Language
Country/Area
No result found
Oil barons and climate change: How do they manipulate science and the media?
As the world faces the grave challenge of climate change, how the oil industry influences science and public perception of climate change has become a hotly debated topic. Those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on climate change are often called climate change deniers. These deniers often use a variety of tactics to try to create false scientific arguments and thus undermine trust in climate science. Research shows that climate change denial not only affects policy making, but also has far-reaching consequences for the future of the environment.
The ultimate goal of climate change denial is to reject a scientific proposition that is accepted by too many experts.
According to multiple studies, the root causes of climate change denial can be traced back to the interests of the oil and fossil fuel industries. These industries use various means to lobby, suppress scientific research results, and even manipulate media reports in an attempt to manipulate the public's perception of climate change. Climate scientists in the United States report that pressure from governments and the oil industry often forces them to self-censor and prevent them from discussing their research publicly.
About 90% of climate change skeptical papers come from right-wing think tanks, indicating a strong political background.
The study found that in the 1970s, oil companies had expressed a consistent view on climate change research and acknowledged the impact of human activities on the climate. However, in the decades that followed, these same companies began to organize a systematic campaign of climate change denial, similar to the tobacco companies’ denial strategies regarding the harms of smoking. Many methods of controlling public opinion, including funding skeptics to produce false information, have found a foothold in these movements.
Climate change deniers use fake experts to dilute official academic opinion.
Questions about the science of climate change are usually raised at several levels. First, some deniers will question the existence of climate change, claiming that the climate has not changed significantly. Second, even if they acknowledge that the climate is changing, they claim that this is caused by nature, not human behavior. In the process, the scientific consensus is portrayed as a false conspiracy, the scientific community is seen as overly optimistic in its interpretation of the data, and climate scientists are accused of seeking more funding to continue their research.
Some climate deniers argue that CO2, although present in trace amounts, has no power to affect the climate.
Scientists around the world have proven that, despite its tiny proportion in the atmosphere, CO2 does have a significant impact on the process of global warming. However, these scientific facts are often simplified into one-sided discourses in the eyes of deniers, which in turn leads to social misconceptions. Deniers will even cite old, disproven studies as support for their arguments, a tactic that makes it easier for the public to be misled when faced with heated issues.
With the development of science and technology and the increasing severity of environmental problems, in the face of the challenge of climate change, when we see media productions such as the Green Award, we will find that the images they present are often full of one-sided views of scientific facts. The report attempts to raise doubts about "rational neutrality". This not only affects people's prejudices, but also obscures the root causes of the issue, and some politicians and entrepreneurs even take advantage of this environment for personal gain.
Science can be used for propaganda, but if we don't know how to interpret it correctly, society will pay a heavy price.
Climate change denial and skepticism continue to influence policy making and environmental protection efforts today. Faced with such challenges, can we find effective means to revive the importance of science and force the corporate groups that control huge amounts of money to assume their due responsibilities?
