doubts and confusion of the American people are particularly peculiar when put into historical perspective"
  63. ↑ Powell 2012, pp. 36–39
  64. ↑ Weart 2015a: "From the late 1940s into the 1960s, many of the papers cited in these essays carried a thought-provoking footnote: "This work was supported by the 'Office of Naval Research.' "
  65. ↑ Weart 2007
  66. ↑ Weart 2015a: quote p. viii in the Foreword by Climate Research Board chair Verner E. Suomi
  67. ↑ Charney, Jule Gregory (23 July 1979). Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment, Report of an Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate. Woods Hole, Massachusetts: National Research Council. doi:10.17226/12181. ISBN 978-0-309-11910-8. Archived from the original on 22 February 2020. نه اخيستل شوی 22 September 2017.
  68. ↑ "US firms knew about global warming in 1968 – what about Australia?". The Conversation. 2016. Archived from the original on 10 November 2021. نه اخيستل شوی 19 August 2018.
  69. ↑ Young, Élan (22 November 2019). "Coal Knew, Too, A Newly Unearthed Journal from 1966 Shows the Coal Industry, Like the Oil Industry, Was Long Aware of the Threat of Climate Change". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 22 February 2020. نه اخيستل شوی 24 November 2019.
  70. ↑ Weart 2015a: Global Warming Becomes a Political Issue (1980–1983) Archived 29 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine.; "In 1981, Ronald Reagan took the presidency with an administration that openly scorned their concerns. He brought with him a backlash that had been building against the environmental movement. Many conservatives denied nearly every environmental worry, global warming included. They lumped all such concerns together as the rants of business-hating liberals, a Trojan Horse for government regulation." For details, see Money for Keeling: Monitoring CO2 Archived 29 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine.
  71. ↑ Weart, Spencer R. (30 June 2009). The Discovery of Global Warming. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-04497-5. Archived from the original on 1 June 2021. نه اخيستل شوی 16 March 2016.
  72. ↑ Weart 2015: Breaking into Politics (1980–1988) Archived 29 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine., "Sherwood Idso, who published arguments that greenhouse gas emissions would not warm the Earth or bring any other harm to the climate. Better still, by fertilizing crops, the increase of CO2 would bring tremendous benefits."
  73. ↑ Hansen, James (1988). "Statement of Dr. James Hansen, director, NASA Goddard Institute for space studies" (PDF). Climate Change ProCon.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 August 2011. نه اخيستل شوی 30 November 2015.
  74. ↑ Weart 2015 The Summer of 1988 Archived 29 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine.: "A new breed of interdisciplinary studies was showing that even a few degrees of warming might have harsh consequences, both for fragile natural ecosystems and for certain agricultural systems and other human endeavours ... The timing was right, and the media leaped on the story. Hansen's statements, especially that severe warming was likely within the next 50 years, got on the front pages of newspapers and were featured in television news and radio talk shows ... The story grew as the summer of 1988 wore on. Reporters descended unexpectedly upon an international conference of scientists held in Toronto at the end of June. Their stories prominently reported how the world's leading climate scientists declared that atmospheric changes were already causing harm, and might cause much more; the scientists called for vigorous government action to restrict greenhouse gases."
  75. ↑ Weart 2015: "Environmentalist organizations continued ... lobbying and advertising efforts to argue for restrictions on emissions. The environmentalists were opposed and greatly outspent, by industries that produced or relied on fossil fuels. Industry groups not only mounted a sustained and professional public relations effort but also channeled considerable sums of money to individual scientists and small conservative organizations and publications that denied any need to act against global warming."
  76. ↑ Begley 2007: "Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming ... Then they claimed that any warming is natural ... Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. 'They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,' says former senator Tim Wirth ... 'Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.'"
  77. ↑ Weart 2015: "The technical criticism most widely noted in the press came in several brief 'reports'—not scientific papers in the usual sense—published between 1989 and 1992 by the conservative George C. Marshall Institute. The anonymously authored pamphlets ... [claimed] that proposed government regulation would be 'extraordinarily costly to the U.S. economy,' they insisted it would be unwise to act on the basis of the existing global warming theories ... In 1989 some of the biggest corporations in the petroleum, automotive, and other industries created a Global Climate Coalition, whose mission was to disparage every call for action against global warming."
  78. ↑ Conway & Oreskes 2010: "Millions of pages of documents released during tobacco litigation ... show the crucial role that scientists played in sowing doubt about the links between smoking and health risks. These documents ... also show that the same strategy was applied not only to global warming, but to a laundry list of environmental and health concerns, including asbestos, secondhand smoke, acid rain, and the ozone hole."
  79. ↑ Weart 2015: "Scientists noticed something that the public largely overlooked: the most outspoken scientific critiques of global warming predictions did not appear in the standard peer-reviewed scientific publications. The critiques tended to appear in venues funded by industrial groups, or in conservative media like the Wall Street Journal."
  80. ↑ Conway & Oreskes 2010
  81. ↑ Weart 2011, p. 46: "Scientists continually test their beliefs, seeking out all possible contrary arguments and evidence, and finally publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, where further attempts at refutation are encouraged. But the small group of scientists who opposed the consensus on warming proceeded in the manner of lawyers, considering nothing that would not bolster their case, and publishing mostly in pamphlets, books, and newspapers supported by conservative interests. At some point they were no longer skeptics—people who would try to see every side of a case—but deniers, that is, people whose only interest was in casting doubt upon what other scientists agreed was true."
  82. ↑ Weart 2011, pp. 47: "As the deniers found ever less scientific ground to stand on, they turned to political arguments. Some of these policy arguments were straightforward, raising serious questions about the efficacy and expense of proposed carbon taxes and emission-regulation schemes. But leading deniers also resorted to ad hominem tactics ... On each side, some people were coming to believe that they faced a dishonest conspiracy, driven by ideological bias and naked self-interest".
  83. ↑ "After Brexit, Clexit" (PDF). Clexit. 1 August 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 August 2016. نه اخيستل شوی 5 September 2018.
  84. ↑ "Clexit now comprises 190 members from 26 countries" (PDF). Clexit. 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 August 2016. نه اخيستل شوی 5 September 2018.
  85. ↑ Nuccitelli, Dana (8 August 2016). "Rejection of experts spreads from Brexit to climate change with 'Clexit' - Dana Nuccitelli". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 13 August 2021. نه اخيستل شوی 15 April 2018.
  86. ↑ Porterfield, Carlie (November 2, 2021). "Breitbart Leads Climate Change Misinformation On Facebook, Study Says". Forbes. نه اخيستل شوی November 3, 2021.
  87. ↑ "The Toxic Ten: How ten fringe publishers fuel 69% of digital climate change denial". Center for Countering Digital Hate. November 2, 2021. نه اخيستل شوی November 3, 2021.
  88. ↑ Rennie 2009: "Claim 1: Anthropogenic CO2 can't be changing climate, because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere and the amount produced by humans is dwarfed by the amount from volcanoes and other natural sources. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, so changes in CO2 are irrelevant."
  89. ↑ Rennie 2009: " According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce."
  90. ↑ Archer, David (6 April 2005). "Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate. Archived from the original on 1 June 2020. نه اخيستل شوی 5 September 2018.
  91. ↑ Rennie 2009: "from Arrhenius on, climatologists have incorporated water vapor into their models. In fact, water vapor is why rising CO2 has such a big effect on climate ... Nevertheless, within this dynamic, the CO2 remains the main driver ... of the greenhouse effect."
  92. ↑ Rennie 2009: "Claim 3: Global warming stopped a decade ago; Earth has been cooling since then."
  93. ↑ Rennie 2009: "Claim 4: The sun or cosmic rays are much more likely to be the real causes of global warming. After all, Mars is warming up, too."
  94. ↑ Rennie 2009: "But in defiance of the naysayers who want to chalk the recent warming up to natural cycles, there is insufficient evidence that enough extra solar energy is reaching our planet to account for the observed rise in global temperatures."
  95. ↑ Waldman, Scott (17 May 2018). "Republican lawmaker: Rocks tumbling into ocean causing sea level rise". Science. Archived from the original on 17 May 2018. نه اخيستل شوی 17 May 2018.
  96. ↑ Rennie 2009: "Claim 7: Technological fixes, such as inventing energy sources that don't produce CO2 or geoengineering the climate, would be more affordable, prudent ways to address climate change than reducing our carbon footprint."
"https://ps.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=د_اقلیم_له_بدلون_نه_انکار&oldid=276079" نه اخيستل شوی