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.
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.
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
“AGW enthusiasts closely linked to extreme left wing lunacy.”
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.
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 Sweden.
Declare war on the Nobel committee first (according to McCain’s principle that foreign political meddling is a casus belli).
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
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?
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”.
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.
“Climate change denial strongly linked to right-wing nationalism”
Or conversely, that advocacy of climate change is associated with being left wing? Who knew?
Um… I think everyone on the right knew.
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.
Isn’t this proof that global warming AKA “clmate change” is political because if denial of it is political, then so is its advocation?
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”
LOL. Another Merit Badge for we DEPLORABLES, now with AGEISM and Denial for more good taste!
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.”
Just a glimpse into the idiocy and politicization of the subject.
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.
“…..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?
As long as they can blame the deniers, then they can go on using fossil fuels, because it is the other tribe’s fault.
They are not going to quit until they shut us down.
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.
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.
So I wonder how many alarmists are pro-abortion, or feminists, or pro open-borders? Does that mean the issues are linked?
Only if it’s in the models.
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.
“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.
What exactly is “excess air travel” and who gets to decide what is excessive?
Ahem. Greenies.
Excess air travel = Any air travel in excess of my own
What a bizarre way to cloak politics with an air of science. This is publicly funded, I assume?