Back Ontkenning van klimaatsverandering Afrikaans نكران التغير المناخي Arabic Negacionisme del canvi climàtic Catalan Popírání klimatické změny Czech Klimaskepsis Danish Klimawandelleugnung German Climate change denial English Negación del cambio climático Spanish Klima aldaketaren ukapena Basque انکار تغییر اقلیم Persian

Negazione del riscaldamento globale

La negazione del riscaldamento globale (o del cambiamento climatico) è la negazione o il dubbio che contraddice il consenso scientifico sul riscaldamento globale.

Le campagne dei negazionisti del cambiamento climatico descrivono disaccordo tra gli scienziati sul riscaldamento globale,[1] ma set di dati da fonti indipendenti indicano una concordanza comparativa di oltre il 99.1%.
Gli studi accademici sull'accordo scientifico sul riscaldamento globale di origine antropica tra gli esperti di clima indicano che il livello di consenso è correlato alla competenza nella scienza del clima.[2][3][4][5]

I fautori della negazione usano comunemente tattiche retoriche per far apparire una controversia scientifica dove in realtà non sussiste.[6][7][8] Molti tra i negazionisti climatici si dichiarano "scettici sul riscaldamento globale",[9][10] il che è una descrizione impropria.[11][12][13]

La negazione del riscaldamento globale comprende dubbi sulla misura in cui il cambiamento climatico sia causato dagli esseri umani, i suoi effetti su natura e società, e il potenziale di adattamento al riscaldamento globale nelle azioni umane.[10][14][15] In misura minore, la negazione che il riscaldamento globale sia di origine antropica è implicita quando le persone accettano il metodo scientifico ma non trovano che le conclusioni a cui giunge gran parte degli studiosi sia compatibile con le proprie conoscenze ed esperienze sull'argomento (dissonanza cognitiva).[16] Alcuni studi di scienze sociali hanno analizzato queste posizioni come forme di negazionismo,[17][18] pseudoscienza,[19] o propaganda.[20]

La cospirazione per inficiare la fiducia del pubblico nella scienza climatica è organizzata da interessi industriali, politici e e ideologici.[21][22] La negazione del riscaldamento globale è stata associata alla lobby dell'energia, ai fratelli Koch (Charles Koch e David Koch), a sostenitori dell'industria, think tank conservatori e organi di informazione alternativi di destra, spesso statunitensi.[20][23][24][25] Più del 90% dei saggi scettici sul cambiamento climatico provengono da think-tank di destra.[26] La negazione del riscaldamento globale sta vanificando i tentativi di mitigazione climatica, ed esercita una potente influenza sulle politiche del cambiamento climatico e sull'artificiosa controversia sul riscaldamento globale.[27][28]

Negli anni 1970 le compagnie petrolifere pubblicarono una finta ricerca scientifica che concordava largamente con la concezione della comunità scientifica sul riscaldamento globale. Da allora, per decenni, le compagnie petrolifere hanno organizzato un'ampia e sistematica campagna di negazione del cambiamento climatico per seminare pubblica disinformazione, una strategia che mostra affinità con l'elaborata negazione dei rischi da tabagismo animata dall'industria del tabacco.[29] Alcune campagne furono addirittura svolte dagli stessi soggetti che in precedenza avevano diffuso la campagna negazionista dell'industria del tabacco.[30][31][32]

  1. ^ (EN) John Cook, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, in Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8, n. 2, 15 maggio 2013, pp. 024024, Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C, DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
    «there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Contributing to this "consensus gap" are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. ... The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is "on the point of collapse" while "the number of scientific 'heretics' is growing with each passing year" A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a minuscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.»
  2. ^ John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T. Doran, William R. L. Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming, in Environmental Research Letters, vol. 11, n. 4, 2016, p. 048002, Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C, DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.
  3. ^ (EN) James L. Powell, Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming, in Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 37, n. 4, 20 novembre 2019, pp. 183–184, DOI:10.1177/0270467619886266. URL consultato il 15 novembre 2020.
  4. ^ (EN) Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z. Houlton e Simon Perry, Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, in Environmental Research Letters, vol. 16, n. 11, 19 ottobre 2021, p. 114005, Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L, DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.
  5. ^ (EN) Krista F. Myers, Peter T. Doran, John Cook, John E. Kotcher e Teresa A. Myers, Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later, in Environmental Research Letters, vol. 16, n. 10, 20 ottobre 2021, p. 104030, Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M, DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774.
  6. ^ (EN) Mark Hoofnagle e Chris Hoofnagle, denialism blog : About, su ScienceBlogs, 8 settembre 2007. URL consultato il 7 febbraio 2022 (archiviato dall'url originale l'8 settembre 2007).
    «Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions. .... 5 general tactics are used by denialists to sow confusion. They are conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.»
  7. ^ (EN) Pascal Diethelm e Martin McKee, Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?, in European Journal of Public Health, vol. 19, n. 1, gennaio 2009, pp. 2–4, DOI:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139, PMID 19158101.
  8. ^ (EN) G.T. Farmer e John Cook, Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1 – The Physical Climate, collana Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis, Springer Netherlands, 2013, pp. 449–450, ISBN 978-94-007-5757-8. URL consultato il 7 febbraio 2022.
  9. ^ (EN) Paul Matthews, Why Are People Skeptical about Climate Change? Some Insights from Blog Comments, in Environmental Communication, vol. 9, n. 2, 3 aprile 2015, pp. 153–168, DOI:10.1080/17524032.2014.999694, ISSN 1752-4032 (WC · ACNP).
  10. ^ a b National Center for Science Education, 2016.
  11. ^ (EN) Karin Edvardsson Björnberg et al., Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015, in Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 167, 2017, pp. 229–241, DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066.
  12. ^ Washington, 2013, p. 2: "Many climate change deniers call themselves climate 'skeptics' ... However, refusing to accept the overwhelming 'preponderance of evidence' is not skepticism, it is denial and should be called by its true name ... The use of the term 'climate skeptic' is a distortion of reality ... Skepticism is healthy in both science and society; denial is not."
  13. ^ (EN) Saffron J. O'Neill, Max Boykoff, Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian?, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 107, n. 39, 28 settembre 2010, pp. E151, Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.151O, DOI:10.1073/pnas.1010507107, ISSN 0027-8424 (WC · ACNP), PMC 2947866, PMID 20807754.
    «Using the language of denialism brings a moralistic tone into the climate change debate that we would do well to avoid. Further, labeling views as denialist has the potential to inappropriately link such views with Holocaust denial ... However, skepticism forms an integral part of the scientific method and thus the term is frequently misapplied in such phrases as "climate change skeptic".»
  14. ^ (EN) National Center for Science Education, Climate change is good science, su ncse.com, National Center for Science Education, 4 giugno 2010. URL consultato il 21 giugno 2015 (archiviato il 24 aprile 2016). "The first pillar of climate change denial—that climate change is bad science—attacks various aspects of the scientific consensus about climate change ... there are climate change deniers:
    • who deny that significant climate change is occurring
    • who ... deny that human activity is significantly responsible
    • who ... deny the scientific evidence about its significant effects on the world and our society ...
    • who ... deny that humans can take significant actions to reduce or mitigate its impact.
    Of these varieties of climate change denial, the most visible are the first and the second."
  15. ^ Powell, 2012, pp. 170–173: "Anatomy of Denial—Global warming deniers ... . throw up a succession of claims, and fall back from one line of defense to the next as scientists refute each one in turn. Then they start over:
    'The earth is not warming.'
    'All right, it is warming but the Sun is the cause.'
    'Well then, humans are the cause, but it doesn't matter, because it warming will do no harm. More carbon dioxide will actually be beneficial. More crops will grow.'
    'Admittedly, global warming could turn out to be harmful, but we can do nothing about it.'
    'Sure, we could do something about global warming, but the cost would be too great. We have more pressing problems here and now, like AIDS and poverty.'
    'We might be able to afford to do something to address global warming some-day, but we need to wait for sound science, new technologies, and geoengineering.'
    'The earth is not warming. Global warming ended in 1998; it was never a crisis.'
  16. ^ National Center for Science Education, 2016: "Climate change denial is most conspicuous when it is explicit, as it is in controversies over climate education. The idea of implicit (or "implicatory") denial, however, is increasingly discussed among those who study the controversies over climate change. Implicit denial occurs when people who accept the scientific community's consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change on the intellectual level fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Such people are in denial, so to speak, about climate change."
  17. ^ Dunlap, 2013, pp. 691–698: "There is debate over which term is most appropriate ... Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves 'skeptics' ... Yet skepticism is ... a common characteristic of scientists, making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics ... It seems best to think of skepticism-denial as a continuum, with some individuals (and interest groups) holding a skeptical view of AGW ... and others in complete denial"
  18. ^ Timmer, 2014.
  19. ^ (EN) Sven Ove Hansson, Science denial as a form of pseudoscience, in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 63, 2017, pp. 39–47, Bibcode:2017SHPSA..63...39H, DOI:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.05.002, PMID 28629651.
  20. ^ a b Jacques Dunlap Freeman, 2008, p. 351: "Conservative think tanks ... and their backers launched a full-scale counter-movement ... We suggest that this counter-movement has been central to the reversal of US support for environmental protection, both domestically and internationally. Its major tactic has been disputing the seriousness of environmental problems and undermining environmental science by promoting what we term 'environmental scepticism.'"
  21. ^ Dunlap, 2013, pp. 691–698: "From the outset, there has been an organized 'disinformation' campaign ... to 'manufacture uncertainty' over AGW ... especially by attacking climate science and scientists ... waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks ... often assisted by a small number of contrarian scientists. ... greatly aided by conservative media and politicians . and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers. This 'denial machine' has played a crucial role in generating skepticism toward AGW among laypeople and policymakers".
  22. ^ Begley, 2007: "ICE and the Global Climate Coalition lobbied hard against a global treaty to curb greenhouse gases, and were joined by a central cog in the denial machine: the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank. ... the denial machine—think tanks linking up with like-minded, contrarian researchers"
  23. ^ Dunlap, 2013: "The campaign has been waged by a loose coalition of industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and conservative foundations and think tanks ... These actors are greatly aided by conservative media and politicians, and more recently by a bevy of skeptical bloggers."
  24. ^ (EN) David Michaels, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health., 2008.
  25. ^ (EN) James Hoggan e Richard Littlemore, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, Vancouver, Greystone Books, 2009, pp. 31, 73, ISBN 978-1-55365-485-8. URL consultato il 19 marzo 2010. Si descrivono le strategie di sostegno fondate sull'industria nel contesto della negazione del cambiamento climatico e il coinvolgimento dei think tank liberisti nella negazione del riscaldamento globale.
  26. ^ (EN) Jordi Xifra, Climate Change Deniers and Advocacy: A Situational Theory of Publics Approach, in American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 60, n. 3, 2016, pp. 276–287, DOI:10.1177/0002764215613403.
  27. ^ Dunlap, 2013: "Even though climate science has now firmly established that global warming is occurring, that human activities contribute to this warming ... a significant portion of the American public remains ambivalent or unconcerned, and many policymakers (especially in the United States) deny the necessity of taking steps to reduce carbon emissions ... From the outset, there has been an organized 'disinformation' campaign ... to generate skepticism and denial concerning AGW."
  28. ^ Painter Ashe, 2012: "Despite a high degree of consensus amongst publishing climate researchers that global warming is occurring and that it is anthropogenic, this discourse, promoted largely by non-scientists, has had a significant impact on public perceptions of the issue, fostering the impression that elite opinion is divided as to the nature and extent of the threat."
  29. ^ (EN) ucsusa.org, The Disinformation Playbook – How Business Interests Deceive, Misinform, and Buy Influence at the Expense of Public Health and Safety.
  30. ^ (EN) Timothy Egan, Exxon Mobil and the G.O.P.: Fossil Fools, in The New York Times, 5 novembre 2015. URL consultato il 9 novembre 2015 (archiviato il 15 agosto 2021).
  31. ^ Suzanne Goldenberg, Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years, in The Guardian, 8 luglio 2015. URL consultato il 9 novembre 2015 (archiviato il 16 novembre 2015).
  32. ^ (EN) Damian Carrington, 'Shell knew': oil giant's 1991 film warned of climate change danger, in The Guardian, 2017 (archiviato dall'url originale il 24 aprile 2017).

Developed by StudentB