Foundations of climate change denial: Anti-environmentalism and anti-science

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334544 November 12, 2025 13 / 23 1. Sea level rise 2. Loss of Arctic Sea ice 3. Glacier, Greenland and Antarctica melting 4. Water shortages and changes to the hydrologic cycle 5. Biodiversity loss 6. Coral Reef bleaching 7. Spread of disease/negative health impacts 8. Famine or food problems 9. Ocean changes like acidification 10. Increasing number or power of extreme events For example One of the most feared consequences of global warming is a rise in sea level that could flood low-lying areas and damage the economy of coastal nations. But actual evidence suggests just the opposite: a modest warming will reduce somewhat the steady rise of sea level, which has been ongoing since the end of the last Ice Age--and will continue no matter what we do as long as the millennia-old melting of Antarctic ice continues (Singer 2000, p. VI). Likewise, Jastrow, Nierenberg, and Seitz, founders of the George C. Marshall Institute which was central to the early CCCM [83], write that: Warming leads to lower sea levels because warming will increase precipitation over Antarctica and Greenland (Jastrow et al., p. 159, emphasis added). 4.5 Policy denial. Almost all of these books oppose climate policies designed to reduce carbon emissions, and we highlight several claims below. Note that as social concerns, the results of this coding form a bridge to some narratives found in Stage 2. There are many arguments provided against mitigation policy: • Fear of loss of control and freedom

Environmentalism validates intrusive regulation, punitive massive bureaucracy, and even world government...We in the industrial world must make massive sacrifices-particularly in America (Murray 2008, p. 3). • Climate change is manufactured for social control. • Fear of social leveling where mitigation policy will be used to create a world government by controlling energy. • Mitigation policy will kill people. • Reducing GHGs will have no effect on climate. • There are no alternatives to conventional energy. • Mitigation policy will harm the power of the United States.