You are so right. I just received info on the June 2013 edition of the American Behavioral Scientist about CC denialism (luckily I have access to Sage pubs), and the Freudenburg and Muselli article is about how the denialist machine has actually made scientists more cautious in their claims, underestimating climate change. Below is the list.
It is interesting that one of the CAF denialists actually cited an article several years back by one of the authors here, Myanna Lahsen (an anthropologist), as having disproved climate change. So I guess everyone is a climate scientist and reality is just a matter of public opinion or which ever way the wind happens to blow. One thing is for sure, though; social scientists are needed to study the number one climate forcing of our time, perhaps a more important factor than CO2 – us humans.
“Climate Change Skepticism and Denial,” Special Edition of the American Behavioral Scientist, June 2013
- Riley E. Dunlap, “Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction.” doi:10.1177/0002764213477097
- Riley E. Dunlap and Peter J. Jacques, “Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection” doi:10.1177/0002764213477096
- Myanna Lahsen, “Anatomy of Dissent: A Cultural Analysis of Climate Skepticism” doi:10.1177/0002764212469799
- Shaun W. Elsasser and Riley E. Dunlap, “Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists’ Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science” doi:10.1177/0002764212469800
- William R. Freudenburg and Violetta Muselli, “Re-examining Climate Change Debates: Scientific Disagreement or Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs)?” doi:10.1177/0002764212458274
- Maxwell T. Boykoff, “Public Enemy No.1? Understanding Media Representations of Outlier Views on Climate Change” doi:10.1177/0002764213476846
- Anothy A. Leiserowitz, Edward W. Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf, Nicholas Smith, Erica Dawson, “Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust” doi:10.1177/0002764212458272
Did you actually read, objectively, what the William R. Freudenburg and Violetta Muselli, report says?
Their claim is basically ] that: "Skeptics have politicized the hypothesis of AGW and it’s alarmist claims CAGW ]. Thusly, ruining ‘Climate Science’ "
The problem with reading “What we want to hear” - we lose objectivity.
Empirical evidence i.e history debunks that claim.
James Hansen, when he turned off the air conditioning, during his approach to Congress for more funding for his hypothesis, “politicized” the hypothesis
CRU, when it accepted funding from British Petroleum and Shell Oil, because they saw it as a way to limit their energy competition coal ], “politicized” the hypothesis.
UN - IPCC, “politicized” the hypothesis, by accepting "Gray Literature " , in order to promote the AGW - CAGW hypothesis.
The Climategate doers I.e. Mr Mann etc, “politicized” the hypothesis via Environmental Media - Tides funding / benefits RealClimate sponsorship ].
The history of the “Politicization of AGW - CAGW” is a LONG and SORDID one. AND it did not happen by the “skeptics”.
BEFORE “skeptics” even came along… The hypothesis of AGW - CAGW has been tainted…AND for “political reasons” BY the PROMOTERS of AGW.
“Pot calls the kettle black”.
