Climate change skepticism and denial: an introduction. Dunlap, R. E. American behavioral scientist, 57(6):696–698, 2013. 1abstract bibtex The articles in this symposium contribute to the growing body of social science analyses of climate change denial and skepticism. There is debate over which term is most appropriate for understanding opposition to acknowledging the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and to climate science itself. Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves 'skeptics,' and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who—for various reasons—are doubtful that AGW is a serious problem. Yet skepticism is an inherent feature of science and a common characteristic of scientists making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics. In sum, this symposium adds to the growing body of scholarly research on the campaign to deny AGW: the actors and interests behind the campaign, the strategies and tactics they employ, and the impacts of the campaign. Clearly more research is needed, especially on the funding sources that fuel the campaign and the impact of skeptical and denial blogs, but progress is being made in clarifying the sources and nature of climate change denial. By pulling back the curtain on the forces promoting denial, social science (and other) researchers are demonstrating that the reason AGW is highly 'contested' has less to do with the nature of climate science or the behavior of climate scientists than with the actions of those who for material and ideological reasons seek to deny the reality of AGW and thus the necessity of taking action to deal with it. Hopefully increased knowledge of how and why climate science has been made to appear controversial will inform future discussions concerning the importance of developing effective responses to the worsening problem of AGW. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
@article{dunlap_climate_2013,
title = {Climate change skepticism and denial: an introduction},
volume = {57},
issn = {1552-3381},
shorttitle = {Climate change skepticism and denial},
abstract = {The articles in this symposium contribute to the growing body of social science analyses of climate change denial and skepticism. There is debate over which term is most appropriate for understanding opposition to acknowledging the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and to climate science itself. Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves 'skeptics,' and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who—for various reasons—are doubtful that AGW is a serious problem. Yet skepticism is an inherent feature of science and a common characteristic of scientists making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics. In sum, this symposium adds to the growing body of scholarly research on the campaign to deny AGW: the actors and interests behind the campaign, the strategies and tactics they employ, and the impacts of the campaign. Clearly more research is needed, especially on the funding sources that fuel the campaign and the impact of skeptical and denial blogs, but progress is being made in clarifying the sources and nature of climate change denial. By pulling back the curtain on the forces promoting denial, social science (and other) researchers are demonstrating that the reason AGW is highly 'contested' has less to do with the nature of climate science or the behavior of climate scientists than with the actions of those who for material and ideological reasons seek to deny the reality of AGW and thus the necessity of taking action to deal with it. Hopefully increased knowledge of how and why climate science has been made to appear controversial will inform future discussions concerning the importance of developing effective responses to the worsening problem of AGW. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},
language = {eng},
number = {6},
journal = {American behavioral scientist},
author = {Dunlap, Riley E.},
year = {2013},
note = {1},
keywords = {5 Ignorance and manufactured doubt, Ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},
pages = {696--698},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"4kPw3xj5G9Nj4Jafr","bibbaseid":"dunlap-climatechangeskepticismanddenialanintroduction-2013","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2018-09-05T12:55:55.678Z","title":"Climate change skepticism and denial: an introduction","author_short":["Dunlap, R. E."],"year":2013,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Climate change skepticism and denial: an introduction","volume":"57","issn":"1552-3381","shorttitle":"Climate change skepticism and denial","abstract":"The articles in this symposium contribute to the growing body of social science analyses of climate change denial and skepticism. There is debate over which term is most appropriate for understanding opposition to acknowledging the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and to climate science itself. Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves 'skeptics,' and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who—for various reasons—are doubtful that AGW is a serious problem. Yet skepticism is an inherent feature of science and a common characteristic of scientists making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics. In sum, this symposium adds to the growing body of scholarly research on the campaign to deny AGW: the actors and interests behind the campaign, the strategies and tactics they employ, and the impacts of the campaign. Clearly more research is needed, especially on the funding sources that fuel the campaign and the impact of skeptical and denial blogs, but progress is being made in clarifying the sources and nature of climate change denial. By pulling back the curtain on the forces promoting denial, social science (and other) researchers are demonstrating that the reason AGW is highly 'contested' has less to do with the nature of climate science or the behavior of climate scientists than with the actions of those who for material and ideological reasons seek to deny the reality of AGW and thus the necessity of taking action to deal with it. Hopefully increased knowledge of how and why climate science has been made to appear controversial will inform future discussions concerning the importance of developing effective responses to the worsening problem of AGW. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)","language":"eng","number":"6","journal":"American behavioral scientist","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Dunlap"],"firstnames":["Riley","E."],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2013","note":"1","keywords":"5 Ignorance and manufactured doubt, Ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute, PRINTED (Fonds papier)","pages":"696–698","bibtex":"@article{dunlap_climate_2013,\n\ttitle = {Climate change skepticism and denial: an introduction},\n\tvolume = {57},\n\tissn = {1552-3381},\n\tshorttitle = {Climate change skepticism and denial},\n\tabstract = {The articles in this symposium contribute to the growing body of social science analyses of climate change denial and skepticism. There is debate over which term is most appropriate for understanding opposition to acknowledging the reality and seriousness of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and to climate science itself. Those involved in challenging climate science label themselves 'skeptics,' and in some cases this term is warranted, especially for members of the public who—for various reasons—are doubtful that AGW is a serious problem. Yet skepticism is an inherent feature of science and a common characteristic of scientists making it inappropriate to allow those who deny AGW to don the mantle of skeptics. In sum, this symposium adds to the growing body of scholarly research on the campaign to deny AGW: the actors and interests behind the campaign, the strategies and tactics they employ, and the impacts of the campaign. Clearly more research is needed, especially on the funding sources that fuel the campaign and the impact of skeptical and denial blogs, but progress is being made in clarifying the sources and nature of climate change denial. By pulling back the curtain on the forces promoting denial, social science (and other) researchers are demonstrating that the reason AGW is highly 'contested' has less to do with the nature of climate science or the behavior of climate scientists than with the actions of those who for material and ideological reasons seek to deny the reality of AGW and thus the necessity of taking action to deal with it. Hopefully increased knowledge of how and why climate science has been made to appear controversial will inform future discussions concerning the importance of developing effective responses to the worsening problem of AGW. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tjournal = {American behavioral scientist},\n\tauthor = {Dunlap, Riley E.},\n\tyear = {2013},\n\tnote = {1},\n\tkeywords = {5 Ignorance and manufactured doubt, Ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},\n\tpages = {696--698},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Dunlap, R. E."],"key":"dunlap_climate_2013-1","id":"dunlap_climate_2013-1","bibbaseid":"dunlap-climatechangeskepticismanddenialanintroduction-2013","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["5 Ignorance and manufactured doubt","Ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute","PRINTED (Fonds papier)"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["climate","change","skepticism","denial","introduction","dunlap"],"keywords":["5 ignorance and manufactured doubt","ignorance et mécanismes de production du doute","printed (fonds papier)"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7","NTvuMntpta5z9CAbT"]}