Eye-roller study: “Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism”

From the “Nuttier than Lewandowsky” department.

With Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, as a hub, the world’s first global research network into climate change denial has now been established. Building on a brand-new research publication showing the links between conservatism, xenophobia and climate change denial, the network will study how the growth of right-wing nationalism in Europe has contributed to an increase in climate change denial.

Scientific awareness of the greenhouse effect, and human influence on the climate, has existed for over three decades. During the 1980s, there was a strong environmental movement and a political consensus on the issue, but in recent years, climate change denial – denying that changes to the climate are due to human influence on the environment – has increased.

“Two strong groups have joined forces on this issue – the extractive industry, and right-wing nationalists. The combination has taken the current debate to a much more dramatic level than previously, at the same time as our window of opportunity is disappearing.”

This is the analysis of Chalmers researcher Martin Hultman, Associate Professor in Science, Technology and Environmental studies, and research leader for the comprehensive project: “Why don’t we take climate change seriously? A study of climate change denial”, which is now collecting the world’s foremost researchers in this area.

Blame this guy. “Climate change is an existential question for all society. We have these insights, but we come into conflict with them. Therefore, it is important to understand the mechanisms behind different forms of climate change denial, and how this influences the debate and political decisions,” says Martin Hultman, from Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. CREDIT Ulrika Ernström/Chalmers University of Technology

In the project, the network will examine the ideas and interests behind climate change denial, with a particular focus on right-wing nationalism, extractive industries, and conservative thinktanks. The goal is to increase understanding of climate change denial, and its influence on political decision-making, but also to raise awareness among the general public, those in power, research institutes, and industry.

Right-wing nationalism’s links to climate change denial are a relatively unresearched topic, but Environmental Sociology recently published an article where Hultman and his research colleagues show the connections between conservatism, xenophobia, and climate change denial, through a study in Norway.

Hultman explains that many of the right-wing nationalist parties in Europe now have climate change denial as one of their most important issues.

“These parties are increasing in significance. We see it in Denmark and Norway, in Britain with UKIP, and Front National in France. But also, in Sweden, with the Sweden Democrats’ suspicion towards SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), their dismissal of the Paris Agreement and of climate laws, and in their appraisal of climate change denier Václav Klaus as a freedom-fighting hero,” he says. Hultman also mentions the Trump administration in the USA as a prime example.

Through the new research project, a unique international collaborative platform for research into climate change denial, Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism (CEFORCED), will be established, which will connect around 40 of the world’s foremost scientific experts in the area and pave the way for international comparisons. The platform builds upon the world’s first conference in the subject, which Hultman and Professor Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University organised in 2016.

“Thanks to this international platform, we can investigate how climate change denial arguments arise and are spread – and see differences and similarities in different cultural contexts,” says Hultman.

An important foundation of the project will be a broad, interdisciplinary view of climate change denial, linking together different disciplines such as geopolitics, environmental psychology, technological history, environmental sociology, gender research, environmental history, energy policy, environmental humanism and technology and science studies.

“We do not dismiss climate change denial as something limited to, for example, powerful, older men with strong connections to the fossil-fuels industry – even if such organised groups do play important roles. Knowledge of climate change and its causes has been around for a long time, so firstly, we also need to understand the type of reactions and everyday denials that explain why we don’t take the greenhouse effect seriously – even when we see the consequences in front of our eyes.”

According to Martin Hultman, there are strong reasons for the prevalence of climate change denial, and why it can be so difficult to take in the implications of climate science.

“Around 80 percent of all energy bought and sold in the world is oil, coal, or gas. The world’s economy runs on this type of energy, which is destroying our habitat at the same time. This makes climate science’s findings problematic, because it means that many in Sweden – and in other countries which use these resources to maintain their lifestyle – need to change their way of life, and many of the most powerful companies in the world will have to change their business models. At the same time, a more climate-friendly lifestyle involves a lot of what many of us hold dear. For example, more time socialising, more contact with nature, better health and less stress. “

Global research network on climate change denial established

The project “Why don’t we take climate change seriously? A study of climate change denial” is a multi-year, interdisciplinary and international project, which is financed by the Swedish Energy Agency.

“We have these insights, but we come into conflict with them. Therefore, it is important to understand the mechanisms behind different forms of climate change denial, and how this influences the debate and political decisions,” says Martin Hultman, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden. CREDIT Yen Strandqvist/Chalmers University of Technology

The project establishes the world’s first research network on climate change denial – the Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism (CEFORCED), which includes around 40 scientific experts, including among others, Professor Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University.

The project shall investigate right-wing nationalism, Conservative thinktanks, and extractive industries as key focuses.

Right-wing nationalism:

The project will map right-wing nationalist parties in Europe and their arguments around climate change denialism. Among other things, Twitter and other internet discussion groups will be analysed.

Extractive industries:

The project will undertake a historical investigation into Sweden’s extractive industries -what they have learned about climate change, and how they have acted, as well as connecting knowledge to international studies into the debate.

Conservative thinktanks:

The project maps out how conservative thinktanks in Sweden analyse and communicate around climate, as well as their connections to lobby groups of similar character.

Different forms of climate change denial

According to earlier research, several forms of climate change denial exist:

Organised: Groups such as Klimatsans (Climate Sense) or Stockholmsinitiativet (The Stockholm Initiative) in Sweden, as well as lobby groups like the Heartland Institute in the USA, which support and spread climate change denial.

Party Political: Political parties such as UKIP in Britain, and AfD in Germany among others, who work against different forms of climate policy.

Response denial: For example, when people in positions of power make decisions such as the construction of Sälen airport in the Swedish mountains, running totally counter to the climate policies they claim to support.

Everyday denial: When people act as though as they unaware of climate change, and, for example, fly several times a year to foreign countries.

###

For more information, contact:

Martin Hultman, Associate Professor in Science, Technology and Environmental studies, Department of Technology Management and Economics, Chalmers University of Technology
+46-709-450112, +46-31-772 63 78
martin.hultman@chalmers.se

Advertisements

261 thoughts on “Eye-roller study: “Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism”

  1. I’m sure there has been a rise in right wing climate change scepticism. But what oafs like this person will never realise is that it is a reaction to the left, who first embraced climate change as a way to achieve its political aims.

    • This post exactly encapsulates the problem. A potential major problem has been identified. It needs to be analysed carefully, and measured solutions developed.
      But instead it becomes part of the US tribal wars. The problem itself is of no real importance, as long as it provides good ammunition to shoot at the other tribe.
      And the rest of the world looks on with a mixture of horror and amazement.

      • He’s an Associate Professor. This is why I shelved my plans to do a PhD. Even the fact that he would use the term “climate change denier”! Cringe. I had to laugh at this:

        “Everyday denial: When people act as though as they unaware of climate change, and, for example, fly several times a year to foreign countries.”

        What like himself no doubt, and all his cronies?

      • Most of the western world is doing just the same as the USA. The Chinese are laughing as they rake in good money for useless solar cells. The third world are looking for handouts to keep their kleptocracies in power.

      • Bob demonstrates what is wrong with the alarmist movement.
        Yes a potential problem was identified. It was studies and proven to be a non-problem decades ago.
        Secondly, the article was not about the US, but Bob takes the opportunity to make it about the US.

      • Let me clear up this misconception. Humans are not causing the climate to change, humans can not stop climate from changing, it has always changed and always will change. Humans are top of the food chain because we ADAPT to changing climate, stop adapting and humans go the way of so many other species throughout the history of this planet.

        • Well said. I am proud to be a denier. It’s what separates me/us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

      • Bob Turner:
        The real problem is you
        are not smart enough
        to realize there is
        no climate problem:

        The current climate
        is wonderful, and the best
        it has ever been for humans
        and animals — double or
        triple the CO2 level, and the climate
        will be great for green plants too !

        Of course my statements are
        based on real science — CO2
        is the staff of life, and CO2 levels
        are currently too low for optimum
        C3 plant growth — C3’s include
        most plants used for food by people
        and animals

        You may not be familiar with
        real science — perhaps familiar only
        with computer game (wrong) wild guesses
        of a coming climate catastrophe
        — a leftist imaginary catastrophe,
        that’s been on the way
        for 30 years so far
        … that will never arrive.

      • Sophist.

        Show just one alarmist scientist that is not ”full on leftist activist”…… just one ……

        Climate science IPCC style, is pure politic’s and a globalist fraud, the green blob a multi-trillion green bank ponzi scheme.

    • That is the crux of it– communism in another guise. Trust a swede to come up with this crap. This is the same country that stayed out of WW2 and traded happily with the Nazia throughuit the onflict supplying among other things ball bearings without which the Nazis would have been unable to continue the war as long as they did.

    • Maybe its not so much climate change skepticism as a disagreement over its seriousness, priorities, and what to do about it. I live in Europe, and I see the left pushing measures I know will cause economic harm while doing very little to solve the problem. I also noticed that hard core marxists such as the Rose Luxemburg Institute (run by a former East German regime official) has listed Climate Justice as one of its priority focus areas.

    • Most of the people being accused of being “Climate Deniers” are not denying “Climate Change” they are denying the Anthropological aspect that’s attached to it and the economic destruction that governments have attached to it. Most “deniers” understand that throughout the history of Earth, there is no connection of Carbon Dioxide and atmospheric global temperatures. They know that the temperatures have not increased along with the constantly increasing CO2 in the environment. And they cannot see how taxation of energy will lower the Earth’s temperature.

      The Leftist have this problem with termanology by leaving the important parts of the issues out. Where the Right-Wing says Illegal Aliens the Left-Wing just says Immigrants, not separating Legal from Illegal. That like in this article, they leave out the human aspect of what Conservatives object to and just say “climate change” as deniers.

        • I just posted this on the WUWT “Oh Noes! Ecosystems are getting greener in the Arctic.”

          “Climate Alarmist always look at the negative aspects. They’re worried about some bugs and cold weather plants that may suffer from warming temperatures. But they make it sound like having new growth of other species is a negative and the new insects that may bring to those regions. This Climate Change to them is a bad thing and wants everything to remain the same, while they do not believe in evolution that has occurred throughout the history of Earth.”

          • Worse. They see a glass that is 1/20th empty and declare that it’s obviously not working and therefore they must break it.

          • It is funny that the folks that believe the most in evolution, want the planet to stay exactly the same and never change.

      • …..And don’t forget the increasingly important factor that from the perspective of many of “we who deny” credulity must be stretched to the breaking point if we are to consider most of the warmists to be bonafide “scientists.” When ‘credentials’ are the curtains behind which the wizards hide then credentials seem shallow and with little meaning.

        If you bundle these folks together, you have one big sick joke that is being played on politicians and bureaucrats in exchange for additional ‘research’ funding.
        Then, of course, there are always the requisite disclaimers, such as this one that was attached to the original posting of this goofy-assed article:

        Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

      • Don’t forget, the first rule ofthe Left in any argument, especially where immigration isconcerned, isto play the race cardin an attempt to villify their opponents before the masses!

        • They aren’t intelligent. They are dumb sheep. They can only think in slogans and pre-programmed responses. That way they get to look virtuous and never have to trouble their itty bitty brains with complexities and contradictions. The same people who call for open borders are the ones wailing about the world being overpopulated and producing too much CO2 (so let’s bring in millions of low carbon footprint people and increase their CO2 output. And then put them on welfare and encourage them to produce loads more people). They complain that climate change is going to cause cities to run out of water and threatens farming (so let’s increase the size of our cities so that we have millions more people to water, house and feed). They complain about loss of species and habitat (so lets bring in millions and build houses over bushland and grasslands).

          • Without sheep, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and others would not have been able to kill so many millions. Those wolves and the current ones seem to have learned their bloodthirsty ways from Mohamed, Attila, Genghis Khan, Roman emperors, etc. Sadly, it seems we have never had a shortage of sheep.

          • Sylvia,

            Seems to me that your generalizations reflect the same old assertions that are consistently made about the left by the right, and the same old assumptions about immigrants. So how does this show that you are any less sheep-like?

            I do not support illegal immigration. But legal immigration has its benefits. The non-immigrant population growth is declining as the baby boomers age and people put off having kids or not having them at all. This is an economic problem.

            According to Pew, while it’s true that immigrants are more likely to be in poverty (18% of adults), second-generation immigrants are slightly less likely (11%) than the general population (13%). Second gen have the same income, same home ownership, and are more likely to have completed college than the general population.

            “About three-quarters of second-generation Hispanics (78%) and Asian Americans (72%) say that most people can get ahead if they’re willing to work hard. Similar shares of the immigrant generations of these groups agree. By contrast, 58% of the full U.S. population of adults feel the same way, while 40% say that hard work is no guarantee of success.”
            (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/07/second-generation-americans/)

            In other words, there are complexities associated with immigration.

            I find it deeply offensive when people maintain that concern for immigrants, climate change, the poor, etc. is just a matter of “virtue signaling.” It may be true among some liberals, but no one I know or have ever met could be rightfully accused of being so shallow. To me it sounds like an excuse so that those who don’t share these concerns can feel better about themselves.

          • You’ve totally missed the point. It isn’t that having concern for immigrants, the environment, or the poor in itself is virtue signalling. Lefties tend to never examine the complexities and contradictions ACROSS the issues they promote, and in their own lives. People on the right are more CONSISTENT and practical. You can support immigration, but grown ups understand that it needs to be strictly regulated and controlled. Often those proclaiming support for refugees and immigrants live nowhere near where they settle. Open borders is not reconcilable with social welfare programs, public education and health care, and sustainability, but lefties demand it all. Objecting to ‘climate change’ and the fossil fuel industry is not compatible with the lifestyles that leftists enjoy. Climate change is everybody else’s fault, particularly those nasty deniers. I do not know a single person who fervently ‘believes’ in climate change who has ceased driving or refuses to fly. The new fad is supporting ‘gender diversity’ and transgenderism AND gender neutrality. These are incompatible concepts. Then the same people trying to erase all differences between the sexes are those strenuously defending the burka and the hijab; what more rigid sexual stereotyping is that?? Those who administer or support ‘diversity and inclusivity’ programs through such things as ‘prizes for all’ and affirmative action, never include themselves or their children in their theories. It’s all right to forget about merit for the sake of diversity…until it’s your little Tiffany who doesn’t win the dance prize because it went to somebody with two left feet on the basis of ‘diversity and inclusivity’. Why do ‘diversity’ officers – often middle class white females – never include themselves in their estimations of diversity? If they support ‘diversity’ shouldn’t they step aside and give minorities THEIR position? Why didn’t the Oxbridge, private boarding school educated journalists at the Guardian who are SO concerned that elite universities are dominated by the upper classes, give up their university placements to working class students? All leftists are hypocrites. To the core.

      • Well even “legal” immigrants and refuges from countries that don’t share western values are causing significant problems. Didn’t Sweden just have riots across the whole country from one particular immigrant group – that was welcomed with open arms?

    • Considering you get called a fascist denier if you don’t participate in leftard groupthinktalk it is little surprise you get tagged as a ‘right wing nationalist’ as well. Its just another epithet thrown at people who dare to dissent or merely question the substance of a proposition that is so obviously contrived to be a vector for power grab suited to one side of the political spectrum.

        • In 7th grade American and World History our teacher taught that Fascism of Europe was Left-Wing Marxism just not as far as Communism. Then in 8th grade Social Studies replaced American and World History. This was when the doctrine of the Frankfurt School was taking over the curiculum in public schools. The teacher was labeling Fascism as Right-Wing ideologies from the textbook we had. Over half of our class failed that class because we kept pointing out in our tests and homework that Fascism couldn’t be Right-Wng with all the proof of Marxism and Hagelism of Government controls and other Socialist Programs they had. That Hitler and Mussolini were devoutly Socialist. But they Nationalized businesses and Industry with high taxation and Government regulations to control production and products and healthcare and the population owns the property. Those are Right of Communism that nobody owns anything because everything belongs to the Government including the people. Where Right-Wing is Free Enterprise with no Government Interference in the population as our Constitution was designed. But from the start the Federal Government laid Tariffs and Duties on imports of products that funded the Federal Government, with a few taxes upon luxury thing’s like alcoholic beverages that was mostly done by the state’s Christian beliefs enforcement to control it. Not until Woodrow Wilson did Fascism gain a toehold. In America with the Individual Income Tax and Banking regulations. Through FDR Fascism was firmly installed in America through the New Deal legislation. Taxation and regulations mirrored Fascism in Europe. Including Environmental issues that Progressive Theodore Roosevelt started and his push of public health. Where TR created Federal Park’s and land control, FDR expanded it and Hitler started his land grab of forests, etc. National Healthcare has been pushed by the Left-Wng going back to Progressive Theodore Roosevelt and some Progressive Republicans. People forget the Blue Eagle was FDRs Swastika. In general, the Liberal American Fascism is what we are living now. Every aspect of our lives are taxed, regulated and licensed. We have Environmental Fascism that has targeted Fossil Fuels because they’re the biggest industry of Capitalism that everyone depends upon. Government is cashing in on it, while saying it’s bad for us and the environment.

          • What the left wants people not to know is that Fascism arose from the left in the early days of the 20th Century.

          • Of course the Democratic Party doesn’t want people to know that Fascism is Left-Wing. They have spent nearly a century spinning it to be Right-Wing. The Left has been in control of American media from the start of silent movies, radio, TV, the internet and cable. When you control all sources of information between the government and the public, it all spins in the direction of socialism as propaganda.

            Just like going on here with “skeptics” opposed to the Government pushing AGW and Climate Change based upon a lot of garbage. The Left set the stage that fossil fuels are evil villains that must be eradicated to “save the planet” and you can help by reducing your “carbon footprint” and paying higher taxes on it will remind you to be more thoughtful to conserve energy. Every day you’re reminded by the media, that you are an evil person that is killing the planet. Don’t you know that that plastic straw the fast food place in Arizona gave you, could choke a sea turtle in the Pacific Ocean? So the city I live in – in the middle of Arizona – just made it where you have to request a straw with your drink. Amazingly it’s supposed to fly or crawl out of the landfill and travel over 400 miles to the nearest Pacific coastline.

            I read – as required reading in 9th grade – “The Road to Serfdom” I then listened to the audio version a few years ago along with these “Liberal Fascism The secret history of the American Left from Mussolini to the politics of meaning” in 2009 and in the last month I’ve listened to the audio books of Dinesh D’Souza “Hillary’s America, the secret history of the Democratic Party” “The Big Lie; Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” “Death of a Nation; Plantation Politics and the making of the Democratic Party” I’ve also listened to “The Anatomy of Fascism” by Robert O. Paxton. I drive for a living and the audio versions pass time. Each of these books are filled with documented facts from history. By the way… If you’re an American; welcome to the Democratic Plantation of American Fascism.

    • “Hultman explains that many of the right-wing nationalist parties in Europe now have climate change denial as one of their most important issues.”

      Obviously, Hultman is unaware of the number of gang rape incidents that have been taking place in Sweden since “migrants” were let in to his picturesque with no plans to control them. If anyone asked him, I’m sure the response would be a blank look.

      No, studying someone else’s alleged mental disorder is more important than taking a hard, hard look at his own country’s failings toward its native citizens, and toward women in particular.

      What a moron!

    • As someone previously said on WUWT, any discussion that begins with one side calling the other “deniers” has nothing at all to do with science.

    • Amen, David Guy-Johnson. I’m an old, retired engineer and skeptic. (Just ask my wife.) But I have to admit that aside from my skeptical view of CAGW from a scientific/data viewpoint, when AlGore bursts onto the stage with his “The Inconvenient Truth” (Not.) movie full of errors and half-truths, that sealed the skeptic deal for me. Then the democrats in the US and bureaucrats in the UN entered the field with their end-of-the-world predictions, and I admit that encouraged me even more to support Republicans/conservatives and ultimately Trump.

    • “…the left, who first embraced climate change as a way to achieve its political aims.”

      What evidence is there that this is true? What political aims were associated with “embracing climate change” when it first became an issue?

      Climate change skepticism is a political reaction? Do you realize what you are saying? The implication is that skepticism has little to do with science, and everything to do with partisanship. And 71 up-votes – that says a lot!

      • Kristi, you haven’t been looking very hard if you have to ask “What evidence is there?” There are loads of articles on WUWT and other skeptic sites that prove the corruption and politicisation of the issue. What’s annoying is when people like you are so adamant that it’s all true, and ‘deniers’ are wrong, when you haven’t even bothered to do any research!!

        I too ‘believed’ in climate change. I am careful not to confuse politics with science. Both sides have vested interests. AGW could be political AND it could still be true. The fossil fuel industry can be trying to protect their interests by disproving it AND the theory can still be false! Looking at it from a scientific perspective, I can see there is no evidence to support it being true. Given the lack of correlation in the past between CO2 and temperature, noting the inherent limitations of modelling, seeing the failed predictions, and observing reality as opposed to media scare stories, I conclude the theory has already been falsified, and in fact there is no basis for the hypothesis that CO2 is a major driver of climate. Understanding the politics and ideology behind it explains WHY such a dodgy hypothesis was ever put forward, it explains how and why science has been corrupted, it explains why the political term ‘denier’ was coined, and how the scam continues to roll on, propped up by the media and Governments, who see a great source of tax revenue.

  2. A quick review of the comments section, as well as the stories on WAWT reveals a quite strong right wing bias, sometimes (when mentioning Agenda 21, UN takeover, for example) a quite loopy one. That is not to say that all ring wingers are climate “skeptics”, nor vice versa, but, the correlation is pretty clear. Or is there some left wing climate “skeptic” outfit I’m not aware of?

    • One prominent left leaning individual is Piers Corbyn- brother of Jeremy and a prominent skeptic -see his blog http://www.weatheraction.com/. there must be others. Corbyn argued at a recent GWPF meeting that the issue of misguided alarmism is far to important to allow political bias to trump rational analysis. I do agree with Guy-Johnson that the leftists started it all and the right is reacting. On the other hand Hitler and his boys would probably have been in the Mann-Santer-Gore camp.

      • I found a GB Shaw essay on how Mussolini’s approach was the best way for achieving Fabian Society ideals but was howled down for not knowing Fascist were right wing. With such flexible definitions, you do need to wonder if there is going to be anything meaningful in any correlation.
        A lot of prominent sceptics are far from rightwing but you do notice a lot of second guessing of leftwing truths. I doubt that they will give that cause even a single sentence.

        • Robert, Mussolini was a socialist, a man of the left. Fascism is a left wing phenomenon not of the right.

          • As I have often reminded people, the greatest coup of the political Left was to have successfully labled the NAZI Party (National Socilaists Workers Party of Germany) as a party of the far right, when it was nothing of the kind!

          • Indeed. Both the Nazis and the Communists were Left Wing. One discriminated on the basis of class and the other discriminated on the basis of race. The end result is the same. Death by the hand of the state.

        • If you think fascism is somehow a right wing phenomenon, then all I can say is history was probably not your strong suit in school. Fascists, socialists, communists and yes, progressive Democrats were all competing for the same audience in the early 20th century.

          [Your comment was thrown in moderation due to a typo in the email address. Just double check it next time to avoid the penalty box. -your friendly neighborhood mod]

          • Antifa is from the German Communist Party that was outed when the NAZI (Socialist) took over. Because they wanted the country to go full Communist. But as an opposition party, Hitler had them hunted down and put into the Labor Camps and Death Camps. These morons of Antifa today want Communism to take over in America and they’re in other countries too. Notice how they do not attack the Democrats that are moving farther left, but in reality are the actual Fascist by every political thing they support. When FDR brought in the “New Deal” the American Socialist Party’s and the American Communist Party lost lots of their members, when the leaders of those party’s declared that the Democrats were doing everything that they wanted, and they stopped putting up candidates to run for president.

    • There are a lot of left-wing global warming true believers who behave as one would expect sceptics to behave by clocking up lots of air miles, attending huge gabfests and living in large or even multiple houses etc that the rest of us hoi polloi can only dream of. Perhaps rather than a left-wing sceptic outfit it’s more a case of left-wing hypocrisy, but on an industrial scale.
      By contrast, I am the only sceptic in my family but I am the one who goes around turning off lights and fans in unoccupied rooms, turning off ovens that are no longer cooking anything, closing windows that are being used to heat the great outdoors and driving as economically as I can – but that is because I pay the bills! – and because I am offended by waste, an attitude I don’t see much of on the other side of this debate, especially when it involves taxpayers’ money collected from people who in many instances can ill afford it and spent by those who could but wouldn’t spend their own. Call me a right-wing sceptic and I will proudly agree.

      • James–you described me. I too am the only skeptic in my family. My wife is an environmental engineer and sustainable development expert, but I am the ardent conservationist of the family for the same reasons as you are!! Just a bunch of hypocRATS!!

    • Possibly not an organisation, Tony, but see the highly sceptical and scientific works of Piers Corbyn. Yes, Piers is the brother of Jeremy – the most left-wing leader of a major political party, arguably in British history. When he does utter forth on politics, Piers appears to be as left wing as his brother. Equally, for a left wing leader, Jeremy is incredibly quiet on “climate change”, no doubt influenced by his brother’s research.
      So, yes, it is possible to separate genuine climate science from politics and, personally, I wish more would do so.

    • Everybody cried fool fool fool. Check me out, my history as filmmaker, artist and commentator. I am not right wing, nor am I left, I am a truther. Take me on, I will destroy your rhetoric.

      • Factualist is a useful synonym for ‘truther:’
        Definition of factualist – A person whose predominant concern is with facts; Philosophy: An adherent of factualism

        Factualism definition, emphasis on, devotion to, or extensive reliance upon facts: the factualism of scientific experiment. See more.

        • The problem is when leftists confuse
          wild guess predictions of the future,
          very likely to be wrong,
          with actual facts … and they confuse
          computer model output with actual data.

    • Denis Rancourt is pretty out there. He is some sort of environmental activist/academic/anarchist, and he says it’s all BS. His take on the peer review process is interesting.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3Dz9NWJlE

      I think there are a lot of people who are environmentalists and used to consider themselves ‘green’ or on the left. When the scale of the lie and the true nature of the left revealed itself to me, I moved further right, but I think what is now considered right wing once was centrist or left of centre. Being right wing now describes somebody who is rational, hates identity politics, and believes in evidence, free speech and civil debate, and is not anti-Western culture. The left has gone nuts; it’s so corrupt and destructive. It shuts down dissent; the term ‘climate denier’ is a case in point. The left has totally destroyed art, it has totally destroyed science; in both of those cases, elites run the show and they cosy up to corrupt money. There’s nothing good or beautiful or honest about the left. It’s vicious and devious. More and more people see behind the mask of ‘compassion’.

      This is a fantastic interview by the way. The bright, beautiful and bold Candace Owens (and also a climate skeptic).
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRR7iQc2O6A
      She, like me, used to be on the left.

      She appeared on the Joe Rogan show and was pilloried in the comments section when she said she didn’t believe in AGW. Joe Rogan is not unintelligent, but there is just so much laziness displayed by media figures. They just defer to ‘authority’. These people are influential, particularly over the young. They need to start thinking for themselves and so some research. I am waiting for Joe Rogan and Brian Cox to grow a pair, and publicly state that the science and conclusions around climate science are dodgy. It’s people like that that need to come on board the skeptic train.

      • Well Said!
        ++++++++++++++
        But:
        “it has totally destroyed science”
        Not really. Want a few hours of uninterrupted peace and quiet away from the mobs?
        Just go to your local university Chemistry Dept. Physical science deters both leftists and Global warmists the same way garlic and Holy Water stops vampires. (Probably for the same reason.) Even though the campus is rotten with Leftys, they do not venture within 200 yards of the Chemistry building.

        Give it a try some time.

    • Um, as a registered Democrat since the age of 18, and a biologist I’m letting you know it isn’t just conservatives who are skeptical. I am a skeptic of the so called settled science of human caused global warming. 1. Scientific research always leads to more questions & it is never settled. Yet the questions are being ignored and the data manipulated to get the results wanted. Think of the asshole researcher who made up his data about the link between autism and vaccines, not to mention all the idiots out there that still believe there is a link because of that falsified study. Think that isn’t happening in human caused global warming studies? Think again. 2. The US government has fucked up scientific research in many fields by making the grantees address global warming even if their research has nothing to do with it. It is a colossal waste of time, money, physical energy, and brain power. I’ve seen it first hand and it is disgusting (I’ve seen the grants myself). Going out to count the number of a rare plant species in an area & report it? Gotta address global warming! WTF?! If the money were for finding out why said plant species is in decline or booming, that’s another story & looking at rising temperatures is warranted, though it still might have nothing to do with human caused global warming. 3. I wouldn’t say conservative skeptics are in denial. I’d say they think there are numerous causes to global warming and cooling, not just humans. I have yet to meet one who flat out denies the earth is getting warmer. Nor have I met one who says humans do not contribute to warming either. 4. It seems anyone with an agenda is a student of Paul Joseph Goebbels. Brainwashing the masses is astoundingly easy & quite frightening. 5. I am willing to bet there are other folks just like me who are in the skeptical closet when it comes to human caused global warming. Being called a fascist cunt in public because you talk about an experience you’ve personally had (me, US government grants) is really quite unpleasant & scary. So, most of us keep our mouths shut out of fear (Goebbels anyone?).

      • And remember, Goebbels was a Marxist (he never recanted), and just applied the same propaganda methods.

      • SJIM, OK I’m going to get in trouble for this one. I agree completely with you that “the US government has fucked up research in many fields….”

        Now on to that asshole researcher who made up his data bout the link between autism and vaccines. That would be Wakefield, and no, he did not make up any data. I’ve looked into this affair in some detail and a good summary would be here: http://vaxxedthemovie.com/who-is-dr-andrew-wakefield/ Wakefield publicly stated that he believed there might be problems with the MMR vaccine and for that he was called the equivalent of a fascist cunt, and worse: let that be a warning to any physician who dares to suggest that screwing with children’s immune systems through repeated and ever-increasing vaccinations might not be a good idea!

        It’s established science, shown many times: autistic children are generally characterized by damaged Purkinje cells in the brain; early immune activation can and does damage Purkinje cells; vaccines cause immune activation (that’s the point!); as evidenced by not-uncommon febrile seizures after vaccination, sometimes this immune activation is significant.

        If you think the science is obscured in the warming debate, that’s nothing compared to the active dismissal of any science that demonstrates that what we’re doing to our kids might not be such a great idea. http://vaccinepapers.org/part-1-immune-activation-autism/ But what’s the reaction to this information? Complete dismissal, even though it’s based on sound published science that’s been replicated many times– real evidence. We’re conditioned not to listen to it; it’s not that we listen to it and then reason it out, we’re conditioned to not even listen to it! Why? Because too much money is at stake for people to start questioning whether the current vaccine schedule is a good idea. A few millions thrown at the PR industry to make sure everyone stays in line is money well-spent.

        Talk about brainwashing the masses! Who in hell do you think profits by all these vaccines we give our kids?

        Yes, vaccines have their place. No, we shouldn’t be pumping our kids with ever-more vaccines, starting from birth, and unthinkingly going along with the CDC’s schedule– the same CDC that’s closely tied to the pharmaceutical industry that manufactures these vaccines, and that contributes to the CDC’s budget through the CDC Foundation. Conflict of interest? https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362

        • There is not, and never has been any reliable data connecting vaccines and autism.
          Likewise there are dozens of solid studies disproving any connection.

          • MarkW: you’re not paying attention. I provided peer-reviewed data that clearly and distinctly connects immune activation with autism: the science on this is beyond dispute, as they say. The only real question is: do vaccines provoke the immune system enough to initiate a cytokine cascade? From the medical community itself we know that febrile seizures after vaccination aren’t rare, and these types of seizures clearly indicate an enhanced immune response (remember that the whole point of vaccines is to elicit an immune response.) It’s therefore biologically possible, even plausible, that vaccines may in some rare cases causes harm to Purkinje cells leading to autism-like symptoms. Indeed, a little-known fact is that many cases of vaccine-induced encephalopathy have been compensated by the VICP. What’s encephalopathy? Let’s just say that if your kid got it, you’d wish they hell they hadn’t. It’s brain damage. But… they don’t compensate for autism except in very rare cases. What’s the difference between autism and encephalopathy? I’ll tell you: it’ll be a cold day in hell when I want my kids, or anyone’s kids, to have either. Why don’t they compensate for autism? Because if the public knew that vaccines can cause brain damage profits would go right down the toilet. Hence, “encephalopathy”– a word a lot of people can’t even pronounce– is sort of OK, but “autism”– the scare word that everyone knows– is absolutely not OK.

            It’s a racket, MarkW. It’s kinda like global warming only worse.

            On the one hand we have epidemiological evidence– a lot of it by Sanofi Pasteur, which makes vaccines (hello?), evidence sponsored by the CDC, that says no harm. On the other hand we have plenty of biological evidence that contradicts this. What do you think the chances are that the data has been biased in order to protect the vaccine program? We also have clear evidence that the CDC has decided before any evidence was heard that it would NEVER come down on the side that says vaccines may cause brain damage–even though we have compensated cases that say they can in some cases.

            You, just like the warming alarmists, are only listening to the sanctioned narrative.

          • Somebody sarcastically asked whether I was an anti-vaxxer when I said I was a skeptic. I haven’t looked into the vaccination issue; I just accept the science, as most people do for global warming, so maybe I am guilty of the same laziness and gullibility of which I accuse AGW ‘believers’. However, I think it is important to point out a key difference between the vaccination debate and the global warming one, as I wrote in another post. It isn’t just a matter of this group of scientists says this, and another group of scientists says the other. CAGW requires belief in the ability of ‘scientists’ to look far into the FUTURE of a complex system that they don’t understand now, and accurately predict what will happen. Skepticism should be the only option. The vaccination issue seems to be a far more direct cause:effect issue to investigate, and the variables are limited and can be more controlled. You can have control groups. Do we have a control planet? Determining if there is a correlation between vaccination and autism makes sense, but there appears to be no disagreement that the historical CO2/temperature shows no correlation, or not one that isn’t continually overridden by other more important factors. Therefore I am puzzled that the CAGW theory exists at all, given that none of the other more important factors that we know about have gone away, we can’t control or isolate them, AND we don’t know what other mechanisms might be in play.

          • “You can have control groups”

            No you can’t, because of made up ethical concern.

            “I accept the science” is codename for I deny there is a debate and worship some institution like the worthless academies. Just suppress these old rags.

          • I was an anti-vaxxer before I was a warming skeptic. In fact I simply swallowed the consensus on warming.

            I became an anti-vaxxer after doing extensive research. Vaccines haven’t done nearly as much for our collective health as we believe: that’s what historical statistics tell us, since huge declines in infectious disease deaths happened well before vaccines came around– for the most part, and due mostly to public health measures such as flush toilets and chlorinated water. It’s a long and complicated story.

            I, and all of those people who are called vaccine science deniers (sound familiar?) believe that vaccine science has been corrupted. We believe that the science is largely controlled by the pharmaceutical industry and there’s lots of evidence for this. You can find lots of books, the majority of them by established physicians, that document how the pharmaceutical industry controls medicine. I’ll rattle off a few that I’ve read:

            Pharmageddon
            The Truth About Drug Companies
            Overdosed
            Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime, written by a co-founder of the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration. Compares pharma to organized crime and finds a lot of similarities.

            We’re not in Kansas anymore, folks. Drugs are big money. Gardasil (that worthless and dangerous piece of crap, as some say) is a billion-dollar-a-year blockbuster that they tried to make mandatory. You think we have an opioid epidemic by accident? It’s funny that tens of thousands of Americans die each year from opioids and for the most part we just wring our hands, yet get a few parents who want choice in vaccination and all hell breaks loose– in a very big and loud way. Do you think this is by accident?

            Don’t get me wrong: vaccines can be useful and good. But I firmly believe that pumping kids full of vaccines isn’t a good idea, unless you want to sell a lot of vaccines.

          • What’s your explanation for the decrease of diseases before vaccines were invented or used?

            Do you believe isolation doesn’t work?

          • Good question on smallpox and polio, no easy answer. As I said, sometimes vaccines are useful and good.

            Smallpox: William Foege led the ground effort to eradicate smallpox in Africa and India. He was opposed to mass vaccination and believed this would lead to failure (read about it in “House on Fire”.) Instead he used a method of ring vaccination, practiced successfully in 18th-19th-century Britain when mass vaccination also failed, and this was the isolation of cases and vaccination only of those in contact with the case. This isn’t an argument against smallpox vaccine; this is an argument against mindless mass-vaccination.

            Polio: an extremely interesting and complicated topic. Was polio really a disease transmitted by a virus? If so, why were some of the first cases not in the densely-populated cities, but in rural Vermont– shortly after the introduction of lead arsenate insecticide? A study of polio raises more questions than it answers. Did the government cover up the real cause of polio in pesticide use, just as it had earlier when fruit with excessive pesticide residues caused sickness and in some cases death? This cover-up was done as a bargain: you (industry) promise to clean up your act and we won’t publicize this. The government cover-up of pesticide-induced sickness prior to the “polio” outbreaks is documented in the history, “Before Silent Spring.” Why did this “virus” also affect all sorts of farm animals and pets as well, as documented by a Vermont physician– a good sign of toxicity, not of infection?

            When we talk of the eradication of childhood diseases one of the deadliest in the 19th century was simply intestinal disorders. Poor sanitation, tainted sausages and milk, no food inspection, no refrigeration, outhouses that might serve 50 or more people each with no running water, soap not in widespread use until about 1915– those were the conditions for half the populations of the cities. Even when toilets were installed in the tenements they served way too many people and were generally filthy. We say that vaccines saved us from deadly childhood disease but it’s much more accurate to say that cleaning up the filth did– that, and improved nutrition and the discovery of vitamins.

            I’m merely trying to point out that, just as in consensus climate science, things are not what they seem. The narrative that “vaccines saved us” is only a little bit true, but it’s very useful in selling vaccines and is rigorously defended.

          • Also, why is polio style paralysis not called polio in India, following mass vaccination?

          • The hep B vaccine causes MS (a fact more robustly established than any statistical medical observation not relating to the effect of low dose radiations). Another neurological connection.

          • Please give me the reference of the studies that do not show a higher number of MS cases for those vaccinated. (They all do.)

          • You obviously don’t know how science and/or medicine is done. It is up to you to provide a double blind study that proves that the HepB vaccine is the causative agent in the cohort of people contracting MS. You are asking for proof of a negative. Keep your day time job, and stay away from any career in medicine, science or statistics.

          • You are obviously make up stuff as you go. Please provide a double blind study proving the benefits of a vaccine. Just one.

          • Don’t have to, because all I have to say is that both polio and smallpox have been eradicated by vaccines. If you have another explanation of how both polio and smallpox have been eradicated, please post it.

          • Remy: given if I were to go to some other site and an anonymous poster said that AGW was nonsense, I’d go with what 97% of scientists say.

            I’m an AGW skeptic. I’m trying to make a point.

          • And one of these solid study has a felon who is on the run as author. Can you comment on that, alleged conservative?

          • From approximately February 2004 until February 2010, Poul Thorsen executed a scheme to steal grant money awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC had awarded grant money to Denmark for research involving infant disabilities, autism, genetic disorders, and fetal alcohol syndrome. CDC awarded the grant to fund studies of the relationship between autism and the exposure to vaccines, the relationship between cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and the relationship between developmental outcomes and fetal alcohol exposure.

            Thorsen worked as a visiting scientist at CDC, Division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, before the grant was awarded.

            In April 2011, Thorsen was indicted on 22 counts of Wire Fraud and Money Laundering.

            https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/fugitives/profiles.asp

            This is the sort of people who “research” vaccines.

            And it isn’t a exception in the medical world. Medicine is mostly unscientific. They HAVE to say they practice Evidence Based Medicine.

          • Again, scientifically speaking, so what? That the author is a “bad” guy says nothing about how valid or not his scientific results are. You are basically doing an ad hom on the scientist to discredit the science because you are incapable of understanding let alone discrediting the science on scientific grounds. Ad hom’s only show the weakness of your own position.

          • Yes obviously, the guy is a crook but then his research is reliable.

            Also, just because someone makes fake IDs for a living doesn’t mean he can’t be employed as a notary.

          • simple-t, what would it matter if Joesf Megele himself was the author? In Science what matters is the science, not the person performing the experiments or writing the papers. As distasteful as you might find the author, that does nothing to disprove the author’s scientific conclusions. Only science can do that.

          • John Endicott, are you seriously trolling or just trolling?

            There is nothing to disprove. The guy is a crook, as are many other people in the medical business. Drain that swamp!

        • Vaccination is the religion of the political right and of the center (Hillary shills).

          Then Trump came.

          • Another irrelevant, inane statement.

            No, simple-t, a very relevant statement that hits directly at the heart of the issue. You claim vaccines don’t work, the fact that vaccines were instrumental in the elimination of smallpox and polio shows how wrong you are.

          • “You claim vaccines don’t work”

            I don’t. You are not even trying.

            Show me the evidence regarding “polio”, whatever that is.

          • There were objections against smallpox vaccine because the vaccine was causing harm, and this shouldn’t surprise any of us because we’re talking about 19th-century medicine. The concerns and harms were real.

            We can acknowledge that the smallpox vaccine did a lot of good. But, vaccines are medical interventions; they can be impure (e.g., the deadly Cutter incident); they introduce heavy metals, such as aluminum and, in the past, mercury, metals that have no business being injected directly into the body where they’re 100% absorbed (as opposed to 0.03% absorbed from ingesting aluminum.) Vaccines elicit an immune response; that’s what they’re designed to do, and aluminum is in many vaccines specifically to elicit an immune response. It’s a little silly to say that everyone reacts similarly, and that no one is really harmed. If this is so, then why do we have compensated cases of severe vaccine injury, awards given out in a “vaccine court” court that’s notoriously antagonistic to claimants? This is freely acknowledged by the medical community although they continually say that harms are just “coincidental.” And the proof of that is where? Were those cases included in the epidemiological studies that supposedly prove no harm? What do you think?

            But especially, in this forum where we complain so loudly that the other side of the issue of warming isn’t given a fair hearing, and the propaganda out there is heavily weighed against the scientific evidence, you’d think people would be just a bit more careful about what they accept as evidence, and a bit more suspicious of the authorities who, I might add, have been shown time and again to be working hand-in-hand with the pharmaceutical industry that has everything to gain from vaccine acceptance and isn’t above dirty tricks to ensure that acceptance.

        • “Yes, vaccines have their place”

          I have yet to see any vaccine that is useful in a civilized country, but vaccines could potentially save the day. One day. Somewhere. Maybe.

      • Thanks for describing this position, SJM –
        “3. I wouldn’t say conservative skeptics are in denial. I’d say they think there are numerous causes to global warming and cooling, not just humans. I have yet to meet one who flat out denies the earth is getting warmer. Nor have I met one who says humans do not contribute to warming either.”

        This accurately reflects my take on AGW. However, when discussing global warming / climate change with anyone of a “progressive” bent, because I don’t their whole bags of nuts on CO2-AGW, I’m classed as a “denier”

        Their minds are closed to any discussion / consideration / debate about nuances of any degree.

      • “Think of the asshole researcher who made up his data about the link between autism and vaccines”

        What evidence has been provided that is was the case?

        • Brian Deer, a journalist, made the case against Wakefield and the British General Medical Council was all-too-happy to go along with it without further scrutiny. A journalist, for cripssake.

          My guess is that they wanted to make a lesson of Wakefield and Deer was their puppet to accomplish this. Others have shown conclusively, through an examination of the biopsy reports, that pathology experts, not Wakefield, made the determination that the children in question had an inflammatory bowel disease. Deer wanted to pretend that Wakefield made that diagnosis up; hence the baseless charge of fraud.

          BTW, the (unjustly) retracted paper never asserted a link between the MMR and autism. Don’t believe me? Read the paper for yourself; I have. The paper was about a novel bowel disease in children with autism and the findings have since been replicated. So where exactly is the fraud????

          Lesson: you go against the medical establishment and pharma industry and you’re going to pay big-time. That’s the meaning of the Wakefield affair.

          Wakefield’s partner in all this was John Walker-Smith, one of the world’s experts in pediatric gastrointestinal pathology. He, too, lost his medical license. However, his insurance, unlike Wakefield’s, allowed for an appeal, which he ultimately won. The judge determined that the British GMC made gross errors in reasoning in its case against Walker-Smith, which is essentially the same case as that against Wakefield.

          Like I said, this is all a very long story. The public gets made-to-order soundbites, pablum to get their minds right. Kinda like global warming, no?

          • “Brian Deer, a journalist, made the case against Wakefield”

            Anti-“anti-vaxxers” will accept “evidence” from a non MD, non virologist, non scientist, non expert if they like it.

            But then critics of vaccines are expected to defer to the verdict of ‘sperts!

    • Naturally CAGW/CACC will be correlated with the socialists who latched onto the half-baked theory and turned it into the hoax that it is today in order to advance their political goals after their Soviet workers’ paradise collapsed.

      Anybody with common sense will oppose their agenda. As is always the case, the Climate Change brigade has the correlation exactly backwards.

    • “as well as the stories on WAWT”

      Did you mean “WUWT”?
      Can not read, can not write, can not spell.
      Typical leftist.
      Learn some science before you open your mouth. I will help you.
      F=Ma
      PV=nRT
      Watch and learn.

      • Hey, we all make typos. Tony has some valid points – WUWTers would tend to be more from the political right, and some do seem to be very misguided (I’ll avoid Tony’s pejorative term). I can recall a number of conversations here where scientific laws were explained very carefully and patiently to a commenter who simply repeated their own unscientific assertions. But in science (and politics) you can always get that. If everything is dealt with on its merits we have a chance of moving forward. So, for example, while WUWTers tend to be more from the political right, they are mostly pretty rational and open to discussion, even though the political left label them with disparaging terms like “far right”, “deniers” and “loopy” (I can’t avoid those disparaging terms in this context). So ….. everything on its merits, please.

    • One constant I’ve noticed with leftists, they are incapable of dealing with their own nut cases, so they just deny that these nut cases exist.
      Not just that, they declare that you are a nut case if you notice their nut cases.

      As to the existence of left wing deniers, I present the Courtney’s.

      • More than that, they posthumously reassign their nutcases to their opponents. Fascism grew out of the left in the early 20th century, yet to hear leftist tell it, Fascism came from the right. The KKK came from the democrats (it’s not just blacks the klan would lynch, but Republicans as well) yet to hear today’s democrats tell it, the KKK is exclusively Republican (pay no attention to the fact that the Senate’s only KKK member was Democrat Senator Robert Byrd).

    • “That is not to say that all right wingers are climate “skeptics”, nor vice versa, but, the correlation is pretty clear.”

      I think the explanation is that conservatives look at the world in a more realistic way than do those on the Left. Conservatives live in the real world and those on the Loony/Far Left live in a delusional world.

      In the real world there is no evidence of CAGW.

      • Yes, arbitrarily defined “right wing” includes both climate politics realism and migration politics realism. That’s the connection. Realism vs. idealism. It exists.

    • Tony
      I’ve been a libertarian since about 1973.

      I have voted for only one Republican in my life.

      My bias, based on experience as a liberal
      from 1969 to 1973, is to not trust the government
      — both bureaucrats and politicians.

      Liberals during the Vietnam War did not trust
      the government, and demanded free speech
      — now liberals love government, and try to shut down
      free speech (unless you agree with them).

      The coming climate change catastrophe is an imaginary
      boogeyman invented mainly by government bureaucrats
      with science degrees.

      They get permanent job security,
      and the left wing politicians
      get a (fake) reason to
      “need” more government power
      (to save the Earth for the children).

      I know nonsense when I see it
      — the claim that climate
      change so far has been bad news
      is obviously wrong,
      and the claim that the future climate
      can be predicted, is also wrong.

      My climate change blog:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  3. Nationalism is a political, social and economic system characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining sovereignty (self-governance) over the homeland.
    Which means the warmunists are against sovereignty, self governance and the interests of the nation.

  4. They forgot “Scientific Denialism”, where a person is unable to find valid evidence that the temperature of the atmosphere is sensitive to changes in CO2.

  5. #Tony: In Holland a documentary maker has a serious left profile and he experienced, after making a critical and skeptic documentary on the environment, how the mainstreammedia ignored him. His name is Marijn Poels, the documentary was named “The uncertainty has settled” and he is about to bring out part two. He still considers himself a lefty, but very refreshing to find out left wing critics exist.

  6. There has always be en a joke between Norway and Sweden calling each other crazy. I am very glad that this study is in Sweden, so i can joke with my swedish friends that also are skeptics. Maybe I’ll send the leader Martin a short mail, hoping he can confirm a question I have.

    • If you mention any resemblance to that famous past king of both Sweden and Norway, King Cnut, in your questions relating to sea level rise and the denial of evidence in pursuit of confirmation of belief please be careful not to accidently offend.

      I’d be interested in the question and the response. I think there are a great many intelligent people out there who genuinely believe that CAGW is true – but I do question the prominent use of the word denial if they intend to have a reasonable debate about it.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great

  7. In the project, the network will examine the ideas and interests behind climate change denial, with a particular focus on … ” … uncertainty? empirical evidence? the sceptics’ actual arguments? anything relevant? Of course not. They aren’t interested in examining the actual issue at all. They just want a particular result and they set up the project accordingly. Sir Humphrey would be proud of them.

  8. The Swedes should stop all those cars from being torched on their streets, I mean the CO2 begin produced from this is a real concern! Oh yes, I am being facetious.

    • We should investigate the emissions of car burning and whether any substance emitted has toxic effect at the ppb level.

      Evidence that such substances are not toxic at the ppm level should be taken as a hint of an increased toxicity as a lower dose.

  9. As usual he is calling us “deniers” when he is denying every cause of climate change other than CO2. We only deny that man made CO2 will cause catastrophic climate change; he denies everything else.

    One the “right-wing” part of the argument. I have long thought that trying to divide politics in one dimension (left/right) is very misleading e.g. the National Socialist German Workers Party. It is true that many who identify as “left-wing” have embraced climate alarmism as a way of furthering their agenda but that does not make all who doubt that CO2 will cause a catastrophe “right-wing.”

  10. People actually get paid to study this total nonsense?

    The whole shebang is wrong on so many different levels I don’t even know where to start. Until I calm down I think I’ll leave it to the more gifted and acerbic commenters among you.

  11. If they want to know why people are skeptical– maybe they should ask a few skeptics. In my case it is NOT to do with not believing in the greenhouse effect. It is principally because of the amount of exaggeration on the alarmist side. You know, the way they have turned “change” into a universal ill, for e.g.

    And regarding “everyday denial” – was their conference done over skype, or did they all fly in to a nice destination with a few spare days for sightseeing…?

    • …was their conference done over skype?

      No clearly not, they do not want to ‘deny’ themselves the opportunity for some self examination – starting with gazing at their own navels no doubt. I’d like to go to that conference – it would be like visiting a different planet.

    • It’s funny. Over the years I’ve seen many studies of the sceptic position. They always get it backward. It’s like their mind is incapable of understanding the opposing view.

      • I’ve read a number of studies dealing with how well left and right know each other.
        In every single one of them, those on the right did a much better job of explaining the positions of the left and their arguments to support those positions, than those on the left did for right wing positions.
        There are several proposed reasons for this.
        1) The left has convinced itself that they are superior, therefore they are always correct. Because of this, there is no need to understand the positions of others.
        2) The left tends to exclude from their company anyone who disagrees with them, as a result they never actually meet and discuss with right wingers. As a result, they actually come to believe the stereotypes that the tell each other.

        NOTE: These reasons are not mutually exclusive.

        • Mark W said:
          ” … those on the right did a much better job of explaining the positions of the left and their arguments to support those positions, than those on the left did for right wing positions. …”

          Did it ever occur to you that
          those on the left are stooooooopid:
          They are busy “believing” and “feeling”,
          and lecturing and scolding …
          that no time is left for learning.

    • In their minds, they already know they are “right”, so there is no need for them to learn why it is that you are “wrong”. Their job is to lecture you until you come around and start agreeing with them.

      • Demonstrably show them that they’re wrong about something, and it’s like a human version of BSOD. Blank stare, catatonic, maybe a few indignant squawks. Don’t worry though, by next morning they’ll have “rebooted” and be right back to parroting the same talking points you refuted.

    • Left wing academics have always been bonkers, it’s just that with the internet they can let the whole world know how bonkers they are.

  12. Oh dear, another left winger trying to rearrange the world so he doesn’t have to alter his mindset.

  13. White anglo saxon males are resistant to the climate change koolaide spell.

    Color me shocked.

    • to be fair lots of different types of people are , even if they see claiming they belive has a way of getting free cash.

  14. Ah, smiles! Joseph Stalin had a lovely benevolent smile too.

    And ‘right wing’ is soo last century. ‘Anti-collectivist’ is a much better term.

    I have a suggestion for the team: how about adding intelligence to the list of characteristics to consider? All the ‘evils’ they look at go back to one simple character trait: people thinking for themselves and not happy with the world as revealed by someone else, in particular not by by self-appointed prats.

      • It shows his confidence.

        And people in a bubble, that are supremely confident, can get away with almost anything when dealing with their co-bubble-conspirators (including wearing their PJs to work).

  15. No need for any studies:

    Climate change propaganda strongly linked to left-wing internationalism

  16. Visit the U.N. Survey “myworld2015.org”.
    The U.N. invited public input regarding matters of interest on which action should be taken.
    Of 16 matters highlighted, ( a good education,public health etc.),with more than 8 million voters canvassed, there in 16th place of 16 issues is “ action taken on climate change”.
    There seem to be a very large number of people unconcerned about global warming, indeed climate sceptics.

      • May I suggest that only those people predisposed to believe the UN is useful, would be on that site and there be the poll is strongly biased for this reason.

        It in no way reflects average or typical of any country, except the fairy land of “global governance will make the world a wonderful place to live”.

        • People here who despise the UN for good reasons will non-the-less quote the positive evaluation of vaccines by a UN agency any day.

  17. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    also;

    “There will come a day, when all the lies will collapse under their own weight, and truth will again triumph.”

    Paul Joseph Goebbels

    • Bruce, here we are accepting this in reference to CAGW yet not vaccines and the industry where there is copious amounts of conflict of interest and scandals?
      Another commenter posted a reasonable response, well articulated and precise, yet the true believers down vote and claim there is no link?
      This is confirmation bias, just like with the left, and it is no different in application. As much as I enjoy 95% of what MarkW comments… He’s operating exactly like the alarmist faithful with regards vaccination.

      • Also, the CDC involvement in hiding the origin of the cholera epidemic in Haiti. It isn’t one the facts regarding Haiti that they often comment on.

        I don’t know why the so-called conservatives still defend the CDC.

      • Someone can hold agreeable ideas in one particular domain and disagreeable ideas in another.

        I do not know Willis that well. I stopped reading his stuff a long time ago, because it was mostly drivel. Earlier this year, he started filling my Facebook with hate speech.

        I know Andrew a bit better. He used to be reasonable, but has moved sharply nativist recently. It is perfectly normal for people in the political wilderness (in the UK) to find each other and embrace each other’s ideas.

        Stronger ties between climate skepticism and the far right will not help the former, as Trump and Farage are faltering.

        • This may be removed but please note that a phobia is an irrational fear. A theocracy that preaches global domination and the death of those who do not accept its rule is something of which to be very afraid. I have never seen anything by Willis that is islamophobic however his concern, if true, is real and warranted: it is not a phobia.

          As for your comments about the UK they are about 40 years out of date. Decades of state, socialist, education have wrought havoc upon free speech especially politically and environmentally. It is impossible to have a rational debate with a climate alarmist because (being almost exclusively socialist) they simply believe – like their following the great leader referred to above: critical thinking is unheard of with these people.

          There are no ties between climate pseudoscience scepticism and the far right however there is strong evidence that non socialists are better educated, informed and disciplined in their approach as opposed to the left which follows every monopolistic bandwagon with religious ferocity.

          Btw, Trump and Farage are not faltering except in your myopic view.

          • At the current pace of Brexit negotiation, and suicidal EU policies, I wonder whether the EU will outlive the Brexit process.

          • The left gets most of their information from other leftists. As a result, they are always convinced that the right is both evil and failing.
            Just look at their reaction to Trump winning the election, even though there was evidence of his political strength prior to the election.

        • Given the current climate, merely displaying digust at yet another religious motivated killing will be labelled as hate speech.
          Every decent person is apparently Islamophobic nowadays.

        • I do not know Willis or Andrew or Richard Tol. I do know, however, from his post that Richard Tol – contributing, lead, principal and convening author of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – is left wing.

          I would remind him, however, that 364 left leaning economusts who, in 1981, wrote that Mrs. Thatcher’s economic policy would lead to disater were proved to be hopelessly wrong while the handful of “right wing”” economists who supported her strategy (which has seince been copied extensively) were proved correct.

          I respect Professor Tol, however, for posting on WUWT, while so many of his CAGW friends are too afraid to respond to any challenge to their religion.

    • Not wanting to be killed by a jihadist makes one an islamaphobe.
      Wanting to control illegal immigration makes one a Nazi-apologist.

      I’ve been dealing with the “logic” of the left for decades.

    • @ mods,

      Can someone determine if the posting using the ID as Richard S.J. Tol is in fact as implied by the name a certain Professor Tol. The comment looks more like one from some kid in his mamma’s basement. It is a bizarre comment coming from anyone.

  18. The real Deniers are those that deny reality and hence deny affordable energy to millions of people.
    Right and left have no meaning in this context.

  19. One the problems with this ‘pop psychology ‘ is that is starts from the basis that anything that comes out of climate ‘science ‘ is an unquestionable true. In reality theory’s, such as AGW, exist because sometimes it is not possible to have unquestionable ‘truth ‘ in the first place . While they also ignore the central role of ‘critical’ review to the development of science preferring instead a position of absolute best found in politics, religion or sport fans.
    While the basis of this approach has been seen before , that people who hold views different the one held by the ‘approved group ‘ have something fundamental wrong with them. They are not merely wrong , but evil or bad too and behind that idea is found a mountain of bodies.

  20. So, what’s wrong with being a right-wing or a nationalist? Lots of question begging by these people. Political association is an observation, not an arguement.

    • What’s wrong with them is that such people oppose left wing internationalists. Which makes them evil.

    • Declare war on the Nobel committee first (according to McCain’s principle that foreign political meddling is a casus belli).

  21. I saw most of the time climate change denial — unless one define climate change, it has no meaning. I deny global warming but accept the natural variation.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  22. Two phenomena.
    The rise of Populism
    The Glowbull Warming scam.
    This Swedish buffoon with his nose deep in the trough mentions correlation but infers causation.
    It never occurs to his tiny mind that incessant and blatant policy based evidence making agitprop turns any rational person to realise that the virtue signalling left wing globalist politicos don’t give a shit about the people they pretend to represent. And if all the “respectable” politicians and their psyentist supporters absolutely refuse to engage in even a semblance of mature fact- based debate, then folks will turn to the supposedly ‘unrespectable’ politicians.
    That will be the populists and even more extreme groups
    That is by far the most probable causation.

    An absolutely classic (non climate) example in the UK has been the 30 year orgy of gang rape and sex slavery of vulnerable white & Sikh girls by groups of Muslims.

    Only a couple of British main stream politicians were even prepared to mention the problem because all the others thought ‘community relationships’ and multiculturalism was way more important than the lives of thousands of little girls. For long enough, only the seriously right wing BNP was prepared to raise the issue. Even now, the reasonable but vilified UKIP (by no means ‘far right’) is the only major party prepared to put their heads above the parapet and clearly condemn what continues to carry on.

    I wonder what the Swedish buffoon would make of that?

  23. It’s called people capable of rational thought exercising their own minds, rather than following some irresponsible leaders over a cliff.

    • Simple,

      Left leaning +> lack of independent thought +> agree with left consensus +> believe in BS

      Right leaning => think for yourself => question CAGW => consider CAGW as (leftist) BS

      • Right leaning => defend the monopoly of MS Windows, believes an OS is the analog of a car, defends Obama’s socialism when applied his foes in to Silicon Valley (Newt Gingrich), defend the WHO and the CDC, defend vaccine because “science” and “consensus”

      • Yes outside the alt right, Trump supporters, the right is unwilling to criticize vaccines. That alone debunks your false narrative. Tucker only once mentioned that “no go zone”.

  24. Perhaps the establishment of this group is tantamount to an acknowledgement that climate alarmism and the globalism that uses fear mongering to justify ts totalitarian aims is a real political liability. People still believe in democracy, want to elect their own representative government and not be subjects to unaccountable bureaucrats.

  25. “Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism”

    Or conversely, that advocacy of climate change is associated with being left wing? Who knew?

  26. Pieces of tripe like this are best treated to a simple bit of fun.

    Change denier for alarmist, right wing to left wing etc. Makes amusing reading.

    Someone might try it with this lot and send it to the Swede.

  27. Isn’t this proof that global warming AKA “clmate change” is political because if denial of it is political, then so is its advocation?

  28. I never knew I was a right wing nationalist.

    I have read that the extreme left global warmers want more government control on…. well everything.

    I looked up governmental control and I got to Fascism which seems about right-

    “Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce”

  29. LOL. Another Merit Badge for we DEPLORABLES, now with AGEISM and Denial for more good taste!

  30. I could easily make the argument from the above that conservatives are critical thinkers, questioning what they’re told in order to better understand the world; while progressives/leftists are accustomed to believing what they’re told (i.e. gullible). But neither the claims above or mine are “science.”

  31. He forgot “racist”. I’m shocked.

    Any other comment on this steaming pile of myopic, self-absorbed, delusional, wildly-wrong-from-its-basic-assumptions crap isn’t worth my time.

  32. “…..a more climate friendly life style involves…..what many of us hold dear….socializing…nature…..less stress….better health…..’. This is telling that “many of us” have little understanding of how stressful and unhealthy life was even less than 150 years ago before everyone in first world countries had ready access to fuel and electricity. A couple of billion human beings are still in that situation.

    • Yep, the Roman empire was a wonderful time of free love, free sex, and love thy neighbor. All the Chinese dynasties were utopian times with perfect weather and lots of food. The French revolution happened because…. they’re French?

  33. As long as they can blame the deniers, then they can go on using fossil fuels, because it is the other tribe’s fault.

  34. I am sure this sage and unselfish ‘Scientist’ Martin Hultman, when applying for grant moneys, put ZERO Kronor in the field for travel costs to international conferences across the globe.

    Anything else would be behavioural climate-change denialism.

    NB: Yes, this year is an election year in Sweden, where a so-called far-right is posed to make major gains.

  35. The author literally has no more authority to assert that “climate change is an existential crisis” than a burger flipper in a drive through.
    He is a sociologist rent seeker who has chosen to apply propaganda techniques to enforce the most fringe anti-science positions of climate extremism.
    He has no background in climate science.
    He also seeks to enforce immigrstion extremism to suppress dissent and public discussion on immigration.
    A real pos.

  36. So I wonder how many alarmists are pro-abortion, or feminists, or pro open-borders? Does that mean the issues are linked?

  37. Centuries ago, many a solemn academic treatise was written concerning the investigation, identification, and classification of… witches.

    Some things never change.
    Now go watch the Monty Python “We found a witch!” scene again.

  38. “EVERYDAY DENIAL”: includes excess air travel. Doesn’t this mean Gore and the head of Greenpeace (and others) are denialists of the 7th kind?
    Wow.

  39. A fair amount of this is actual reaction, with many leftist political parties embracing climate change, and part is projection on the part of the leftists.
    As the leftists accept the whole climate change narrative as an article of faith, they presume the opposition similarly blindly opposes them. As they have no rational justification for their faith, they also presume the opposition shares their thought processes.

  40. Funny how they never research the connection between the rise of climate alarmism and neo-marxist/neo-malthsian thought.

  41. Oh how Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov would be so proud ofthese muppets, or useful idiots as he would call them. I would put money on the fact that these guys worship that mass murderer, although unlike that other well educated loon from a wealthy middle-class family, Che Guavara, he never actually pulled a trigger himself, preferring to order others to do it for him! Barking mad!

  42. So, what Martin Hultman is telling us is people on the political “right” are more intelligent than those on the “left”? Ok, I could have saved Chalmers University of Technology a big pile of kronas, all they had to do was ask. This project will no doubt be widely touted by all the usual suspects who hate energy production, manufacturing, modern medical technology and agriculture. Really wish we could compile an exhaustive listing of all these people and block them from accessing any of the many things they claim to hate so that they could live their utopian dream.

  43. Maybe the GWPF should start a study of the 40 “experts” in the Climate Denial Study business — and correlate their political alliances, personal habits (Do they travel by air? Do they have gas and diesel automobiles? Do they use electricity produced with fossil fuels? Heat their homes with gas or oil or fossil-fueled electric?), patriotic or ‘internationalists? etc.

    This would allow us to paint a good pictures of what makes apparently intelligent people engage in Climate alarmism despite the evidence right before their eyes.

  44. From my perspective the two most important scientific opponents of “consensus” AGW advocacy are Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. Neither could be called right wing in any sense.

  45. Perhaps Nationalists just don’t like their nation being taken over by supra-national activist groups…?

  46. God help us !! Now we will be slapped in jail, not only for denying human climate change but also for voting Conservative. Where will this all end ? They will manufacture babies with a Left-wing bias to make sure they believe in both global warming AND vote for the criminal “Left” !!!

  47. I could say that people who want to severely limit ordinary citizens choice of transportation and extract money from middle class taxpayers to reduce carbon emissions are left-wing nut jobs.

    • I could say that people who want to severely limit ordinary citizens choice of transportation and extract money from middle class taxpayers to reduce carbon emissions —while sacrificing nothing themselves—are…..

      There, fixed it.

  48. From the article: “we also need to understand the type of reactions and everyday denials that explain why we don’t take the greenhouse effect seriously – even when we see the consequences in front of our eyes.”

    What consequences? Methinks he assumes too much. There is no evidence that humans are causing the climate to do anything out of the ordinary.

    I don’t reach that conclusion because I am conservative, I reach it because I have seen no evidence of humans having any influence over what the Earth’s climate does.

    Don’t you love how the authors assume CAGW is settled science. A lot of smart people make that mistake.

    In fact, smart people are perfectly capable of entertaining some really bizarre delusions. Maybe this study group should study why it is that really smart people can be so wrong in their thinking. I’m talking about the Loony Left here, in case you were wondering, because I don’t think too many conservatives are living in Delusionville. I think almost all of the Loony Left is.

  49. The fact that climate science has become politically polarized is well known and contributes to why it’s been so hard to get the science fixed. More than anything else, it’s the far left groups pushing socialist ‘fixes’ for climate alarmism that drives the right towards skepticism. The proposed ‘fixes’ are only harmful and don’t even address the imagined problem, so even if the IPCC was correct about their insanely high ECS, the political right would still rightly oppose the ‘fixes’.

  50. This is rather puzzling as the ones that are calling for an end to democracy are the wing nuts pushing global warming. Rather than championing free speech, the science got settled in a back room deal somewhere and those that don’t agree are ‘ committing crimes against humanity ‘. We can see how well socialism/communism works, Venezuela. The latest casualty of thinking, ” if we give up our freedoms, everything will be better “. So they did. Voted in a social path.

  51. Since the Left have made such a thing of “man-made global warming” , and they are so notorious for their hysterical outbursts at anyone who dares to question the party line, it is hardly surprising they see anyone who doubts their dogma must be “extreme right wing” and all the othe hate speech and insults they keep in their little heads.
    Keep on at them. There is nothing more satisfying than seeing one of these creeps burst into tears, scream insults and rush off out of the room to general laughter and ridicule.

  52. He leaves out a fifth important group of “deniers”, the in-science one (including myself) comprised of scientists integrating the rival communities: part of paleo-and-space-climate vs. atmo/hydrosphere modeling. I call it Geography (and it’s not all of “Geography” of course). I don’t and he wouldn’t know how big it is really – around 1/3 of climate science perhaps. Interesting if this centre would start studying that though. It’d be the point where it’d risk start going wrong method-wise and for real scientifically.

  53. Other things that are similar between the two groups. Rational thought. A view towards a better life for themselves and their families as well as others.

  54. I’m always amazed that someone could say “we see the consequences in front of our eyes” and then accuse someone *else* of denying reality. The temperature anomaly trend has risen about 1C since not-really-pre-industrial late 19th century, a significant portion of which happened before 1950 when anthropogenic forcings were very small. He *might* be able to discern a 1C temperature increase if it happened instantly, but a smaller increase over decades? Give me a break. The only consequences of AGW I’ve seen in front of my eyes are the all-too-visible effects of expensive and ineffective mitigation policies.

  55. If you can’t win with the facts, scream names, accuse people of political partisanship, etc. It’s dead certain you have completely lost with the facts when you go this route.

    • Yet, they’ve gotten a lot of mileage with this tactic. If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t use it.

  56. If you don’t want someone coming from elsewhere from a culture that condones bombing, knifing, acid attacks on the host population, and rioting and general lawlessness, you are a Xenophobe. It is bizarre, especially since in Europe these same immigrants are against all the progressive social norms leftists like.

  57. When was the last time any real effort was made to get an idea of the “scientific consensus”? My sense is that most scientists in climate-related fields think the earth has probably experienced some warming over the last 150 years and that it is more likely than not that humans have made some contribution. Which, BTW, also happens to be the mainstream skeptic position.

    The people talking about consensus seem to me to be talking about a manufactured consensus driven by political activists that may or may not reflect the actual state of scientific thinking on the issue.

  58. The term “denier” is a perjorative in the first place. So an academic or group of academics have founded an institute based on a perjorative? Seriously. And they expect to be taken seriously? Sheesh, how about first you look up WHY the term “denier” is used and perhaps come to the realization that the weaker side of the argument is the one you’re on.

    Certainly there are vested interests in pushing back against climate legislation. That’s not an unreasonable stance. The unreasonable stance is not having a legitimate rationale (other than theoretical, our models are crap but gosh it’s going to get really, really bad) for instituting said legislation in the first place.

    Perhaps if the good doctor wanted to be taken seriously and change minds, he should use the term skeptic, a non-perjorative term. Why are so many people skeptical of climate science? Sure, some of them are those vested interests with something to lose, again, not an unreasonable stance. But the majority of those that they wish to belittle are everyday people that remain unconvinced by the bloviations of politicians and a group of “scientists” that quite often lack significant scientific training. That a disproportionately large number of engineers are skeptical should give everyone pause.

    Math is hard. Those that can do math are more often than not skeptical. I wonder why that is? But that’s certainly not going to resonate with the good doctor because I suspect math is hard for him given the direction of his career choice.

  59. God how truly desperate they are getting wasting money on this garbage. You should be carefull of what you wish for. You may find an ugly truth that it is only the people right if center who think in the real world anymore. The rest….. sheep who follow the Pied Piper and BELIEVE

  60. And, this from a country that gives out Nobel Peace Prizes to terrorists, officials just elected to high office, etc. It would be nice to know who is funding such research.

    It is interesting that they are going to study Twitter and other social networks just at a time when the operators of such networks are censuring.

    I read nothing about them studying China, now the biggest CO2 emitting country. I wonder why?

  61. In my 21 years of reading about climate change,
    I have never read, or heard, anyone claim
    the climate on our planet does not change.

    It’s puzzling that the Dumbocrats create
    a red herring (climate change denial)
    out of thin air, and then attack it viciously
    — well maybe it is not that puzzling
    — that’s how they demonstrate that
    they are Dumbocrats!

    • Stated like that, it sounds like the classic “straw man” approach: attack a position that wasn’t taken, and claim victory when you knock it over. Winning!

  62. You could as well turn it around: Climate activism is tied to progressives. Scientifically, this connection has the same value. Picking the connection with conservatives looks like a non-scientific choice.

  63. Is the converse, belief in catastrophic anthropological global warming strongly linked to left wing communist internationalism, also true?

  64. My personal climate change skepticism is strongly linked to the following (in no particular order):

    1) the leftist-socialist ‘solutions’ to fix climate change. (this is my number 1 issue)
    2) Climategate emails
    3) Lots of different data ‘adjustments’ with the end result being the new data with the ‘value added’ adjustments almost always favor the people pushing AGW.
    4) Very little correlation between Co2 and temp going back hundred of millions of years.
    5) temp leads Co2 in antartica ice core data.
    6) The fact that Mann and Overpick have done all they can to stop their emails from being made public and this after years and massive media coverage on how AGW is the most horrific crisis facing humanity. If this were true, then why not show the ‘solid and honest science’ in their emails on this most pressing issue ever so that we can see they were really doing good science?
    7) The fact that development in a developing country is a very effective way to lower the fertility rate, hence the calls for climate $$$ for climate adaption and mitigation economic infrastructure funding so they can get more women working and hence, have less time to make planet killing babies.
    8) The massive and several decades long left-wing media barrage on this issue.
    9) Soros, Rockfeller, Steyer, and other billionaires and rich families are pushing for AGW solutions.
    10) New science ‘studies’ each month (who funds many of these studies?…) on this issue.
    11) The fact that “sustainable development” has been touted as the successor to the New International Economic Order that fizzled out during Reagan.

    I have a more reasons but these are the ones that come to mind for now. Could have written them a little better but have things I need to do…

  65. Sweden?
    They will be Muslim in 20 years and then you can forget about schools, science, progress etc. They will back in the Dark Ages

  66. Subjective choices.
    Subjective definitions.
    Subjective alignments.
    Subjective analyses.
    Subjective assumptions.
    Subjective correlations.

    Subjective causation is already decided, along with subjective solutions.

    Confirmation bias though and through.

    “world’s foremost scientific experts in the area”

    Area?
    Climate change skepticism?
    Nationalist organizations?
    Nationalist beliefs?
    Sweden’s sewage systems?

    N.B. that Hultman fails to mention, that Nationalist beliefs and organizations are solidly leftists; even Hitler’s.

    Leaving us to conclude that Hultman is wasting funds that science needs applied to science, while vilifying people without logic or cause.

  67. So, by logical extension of this argument, the researcher is basically also saying that believe in Man Made Global Warming is linked with Left Wing totalitarianism and the suppression of individual nation’s rights?

    Next time I claim that Warmists are more concerned with destroying Western democracy than ‘saving the planet’ can I cite this study in support? 🙂

  68. …“Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism”…

    In other news, climate change den**rs eat babies, conduct Satanic rituals and steal the cherries off kids’ ice creams…

  69. “…the network will study how the growth of right-wing nationalism in Europe has contributed to an increase in climate change denial.”

    They say it like it’s a bad thing…

  70. “A study of climate change denial” is a multi-year, interdisciplinary and international project, which is financed by the Swedish Energy Agency.””

    The poor sods. Having to pay for research not only into GW, but GW Denial too.

  71. I note he never posits the idea that the rise in nationalism is in large part down to the EU, which is doing all it can to destroy the nation states and to flood Europe with 3rd world barbarians.

  72. Sounds like one of those “scientific” studies whee you start with the desired conclusion and then determine how to distort the facts and use twisted logic to rationalize it.

  73. We sense desperation with this increase of Lewness:

    “Content polluters seem to use anti-vaccine messages as bait to entice their followers to click on advertisements and links to malicious websites. Ironically, content that promotes exposure to biological viruses may also promote exposure to computer viruses,” Sandra Crouse Quinn, a research team member and professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Maryland, said.

    https://scienceblog.com/502940/bots-and-russian-trolls-influenced-vaccine-discussion-on-twitter/

    And it goes on and on with the Internet Research Agency, muh Russia, etc.

    https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567

    Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate
    David A. Broniatowski PhD, Amelia M. Jamison MAA, MPH, SiHua Qi SM, Lulwah AlKulaib SM, Tao Chen PhD, Adrian Benton MS, Sandra C. Quinn PhD, and Mark Dredze PhD

    “Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ2(1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ2(1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ2(1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates"

    (Neither "troll", "bot" and "polluter" is defined in the abstract.)

    "Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate"

    Debate = bad

    Is that what peek Lewness looks like?

  74. It’s never been about denial – it’s always been about skepticism of the over statement of climate sensitivity. The funny thing is the CS that skeptics were arguing for years ago (approx 1.5 degrees celsius) is exactly the number that the IPCC and climate scientists are actually finally arriving at – they have realised their original estimates of 4 degrees plus are simply not supported by the evidence OR their models.

  75. OK, let’s assume the finding is true: “Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism”.

    You now have the standard four options that apply to any correlation finding. If A correlates with B:

    1) Did A cause B?
    2) Did B cause A?
    3) Were both A and B caused by something else?
    4) Could it have happened by chance?

    As an example of 3) above, could it be that responsible, free-thinkers have looked into both politics and climate science and come to the conclusion that both right-wing nationalism and climate scepticism are the way to go because the alternatives do not make sense?

  76. This is sureal. Will they ever just give it a rest? Cant they move on to a new idea to frighten people? This one is worn out.

Comments are closed.