the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 28 Mar 2024
Climate Denial – the Antithesis of Climate Education: A Review
Abstract. Survey after survey from across the globe suggest that climate education is floundering, despite climate education being embedded in international treaties to address the climate crisis (the UNFCCC and subsequent Paris Agreement) and the latest scientific assessment reports (IPCC) stressing the importance of climate education. The IPCC also acknowledges forces hostile to climate education, namely climate denialism sponsored by the energy-industrial complex. The latter fought the science of climate change and climate education by unleashing one of the greatest propaganda campaigns in history using the denial machine. Climate change is studied by the physical sciences, but climate denial is the purview of the social sciences; the latter have revealed the why and how of climate denialism and the inner workings of the denial machine. A major psychological factor is individual fear among conservatives that climate change legislation represents a threat to their values and identity, and to protect their ideology they turned to climate denialism, also known as the “climate change countermovement” by sociologists. Climate-denial organizations, supported by the energy-industrial complex, are interfering with the teaching of the science of climate change to our children. A purpose of this review is to draw attention to the growing threat of climate denialism to climate education, supported by specific examples of the influence of the energy-industrial complex in primary and secondary school classrooms.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1124 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1124 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-339', Lars Kamél, 01 Apr 2024
It is not serious to use the phrase "climate denier", since noone denies that climate exists.
According to climate science, there is no climate crisis and no climate emergency. IPCC AR6 mentions "climate crisis" only once and then to notice that media have started to use the phrase, not to claim that there is a climate crisis.
Data from the real world show clearly that nothing bad is happening to the climate, and that there is no climate crisis.
Global warming more rapid than the modern one have happen several times the last 60,000 years. Evidently without humans having caused any of it, since humans did not use fossil fuels then.
Extreme weather is on decline since 1999, when the database EM-DAT, International Disaster Database was finished. The risk for an individual human to be killed på extreme weather is now less than 1 % of what it was 100 years ago. Data for the costs of extreme weather events are available since 1990, and show a slight decline of the costs as share of global GDP. Which is what is to expect in a warming climate. Extreme weather should decline. Storms will become less intense and frequent, since temperature difference decline. Drought will be less common, since precipitation increases.
IPCC hase found no human influence om extreme weather for almost all types of extreme weather. Its conclusions are found in chapter 12 of AR6.
Several studies, two of them published in The Lancet, show that cold weather kills far more people than hot weather. Thus, global warming saves lives, as it reduces the frequency of cold weather.
The statistics from FAO, show that harvests have increased several 100 % the last 6 decades, while the world has warmed about 1C. A trend that will not change sign if the conditions continue to improve for plants, with more CO2 in the atmosphere and longer growing season.
Global warming is no threat to human health and no threat to food security. Claims of the contrary have no support from facts and serious science.
It is apparent that the deniers are those that claim that there is a climate crisis. They are denying facts and climate science.
The paper of Gerald Kutney should not be accepted for publication. It has far from the scientific quality needed for a scientific study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Gerald Kutney, 01 Apr 2024
Ironically, but not unexpected, the first reply to the article is clearly a climate denier, as all the comments reflect climate denial and not science.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Lars Kamél, 10 Apr 2024
I am certainly not denying that climate exists!
Kutney does not address any of the facts I mentioned. How could he, when they are facts? Facts that contradict his opinions!
Kutney only has insults and lies as "arguments". Which clearly shows that what he writes is not science and should not be published by any serious journal.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Gerald Kutney, 10 Apr 2024
I appreciate such comments, for they illustrate the anti-science opinions expressed by climate deniers. Similar disinformation is being promoted in some of our schools to our children, which is the basis of the review paper. We must ensure that such propaganda is not taught to our children.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC2 -
CC3: 'Reply on AC2', Per Karlsson, 13 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
In your manuscript under review here, you present the survey category ”alarmed” over climate warming as the one best in line with the consensus on the science of climate change. Furthermore, you express delight over the fact that this category has more than doubled over the past decade. However, the study of mechanisms of climate denial is a derivative of primary climate science findings.
From a bystander’s viewpoint, it seems your claim of ”alarmed” being the best stance in relation to consensus climate science findings has been challenged by commenter Lars Kamél, referencing data from IPCC AR6, EM-DAT, The Lancet and FAO. As the main points of your manuscript are derivatives of primary climate science, not addressing the specific scientific point objections challenging your manuscript constitutes a forfeit. If you cannot stand your ground, scientifically, your manuscript should not be published. I recommend you pick up the scientific gauntlet thrown down, Sir.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC3', Gerald Kutney, 13 Apr 2024
The IPCC presents the consensus view of the science of climate change (SPM, AR6): "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming ..." Hence, I chose the category which came closest to this statement. Lars presents nothing to refute this. Overall, climate deniers present no science, so no science is necessary to refute it.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC3 -
CC4: 'Reply on AC3', Per Karlsson, 13 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
I am both aware of Hitchen's razor and in support of it. However, in your detailing here of your attitude towars Lars Kamél's comments, you present a strawman argument re IPCC.
I trust you can do better, Sir.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC4
-
CC4: 'Reply on AC3', Per Karlsson, 13 Apr 2024
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC3', Gerald Kutney, 13 Apr 2024
-
CC3: 'Reply on AC2', Per Karlsson, 13 Apr 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Gerald Kutney, 10 Apr 2024
-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Lars Kamél, 10 Apr 2024
-
CC5: 'Reply on CC1 Lars', Paul PUKITE, 16 Apr 2024
"The paper of Gerald Kutney should not be accepted for publication. It has far from the scientific quality needed for a scientific study."
The same applies to criticisms. If you have evidence of errors made, you must provide scholarly citations to support your counter-claims. That is the only way to maintain incremental quality, as most research is built on prior foundational work. So I suggest rewriting the comment with citations for each of your claims. If it is your own new claim, cite as "unpublished" in your name.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC5 -
AC4: 'Reply on CC5', Gerald Kutney, 16 Apr 2024
Lars' ending statement: "Global warming is no threat to human health and no threat to food security. Claims of the contrary have no support from facts and serious science. It is apparent that the deniers are those that claim that there is a climate crisis. They are denying facts and climate science." The climate crisis is real as documented in the AR6 and, more so, in the SR15 of the IPCC. These statements by Lars and his supporters are not science but opinions of obvious climate deniers. Therefore, no further action is necessary.
Furthermore, the study is not about defending the climate crisis, but the presence of climate denial in classrooms, which none of the critics of the study have mentioned.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC4 -
CC6: 'Reply on AC4', Per Karlsson, 16 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
the scientific value and validity of studies of climate denials in classrooms is dependent on there being a climate crisis to deny. Lars Kamél is challengeing the very raison d'être of your manuscript. For your manuscript to carry, you need to address the scientific points re the current climate crisis, which Lars Kamél has objected to. This as the climate crisis is serving as the prerequisite upon which your entire study depends upon.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC6 -
AC5: 'Reply on CC6', Gerald Kutney, 16 Apr 2024
The main reason for revealing climate denial in the classroom is that misinformation is being taught to children.
The scientific and political communities have already decided that action against climate change is necessary. whether you call it a "climate crisis" or not. This fact is illustrated in the IPCC reports and by the international treaties agreed to at Rio, Kyoto and Paris, and other COP meetings.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on CC6', Gerald Kutney, 16 Apr 2024
-
CC6: 'Reply on AC4', Per Karlsson, 16 Apr 2024
-
AC4: 'Reply on CC5', Gerald Kutney, 16 Apr 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Gerald Kutney, 01 Apr 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-339', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Apr 2024
Climate Denial – the Antithesis of Climate Education: A Review
GENERAL COMMENTS
The article seeks to provide a review of the threat of climate change denial to climate education, in particular formal K-12 climate science education, globally (in principle, but in practice with regard to a handful of mostly Anglophone nations). This is certainly a worthwhile goal. The article presents a lot of relevant information together, which is a definite plus. Not all of the information presented is correct, relevant, or contextualized, however, and it is presented with little expositional structure to aid readers' comprehension and no theoretical apparatus to extract any significant moral. That said, since the article is apparently intended for a special issue, it may be that it will well serve a purpose of that issue without substantial revisions. My formal ratings and recommendations do not take that possibility into consideration.
Addressing the list of questions provided by the journal (https://www.geoscience-communication.net/peer_review/review_criteria.html):
1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
Yes: the paper addresses the effects of climate change denial on climate education, and geoscience education is among GC's main subject areas.
2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
In general, no: as the subtitle indicates, however, it is intended as a review. The distinction between "petro-pedagogy" and "conservative" (better, "climate denial") organizations seeking to affect climate education is helpful and has not been explicitly made elsewhere, as far as I know.
3. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
There is little application of any method evident. The brief method section is not detailed enough to enable replicability, and in any case the author seems to have just looked in the literature and on the web for relevant information, which isn't really a method. This is not necessarily objectionable in a review.
4. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
No specific results or conclusions are identified as such. The article successfully establishes that climate change deniers are attempting to undermine climate education in at least a number of developed countries -- as acknowledged, relevant information is scarce for the majority of nations. Information about the effect of these attempts is often not available, however, which is not acknowledged. Competing and complementary hypotheses about the comparative weakness of climate education (especially inertia in the U.S.) are not adequately examined. The author sometimes offers quantitative judgments without providing evidence (as noted in the specific comments). The author does not always clearly distinguish between the goals of climate change deniers with regard to education and their successes in accomplishing those goals (as noted in the specific comments).
5. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
The author scrupulously credits related work. Since the article is a review, there is no new/original contribution to speak of, except for the assembly of the information, the distinction between "petro-pedagogy" and "conservative" organizations, and the (undeveloped) suggestion that "climate brawling" might mitigate the effect of climate change denial on climate education.
6. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Yes, except insofar as it would be better to describe climate denial as "antithetical to" than as "the antithesis of" climate education.
7. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
The abstract is concise. It focuses on "climate-denial" (elsewhere described as "conservative") organizations while apparently neglecting "petro-pedagogy" organizations, which are treated at a similar length in the manuscript; I would recommend referring also to the latter in the abstract. The abstract should also reflect the (understandable) restriction of the discussion to English-language sources and the nations primarily discussed (the U.S., Canada, the U.K., the Netherlands, etc.). These additions should be possible without making the abstract too lengthy.
8. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
No. There is a lot of material with a lot of details, especially in section 3 (24 manuscript pages). Not all the material and not all of the details are relevant to the main theme of the article, there were sections that seemed out of order or out of place altogether, and the inclusion or exclusion of examples often seemed arbitrary (see the specific comments for details). With no argumentative or expositional throughline provided, it was tiring to read the article closely.
9. Is the language fluent and precise?
Sentence by sentence, the language was reasonably fluent. There were a number of passages in which it was not precise (see the specific comments for details). Of particular concern is "climate denial," which (as is usual) covered a lot of ground, from denying that it's real through denying that it's us to denying that it's bad (to use Maibach's formulations). The author is clearly aware of the range here but wasn't always careful about specifying what form of climate denial was under discussion (as noted in the specific comments).
10. Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
The references, which occupy pp. 31-45 of the manuscript, are abundant -- perhaps overabundant. Many of them are of low quality but for explicable reasons: the author dutifully cites a lot of climate change denial literature. (The journal might give thought to separating these into a reference list of their own.) It was surprising not to see more use of the science education literature's discussion of climate denial.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1 (title): Climate denial is not the antithesis of climate education, although it is antithetical to it: the antithesis of climate education would be climate miseducation (or, to coin a phrase, diseducation, to invoke the contrast between misinformation and disinformation).
19-24: On the strength of the quotation, Tutu was calling specifically for climate justice education, while the author is apparently calling for stronger climate science education; this is a bit of a mismatch.
34: In the U.S. at least, there are problems with climate education independent of climate denial.
42-45: This laundry list isn't especially helpful. (Sealioning, e.g., is a tactic taking its name from a 2014 web cartoon [https://wondermark.com/c/1062/]: how well-known is it?) Rather than define all the terms, a more general description might be in order.
52-57: These activists are engaged in different fights in different venues using different tactics, and the list is notably incomplete for no obvious reason. The reader is left with the impression that this is an offhand and opinion-driven list.
59-62: (1) The previous paragraph described the activists as opposing climate denial; this paragraph describes them as trying to stop propaganda funded by the fossil fuel industry. The latter project is at best a subset of the former, since not all climate denial is so funded, and not all opposition takes the form of trying to ban (as opposed, e.g., to debunk or to inoculate against). (2) There are quantitative claims here -- "unabated"; "surge" -- for which no evidence is adduced.
63: (1) Cite the previous studies. (2) The segue to "the classroom" is a little rough, since the activists of 52-57 are not uniformly concerned with the classroom.
65-66: Climate denial organizations such as the Heartland Institute are not the only relevant organizations here; fossil fuel industry groups such as the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board play a role in climate miseducation too. (This is acknowledged later but it should be clearly stated from the outset.)
66-68: But educators and parents aren't the only stakeholders here (and they're not the most likely readers of the journal); perhaps discuss the interests of higher education instructors in having climate-literate students as well?
70-71: With regard to the general public, "communication" is a better term than "education"; insofar as education is aimed at the general public, it's typically in the context of what's called "informal education" (at, e.g., museums). Climate change in informal education is important, too, but the article focuses on formal education.
72-77: This isn't described in enough detail as to ensure anything like replicability.
79-91: It's distracting, and it steps on the punch line, to announce the results when describing the questions (especially in the third bullet).
82-85: As phrased, this begs the question. Given that the public's knowledge of the science of climate change is not as great as might be hoped for, there are any number of possible explanations, of which the two most salient are that they're not being educated appropriately and that they are being educated appropriately but something (which could indeed be climate change denial efforts funded or inspired by the fossil fuel industry) is blocking their uptake of that education. In fact, both are probably at play -- bear in mind that in general public surveys, a majority of the respondents received their education a long time ago.
82-83: It is not likely that public opinion surveys are capable of identifying climate denial as harmful to climate education. (Which is not to deny that they can find correlations between climate denial and opposition to climate education, but such opposition doesn't automatically translate into concrete harms.)
98-99: But of course surveys of the general public, which are usually of adults, only provide information on the past general state of climate education, in some cases the distant past (see comment on 82-85).
100-105: It isn't clear that respondents are in any kind of epistemic position to have a reasonable view on Pew's question, so it isn't clear what the responses really signify. It would be helpful to discuss a number of different questions probing the same general area (e.g., trust in climate scientists, perception of consensus among climate scientists) to see if the results converge.
110-111: As described, the Pew survey does not show this. What results, from the same or different surveys, show this?
112: Not "climate change awareness" but perhaps "attitudes toward climate change" (encompassing whether it's real, it's us, and it's bad, to borrow Maibach's formulation).
114: "the poll" -- Which poll (what year)? 2023 as suggested in 126?
123: Given that the science doesn't of itself provide policy recommendations, alarmed and concerned arguably match the scientific consensus equally well -- the only difference given is with regard to motivation.
125: "not very reassuring" -- To whom? About what? What figure would be reassuring and why?
128: Why is this population of especial interest (to Pew and to the project of the article)?
134: True, but (1) why is this of interest here? and (2) it suggests that they are mindless parrots in the thrall of industry shills, etc. -- which may be true, of course, but for all that has been said, it may be true that they're all fiercely independent thinkers who did their own research. Inferring from the uniformity of responses of a similar survey of the Alarmed that they were all mindlessly sharing common climate alarmist talking points would be objectionable, would it not?
140, 142-143: It might be helpful to report the general public figures together in one paragraph and then discuss the evidence for political polarization in another.
144-145: (1) "Distrust" rather than "Trust"; (2) how was trust measured in this survey (which was Alvarez et al.?)?; (3) How did trust and political position interact in this survey (or was it not reported? I don't see it from a quick glance); (4) rather than mentioning the relevance of this survey to education, it might be helpful to devote a paragraph to discussing the relevance of all of the cited survey research to education.
155-156: The gloss is not accurate, since the authors are not actually discussing climate education (even though they should have been). Nor are they explicitly attributing the misconception that scientists disagree about climate change and the consensus gap to climate denial.
157-173, 179-183, 201-202: A lot of these results, though interesting, are not clearly on target, since they don't reveal anything about climate change denial or climate change education specifically.
173-178: This is out of place in a discussion of polling.
183-184: It isn't plausible that the polling was able to identify causal factors, and the quoted sentence is not presented in the original as a result of the polling. (No citation is given in the original, presumably on the grounds that it's obvious to anybody paying attention, which is fair.)
195: Of "Alarmed" and "Dismissive," "Alarmed" best represents the scientific consensus, but see comment on 123. How would matters look if "Alarmed" and "Concerned" were taken together?
197: See comment on 123.
203-209: If the point of this section is to show evidence for the consensus gap and to argue for its importance (especially with regard to education), as this paragraph suggests, then a lot of the poll results that have been reviewed are not relevant.
208: Not all climate action requires legislation: consider executive, judicial, and administrative actions. Administrative actions are particularly important in the context of U.S. education, where (e.g.) state science standards and their implementation are generally in the hands of administrative agencies (although often with executive and/or legislative control and oversight in the background).
222: The concern isn't supported by the poll results. Perhaps the thought is that the poll results show that the concern is not being met?
226-230: This wanders away from the theme that there is a global call for climate change education in the direction of the theme that the call has not been adequately answered; restructure for clarity.
238-240: But this is about climate change communication, not climate education.
241-243: Are the following two quoted statements the whole of the "extensive[]" comments? They seem well short of extensive: more like parenthetical.
252-259: It would be more helpful to briefly summarize what is said rather than list and cite the keywords. For one thing, the list doesn't provide clear evidence that climate education specifically is discussed, only that climate denial is.
265-266: But only briefly and often only by implication; the AR6 certainly could have done better.
276-277: This is a non sequitur. It would only be plausible if the fossil fuel industry substantially affected the education recommendations of COP28 and the like and if national and subnational education authorities paid attention to those recommendations. No evidence for either has been presented (and it's doubtful that there is any).
290-291: This suggests that the previous paragraph described journalism about climate denial affecting climate education specifically, which it didn't.
293-299: This whole paragraph might be aptly moved to be the second paragraph of sec. 3.3.
304-306: Despite its use of the term "denial," it's doubtful that Freudian psychology has anything important to contribute to the modern discussion.
304-313: The structure of the exposition here is not clear -- hopping from the history of the concept of denial to a brief mention of climate denial in sociology to a comparison of two psychological studies of climate denial. Restructure for clarity.
314-322: The cognitive biases mentioned in the first sentence are not listed here. Prebunking is not defined. Gornsey and Lewandowsky 2022 and Jenny and Betsch 2022 are not adequately described.
323: Is fear a cognitive bias? If not, how is the claim that climate denial arises out of fear (and fear alone?) to be squared with the psychological literature that climate denial arises out of certain (here unnamed; see comment on 314-322) psychological biases?
331-333: Only one of these arguments (about the national economy) seems relevant here, as reflecting conservative fears of climate change; why not stress it (perhaps to the exclusion of the other)?
334-335: What is "a force of anti-reflexivity" supposed to mean? Explain or omit.
335-338: This is no help with regard to "anti-reflexivity."
339: There's a gap between the claim and the Lewandowsky report, which can be filled by the thought that (formal) education is the best, the most significant, the most likely ... way of acquiring knowledge about climate change. Also: matters in what way? to what?
340: Insofar as "namely" suggests that the only such barriers are those presented by climate denial that is serving vested interests (which, presumably, is not synonymous with climate denial tout court), this seems wrong. Inertia throws up barriers of its own.
343-345: This is about communication; the connection to education needs to be forged.
346-349: Here too the connection to education needs to be forged.
350-352: The cited studies establish that climate change education is ineffective among conservatives, not that climate change education is being impeded by conservatives, so this is just off point.
352-353: This premise has not been established by the preceding discussion (although it is by the following discussion).
353: See comment on 1.
359: What evidence is there for the comparative judgment ("more dire")? More dire in what aspects? In some ways, the situation is less dire, at least in the U.S., as shown by better treatment of climate change in state science standards and better preparation of science teachers between 2012 and the present.
361-372: "softer" in what respect? It's clear enough that the most prevalent forms of climate change denial have been softening -- moving away from denying "it's real" and "it's us" and toward denying "it's bad" (to use Maibach's formulation) -- in general, and there's evidence that this is true of climate change denial campaigns targeting K-12 science education in the U.S. But the groundwork hasn't been laid in this article to discuss this transition here. This paragraph is also hard to follow in the absence of concrete examples.
364: Likewise, "traditional conservative climate denial" hasn't been defined, so the contrast here will not be understood except by a reader already familiar with the situation.
364: The groundwork hasn't been laid for the idea that the energy-industrial complex is providing K-12 science educational content (which moreover needs to be distinguished from the content provided by climate change denial organizations such as the Heartland Institute: see comment on 65-66).
374: There are different relations being obscured by the word "sponsor" here: for example, actual fossil fuel companies provide the budget of the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, but the Heartland Institute hasn't received directly traceable funds from such companies for a long time now, and many of its corporate sponsors made a point of cutting ties with them after the Unabomber billboard fiasco. It's misleading not to distinguish the different relations.
374: The parenthetical description doesn't capture the fact that the lefthand cartoon in figure 2 reflects conservative views of climate education while the righthand cartoon reflects liberal views of "petro-pedagogical" efforts.
380-393: (1) What evidence is there that this program is global in actual reach? (Anybody can put material on the internet; that doesn't mean that it's global.) (2) This is under the rubric "Climate Denial in the Classroom" (the title of sec. 3.4); from the description this program is at worst soft denial. Does it make sense to begin or to spend a lot of time with the less pernicious examples?
394-409: The same comments apply as for 380-393. Also, is there any information on the content of Switch Classroom in particular?
430-442: Is there any information on the impact on EU science classrooms?
444-472: Is there any information on current impacts? From what's said here, it sounds like these efforts wrapped up about ten years ago (unless the festival was later -- it's hard to tell; it may be a yearly event).
475-481: This section seems to be trying both to introduce the Canada material and to discuss the Saskatchewan episode; it would be clearer if the latter were moved into its own section (and if the dependence of the Canadian economy on extraction industries was discussed further).
483-494: Interesting but not a lot of details about the actual content or uptake.
495-502: The same comments apply as for 483-494. And if the worst aspect is that it promotes only personal action on climate, it's fairly soft denial.
503-506: There's so little information here that it's hardly worth including.
507-511: The same comment applies as for 503-506.
531-534: This shouldn't be in the Ten Peaks section: either in the introductory Canada section or a concluding section on its own. (Or perhaps the blank line 529 is supposed to set it off? Fair if so.)
536-541: (1) Yale has had a series of surveys with this question, with a bit of up and down but generally in the mid-to-high 70s. (2) Other surveys have addressed the issue with different questions, confirming the high level of support but offering further insights that may be worth discussing here, e.g.:
Kamenetz A. 2019, April 22. Most teachers don’t teach climate change; 4 in 5 parents wish that they did. National Public Radio.
Pizmony-Levy O, Pallas, A. 2019. Americans endorse climate change education. Teachers College, Columbia University. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/media/centers-amp-labs/the-public-matters/AMERICANS-ENDORSE-CLIMATE-CHANGE-EDUCATION-final-version-posted-v09172019.pdf
Lange J. 2023, December 15. Poll: Americans overwhelmingly want climate change taught in schools. Heatmap. https://heatmap.news/climate/education-climate-trust-teachers-poll#
542-545: There have been multiple attempts to introduce the CCEA in both houses of Congress, most recently S. 4117 and H.R. 7946 (both introduced after the paper was submitted).
546: Public education in the U.S. is ultimately controlled by the state, but the bulk of decisions on curriculum and instruction are made at the district level -- and there are about 13,500 local school districts -- or below (school, department, classroom). So there's even more decentralization than is revealed here.
546-548: (1) This is irrelevant to the decentralization point. (2) At face value, the campaign was deeply misconceived, not taking into consideration the facts that standards are revised on a multiyear schedule and that education policymakers are not likely to be responsive to single-shot petitions. (Of course, the ulterior motive may have been just to harvest addresses from people concerned about climate change education, and in this it may have succeeded.)
550: 26 states were involved with (were "Lead State Partners" on) the development of the NGSS; not all adopted them (as correctly implied below).
557: the 24 (actually 25 now) states said to be "using [the NGSS] as guides" have actually based their standards on the same National Research Council Framework on which the NGSS are based -- not much difference in practice, but it makes a difference in some contexts.
557-558: since 2020, PA moved from the non-Framework category to the Framework category, so only five states are neither NGSS nor Framework: TX, FL, OH, VA, and NC.
560: re "not guided by the NGSS," see comment on 557
575-579: More details about what the study sought to understand, and more specific reportage on its results, are needed. The study looked for state-level (i.e. state board of education or state department of education) policies regarding climate change in four contexts -- "1) institutional governance, 2) teaching and learning, 3) facilities and operations, and 4) community partnerships" -- of which only 2 is really relevant here.
592-607: It's surprising not to see any mention of the CO2 Coalition's recent attempt to disseminate its materials at a NSTA conference. See e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/04/11/co2-coalition-climate-denial/
612: "yet" is gratuitous
618-651: Is there any evidence of uptake by teachers?
652: It's hard to know how to assess this claim. They certainly have their differences (e.g., CO2 Coalition is single-issue and the others aren't; EverBright Media is for-profit and the others aren't; etc.).
652: Why no mention in this context of PragerU Kids, which isn't an outlier compared to these three and whose climate change denial videos and comics aimed at kids grabbed headlines in 2023 in a number of states, especially FL? See e.g. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/in-desantis-florida-schools-get-ok-for-climate-denial-videos-ee-00109466
653-664: It would bear mention that ONEI is the OH equivalent of the OERB.
665-681: (1) The bill was amended to refer to climate policy rather than climate change, so it was transformed from hard to soft denial. (2) As acknowledged, this bill isn't about K-12 education, so why include it? (3) The bill hasn't passed or been enacted, so why include it, especially when a number of bills that actually sought to undermine K-12 climate change education in various states aren't discussed?
682-695: It would bear mention that OERB was the first of its kind, with ONEI and others inspired by it. Why no mention of e.g. the Illinois Petroleum Resources Board? See e.g. https://www.levernews.com/a-fossil-fuel-miseducation/
698: Not "an education vendor"; rather, the DOE gave its imprimatur to the use of PragerU Kids videos in middle school social studies classes. Importantly, (1) it would be hard to justify the use of its climate change denying videos on those classes, given the lack of climate change content in the corresponding state standards, and (2) the DOE's imprimatur is basically irrelevant, since districts make decisions about instructional material, and some of the bigger districts have already said that they will not allow PragerU Kids materials to be used.
701: These states took different actions on different PragerU Kids products; it's misleading to lump them together as all approving the use of climate change denial material.
* In MT, the state superintendent of public instruction, Elsie Arntzen, a Republican, signed a textbook license agreement with PragerU. This doesn't have much actual significance, because the only requirement for obtaining such a license is posting a surety bond -- in PragerU's case, for $5000. Having the license doesn't mean that instructional materials will be considered, let alone approved, and the superintendent doesn't make decisions on instructional materials anyhow. But Arntzen expressed her approval of the materials, which might conceivably have some effect on districts' decisions.
* In NH, high school students in New Hampshire now have the opportunity to satisfy their financial literacy graduation requirement with PragerU Kids's Cash Course module online. The commissioner of the state department of education, Frank Edelblut, a Republican, even appeared in a promotion for it. Whatever you think about this, it's not likely to have any effect on climate change education.
* In OK, the state Department of Education under state superintendent of public instruction Ryan Walters, a Republican, announced a "partnership" with PragerU, which seems to take the form of the department endorsing its videos for use in social studies classrooms. While there are opportunities to discuss climate change in social studies classes, Oklahoma's social studies standards don’t provide a lot of opportunities for it, so the effect on climate change education will probably be limited. The Oklahoma Education Association reacted to Walters’s announcement by reminding districts that they don’t have to use the material and parents that they could opt their children out of exposure to them.
* In TX, a PragerU promotion that featured praise from Julie Pickren, a Republican member of the state board of education, claimed that PragerU is an approved education vendor in the state. That was not, and still is not, actually true. Texas has a lot of problems with climate change education, thanks in part to Pickren, but official approval of PragerU for Kids materials is not among them.
703-709: It's surprising not to see mentioned the not-very-hidden analogy Jews in the Warsaw Uprising:Nazis :: climate change deniers:climate change accepters.
726: It's actually a lesson plan for grades 3-5, and it has API branding. While it can be read as soft denial, it's intended to be a career lesson, not an environmental science lesson.
729: the heading should be "Texas State Board of Education" -- the TEA is basically the TX department of education; it's administrative and doesn't set policy and can't be blamed for the shenanigans discussed in this section
729-739: (1) This is state action, so it doesn't seem like it belongs in this section. (2) There have been similar episodes elsewhere, with executive and legislative actions aimed at inhibiting climate change education and apparently motivated by climate change denial; why aren't they discussed as well?
737-739: (1) This was not "unrelated"; the changes to the board operating rules were made in order to facilitate the later attacks on the textbooks. (2) The textbooks in question were not banned; they were not approved. Districts are still free to use them if they wish; it's just harder and more expensive for them to do so. (3) The textbooks were not climate textbooks but grade 8 science textbooks.
740-746: This isn't part of section 3.4.3.2.8, and should be set off from it somehow.
752-753: "climate denialism has crippled climate communication for decades, affecting climate education": if education isn't included as part of communication, as seems plausible, then what are the causal processes at work here? It is somewhat plausible that there are relevant causal processes (e.g., if newspapers mistakenly present climate denial as equally plausible as climate science, teachers may be swayed). But climate denialism also affects climate education directly, as the author has observed at length, and plausibly these effects are stronger, so they too should be mentioned here.
753-754: "unprecedented" and "recently" aren't clearly true. Evolution has been the subject of similar controversy for a century, and the author discusses episodes of climate change denial going back more than a decade. (And it would be odd for them to go back much further, since such episodes are basically backlash to the inclusion of climate change in K-12 education, which is probably less than 20 years old in the US, with a surge after the release of the NGSS in 2013.)
758: "if not the reason": indeed, definitely not the sole reason. In the U.S. especially, climate change is homeless because of a historic (more than century-long) neglect of earth and environmental sciences (as compared to biology, chemistry, and physics); even if climate change denial vanished overnight, there would remain a tremendous amount of inertia to overcome to get climate change taught adequately at the K-12 level.
759-760: But likewise the crucial role of climate education, which is typically scanted in IPCC reports and the like (e.g., the NCA in the U.S.).
765: The "Summary for Kids" is a nice idea, but also why not a "Summary for Teachers"?
766-791: This all seems off-topic, with no visible connection to climate education (except for 787-788, which mechanically extends the recommendation of "climate brawling" to organizations working against climate education without providing any details about how this might work or have to be adapted, let alone any evidence of its effectiveness).
794-801: This is a useful distinction. (1) It would be useful to place it earlier. (2) Thought might be given to noting the differences. "Petro-pedagogy" organizations tend to be less extreme and/or softer in their climate denial; they often have better connections with the world of education; they are probably more susceptible to public pressure (since they typically are themselves or are funded by publicly traded companies). "Conservative" -- or better "climate denial" -- organizations thus tend to be more extreme, less connected, and less susceptible. These differences make a difference in how to try to eliminate or mitigate their influence on public education, obviously. It is surprising that, having made the distinction, the author fails to extract these pretty obvious implications.
803: It's not obvious that there has been such a "recent surge" or, assuming that there has been, that it isn't just a blip without statistical significance.
809-810: (1) Is there evidence, such as polling data, to this effect? (2) The lefthand side of Figure 3 doesn't suggest that these students are specifically opposed to the inclusion of climate denial in their classrooms (though it's a safe bet). The righthand side doesn't either, but it's a bit closer.
819 onward: references, not reviewed
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
25: "Forward" should be "foreword"
28: citation should not be within quotation marks; this happens elsewhere (e.g., 136, 164, 185, 206, 262-263, 270, 271, 289, 294, 310, 321, 340, 384, 386, 389, 413, 429, 485, 520, 565-566, 568, 570, 573-574, 578-579, 582, 606, 610, 615 [twice], 628-629, 644, 665, 662, 693, 700, 705, 719, 724, 734, 737, 741-746 passim) and I have not necessarily caught every instance.
29: "which shows that a problem exists" should be "revealing that a problem exists,"
55: "Canada's" should be set in romans
71-72: Something awry here -- delete "of education" or insert "sector" after "vulnerable" and add a comma after the right parenthesis.
81: "on" should be "of"
92: "negate" seems off: "mitigate"?
101: "A survey" should be "A series of surveys" given the time series mentioned in the next sentence.
110: "Kahn" should be "Kahan"
183: "effecting" should be "affecting"
244: "ity" should be set in italics
219: "Lewandowky" should be "Lewandowsky"
328: "fear of conservatives" should be "fear held by conservatives" or something like that, to avoid a misreading
329: does the author want to endorse the idea that individual freedom and free enterprise as understood by these organizations are indeed traditional American values, as this formulation seems to suggest, or to hedge here?
350: "Kahn" should be "Kahan"
423: "their webpage" is ASE's page referring to Climate.Speaks?
456: superscripted "2" thus in original? Mark with "[sic]" if so.
563: "2015" should be "2014-2015" (the survey received responses in late 2014 and early 2015)
580: book title should be capitalized
584: "Riley" should be "Rollie"
609: "Huchabee" should be "Huckabee"
623: It's called "NIPCC" not "NGIPCC"; clarify to what extent the NIPCC is the creature of Heartland
819 onward: hard to read without hanging indent!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-RC1 -
AC6: 'Reply on RC1', Gerald Kutney, 22 Apr 2024
I wish to extend my appreciation to both reviewers for their constructive criticisms, suggestions, and comments. Such reviews took much time and effort. I will do my best to incorporate their reviews into the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript will be better because of their reviews.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC6 -
AC11: 'Reply on RC1', Gerald Kutney, 21 May 2024
I was impressed and appreciated the constructive criticisms and other comments. I attempted to address all the points raised, which are presented in the attachment. If I have failed to do so, please let me know. Again thank you, for all the time and effort for improving the review.
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC1', Gerald Kutney, 22 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-339', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Apr 2024
This paper aims to present a review of current knowledge on the influence of climate denial on climate education. This is a contentious but important issue that merits wider consideration and discussion within the geoscience education / communication community. There are issues with the paper as it’s currently presented, however, and I recommend that these are addressed prior to final publication. In particular the focus on North America, almost to the exclusion of anywhere else, makes me question whether this paper should be re-cast specifically to focus on North America.
1) Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
Yes. Climate denial and its influence on geoscience education falls clearly within the scope of the journal.
2) Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
This is a review paper so does not present new ideas emerging from novel research. It does make a contribution to synthesizing existing knowledge about climate denial in climate / geoscience education, but has some limitations in scope.
3) Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
The methods used to identify, select, and analyse the information used in the review need to be more transparent. Granted this is a review article rather than a research paper, but this is a contentious subject and it’s important that the paper does not lay itself open to accusations of using the ‘obstructionist tools’ associated with climate denial, e.g. cherry-picked data. Demonstrating a rigorous, systematic approach to information gathering should help to deflect such accusations. The recently-published systematic review of counteracting climate denial by Mendy et al. (2024): https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231223425 provides an exemplar of the kind of approach appropriate for this type of review.
4) Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
A range of survey findings are used to imply the current state of public knowledge of the science of climate change, but I’m not convinced that all of the data presented are a valid representation of knowledge, or that this is a reliable indication of climate education. These data appear to relate to a range of constructs including awareness, perceptions, opinions and beliefs, which are not the same as knowledge. For example, having an awareness (being conscious) of climate change is not the same as having knowledge acquired through learning. It's also important to acknowledge that knowledge does not directly lead to actions. Rather than being ‘ignorant of the irrefutable messages of the science of climate change and the scientific consensus’ there is likely a much more complex interplay of factors – including education – influencing the gap between knowledge and behaviour (see review paper by Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002): https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401). It’s also not clear that the various survey findings reported are measuring the same thing and are therefore comparable.
The rationale for prioritising data / information from North America and English-speaking nations, and the limitations of this approach, warrants further discussion. This is particularly true for section 3.4 where the vast majority of examples are from North America. Is this a real effect, i.e. the influence of climate deniers on education really is found mainly in North America, or is this sampling bias? If the former, could / should this review focus specifically on North America as a location? Further, if the aim of this section is to present evidence for ‘petro-pedagogy’ are all of these examples really necessary, or is there value in presenting representative examples of differing approaches? What criteria are used to identify content as ‘climate denial’? While this appears quite blatant / direct in some examples, in others it’s much more subtle / indirect.
5) Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
All sources are appropriately referenced. The contribution is more of a ‘call to arms’ than presentation of new knowledge.
6) Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Not entirely. It should indicate, in some way, that this is not a complete review.
7) Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
It would be helpful to indicate the limitations of the information considered in the review, e.g. geographical extent.
8) Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
At >12,000 words of body text the paper is too long. Almost half of this content is in Section 3.4. While the journal does not give guidance on manuscript length the aim of a review article should be to ‘summarise the status of knowledge’, and this is not a summary so consider where information could be streamlined, synthesized, tabulated, and / or moved to an appendix of supplementary information.
9) Is the language fluent and precise?
I found the overall tone of the paper to be somewhat confrontational. I suspect this is deliberate and, to be fair, it can be quite effective at hooking the reader’s attention. I do, however, question whether this style of writing is appropriate for an academic journal as it detracts from the narrative, and risks alienating readers who genuinely want to engage with the content.
10) Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
The author references an impressive body of information and literature which could be separated into literature informing the main narrative and literature forming the ‘results’ from the review process. Despite the high number of references there are multiple places in the text where key information is unreferenced.
Further comments:
L15: ‘Summarise status of knowledge’ seems more appropriate than ‘draw attention to’.
L19: How is ‘climate education’ defined? Is this the same as ‘climate change education’?
L29: I disagree that this review is global in extent. It would be more appropriate to indicate from the outset that the information reviewed originates mainly from North America and English-speaking nations.
L45: Another reference for climate denial to consider is Jacques (2012): https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00105
L48-49: Please provide a reference for the tobacco industry example.
L52-57: The phrase ‘Activism opposing climate denial has arisen’ needs further substantiating. Where dates are provided these are all very recent – there a particular timescale of interest?
L61: What is the timescale of ‘recently’?
L63: Provide references for these previous studies.
L64: See earlier comment – to what extent can public knowledge be considered a reliable indicator of education? What is the evidence for this?
L70-71: Is there a reference for this statement about climate education?
L72-77: see previous comment about methods.
L79-90: I would expect the study questions to appear before the method, i.e. define questions, then state how the info required to address questions will be collected. Findings should not be stated at this point.
L83-85 / L91 / L98: What is recent? What is historical? Timescales need to be more precisely stated.
L87: “Most cases were found in America” - what was the sampling strategy used to locate examples?
L98-99: “such polls are also indicative of the general state of climate education itself”. This needs to be explained and referenced. Personally I disagree, but am open to being convinced.
L99: How many polls were identified? How many have been considered for this review?
L109: The statement about climate education is confusing. When would this education take place? Once a politician is in office?
L110: Which Pew survey? L103 suggests that there are multiple surveys.
L123: “The “alarmed” category matches best with the consensus on the science of climate change”. This needs further explanation.
L134: Is there a reference to validate that these are “common climate denial talking points”?
L135: “Many Americans are clearly not familiar with...” Or choose not to believe?
L139-143 (and other places): Why is US political orientation the only demographic variable discussed?
L155: Is scepticism the same as denial? The former is about doubt, the latter is more definitive.
L157-158: Unclear - 75% of countries, or average 75% of participants? Ditto L163 “77% agreed...”
L173-178: Unclear how this information is relevant to the preceding info.
L183: What questions were asked to ascertain public perceptions of the climate crisis?
L188: I’m intrigued by the involvement of Meta in global surveys on climate change (just a comment, no response required).
L203: Specify recent climate change (as opposed to over geological time).
L205-209: See previous comment.
L212: If climate education became a treaty obligation in 1992 then we might expect to see the influence of this in Millennials and later generations, but not earlier generations. So how is this captured in the survey data presented in 3.1 (or is it)?
L237: Successful in what sense?
L290-1: Please provide references.
L308-314: This sounds like the value-action gap. See previous reference to Kollmus & Agyeman (2002), also Bushell et al. (2017): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.001.
L314-22: What are the implications here for climate education?
L323-324: “Climate denial arises from fear of science messages about climate change, especially among conservatives. Political ideology plays a lesser role in climate legislation outside the United States” - but it still plays a role? This feels very dismissive of other locations, and the US-centric theme continues in the next paragraph. As a non-US resident I’m really not sure why I should care about this.
L330: Were the right-wing think tanks studied by McCright and Dunlap all from the US, or a range of locations?
Section 3.4: please refer to the comprehensive comments provided by RC1 – I have nothing further to add to these.
L750: Is ‘misunderstanding’ the right term to describe the Consensus Gap? I think for some people this is a conscious choice.
L757-758: “Climate education, despite a serious and genuine effort, has failed to teach the world about the causes and risks of the climate crisis”. To what extent can this be generalised to ‘the world’, given that the vast majority of the evidence presented relates to North America?
L759-65: I’d really like to see these recommendations for IPCC publications focused on climate denial, and aimed at alternative audiences, followed through.
L766-68: I’d be interested to know social scientists’ view on this!
L775-7: “Climate education has been relatively successful with liberals but has had no impact on conservatives in some countries for more than a decade”. Please provide evidence / references to support this.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-RC2 -
AC7: 'Reply on RC2', Gerald Kutney, 22 Apr 2024
I wish to extend my appreciation to both reviewers for their constructive criticisms, suggestions, and comments. Such reviews took much time and effort. I will do my best to incorporate their reviews into the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript will be better because of their reviews.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC7 -
AC12: 'Reply on RC2', Gerald Kutney, 21 May 2024
I was impressed and appreciated the constructive criticisms and other comments. I attempted to address all the points raised, which are presented in the attachment. If I have failed to do so, please let me know. Again thank you, for all the time and effort for improving the review.
-
AC7: 'Reply on RC2', Gerald Kutney, 22 Apr 2024
-
CC7: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-339', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
Dear Editors,
please accept my comments on the manuscript (MS):
Climate Denial – the Antithesis of Climate Education: A Review,
authored by Gerald Kutney
General comments
The MS claims to explain why there is a current lack of understanding among the general public re matters of climate change. Specifically the poor public awareness on important messages from the science of climate change, i.e. L78-91.
In doing so, the author makes certain assumptions on i) what constitutes good and poor understanding of climate change science, respectively, and ii) what the consensus of climate science comprises, and indeed iii) that there is such a thing as consensus within this field of science, e.g. as indicated in L123 “The “alarmed” category matches best with the consensus on the science of climate change.”
None of the three points are presented with either references or argued for using original data. The claims do not classify as being common knowledge, and thus need some sort of justification. To make just one example of where the assumptions go wrong, I point to chapter 7.5 in the IPCC AR6 WG1 report (2022), pp 992-1009, which discusses ECS and TCR. It is clear in this chapter there is indeed no consensus on climate sensitivity to [CO₂], refuting assumptions ii) and iii). Furthermore, the very wide span for ECS/TCR given in the IPCC report makes the grounds for assumption i) rather uncertain, as the outcome ranges from negligible to dire consequences.
Specific comments.
L128-134 refers to a published poll by the Pew Research Center (Pasquini et al., 2023 in the MS). It should be pointed out that the poll was designed to sort out “skeptical” responders from a larger, undisclosed size group of people from five regions in the USA. The final number interviewed on the reasons for their skepticism were only 32 persons. This very small number of replies make the findings carry very little general explanatory value for what reasons skeptics are skeptic. The small number of replies should be indicated in the text to avoid readers confusing this for being more general data.
Final point. Although this MS, in its ultimate extrapolation, bears on anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. Carbon dioxide, represented in chemical symbols are consequently mis-typed throughout the MS, but for L684 (CO₂). This must be corrected before publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC7 -
AC8: 'Reply on CC7', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
The consensus view on the science of climate change is represented in the reports of the IPCC, especially in the SPM of the Synthesis Report.
Climate sensitivity is not discussed in the review paper.
The criticism of the PEW poll should be discussed with them.
Carbon dioxide was used throughout the report, except for quotes and the proper name of the organization "CO2 Coalition."
I appreciate the comments and suggestions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC8 -
CC8: 'Reply on AC8', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
the SPM of AR6 SYR does include the lack of scientific consensus I pointed to in my comment re the climate sensitivity to CO₂. It is covered in the p 12, footnote 31. The text is, perhaps by the condensed nature of the SYR SPM, less informative on the intrinsic variance in the IPCC assessment of CO₂ sensitivity as compared to the contents of section A4.4 (p 11) in the SPM of the AR6, presenting the same finding. The subject is, of course, penetrated in its highest detail in the full report from WG1, which was the text I originally referred to (chapter 7.5 in the IPCC AR6 WG1 report (2022), pp 992-1009). The fact that climate sensitivity is not discussed per se in the review, is a non-argument as I presented the climate sensitivity span merely as one example of where consensus within climate science is absent. And, the scientific consensus point does constitute a major argument in the manuscript under review.
Interestingly, the AR6 SYR SPM makes comparisons between the climate sensitivity metrics presented in AR5 and AR6, respectively, which are concluded to be different (IPCC AR6 SYR, on p 12, footnote 31). Thus, presenting yet another example of non-consensus data/views within climate science.
My comments re the published PEW poll are not directed towards the original paper, which properly describes the process of selection, including the criteria used, the actual number of final interviewees. and how many gave what explanations to why they were skeptical. The numbers of replies sorted into the categories presented are also properly accounted for in a clear manner and easy to understand in the original publication. However, all of this contextual information is absent in this MS under review, which puts readers at risk of mis-interpreting the actual findings of the original publication. If the qualifications of the data presented in the original publication cannot be properly presented here, the entire section ought to be stricken.
There are several examples of carbon dioxide typed as CO2 in the text. Both given as references and also in original text. There is even one case of carbon dioxide referred to as CO² in the MS. All misrepresentations, which are the results of verbatim quotes should be pointed out by a sic erat scriptum or (Sic!) comment to each of them. Errors original to the MS should be corrected.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC8 -
AC9: 'Reply on CC8', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
The discussion on climate sensitivity has no bearing on the review paper and will not be discussed further.
Modification to the comments to the PEW paper on the limited interviews was noted.
I will add sic to CO2, but not to the others, including the references.
Again, thank you for your comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC9 -
CC9: 'Reply on AC9', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
discrepancies among different climate sensitivity studies summarized by the IPCC, in the sections I have referred to, do not as such constitute the point of my argument. You are perfectly in your right to omit the details of this example of non-consensus within the science of climate science from your MS. However, this example does on its own disqualify your claim of scientific consensus within the discipline, and thus disqualifies one of the main assumptions forming the base of this manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC9 -
AC10: 'Reply on CC9', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
Of course, science is still working on some of the finer details of the science of climate change. That does not take away from the many aspects of climate change that are part of the scientific consensus, including that modern climate change is caused by us by the emission of greenhouse gases. The statement of scientific consensus within the review remains valid and will not be changed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC10
-
AC10: 'Reply on CC9', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
-
CC9: 'Reply on AC9', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
-
AC9: 'Reply on CC8', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
-
CC8: 'Reply on AC8', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
-
AC8: 'Reply on CC7', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-339', Lars Kamél, 01 Apr 2024
It is not serious to use the phrase "climate denier", since noone denies that climate exists.
According to climate science, there is no climate crisis and no climate emergency. IPCC AR6 mentions "climate crisis" only once and then to notice that media have started to use the phrase, not to claim that there is a climate crisis.
Data from the real world show clearly that nothing bad is happening to the climate, and that there is no climate crisis.
Global warming more rapid than the modern one have happen several times the last 60,000 years. Evidently without humans having caused any of it, since humans did not use fossil fuels then.
Extreme weather is on decline since 1999, when the database EM-DAT, International Disaster Database was finished. The risk for an individual human to be killed på extreme weather is now less than 1 % of what it was 100 years ago. Data for the costs of extreme weather events are available since 1990, and show a slight decline of the costs as share of global GDP. Which is what is to expect in a warming climate. Extreme weather should decline. Storms will become less intense and frequent, since temperature difference decline. Drought will be less common, since precipitation increases.
IPCC hase found no human influence om extreme weather for almost all types of extreme weather. Its conclusions are found in chapter 12 of AR6.
Several studies, two of them published in The Lancet, show that cold weather kills far more people than hot weather. Thus, global warming saves lives, as it reduces the frequency of cold weather.
The statistics from FAO, show that harvests have increased several 100 % the last 6 decades, while the world has warmed about 1C. A trend that will not change sign if the conditions continue to improve for plants, with more CO2 in the atmosphere and longer growing season.
Global warming is no threat to human health and no threat to food security. Claims of the contrary have no support from facts and serious science.
It is apparent that the deniers are those that claim that there is a climate crisis. They are denying facts and climate science.
The paper of Gerald Kutney should not be accepted for publication. It has far from the scientific quality needed for a scientific study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Gerald Kutney, 01 Apr 2024
Ironically, but not unexpected, the first reply to the article is clearly a climate denier, as all the comments reflect climate denial and not science.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC1 -
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Lars Kamél, 10 Apr 2024
I am certainly not denying that climate exists!
Kutney does not address any of the facts I mentioned. How could he, when they are facts? Facts that contradict his opinions!
Kutney only has insults and lies as "arguments". Which clearly shows that what he writes is not science and should not be published by any serious journal.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Gerald Kutney, 10 Apr 2024
I appreciate such comments, for they illustrate the anti-science opinions expressed by climate deniers. Similar disinformation is being promoted in some of our schools to our children, which is the basis of the review paper. We must ensure that such propaganda is not taught to our children.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC2 -
CC3: 'Reply on AC2', Per Karlsson, 13 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
In your manuscript under review here, you present the survey category ”alarmed” over climate warming as the one best in line with the consensus on the science of climate change. Furthermore, you express delight over the fact that this category has more than doubled over the past decade. However, the study of mechanisms of climate denial is a derivative of primary climate science findings.
From a bystander’s viewpoint, it seems your claim of ”alarmed” being the best stance in relation to consensus climate science findings has been challenged by commenter Lars Kamél, referencing data from IPCC AR6, EM-DAT, The Lancet and FAO. As the main points of your manuscript are derivatives of primary climate science, not addressing the specific scientific point objections challenging your manuscript constitutes a forfeit. If you cannot stand your ground, scientifically, your manuscript should not be published. I recommend you pick up the scientific gauntlet thrown down, Sir.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on CC3', Gerald Kutney, 13 Apr 2024
The IPCC presents the consensus view of the science of climate change (SPM, AR6): "Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming ..." Hence, I chose the category which came closest to this statement. Lars presents nothing to refute this. Overall, climate deniers present no science, so no science is necessary to refute it.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC3 -
CC4: 'Reply on AC3', Per Karlsson, 13 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
I am both aware of Hitchen's razor and in support of it. However, in your detailing here of your attitude towars Lars Kamél's comments, you present a strawman argument re IPCC.
I trust you can do better, Sir.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC4
-
CC4: 'Reply on AC3', Per Karlsson, 13 Apr 2024
-
AC3: 'Reply on CC3', Gerald Kutney, 13 Apr 2024
-
CC3: 'Reply on AC2', Per Karlsson, 13 Apr 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Gerald Kutney, 10 Apr 2024
-
CC2: 'Reply on AC1', Lars Kamél, 10 Apr 2024
-
CC5: 'Reply on CC1 Lars', Paul PUKITE, 16 Apr 2024
"The paper of Gerald Kutney should not be accepted for publication. It has far from the scientific quality needed for a scientific study."
The same applies to criticisms. If you have evidence of errors made, you must provide scholarly citations to support your counter-claims. That is the only way to maintain incremental quality, as most research is built on prior foundational work. So I suggest rewriting the comment with citations for each of your claims. If it is your own new claim, cite as "unpublished" in your name.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC5 -
AC4: 'Reply on CC5', Gerald Kutney, 16 Apr 2024
Lars' ending statement: "Global warming is no threat to human health and no threat to food security. Claims of the contrary have no support from facts and serious science. It is apparent that the deniers are those that claim that there is a climate crisis. They are denying facts and climate science." The climate crisis is real as documented in the AR6 and, more so, in the SR15 of the IPCC. These statements by Lars and his supporters are not science but opinions of obvious climate deniers. Therefore, no further action is necessary.
Furthermore, the study is not about defending the climate crisis, but the presence of climate denial in classrooms, which none of the critics of the study have mentioned.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC4 -
CC6: 'Reply on AC4', Per Karlsson, 16 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
the scientific value and validity of studies of climate denials in classrooms is dependent on there being a climate crisis to deny. Lars Kamél is challengeing the very raison d'être of your manuscript. For your manuscript to carry, you need to address the scientific points re the current climate crisis, which Lars Kamél has objected to. This as the climate crisis is serving as the prerequisite upon which your entire study depends upon.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC6 -
AC5: 'Reply on CC6', Gerald Kutney, 16 Apr 2024
The main reason for revealing climate denial in the classroom is that misinformation is being taught to children.
The scientific and political communities have already decided that action against climate change is necessary. whether you call it a "climate crisis" or not. This fact is illustrated in the IPCC reports and by the international treaties agreed to at Rio, Kyoto and Paris, and other COP meetings.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on CC6', Gerald Kutney, 16 Apr 2024
-
CC6: 'Reply on AC4', Per Karlsson, 16 Apr 2024
-
AC4: 'Reply on CC5', Gerald Kutney, 16 Apr 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Gerald Kutney, 01 Apr 2024
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-339', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Apr 2024
Climate Denial – the Antithesis of Climate Education: A Review
GENERAL COMMENTS
The article seeks to provide a review of the threat of climate change denial to climate education, in particular formal K-12 climate science education, globally (in principle, but in practice with regard to a handful of mostly Anglophone nations). This is certainly a worthwhile goal. The article presents a lot of relevant information together, which is a definite plus. Not all of the information presented is correct, relevant, or contextualized, however, and it is presented with little expositional structure to aid readers' comprehension and no theoretical apparatus to extract any significant moral. That said, since the article is apparently intended for a special issue, it may be that it will well serve a purpose of that issue without substantial revisions. My formal ratings and recommendations do not take that possibility into consideration.
Addressing the list of questions provided by the journal (https://www.geoscience-communication.net/peer_review/review_criteria.html):
1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
Yes: the paper addresses the effects of climate change denial on climate education, and geoscience education is among GC's main subject areas.
2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
In general, no: as the subtitle indicates, however, it is intended as a review. The distinction between "petro-pedagogy" and "conservative" (better, "climate denial") organizations seeking to affect climate education is helpful and has not been explicitly made elsewhere, as far as I know.
3. Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
There is little application of any method evident. The brief method section is not detailed enough to enable replicability, and in any case the author seems to have just looked in the literature and on the web for relevant information, which isn't really a method. This is not necessarily objectionable in a review.
4. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
No specific results or conclusions are identified as such. The article successfully establishes that climate change deniers are attempting to undermine climate education in at least a number of developed countries -- as acknowledged, relevant information is scarce for the majority of nations. Information about the effect of these attempts is often not available, however, which is not acknowledged. Competing and complementary hypotheses about the comparative weakness of climate education (especially inertia in the U.S.) are not adequately examined. The author sometimes offers quantitative judgments without providing evidence (as noted in the specific comments). The author does not always clearly distinguish between the goals of climate change deniers with regard to education and their successes in accomplishing those goals (as noted in the specific comments).
5. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
The author scrupulously credits related work. Since the article is a review, there is no new/original contribution to speak of, except for the assembly of the information, the distinction between "petro-pedagogy" and "conservative" organizations, and the (undeveloped) suggestion that "climate brawling" might mitigate the effect of climate change denial on climate education.
6. Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Yes, except insofar as it would be better to describe climate denial as "antithetical to" than as "the antithesis of" climate education.
7. Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
The abstract is concise. It focuses on "climate-denial" (elsewhere described as "conservative") organizations while apparently neglecting "petro-pedagogy" organizations, which are treated at a similar length in the manuscript; I would recommend referring also to the latter in the abstract. The abstract should also reflect the (understandable) restriction of the discussion to English-language sources and the nations primarily discussed (the U.S., Canada, the U.K., the Netherlands, etc.). These additions should be possible without making the abstract too lengthy.
8. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
No. There is a lot of material with a lot of details, especially in section 3 (24 manuscript pages). Not all the material and not all of the details are relevant to the main theme of the article, there were sections that seemed out of order or out of place altogether, and the inclusion or exclusion of examples often seemed arbitrary (see the specific comments for details). With no argumentative or expositional throughline provided, it was tiring to read the article closely.
9. Is the language fluent and precise?
Sentence by sentence, the language was reasonably fluent. There were a number of passages in which it was not precise (see the specific comments for details). Of particular concern is "climate denial," which (as is usual) covered a lot of ground, from denying that it's real through denying that it's us to denying that it's bad (to use Maibach's formulations). The author is clearly aware of the range here but wasn't always careful about specifying what form of climate denial was under discussion (as noted in the specific comments).
10. Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
The references, which occupy pp. 31-45 of the manuscript, are abundant -- perhaps overabundant. Many of them are of low quality but for explicable reasons: the author dutifully cites a lot of climate change denial literature. (The journal might give thought to separating these into a reference list of their own.) It was surprising not to see more use of the science education literature's discussion of climate denial.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
1 (title): Climate denial is not the antithesis of climate education, although it is antithetical to it: the antithesis of climate education would be climate miseducation (or, to coin a phrase, diseducation, to invoke the contrast between misinformation and disinformation).
19-24: On the strength of the quotation, Tutu was calling specifically for climate justice education, while the author is apparently calling for stronger climate science education; this is a bit of a mismatch.
34: In the U.S. at least, there are problems with climate education independent of climate denial.
42-45: This laundry list isn't especially helpful. (Sealioning, e.g., is a tactic taking its name from a 2014 web cartoon [https://wondermark.com/c/1062/]: how well-known is it?) Rather than define all the terms, a more general description might be in order.
52-57: These activists are engaged in different fights in different venues using different tactics, and the list is notably incomplete for no obvious reason. The reader is left with the impression that this is an offhand and opinion-driven list.
59-62: (1) The previous paragraph described the activists as opposing climate denial; this paragraph describes them as trying to stop propaganda funded by the fossil fuel industry. The latter project is at best a subset of the former, since not all climate denial is so funded, and not all opposition takes the form of trying to ban (as opposed, e.g., to debunk or to inoculate against). (2) There are quantitative claims here -- "unabated"; "surge" -- for which no evidence is adduced.
63: (1) Cite the previous studies. (2) The segue to "the classroom" is a little rough, since the activists of 52-57 are not uniformly concerned with the classroom.
65-66: Climate denial organizations such as the Heartland Institute are not the only relevant organizations here; fossil fuel industry groups such as the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board play a role in climate miseducation too. (This is acknowledged later but it should be clearly stated from the outset.)
66-68: But educators and parents aren't the only stakeholders here (and they're not the most likely readers of the journal); perhaps discuss the interests of higher education instructors in having climate-literate students as well?
70-71: With regard to the general public, "communication" is a better term than "education"; insofar as education is aimed at the general public, it's typically in the context of what's called "informal education" (at, e.g., museums). Climate change in informal education is important, too, but the article focuses on formal education.
72-77: This isn't described in enough detail as to ensure anything like replicability.
79-91: It's distracting, and it steps on the punch line, to announce the results when describing the questions (especially in the third bullet).
82-85: As phrased, this begs the question. Given that the public's knowledge of the science of climate change is not as great as might be hoped for, there are any number of possible explanations, of which the two most salient are that they're not being educated appropriately and that they are being educated appropriately but something (which could indeed be climate change denial efforts funded or inspired by the fossil fuel industry) is blocking their uptake of that education. In fact, both are probably at play -- bear in mind that in general public surveys, a majority of the respondents received their education a long time ago.
82-83: It is not likely that public opinion surveys are capable of identifying climate denial as harmful to climate education. (Which is not to deny that they can find correlations between climate denial and opposition to climate education, but such opposition doesn't automatically translate into concrete harms.)
98-99: But of course surveys of the general public, which are usually of adults, only provide information on the past general state of climate education, in some cases the distant past (see comment on 82-85).
100-105: It isn't clear that respondents are in any kind of epistemic position to have a reasonable view on Pew's question, so it isn't clear what the responses really signify. It would be helpful to discuss a number of different questions probing the same general area (e.g., trust in climate scientists, perception of consensus among climate scientists) to see if the results converge.
110-111: As described, the Pew survey does not show this. What results, from the same or different surveys, show this?
112: Not "climate change awareness" but perhaps "attitudes toward climate change" (encompassing whether it's real, it's us, and it's bad, to borrow Maibach's formulation).
114: "the poll" -- Which poll (what year)? 2023 as suggested in 126?
123: Given that the science doesn't of itself provide policy recommendations, alarmed and concerned arguably match the scientific consensus equally well -- the only difference given is with regard to motivation.
125: "not very reassuring" -- To whom? About what? What figure would be reassuring and why?
128: Why is this population of especial interest (to Pew and to the project of the article)?
134: True, but (1) why is this of interest here? and (2) it suggests that they are mindless parrots in the thrall of industry shills, etc. -- which may be true, of course, but for all that has been said, it may be true that they're all fiercely independent thinkers who did their own research. Inferring from the uniformity of responses of a similar survey of the Alarmed that they were all mindlessly sharing common climate alarmist talking points would be objectionable, would it not?
140, 142-143: It might be helpful to report the general public figures together in one paragraph and then discuss the evidence for political polarization in another.
144-145: (1) "Distrust" rather than "Trust"; (2) how was trust measured in this survey (which was Alvarez et al.?)?; (3) How did trust and political position interact in this survey (or was it not reported? I don't see it from a quick glance); (4) rather than mentioning the relevance of this survey to education, it might be helpful to devote a paragraph to discussing the relevance of all of the cited survey research to education.
155-156: The gloss is not accurate, since the authors are not actually discussing climate education (even though they should have been). Nor are they explicitly attributing the misconception that scientists disagree about climate change and the consensus gap to climate denial.
157-173, 179-183, 201-202: A lot of these results, though interesting, are not clearly on target, since they don't reveal anything about climate change denial or climate change education specifically.
173-178: This is out of place in a discussion of polling.
183-184: It isn't plausible that the polling was able to identify causal factors, and the quoted sentence is not presented in the original as a result of the polling. (No citation is given in the original, presumably on the grounds that it's obvious to anybody paying attention, which is fair.)
195: Of "Alarmed" and "Dismissive," "Alarmed" best represents the scientific consensus, but see comment on 123. How would matters look if "Alarmed" and "Concerned" were taken together?
197: See comment on 123.
203-209: If the point of this section is to show evidence for the consensus gap and to argue for its importance (especially with regard to education), as this paragraph suggests, then a lot of the poll results that have been reviewed are not relevant.
208: Not all climate action requires legislation: consider executive, judicial, and administrative actions. Administrative actions are particularly important in the context of U.S. education, where (e.g.) state science standards and their implementation are generally in the hands of administrative agencies (although often with executive and/or legislative control and oversight in the background).
222: The concern isn't supported by the poll results. Perhaps the thought is that the poll results show that the concern is not being met?
226-230: This wanders away from the theme that there is a global call for climate change education in the direction of the theme that the call has not been adequately answered; restructure for clarity.
238-240: But this is about climate change communication, not climate education.
241-243: Are the following two quoted statements the whole of the "extensive[]" comments? They seem well short of extensive: more like parenthetical.
252-259: It would be more helpful to briefly summarize what is said rather than list and cite the keywords. For one thing, the list doesn't provide clear evidence that climate education specifically is discussed, only that climate denial is.
265-266: But only briefly and often only by implication; the AR6 certainly could have done better.
276-277: This is a non sequitur. It would only be plausible if the fossil fuel industry substantially affected the education recommendations of COP28 and the like and if national and subnational education authorities paid attention to those recommendations. No evidence for either has been presented (and it's doubtful that there is any).
290-291: This suggests that the previous paragraph described journalism about climate denial affecting climate education specifically, which it didn't.
293-299: This whole paragraph might be aptly moved to be the second paragraph of sec. 3.3.
304-306: Despite its use of the term "denial," it's doubtful that Freudian psychology has anything important to contribute to the modern discussion.
304-313: The structure of the exposition here is not clear -- hopping from the history of the concept of denial to a brief mention of climate denial in sociology to a comparison of two psychological studies of climate denial. Restructure for clarity.
314-322: The cognitive biases mentioned in the first sentence are not listed here. Prebunking is not defined. Gornsey and Lewandowsky 2022 and Jenny and Betsch 2022 are not adequately described.
323: Is fear a cognitive bias? If not, how is the claim that climate denial arises out of fear (and fear alone?) to be squared with the psychological literature that climate denial arises out of certain (here unnamed; see comment on 314-322) psychological biases?
331-333: Only one of these arguments (about the national economy) seems relevant here, as reflecting conservative fears of climate change; why not stress it (perhaps to the exclusion of the other)?
334-335: What is "a force of anti-reflexivity" supposed to mean? Explain or omit.
335-338: This is no help with regard to "anti-reflexivity."
339: There's a gap between the claim and the Lewandowsky report, which can be filled by the thought that (formal) education is the best, the most significant, the most likely ... way of acquiring knowledge about climate change. Also: matters in what way? to what?
340: Insofar as "namely" suggests that the only such barriers are those presented by climate denial that is serving vested interests (which, presumably, is not synonymous with climate denial tout court), this seems wrong. Inertia throws up barriers of its own.
343-345: This is about communication; the connection to education needs to be forged.
346-349: Here too the connection to education needs to be forged.
350-352: The cited studies establish that climate change education is ineffective among conservatives, not that climate change education is being impeded by conservatives, so this is just off point.
352-353: This premise has not been established by the preceding discussion (although it is by the following discussion).
353: See comment on 1.
359: What evidence is there for the comparative judgment ("more dire")? More dire in what aspects? In some ways, the situation is less dire, at least in the U.S., as shown by better treatment of climate change in state science standards and better preparation of science teachers between 2012 and the present.
361-372: "softer" in what respect? It's clear enough that the most prevalent forms of climate change denial have been softening -- moving away from denying "it's real" and "it's us" and toward denying "it's bad" (to use Maibach's formulation) -- in general, and there's evidence that this is true of climate change denial campaigns targeting K-12 science education in the U.S. But the groundwork hasn't been laid in this article to discuss this transition here. This paragraph is also hard to follow in the absence of concrete examples.
364: Likewise, "traditional conservative climate denial" hasn't been defined, so the contrast here will not be understood except by a reader already familiar with the situation.
364: The groundwork hasn't been laid for the idea that the energy-industrial complex is providing K-12 science educational content (which moreover needs to be distinguished from the content provided by climate change denial organizations such as the Heartland Institute: see comment on 65-66).
374: There are different relations being obscured by the word "sponsor" here: for example, actual fossil fuel companies provide the budget of the Oklahoma Energy Resources Board, but the Heartland Institute hasn't received directly traceable funds from such companies for a long time now, and many of its corporate sponsors made a point of cutting ties with them after the Unabomber billboard fiasco. It's misleading not to distinguish the different relations.
374: The parenthetical description doesn't capture the fact that the lefthand cartoon in figure 2 reflects conservative views of climate education while the righthand cartoon reflects liberal views of "petro-pedagogical" efforts.
380-393: (1) What evidence is there that this program is global in actual reach? (Anybody can put material on the internet; that doesn't mean that it's global.) (2) This is under the rubric "Climate Denial in the Classroom" (the title of sec. 3.4); from the description this program is at worst soft denial. Does it make sense to begin or to spend a lot of time with the less pernicious examples?
394-409: The same comments apply as for 380-393. Also, is there any information on the content of Switch Classroom in particular?
430-442: Is there any information on the impact on EU science classrooms?
444-472: Is there any information on current impacts? From what's said here, it sounds like these efforts wrapped up about ten years ago (unless the festival was later -- it's hard to tell; it may be a yearly event).
475-481: This section seems to be trying both to introduce the Canada material and to discuss the Saskatchewan episode; it would be clearer if the latter were moved into its own section (and if the dependence of the Canadian economy on extraction industries was discussed further).
483-494: Interesting but not a lot of details about the actual content or uptake.
495-502: The same comments apply as for 483-494. And if the worst aspect is that it promotes only personal action on climate, it's fairly soft denial.
503-506: There's so little information here that it's hardly worth including.
507-511: The same comment applies as for 503-506.
531-534: This shouldn't be in the Ten Peaks section: either in the introductory Canada section or a concluding section on its own. (Or perhaps the blank line 529 is supposed to set it off? Fair if so.)
536-541: (1) Yale has had a series of surveys with this question, with a bit of up and down but generally in the mid-to-high 70s. (2) Other surveys have addressed the issue with different questions, confirming the high level of support but offering further insights that may be worth discussing here, e.g.:
Kamenetz A. 2019, April 22. Most teachers don’t teach climate change; 4 in 5 parents wish that they did. National Public Radio.
Pizmony-Levy O, Pallas, A. 2019. Americans endorse climate change education. Teachers College, Columbia University. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/media/centers-amp-labs/the-public-matters/AMERICANS-ENDORSE-CLIMATE-CHANGE-EDUCATION-final-version-posted-v09172019.pdf
Lange J. 2023, December 15. Poll: Americans overwhelmingly want climate change taught in schools. Heatmap. https://heatmap.news/climate/education-climate-trust-teachers-poll#
542-545: There have been multiple attempts to introduce the CCEA in both houses of Congress, most recently S. 4117 and H.R. 7946 (both introduced after the paper was submitted).
546: Public education in the U.S. is ultimately controlled by the state, but the bulk of decisions on curriculum and instruction are made at the district level -- and there are about 13,500 local school districts -- or below (school, department, classroom). So there's even more decentralization than is revealed here.
546-548: (1) This is irrelevant to the decentralization point. (2) At face value, the campaign was deeply misconceived, not taking into consideration the facts that standards are revised on a multiyear schedule and that education policymakers are not likely to be responsive to single-shot petitions. (Of course, the ulterior motive may have been just to harvest addresses from people concerned about climate change education, and in this it may have succeeded.)
550: 26 states were involved with (were "Lead State Partners" on) the development of the NGSS; not all adopted them (as correctly implied below).
557: the 24 (actually 25 now) states said to be "using [the NGSS] as guides" have actually based their standards on the same National Research Council Framework on which the NGSS are based -- not much difference in practice, but it makes a difference in some contexts.
557-558: since 2020, PA moved from the non-Framework category to the Framework category, so only five states are neither NGSS nor Framework: TX, FL, OH, VA, and NC.
560: re "not guided by the NGSS," see comment on 557
575-579: More details about what the study sought to understand, and more specific reportage on its results, are needed. The study looked for state-level (i.e. state board of education or state department of education) policies regarding climate change in four contexts -- "1) institutional governance, 2) teaching and learning, 3) facilities and operations, and 4) community partnerships" -- of which only 2 is really relevant here.
592-607: It's surprising not to see any mention of the CO2 Coalition's recent attempt to disseminate its materials at a NSTA conference. See e.g. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/04/11/co2-coalition-climate-denial/
612: "yet" is gratuitous
618-651: Is there any evidence of uptake by teachers?
652: It's hard to know how to assess this claim. They certainly have their differences (e.g., CO2 Coalition is single-issue and the others aren't; EverBright Media is for-profit and the others aren't; etc.).
652: Why no mention in this context of PragerU Kids, which isn't an outlier compared to these three and whose climate change denial videos and comics aimed at kids grabbed headlines in 2023 in a number of states, especially FL? See e.g. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/in-desantis-florida-schools-get-ok-for-climate-denial-videos-ee-00109466
653-664: It would bear mention that ONEI is the OH equivalent of the OERB.
665-681: (1) The bill was amended to refer to climate policy rather than climate change, so it was transformed from hard to soft denial. (2) As acknowledged, this bill isn't about K-12 education, so why include it? (3) The bill hasn't passed or been enacted, so why include it, especially when a number of bills that actually sought to undermine K-12 climate change education in various states aren't discussed?
682-695: It would bear mention that OERB was the first of its kind, with ONEI and others inspired by it. Why no mention of e.g. the Illinois Petroleum Resources Board? See e.g. https://www.levernews.com/a-fossil-fuel-miseducation/
698: Not "an education vendor"; rather, the DOE gave its imprimatur to the use of PragerU Kids videos in middle school social studies classes. Importantly, (1) it would be hard to justify the use of its climate change denying videos on those classes, given the lack of climate change content in the corresponding state standards, and (2) the DOE's imprimatur is basically irrelevant, since districts make decisions about instructional material, and some of the bigger districts have already said that they will not allow PragerU Kids materials to be used.
701: These states took different actions on different PragerU Kids products; it's misleading to lump them together as all approving the use of climate change denial material.
* In MT, the state superintendent of public instruction, Elsie Arntzen, a Republican, signed a textbook license agreement with PragerU. This doesn't have much actual significance, because the only requirement for obtaining such a license is posting a surety bond -- in PragerU's case, for $5000. Having the license doesn't mean that instructional materials will be considered, let alone approved, and the superintendent doesn't make decisions on instructional materials anyhow. But Arntzen expressed her approval of the materials, which might conceivably have some effect on districts' decisions.
* In NH, high school students in New Hampshire now have the opportunity to satisfy their financial literacy graduation requirement with PragerU Kids's Cash Course module online. The commissioner of the state department of education, Frank Edelblut, a Republican, even appeared in a promotion for it. Whatever you think about this, it's not likely to have any effect on climate change education.
* In OK, the state Department of Education under state superintendent of public instruction Ryan Walters, a Republican, announced a "partnership" with PragerU, which seems to take the form of the department endorsing its videos for use in social studies classrooms. While there are opportunities to discuss climate change in social studies classes, Oklahoma's social studies standards don’t provide a lot of opportunities for it, so the effect on climate change education will probably be limited. The Oklahoma Education Association reacted to Walters’s announcement by reminding districts that they don’t have to use the material and parents that they could opt their children out of exposure to them.
* In TX, a PragerU promotion that featured praise from Julie Pickren, a Republican member of the state board of education, claimed that PragerU is an approved education vendor in the state. That was not, and still is not, actually true. Texas has a lot of problems with climate change education, thanks in part to Pickren, but official approval of PragerU for Kids materials is not among them.
703-709: It's surprising not to see mentioned the not-very-hidden analogy Jews in the Warsaw Uprising:Nazis :: climate change deniers:climate change accepters.
726: It's actually a lesson plan for grades 3-5, and it has API branding. While it can be read as soft denial, it's intended to be a career lesson, not an environmental science lesson.
729: the heading should be "Texas State Board of Education" -- the TEA is basically the TX department of education; it's administrative and doesn't set policy and can't be blamed for the shenanigans discussed in this section
729-739: (1) This is state action, so it doesn't seem like it belongs in this section. (2) There have been similar episodes elsewhere, with executive and legislative actions aimed at inhibiting climate change education and apparently motivated by climate change denial; why aren't they discussed as well?
737-739: (1) This was not "unrelated"; the changes to the board operating rules were made in order to facilitate the later attacks on the textbooks. (2) The textbooks in question were not banned; they were not approved. Districts are still free to use them if they wish; it's just harder and more expensive for them to do so. (3) The textbooks were not climate textbooks but grade 8 science textbooks.
740-746: This isn't part of section 3.4.3.2.8, and should be set off from it somehow.
752-753: "climate denialism has crippled climate communication for decades, affecting climate education": if education isn't included as part of communication, as seems plausible, then what are the causal processes at work here? It is somewhat plausible that there are relevant causal processes (e.g., if newspapers mistakenly present climate denial as equally plausible as climate science, teachers may be swayed). But climate denialism also affects climate education directly, as the author has observed at length, and plausibly these effects are stronger, so they too should be mentioned here.
753-754: "unprecedented" and "recently" aren't clearly true. Evolution has been the subject of similar controversy for a century, and the author discusses episodes of climate change denial going back more than a decade. (And it would be odd for them to go back much further, since such episodes are basically backlash to the inclusion of climate change in K-12 education, which is probably less than 20 years old in the US, with a surge after the release of the NGSS in 2013.)
758: "if not the reason": indeed, definitely not the sole reason. In the U.S. especially, climate change is homeless because of a historic (more than century-long) neglect of earth and environmental sciences (as compared to biology, chemistry, and physics); even if climate change denial vanished overnight, there would remain a tremendous amount of inertia to overcome to get climate change taught adequately at the K-12 level.
759-760: But likewise the crucial role of climate education, which is typically scanted in IPCC reports and the like (e.g., the NCA in the U.S.).
765: The "Summary for Kids" is a nice idea, but also why not a "Summary for Teachers"?
766-791: This all seems off-topic, with no visible connection to climate education (except for 787-788, which mechanically extends the recommendation of "climate brawling" to organizations working against climate education without providing any details about how this might work or have to be adapted, let alone any evidence of its effectiveness).
794-801: This is a useful distinction. (1) It would be useful to place it earlier. (2) Thought might be given to noting the differences. "Petro-pedagogy" organizations tend to be less extreme and/or softer in their climate denial; they often have better connections with the world of education; they are probably more susceptible to public pressure (since they typically are themselves or are funded by publicly traded companies). "Conservative" -- or better "climate denial" -- organizations thus tend to be more extreme, less connected, and less susceptible. These differences make a difference in how to try to eliminate or mitigate their influence on public education, obviously. It is surprising that, having made the distinction, the author fails to extract these pretty obvious implications.
803: It's not obvious that there has been such a "recent surge" or, assuming that there has been, that it isn't just a blip without statistical significance.
809-810: (1) Is there evidence, such as polling data, to this effect? (2) The lefthand side of Figure 3 doesn't suggest that these students are specifically opposed to the inclusion of climate denial in their classrooms (though it's a safe bet). The righthand side doesn't either, but it's a bit closer.
819 onward: references, not reviewed
TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS
25: "Forward" should be "foreword"
28: citation should not be within quotation marks; this happens elsewhere (e.g., 136, 164, 185, 206, 262-263, 270, 271, 289, 294, 310, 321, 340, 384, 386, 389, 413, 429, 485, 520, 565-566, 568, 570, 573-574, 578-579, 582, 606, 610, 615 [twice], 628-629, 644, 665, 662, 693, 700, 705, 719, 724, 734, 737, 741-746 passim) and I have not necessarily caught every instance.
29: "which shows that a problem exists" should be "revealing that a problem exists,"
55: "Canada's" should be set in romans
71-72: Something awry here -- delete "of education" or insert "sector" after "vulnerable" and add a comma after the right parenthesis.
81: "on" should be "of"
92: "negate" seems off: "mitigate"?
101: "A survey" should be "A series of surveys" given the time series mentioned in the next sentence.
110: "Kahn" should be "Kahan"
183: "effecting" should be "affecting"
244: "ity" should be set in italics
219: "Lewandowky" should be "Lewandowsky"
328: "fear of conservatives" should be "fear held by conservatives" or something like that, to avoid a misreading
329: does the author want to endorse the idea that individual freedom and free enterprise as understood by these organizations are indeed traditional American values, as this formulation seems to suggest, or to hedge here?
350: "Kahn" should be "Kahan"
423: "their webpage" is ASE's page referring to Climate.Speaks?
456: superscripted "2" thus in original? Mark with "[sic]" if so.
563: "2015" should be "2014-2015" (the survey received responses in late 2014 and early 2015)
580: book title should be capitalized
584: "Riley" should be "Rollie"
609: "Huchabee" should be "Huckabee"
623: It's called "NIPCC" not "NGIPCC"; clarify to what extent the NIPCC is the creature of Heartland
819 onward: hard to read without hanging indent!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-RC1 -
AC6: 'Reply on RC1', Gerald Kutney, 22 Apr 2024
I wish to extend my appreciation to both reviewers for their constructive criticisms, suggestions, and comments. Such reviews took much time and effort. I will do my best to incorporate their reviews into the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript will be better because of their reviews.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC6 -
AC11: 'Reply on RC1', Gerald Kutney, 21 May 2024
I was impressed and appreciated the constructive criticisms and other comments. I attempted to address all the points raised, which are presented in the attachment. If I have failed to do so, please let me know. Again thank you, for all the time and effort for improving the review.
-
AC6: 'Reply on RC1', Gerald Kutney, 22 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-339', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Apr 2024
This paper aims to present a review of current knowledge on the influence of climate denial on climate education. This is a contentious but important issue that merits wider consideration and discussion within the geoscience education / communication community. There are issues with the paper as it’s currently presented, however, and I recommend that these are addressed prior to final publication. In particular the focus on North America, almost to the exclusion of anywhere else, makes me question whether this paper should be re-cast specifically to focus on North America.
1) Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
Yes. Climate denial and its influence on geoscience education falls clearly within the scope of the journal.
2) Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
This is a review paper so does not present new ideas emerging from novel research. It does make a contribution to synthesizing existing knowledge about climate denial in climate / geoscience education, but has some limitations in scope.
3) Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
The methods used to identify, select, and analyse the information used in the review need to be more transparent. Granted this is a review article rather than a research paper, but this is a contentious subject and it’s important that the paper does not lay itself open to accusations of using the ‘obstructionist tools’ associated with climate denial, e.g. cherry-picked data. Demonstrating a rigorous, systematic approach to information gathering should help to deflect such accusations. The recently-published systematic review of counteracting climate denial by Mendy et al. (2024): https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231223425 provides an exemplar of the kind of approach appropriate for this type of review.
4) Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
A range of survey findings are used to imply the current state of public knowledge of the science of climate change, but I’m not convinced that all of the data presented are a valid representation of knowledge, or that this is a reliable indication of climate education. These data appear to relate to a range of constructs including awareness, perceptions, opinions and beliefs, which are not the same as knowledge. For example, having an awareness (being conscious) of climate change is not the same as having knowledge acquired through learning. It's also important to acknowledge that knowledge does not directly lead to actions. Rather than being ‘ignorant of the irrefutable messages of the science of climate change and the scientific consensus’ there is likely a much more complex interplay of factors – including education – influencing the gap between knowledge and behaviour (see review paper by Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002): https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401). It’s also not clear that the various survey findings reported are measuring the same thing and are therefore comparable.
The rationale for prioritising data / information from North America and English-speaking nations, and the limitations of this approach, warrants further discussion. This is particularly true for section 3.4 where the vast majority of examples are from North America. Is this a real effect, i.e. the influence of climate deniers on education really is found mainly in North America, or is this sampling bias? If the former, could / should this review focus specifically on North America as a location? Further, if the aim of this section is to present evidence for ‘petro-pedagogy’ are all of these examples really necessary, or is there value in presenting representative examples of differing approaches? What criteria are used to identify content as ‘climate denial’? While this appears quite blatant / direct in some examples, in others it’s much more subtle / indirect.
5) Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution?
All sources are appropriately referenced. The contribution is more of a ‘call to arms’ than presentation of new knowledge.
6) Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
Not entirely. It should indicate, in some way, that this is not a complete review.
7) Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary?
It would be helpful to indicate the limitations of the information considered in the review, e.g. geographical extent.
8) Is the overall presentation well structured and clear?
At >12,000 words of body text the paper is too long. Almost half of this content is in Section 3.4. While the journal does not give guidance on manuscript length the aim of a review article should be to ‘summarise the status of knowledge’, and this is not a summary so consider where information could be streamlined, synthesized, tabulated, and / or moved to an appendix of supplementary information.
9) Is the language fluent and precise?
I found the overall tone of the paper to be somewhat confrontational. I suspect this is deliberate and, to be fair, it can be quite effective at hooking the reader’s attention. I do, however, question whether this style of writing is appropriate for an academic journal as it detracts from the narrative, and risks alienating readers who genuinely want to engage with the content.
10) Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
The author references an impressive body of information and literature which could be separated into literature informing the main narrative and literature forming the ‘results’ from the review process. Despite the high number of references there are multiple places in the text where key information is unreferenced.
Further comments:
L15: ‘Summarise status of knowledge’ seems more appropriate than ‘draw attention to’.
L19: How is ‘climate education’ defined? Is this the same as ‘climate change education’?
L29: I disagree that this review is global in extent. It would be more appropriate to indicate from the outset that the information reviewed originates mainly from North America and English-speaking nations.
L45: Another reference for climate denial to consider is Jacques (2012): https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00105
L48-49: Please provide a reference for the tobacco industry example.
L52-57: The phrase ‘Activism opposing climate denial has arisen’ needs further substantiating. Where dates are provided these are all very recent – there a particular timescale of interest?
L61: What is the timescale of ‘recently’?
L63: Provide references for these previous studies.
L64: See earlier comment – to what extent can public knowledge be considered a reliable indicator of education? What is the evidence for this?
L70-71: Is there a reference for this statement about climate education?
L72-77: see previous comment about methods.
L79-90: I would expect the study questions to appear before the method, i.e. define questions, then state how the info required to address questions will be collected. Findings should not be stated at this point.
L83-85 / L91 / L98: What is recent? What is historical? Timescales need to be more precisely stated.
L87: “Most cases were found in America” - what was the sampling strategy used to locate examples?
L98-99: “such polls are also indicative of the general state of climate education itself”. This needs to be explained and referenced. Personally I disagree, but am open to being convinced.
L99: How many polls were identified? How many have been considered for this review?
L109: The statement about climate education is confusing. When would this education take place? Once a politician is in office?
L110: Which Pew survey? L103 suggests that there are multiple surveys.
L123: “The “alarmed” category matches best with the consensus on the science of climate change”. This needs further explanation.
L134: Is there a reference to validate that these are “common climate denial talking points”?
L135: “Many Americans are clearly not familiar with...” Or choose not to believe?
L139-143 (and other places): Why is US political orientation the only demographic variable discussed?
L155: Is scepticism the same as denial? The former is about doubt, the latter is more definitive.
L157-158: Unclear - 75% of countries, or average 75% of participants? Ditto L163 “77% agreed...”
L173-178: Unclear how this information is relevant to the preceding info.
L183: What questions were asked to ascertain public perceptions of the climate crisis?
L188: I’m intrigued by the involvement of Meta in global surveys on climate change (just a comment, no response required).
L203: Specify recent climate change (as opposed to over geological time).
L205-209: See previous comment.
L212: If climate education became a treaty obligation in 1992 then we might expect to see the influence of this in Millennials and later generations, but not earlier generations. So how is this captured in the survey data presented in 3.1 (or is it)?
L237: Successful in what sense?
L290-1: Please provide references.
L308-314: This sounds like the value-action gap. See previous reference to Kollmus & Agyeman (2002), also Bushell et al. (2017): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.04.001.
L314-22: What are the implications here for climate education?
L323-324: “Climate denial arises from fear of science messages about climate change, especially among conservatives. Political ideology plays a lesser role in climate legislation outside the United States” - but it still plays a role? This feels very dismissive of other locations, and the US-centric theme continues in the next paragraph. As a non-US resident I’m really not sure why I should care about this.
L330: Were the right-wing think tanks studied by McCright and Dunlap all from the US, or a range of locations?
Section 3.4: please refer to the comprehensive comments provided by RC1 – I have nothing further to add to these.
L750: Is ‘misunderstanding’ the right term to describe the Consensus Gap? I think for some people this is a conscious choice.
L757-758: “Climate education, despite a serious and genuine effort, has failed to teach the world about the causes and risks of the climate crisis”. To what extent can this be generalised to ‘the world’, given that the vast majority of the evidence presented relates to North America?
L759-65: I’d really like to see these recommendations for IPCC publications focused on climate denial, and aimed at alternative audiences, followed through.
L766-68: I’d be interested to know social scientists’ view on this!
L775-7: “Climate education has been relatively successful with liberals but has had no impact on conservatives in some countries for more than a decade”. Please provide evidence / references to support this.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-RC2 -
AC7: 'Reply on RC2', Gerald Kutney, 22 Apr 2024
I wish to extend my appreciation to both reviewers for their constructive criticisms, suggestions, and comments. Such reviews took much time and effort. I will do my best to incorporate their reviews into the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript will be better because of their reviews.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC7 -
AC12: 'Reply on RC2', Gerald Kutney, 21 May 2024
I was impressed and appreciated the constructive criticisms and other comments. I attempted to address all the points raised, which are presented in the attachment. If I have failed to do so, please let me know. Again thank you, for all the time and effort for improving the review.
-
AC7: 'Reply on RC2', Gerald Kutney, 22 Apr 2024
-
CC7: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-339', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
Dear Editors,
please accept my comments on the manuscript (MS):
Climate Denial – the Antithesis of Climate Education: A Review,
authored by Gerald Kutney
General comments
The MS claims to explain why there is a current lack of understanding among the general public re matters of climate change. Specifically the poor public awareness on important messages from the science of climate change, i.e. L78-91.
In doing so, the author makes certain assumptions on i) what constitutes good and poor understanding of climate change science, respectively, and ii) what the consensus of climate science comprises, and indeed iii) that there is such a thing as consensus within this field of science, e.g. as indicated in L123 “The “alarmed” category matches best with the consensus on the science of climate change.”
None of the three points are presented with either references or argued for using original data. The claims do not classify as being common knowledge, and thus need some sort of justification. To make just one example of where the assumptions go wrong, I point to chapter 7.5 in the IPCC AR6 WG1 report (2022), pp 992-1009, which discusses ECS and TCR. It is clear in this chapter there is indeed no consensus on climate sensitivity to [CO₂], refuting assumptions ii) and iii). Furthermore, the very wide span for ECS/TCR given in the IPCC report makes the grounds for assumption i) rather uncertain, as the outcome ranges from negligible to dire consequences.
Specific comments.
L128-134 refers to a published poll by the Pew Research Center (Pasquini et al., 2023 in the MS). It should be pointed out that the poll was designed to sort out “skeptical” responders from a larger, undisclosed size group of people from five regions in the USA. The final number interviewed on the reasons for their skepticism were only 32 persons. This very small number of replies make the findings carry very little general explanatory value for what reasons skeptics are skeptic. The small number of replies should be indicated in the text to avoid readers confusing this for being more general data.
Final point. Although this MS, in its ultimate extrapolation, bears on anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. Carbon dioxide, represented in chemical symbols are consequently mis-typed throughout the MS, but for L684 (CO₂). This must be corrected before publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC7 -
AC8: 'Reply on CC7', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
The consensus view on the science of climate change is represented in the reports of the IPCC, especially in the SPM of the Synthesis Report.
Climate sensitivity is not discussed in the review paper.
The criticism of the PEW poll should be discussed with them.
Carbon dioxide was used throughout the report, except for quotes and the proper name of the organization "CO2 Coalition."
I appreciate the comments and suggestions.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC8 -
CC8: 'Reply on AC8', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
the SPM of AR6 SYR does include the lack of scientific consensus I pointed to in my comment re the climate sensitivity to CO₂. It is covered in the p 12, footnote 31. The text is, perhaps by the condensed nature of the SYR SPM, less informative on the intrinsic variance in the IPCC assessment of CO₂ sensitivity as compared to the contents of section A4.4 (p 11) in the SPM of the AR6, presenting the same finding. The subject is, of course, penetrated in its highest detail in the full report from WG1, which was the text I originally referred to (chapter 7.5 in the IPCC AR6 WG1 report (2022), pp 992-1009). The fact that climate sensitivity is not discussed per se in the review, is a non-argument as I presented the climate sensitivity span merely as one example of where consensus within climate science is absent. And, the scientific consensus point does constitute a major argument in the manuscript under review.
Interestingly, the AR6 SYR SPM makes comparisons between the climate sensitivity metrics presented in AR5 and AR6, respectively, which are concluded to be different (IPCC AR6 SYR, on p 12, footnote 31). Thus, presenting yet another example of non-consensus data/views within climate science.
My comments re the published PEW poll are not directed towards the original paper, which properly describes the process of selection, including the criteria used, the actual number of final interviewees. and how many gave what explanations to why they were skeptical. The numbers of replies sorted into the categories presented are also properly accounted for in a clear manner and easy to understand in the original publication. However, all of this contextual information is absent in this MS under review, which puts readers at risk of mis-interpreting the actual findings of the original publication. If the qualifications of the data presented in the original publication cannot be properly presented here, the entire section ought to be stricken.
There are several examples of carbon dioxide typed as CO2 in the text. Both given as references and also in original text. There is even one case of carbon dioxide referred to as CO² in the MS. All misrepresentations, which are the results of verbatim quotes should be pointed out by a sic erat scriptum or (Sic!) comment to each of them. Errors original to the MS should be corrected.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC8 -
AC9: 'Reply on CC8', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
The discussion on climate sensitivity has no bearing on the review paper and will not be discussed further.
Modification to the comments to the PEW paper on the limited interviews was noted.
I will add sic to CO2, but not to the others, including the references.
Again, thank you for your comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC9 -
CC9: 'Reply on AC9', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
Dear Sir,
discrepancies among different climate sensitivity studies summarized by the IPCC, in the sections I have referred to, do not as such constitute the point of my argument. You are perfectly in your right to omit the details of this example of non-consensus within the science of climate science from your MS. However, this example does on its own disqualify your claim of scientific consensus within the discipline, and thus disqualifies one of the main assumptions forming the base of this manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-CC9 -
AC10: 'Reply on CC9', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
Of course, science is still working on some of the finer details of the science of climate change. That does not take away from the many aspects of climate change that are part of the scientific consensus, including that modern climate change is caused by us by the emission of greenhouse gases. The statement of scientific consensus within the review remains valid and will not be changed.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-339-AC10
-
AC10: 'Reply on CC9', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
-
CC9: 'Reply on AC9', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
-
AC9: 'Reply on CC8', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
-
CC8: 'Reply on AC8', Per Karlsson, 23 Apr 2024
-
AC8: 'Reply on CC7', Gerald Kutney, 23 Apr 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,223 | 702 | 81 | 2,006 | 42 | 36 |
- HTML: 1,223
- PDF: 702
- XML: 81
- Total: 2,006
- BibTeX: 42
- EndNote: 36
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 750 | 37 |
| Germany | 2 | 177 | 8 |
| Sweden | 3 | 168 | 8 |
| Canada | 4 | 91 | 4 |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 83 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 750
Gerald Kutney
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1124 KB) - Metadata XML