Editing Environmental skepticism (section)

== About ==

Environmental skeptics have argued that the extent of [[Human impact on the environment|harm coming from human activities]] is less certain than scientists and scientific bodies say, or that it is too soon to be introducing curbs in these activities on the basis of existing evidence, or that further discussion is needed regarding who should pay for such environmental initiatives.<ref name="Denial lobby turns up the heat">{{cite news|url=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1431306,00.html |title='Denial lobby' turns up the heat |newspaper= The Observer |access-date=2008-02-07 | location=London | date=2005-03-06}}</ref> One of the themes the movement focuses on is the idea that environmentalism is a growing threat to social and economic progress and the civil liberties.<ref name="Zhou"/>

The popularity of the term was enhanced by [[Bjørn Lomborg]]'s 2001 book ''[[The Skeptical Environmentalist]]''.<ref name="isbn0-521-60614-4">{{cite book| last = Lomborg| first = Bjørn| title = Global crises, global solutions| url = https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780521606141| url-access = registration| year = 2004| publisher = Cambridge University Press| location = Cambridge, UK| isbn = 978-0-521-60614-1 }}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=September 2022}} Lomborg approached environmental claims from a statistical and economic standpoint, and concluded that often the claims made by environmentalists were overstated. Lomborg argued, on the basis of cost–benefit analysis, that few environmentalist claims warranted serious concern. The book came under criticism by scientists noting that Lomborg misinterpreted or misrepresented data, criticized misuse of data while committing similar mistakes himself, examined issues supporting his thesis while ignoring information contrary to it, cherry picks literature, oversimplifies, fails to discuss uncertainty or subjectivity, cites mostly media sources, and largely ignores ecology.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nisbet |first1=Matt |title=The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |date=23 January 2003 |url=https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/skeptical_environmentalist_a_case_study_in_the_manufacture_of_news |access-date=18 June 2018}}</ref>

[[Michael Shermer]], who debated Lomborg on several topics from his book,  notes that despite the [[scientific consensus]] many people are driven to environmental skepticism by the extremism inherent in both sides of the debate and not having been exposed to a sufficiently succinct and visual presentation of the available evidence.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Shermer |first1=Michael |author-link=Michael Shermer|title=Confessions of a Former Environmental Skeptic |url=https://michaelshermer.com/2008/04/confessions-of-a-former-environmental-skeptic/ |website=michaelshermer.com |access-date=18 June 2018|date=2008-04-15 }}</ref>

In 2010, Lomborg refined his position and stated that he believes in the need for "tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in [[Climate change mitigation|tackling climate change]]" and declared global warming to be "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront".<ref name="Guardian 100 Billion">{{Cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn|title=Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change|last=Jowit|first=Juliette|date=30 August 2010|work=guardian.co.uk home Location|access-date=30 August 2010 | location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = https://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sc_yblog_upshot/noted-anti-global-warming-scientist-reverses-course| title = Brett Michael Dykes, "Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course", Yahoo News (August 31, 2010)}}</ref> He summarized his position, saying "Global warming is real - it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Moore |first1=Matthew |title=Climate 'sceptic' Bjørn Lomborg now believes global warming is one of world's greatest threats |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/7972383/Climate-sceptic-Bjorn-Lomborg-now-believes-global-warming-is-one-of-worlds-greatest-threats.html |website=telegraph.com.uk |access-date=18 June 2018|date=2010-08-31 }}</ref>

A 2014 study of individuals from 32 countries found that environmental skepticism stems from insufficient education, self-assessed knowledge, religious/conservative values, lack of trust in society, mistrust of science, and other concerns trumping environmental concern.<ref name="Zhou">{{cite journal |last1=Zhou |first1=Min |title=Public environmental skepticism: A cross-national and multilevel analysis |journal=International Sociology |date=15 December 2014 |volume=30 |issue=1 |pages=61–85 |doi=10.1177/0268580914558285 |s2cid=145807157 }}</ref>

=== Climate change skepticism ===
{{Main|Climate change denial|Global warming controversy}}
According to an annual poll conducted by the [[Pew Research Center]], [[Climate change|global warming]] has been a low public priority, ranking 29 out of 30 in the top priorities for the United States President and Congress. Additionally, in a list of 20 policy priorities, it ranks 19th.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|date=2016-06-03|editor-last=Crate|editor-first=Susan A|editor2-last=Nuttall|editor2-first=Mark|title=Anthropology and Climate Change|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315434773|doi=10.4324/9781315434773|isbn=9781315434766 }}</ref>

[[Climate skeptics]] represent about a third of Americans according to national polls.<ref name=":0" /> This number makes it challenging for decision-makers who hesitate to implement environmental policies related to global warming and climate change. [[Anthony Leiserowitz]], a professor from Yale, determined that the American community's attitude towards climate change fall on a scale from concerned or alarmed to disengaged or dismissive. The term climate skeptic is made up of numerous components such as dubious, doubtful, dismissive, and denial. It does not describe simply a non-believer. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 61% of the public believed there was evidence of global warming. However, 35% of the public still believed there was no significant evidence for global temperature rise.<ref name=":0" />

Climate skepticism is considered to be strictly an American belief constructed of governmental fear, scientific distrust, and interests in resource extraction that support a dominant Western lifestyle. Academics argue that we need to understand Americans underlying ideologies before we denote someone as a skeptic.<ref name=":0" />

A cultural study on Maryland's Eastern Shore helped discern some of the differing beliefs of Americans about environmental change. The study included three groups of residents who are dependent on the Eastern Shore of Maryland: commercial fishermen, farmers, and recent migrants.<ref name=":0" /> The research conducted was determined to gain a consensus of shared knowledge between the subgroups in regard to the changing environment. Along the scale from denial to concerned, it was found that a majority of respondents noticed climate change but believed that humans were not the cause of it. About a third of the respondents were unaware of it, while the rest of the interlocutors were either dismissive of it or somewhat concerned.<ref name=":0" />

One of the cultural models found in this research was that climate change was natural. The respondents interpreted the changes such as rising sea-levels and drought as cycles of nature.<ref name=":0" /> They explained them as natural processes in the Earth's evolution not affected by humans. They expressed doubt about human induced climate change but acknowledged the changing environment around them. The residents of the Eastern Shore question the legitimacy of the buildup of greenhouse gases from our use of fossil fuels, which cause sea level rise or glacial melting. Part of this hesitation comes from the knowledge passed down through their families and the stories of weather cycles from previous relatives, all who lived in the same area for generations. This concept of nature going through cycles is culturally significant to the groups living in the area.<ref name=":0" />

The respondents also make note that climate change may have been newly identified by scientists but has been a phenomenon that has been with us from the beginning of time and not with the onset of the industrial revolution. This reinforces the belief that climate change is happening, just not because of humans. Therefore, when contemporary theories of climate change challenge respondents’ longstanding traditional cultural models, the latter tends to emerge as the more likely outcome.<ref name=":0" />

The respondents also believe that if climate change becomes apparent to politicians as a human-induced problem, that will lead to regulations being placed on them. They do not believe that climate policies will benefit them and are therefore unlikely to support such programs. They are concerned more with policies and regulations rather than climate change in the area.<ref name=":0" /> They see themselves as living with the climate instead of the common approach of overcoming or conquering it. Living with the climate is viewed as nature and society being connected and sharing a relationship where humans must change their activities to fit the changing climate.<ref name=":0" />

Communicating with people who are labeled as skeptics can help create policies that may not be rejected. These beliefs are deeply rooted in longstanding traditions and not influenced by right wing think tanks or other media platforms. Therefore, communicating and working with these people may help reduce the amount of time it will take for policies to be accepted and approved by them. For policy makers to be effective, they should consider the knowledge that these people have and work with them instead of imposing a top-down approach for climate change policy.<ref name=":0" />