This past summer we saw yet another hot story reverberate around the Denialosphere [Denier vs Skeptic].
Supposedly the ships logs of Lord Nelson and Captain Cook cast doubt upon the truth of anthropogenic climate change (eg “Captain Cook and Lord Nelson’s logs indicate 1730’s global warming wasn’t man made“, “Lord Nelson and Captain Cook’s shiplogs question climate change theories“).
Total nonsense of course, as has been explained at DeSmogBlog “UK Scientist Dismayed by Media Misrepresentation” and Bad Science “Don’t let the facts spoil a good story“. Just another example how the Deniers lie and distort to further their agenda. But there are two interesting things about this and earlier examples of Denier spin.
In the first place, it is spin. Some small kernal of fact is distorted and mangled until it emerges appearing to say the opposite of what it originally said. Rarely do the Deniers seem to make things up out of thin air. Whether this is so that they can argue that theirs is a plausible interpretation of the facts or a subconscious attempt to retain some small shred of integrity by pretending that what they do is not lying cannot be known.
The second interesting thing is how the strategy and tactics of the Climate Change Deniers is identical to those of the Evolution Deniers. This excellent little video by potholer54 “Creationist Junk Debunked #1 – Introduction”
could just as easily be talking about Climate Deniers. It is well worth watching for understanding both Evolution and Climate Change Denier methods, and because it is fun.
One reason for the similar approach is that in at least some cases it is the same people (eg Roy Spencer). Of far greater concern is that this approach actually works, and you need something when you have no facts or evidence.
Advocates of so-called Intelligent Design (Evolution Denial) have been gaining ground pushing their anti-science nonsense into science classrooms. This summer Louisiana passed a law that effectively puts it on the curriculum. Other States are considering doing so as well.
So while some may laugh when they see the Denier nonsense being posted around the internet, the fact is that it must be taken seriously because it is dangerous. The Deniers continue to enjoy too much success in confusing the public about climate science and that is a threat to every living thing on the planet.
UPDATES: See also Intelligent design/creationism and climate change and
Climate Change Deniers And Creationists (Added Oct 2, 2008)
Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”? (Added Oct 12, 2008)
—-
[1] As I discuss here I do not use the term “Denier” to refer to all climate change doubters. Those who thoughtfully and intelligently address the facts I call ‘skeptics’.
Those who irrationally deny the existence of the science and instead propagate the lies and distortions such as those discussed here and linked to the right under “Debunking Denier Nonsense” are “Deniers”.
The choice of the correct term is based on their actions, not their conclusions.
Excellent! Thanks for taking the time to do this.
—-
Thank you. Kind words always appreciated
Mike
related: last post about formal complaints from IPCC against the channel four ‘documentary’ in this thread: http://my.ewb.ca/home/ShowPost/24692
teach the controversy!: http://wondermark.blogspot.com/2008/09/444-in-which-classroom-becomes-tense.html
—-
Yes, “The Swindle” has been debunked 6 ways from Sunday http://debunking.pbwiki.com/The-Swindle http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Mike
George Soros would be so proud that his push for socialism through enviromentalism in the US has so many blind followers.
—-
Paranoid Denier Conspiracy Theories
Mike
So, what is the interest that most people have to deny man-made global warming? Seems to me that its proponents have much to gain in erecting a semi-police state to make sure that all people are “eco-friendly”. Government control for all!!! Sounds great, I’ll get in line to pay my carbon taxes (and who is generating the estimates per person? Of course a world government sanctioned body!!) and get ready for my national I.D. to track all movements i make to ensure proper taxation. Wake up, there is an agenda to get us to allow world government, and global warming is just the fear monger we need so we all submit. Study sun spots, and carbon levels during the bronze age. This may help you understand what is happening now and what’s to come.
—-
The interest? Personal well being and survival? common decency and morality? simple rationality and good sense? take your pick.
As for your suggestions
see above @ someguy, and
Historic climate change in context
Sunspots and Solar Myth
Mike
The fact you use the derogatory term Denier for those that don’t agree with the THEORY of anthropogenic climate change makes me choose to ignore anything you might say, which is too bad since you might have some valid points.
—-
As I explain in another blog post, Deniers get called Deniers, skeptics get called skeptics. It is their behaviour that determines which is the most accurate nomenclature.
Since you say nothing, there is nothing to ignore or consider. By not reading and commenting your points have no influence either.
Mike
Comparing Climate change to religious zealots is ridiculous I’m a firm believer in evolution and I for one believe that climate change has been used to make a green movement for profit. Environmentalists use half truths and unchecked facts benefit the movement.
—-
I am referring to climate science by climate scientists. Show me in the science where there are errors please. Thank you.
Mike
http://www.rightalk.com/asx/ggws.asx
—-
Ahh yes, “The Swindle”, a totally debunked fraud and here My favourite part of “The Swindle” is Ball identified to be in a Dept that never existed with a degree that his alma mater University never offered – classic Denier ‘truthiness’.
Mike
I find it quite ironic that the people who call others blind. . .ie the poster above, are the ones without sight. But then again, my evolved brain allows me to catch irony.
above link = video about global warming
Did you cite a blog as a source?
—-
Glad to see you checked the sources and can think for yourself … duh
Mike
What a stupid comparison.
PS, the world has warmed up by 0.74oC in 100 years.
Oooh, scary. Oooh.
—-
… and that is leading to what? Do you have the slightest idea? have you ever looked at the climate science? Doesn’t seem like it. “Climate change is coming like a runaway freight train, bringing with it the triple blows of starvation, mass migration and war.”
Mike
dude youre a nutcase. get a real job.
—-
Excellent refutation of the science , no wonder people find you so convincing.
Mike
There wasn’t much there.
Everyone has an agenda; follow the money and you’ll see that, generally, someone’s promotion of a cause is for that person’s own benefit.
@someguy : Soros doesn’t support socialism, I do. And what’s wrong with it?
Does calling something ‘socialism’ work to distract anyone except for Pavlovian dittohead types? It’s really just sad to see this so often.
Climate Scientists know that Climate Change (formerly called Global Warming) is too complex to attribute to one single factor. To blame it on people is idiotic and stupid, no matter how hard Al Gore, his extremely popular but skewed PowerPoint presentation, and his consensus of Landscape Architects, hotel administrators, gynecologists, linguists and practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine (aka Climate Change Scientists) try to convince people otherwise. Yes, yes, I know that the IPCC has made a report. But since when can a body of bureaucrats, who edited highly summarized scientific reports according to a preconceived agenda, be taken seriously? Or since when can anything the UN decides to do be taken seriously?
If someone wants to believe in evolution (despite hard evidence that can be interpreted otherwise) then fine . If someone wants to go Green, then sure, why not? But when you start trying to silence those who don’t hold your views by character assassination, stereotyping, loss of employment, loss of credential status and scientific funding, ridicule, and proposal of Nuremberg-type trials, then you’ve crossed the line. Making sweeping fascist Green Laws is not the way to go either.
I lived through the BS of Global Cooling that was presented to people as fact by the mass media in the late 60s and early 70s. Mass starvation! Overpopulation! Death of civilization! Yada, yada, yada ad nauseum. Same tactics, same self-styled “experts”, same “logical” conclusions based on the same worst-case implausible scenarios. When it comes to the current nonsense about man-made Climate Change, there’s nothing new here, folks, just move along…
For those people who don’t believe that Global Cooling was forced down people’s throats 30+ years ago, then they either weren’t alive at the time, had their heads buried in the sand (or worse) during that decade, or are Global Cooling Deniers. Coincidentally, a lot of them also believe in Evolution, so why doesn’t someone start a new topic called “It’s Twins!: Evolution and Climate Cooling Deniers.”
—-
Actually the climate scientists know it is human caused and are telling everyone: Natural and Anthropogenic Climate Change and Humans Causing Climate Change
“Climate Change Scientists” Nice ad hominem attack (ie totally horseshit), now how about you deal with reality
“But when you start trying to silence” The only censorship that has been systematicly going on is the suppression of climate science, particularly by the US Government
1970s Cooling Myth totally debunked
Amazing, I don’t think you got a single thing right; but then consistency is a virtue.
Mike
I like how the swindle video touched on the anti-carbon community and its effect on poor, 3rd world communities that are going to be denied their industrial revolution by supporters of technology that is fiscally ridiculous for a 3rd world countries budget.
—-
The Swindle, like some other Deniers, callously and shamelessly co-opt the Developing World to further their agenda at the cost of the Developing World. The poorest nations are the ones who are going to suffer first, most and worst from climate change and they desperately need us to take action since we are the worst offenders. The Swindle did many shameful things, but this was the vilest.
Mike
There is one major difference between creationists and climate change skeptics: Creationists are religious zealots promoting an agenda, and climate change skeptics are just… skeptics.
Let’s not forget that science is rooted is skepticism. Human induced climate change is an important and promising hypothesis that shouldn’t be ignored, but it’s not even a scientific theory by definition, because there’s no possible way to verify it. Evolution is a scientific theory because it has been proven over and over by an enormous amount of empirical data, but human induced climate change has not. We know that the global temperature has gone up slightly in the last century, and we know that humans have been releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, but that doesn’t prove causation. I’m not going to get into details, but quite simply there is no empirical data to prove the hypothesis one way or the other. If there was, it would be publicized. Anyone who claims to KNOW one way or the other is following DOGMA, not SCIENCE.
—-
See Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers? for the distinction between skeptics and Deniers.
I am afraid you are wrong about the human causation, see here and here.
The Problem of Induction means no hypothesis can be proved … just try and find a “proof” of Gravity or the laws of Thermodynamics. See “The Scientific Method Made Easy”
Mike
I enjoyed your detailed and balanced argument that clearly demonstrated the parallels between questioning the doctrine of climate change orthodoxy, and the denial of neo-darwinian evolution. A refreshing change from just asserting without any support that your opponents are rubbish and have no evidence. Which is what creationists do.
—-
Thank you, much appreciated 🙂
Mike
eco-nazi freak, of course global warming is a hoax, just look at pictures of the sun (which drives climate change, for the idiots who believe in the religionous global warming al gore cult theory), the sun has no sunspots which indicates there is less solar flare activity reaching the earth, evidence that the polar icecaps have not melted away is apparent in satellite photographs and there is evidence that around 9% of ice has formed on the icecaps since last year.. there is evidence that the global heat has dropped significantly and is going to keep dropping in a few years.
global warmists like you guys act like cultists and your god is al gore and your enemy is mankind. screw all of you freaks.
—-
An excellent refutation of my claim that Deniers just rant, call you names, and offer no evidence.
Ice Cap distortion debunked and Global Cooling Nonsense debunked
Mike
More eco-nazi drivel….
—-
You had a chance to show that Deniers had real evidence and didn’t just indulge in childish name calling, and instead you …
Mikte
BRAVO! I look forward to reading more from you
—-
Why thank you :-). I hope I don’t disappoint.
Mike
Very nice. Excellent video. And good connection. So, if you don’t believe in the second coming, believe in climate change. Wonder if a FSM campaign might work to point out the obvious to even those that do believe in the second coming – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
—-
The FSM is at least as logical hypothesis for climate change as what the Deniers propose … that is another consistency between the two groups.
Mike
The problem with your thesis is that it is man-made global warming which must be taken on faith. There are no facts to support it unless you consider admittedly flawed computer models as factual evidence. Doomsayers predict that the global warming which occurred during the last quarter of the last century will resume in about twelve years or so after a twenty year hiatus. Let’s wait and see before we enter an economic suicide pact.
—-
Except you are wrong on each count. “Natural and Anthropogenic Climate Change” and here, and here is just some of the science, most of which is not computer models.
Mike
I have noticed that correlation between evolution deniers and global warming deniers as well. In fact, when I drew up my list of “People who just need to STFU” these two groups featured prominently. The videos I made addressing these two group generated a lot of comments to say the least.
—-
And I assume those videos can be found at your blog, accessed by clicking on your name?
Mike
Wow…..Roy Spencer is a “demier” not a “skeptic”. Imagine a NASA scientist being put in that category.
Well, at least I admire the fact you’ve taken the global warming dishonesty farther than I’ve seen anyone else take it.
—-
I’ll confess Spencer is a very tough call for me. As far as I am aware all of his professional work is done with integrity. Nonetheless his public persona is much more inclined to the more typical Denier spin, and he certainly associates himself with true Deniers such as the Heartland Institute and the George C Marshall Institute. I suspect reading his book will help me make the call with more certainty.
btw Spencer is with the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
As for the “dishonesty” comment, you were free to link to credible evidence that that makes your case. I see nothing but the claim.
Of course global warming deniers share characteristics with creationists. They also resemble 9/11 “Truthers” for the same reason; they have all accepted the idea of a Grand Conspiracy. They have made the conscious decision to interpret all evidence in contradiction to their point as a deliberate fiction intended to obscure the “truth” only they are astute enough to see.
Last year I had to take my kids out of school in Louisiana because of a conflict with the PTA over prayer in schools (and the resulting social abuse of my kids). We’ve moved way north and are so much happier! The ignorance down there, the blatant theocracy and suppression of independent thought, mustn’t be allowed to continue. It just doesn’t get any more unAmerican, but I’m sure you’ll find the same folks denying it exists (they are, in fact, EXACTLY the same folks).
The fact that Louisiana has passed this law (which will eventually be found to be unconstitutional, I’m sure, since the SC has found ID to be Creationism in disguise, which they’d already struck down as a violation of the anti-establishment clause of the 1st amendment) is just one more reason to be glad we’re not living there anymore. I really feel for folks in the Bible Belt, though if they don’t stand up for reason, I guess they get what they deserve: ignorance and falling further and further behind in their kids’ education.
—-
Unfortunately the law is cleverly designed so that the local authorities decide what actually goes into the classroom. That way the law itself makes no reference to any specifics, although it is obvious as hell that it is targeting evolution and climate science. Sigh.
Mike
nice post
—-
Thank you
Are you posting this for the entertainment value? What’s your point?
The converse of your arguments would be the common tactics of global warmenist fear-mongers and the rabid naturalist/evolutionist crowd, i.e., ignore evidence and ridicule opposing views.
—-
Perhaps if you read the article more closely the point would become clear. The Deniers of both camps do not actually have evidence and instead spin the most unlikely tidbits into arguments that fall apart at the first critical examination. By all means peruse the lists of Denier arguments linked and debunked on the right “Debunking Denier Nonsense” and you will see that not only is the Denier “evidence” not ignored, it is exposed for what it really is.
If you happen to have any actual evidence that is credible (peer reviewed science) I would be most curious to learn of it, and even more curious as to how it has remained hidden for so long.
Mike
[…] Source here… This entry was posted on Thursday, September 25th, 2008 at 8:48 am and is filed under le Chat Marchet. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. […]
You fundamentalist atheist/evolutionist believers are nothing if not consistent – whiny, shrill and bitter. Get over yourselves.
—-
Excellent rebuttal of the notion that Deniers are just juvenile name callers who offer no facts or evidence. Keep up the good work!
Mike
both evolution and climate change are 100% verified by scientific investigation. the only argument that many people have is the cause of climate change, not whether or not it is occurring.
the geographical record is a 2billion-year old proof that climate is always changing, and our dna is the proof that evolution has occurred.
—-
“many people” may dispute the causes of climate change, but not many scientists Natural and Anthropogenic Climate Change
Mike
Wow, Mike, what did you do to attract so much crazy to your blog?
Oh, I know, you provided evidence to support your point on a hot-button topic. Amazing what comes out of the woodwork when that happens.
Once again, I refer to the Oreskes video I mentioned on “Skeptics, Contrarians, or Deniers”. She lays out the tactics of the George C. Marshall Institute in the context of the science of the time — and it’s very much like the Discovery Institute, surprise surprise.
[…] Greenfyre dug into the similarities: Some small kernel of fact is distorted and mutated until it emerges appearing to say the opposite of what it originally said. Rarely do the Deniers seem to make things up out of thin air. Whether this is so that they can argue that their’s is a plausible interpretation of the facts or a subconscious attempt to retain some small shred of integrity by pretending that what they do is not lying cannot be known. […]
Brian D. Thanks for the lesson in terminology. It will help to break through the language barrier. My background in biology only goes so far as first year college expierience, so if I need an update I’ll let you know. It is my understanding that the age of the earth is determined mainly by the known decay rates of radioactive isotopes in rocks. You find a fossil in a prticular layer of rock, you carbon date the layer and thats how old the fossil is basically. My understanding of evolution was that after periods of mass extinctions the survivors have a chance to evolve more freely into different forms of animals until the next mass extinction makes it possible for others to do the same, such as when the dinosaurs became extinct the mammals were able to evolve eventually into humans. BUT LET ME STOP RIGHT HERE. Went to bed after I got this far. I think I should just start asking a few quesions about where the experts differ. If Im starting to understand what EVOLUTIONISTS call evolution, then I can conceed that evolution is true. However, CREATIONISTS seem to have their own language and definitions which makes it hard for someone like me to bridge the gap between the two camps. THEY would say what EVOLUTIONISTS call evolution is actually species variation. Websters dictionary terms aside, what I need is for someone to enlighten me on how we get from single cell organisms to humans over time no matter WHAT you call the process. Are evolutionists contending that theese small evolutionary steps only need enough time to eventually ‘evolve’ into other forms of life? CREATIONISTS seem to contend that no matter how many times a species mate and multiply, you still basically have the same organisms, just with different VARIATIONS. Is this where the term SPECIATION comes into effect? (Im trying really hard here so dont give up on me). This is what IVE always had a hard time with. ….Its easier for me to believe that GOD created every form of life all at once and that over the years, due to repeated mass extinctions, we are left with the species we have today than to believe that life “evolved” from simple organisms to the present day forms we have today. But as you say, the question of how life originated and “evolution” are different subjects altogether. So now that Ive tried to indoctrinate myself to your vernacular and tried to show you where Im coming from is it possible for you to continue my journey of enlightenment, or am I just giving you a headache? I think this would be a good time to allow you to say whatever you think is appropriate. Thanks for your time. (I actually am pretty computer illiterate so I hope I can even make it back to this link to further our conversation).
OK. I can make it back. As I stated, I wasnt looking for a discussion of evolution. I was just reading about global warming and became annoyed at a couple of remarks about creationists. But now that Ive found a forum for such discussions I might as well clear the air on a few topics that have interested me over the years. If anyone wants to link me up with answers on any of these topics Id be grateful….Does E really equal mc2 and dont the laws of physics fall apart when objects approach the speed of light?…Is it true scientists dont know EXACTLY how(or why) electricity and lightning work?…Mathematically speaking, is a bumblebee not supposed to be able to fly?…And related to evolution, Is carbon dating really unfallible or could natural forces(say temperature or pressure or time itself) affect the reliability, especially since weve only relatively recently discovered it?…I figure I could start with these and work my way up to the really hard ones like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Thanks.
—-
#
In light of the new comment policy, I’ve put my reply to Micetrap up here (copy that to a text editor if it doesn’t word-wrap). With Micetrap’s consent, I would like to continue this discussion through another medium of his choice.
On the flipside, this has inspired me a bit to get off my arse and start writing the introductions to applied scientific thinking that I mentioned here. I’ll see if I can get to them sometime next week. (The opening installment is likely going to be on falsifiability, critical thinking, and the scientific method, the second on logic, bias, and risk (may need to touch a bit on game theory or statistical significance to drive the point home), and from there into climate-related scientific principles.)
Brian D, thanks for your time and effort. You have my permission to teach me when and where ever you see fit. Since tecnologically speaking Im barely out of the stoneage, Im not sure what you mean by whatever medium I prefer. For now Im happy to let you lead this dance, so let me know what you want me to do, or where you would like me to go. I dont mean to irk you with the phrase evolutionists, its just my way of referring to people who are learned in evolutionary theory. Let me know how you want me to phrase it and I will. At the very least I look forward to your upcoming posts you mentioned. If your last post means my ignorance has somehow inspired you, then,for the sake of knowledge, Im happy to have done my part. For the record it makes perfect sense that humans are contributing to global warming(or do you prefer climate change?). Either way, you know what I mean. Future questions coming. Thanks again.
An apology to Mike and others if my comments have been taking up space where they dont belong. Thanks for your patience. Brian D, I found your most recent reply though I didnt know how or if I could respond to it in the format it was in. So here I am again. The last few years most of the information Ive been able to gather about the cosmos and evolution has come from watching any documentary I can find in such places as the discovery channel, so a site like this has been a goldmine to me. My general stategy is to try and believe all facts presented, although not to automatically come to the same conclusion as the author has, because as new discoveries are made, the conclusions will(may) undou btedly have to change as well. That is, I believe in some cases you(anybody) can have good evidence but still come to different conclusions as someone else, or use the evidence to say it supports what you believe(whether that is true or not).Examples are oviraptor, or sea fossils on mountaintops. Oviraptor was supposed to have been caught stealing eggs from a nest, when its just as likely he was trying to protect them. Sea fossils on mountaintops support that forces raised up the sea floor, or the earth was once covered in a great flood. Hope you understand what Im trying to say. Even thopugh I know about plate tectonics, continental drift,subduction of seafloors, and the geological column, I still try refrain from agreeing unquestionably from any broader conclusion they imply. I am envious of people who seem to be so sure of their beliefs,for I am not.(forgive me for digressing,but a line from scripture that has always haunted me is, Thomas, you believe because you have seen,but blessed are the people who have not seen, but still believe)My probem with the geological column is this.. If I dug a hole deep enough in my backyard, I dont think I would find it. In fact I live in an area of many quarrys and havent seen it there either. Fossils in general dont appear everywhere. They seem to be found in areas where layer upon layer of soil has been laid down,possibly in a major event rather than over millions of years.Creationists would say, again, due to a great flood. How does a layperson or a natural skeptic,such as I seem to be,get to a point of being confident about anything. I suppose this is where critical thinking or your coming posts will help out, but again, just trying to let you peer into my mind here. Thank you.
—-
Micetrap, I apologize for taking as long as I have to reply to this. I didn’t see your responses on the 9th.
Mike, in the interests of taking him up on his offer (“You have my permission to teach me when and where ever you see fit”), can I ask you to mail him my e-mail address? I’d rather not put it up again in public, but this would put us in contact. There’s an upside to this for Greenfyre’s as well: It’ll help give me insight for the intro science stuff I’m working on (yes, it is under way).
—-
Mike,
I’m currently working on the first five sections (and the local Skeptic’s Society, soon to become a branch of the Center for Inquiry, has agreed to run cut-down podcast-length versions of them!), but doing research on the upcoming creationism section. Micetrap has not contacted me (or if he has, aggressive spam filtering caught it; I can’t be certain), and I would consider my dialogue with him to be a very valuable resource (since it illustrates, clearly, the inquiring thought processes needed to cut through to the scientific core). Can I ask you to either mail him again on my behalf, or (with possible breach of privacy) inform me of his contact details?
As I never had a chance to properly reply to his Jan 9th response, I’ve formulated another text reply. It’s a tad rushed, but should get the point across.
[…] longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high. The consequences too serious.Also, blogger Mike Greenfyre distinguishes carefully between deniers and sceptics, but also refers to the denialosphere – which I must admit has a certain ring to it.So what can […]
Mike, I’d like to add that the previous comment is a trackback talking about a story in the Guardian (for those not in the know, it’s one of Britain’s mainstream newspapers). You’ve got a mention in the mainstream media, albiet on the other side of the Atlantic. (On this side we just get Lorned Gunter and George Will.)
[…] blogger Mike Greenfyre distinguishes carefully between deniers and sceptics, but also refers to the denialosphere – which I must admit has a certain ring to […]
[…] blogger Mike Greenfyre distinguishes carefully between deniers and sceptics, but also refers to the denialosphere – which I must admit has a certain ring to […]
I never cease to be amazed that there are people who take a serious scientific issue, like climate change, and have no problem ignoring the National Academy of Science, and at the same time embracing people, like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Hannity, none of whom even were graduated from college and Beck never even attended. It’s simply mind boggling to those of us who struggled through graduate school for eight years to think that some people think “louder” is better.
i am a voluntary potographer, perhaps you’d like to publish some of my photographs? i guess it would be nice for your cms 🙂
totally like your page! write me a e-mail please in case you want to see my pictures
[…] […]
Been reading your site for a while now. Visit mine, I write tips on a blog for making some extra cash online. DeepWebSites.org
سنگ دیوار ارزان
blog topic
قیمت سنگ پله
blog topic
ナイキダウンシフト8
It’s Twins!: Evolution and Climate Change Deniers | Greenfyre’s