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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Might I suggest the term “deplorables” and heavy use of the term this October.
Anti-green is not right wing, it’s center.
Problem in the US is that you cannot vote center.
It’s not ‘center’ – it’s common sense.
I have noticed that greens, which are far left by definition, are calling all people that don’t agree with their political viewpoint “far right”.
Exactly.
There are fewer nuts in a fruitcake
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!
Create a stereotype and then live by it.
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.
The old ‘traitorous critic fallacy’ is nothing new to climate science, unfortunately.
Wet streets cause rain.
Is the converse, belief in catastrophic anthropological global warming strongly linked to left wing communist internationalism, also true?
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 mitigationeconomic 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…
You just crystallized something for me with your number 6: if they had their smoking gun or whatever, they wouldn’t need to be hiding anything. They’d be trumpeting it for all to hear.
It’s all about the Georgia Stones
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
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.
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.
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? 🙂
It takes a special kind of Nutty Nut to be a One-Worlder. What sane human being thinks that it’s a good idea for some strong-man or cabal in Switzerland or Swaziland (or wherever) to tell you what to do?

…“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…
“…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…
This proves conclusively that climate change advocacy causes nationalist right wing extremism.
“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.
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.
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.
We sense desperation with this increase of Lewness:
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?
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.
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?
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.