conv.

All stories
ClimateQuiet 7d · day 8

Scott Horton: Populist parties deny climate science despite unequivocal evidence

Horton argues MAGA and global populist movements reject climate scientists while evidence proves warming real.

What to know

  • Horton claims populist parties globally—MAGA, Reform UK, AfD—deny climate science as a core ideological position despite scientific consensus.
  • Commenters emphasize the scientific evidence base: rising temperatures, CO2 emissions, ice core data, and independently replicated results, while questioning denial motivations.
  • Discussion centers on fossil fuel industry influence and financial incentives driving political climate denial, with some voices noting the collective harm of inaction.
  • Disagreement exists over whether deniers reject climate change entirely or simply its human causes; some commenters worry about escalating climate impacts regardless.

The dispute Whether climate deniers reject climate change entirely or selectively accept it while denying human causation or reversibility. · positions read across 74 posts and comments

most voices

Climate change is scientifically proven; populist denial is driven by fossil fuel industry funding and political incentives.

  • “Why would thousands of people devote their careers to studying climate science just to perpetuate a myth?”

    himself132.bsky.social · Bluesky ↗
some voices

Deniers may accept climate change but reject human causation; the broader problem is that populist movements downplay evidence-based reasoning.

  • “They accept it, they just deny its human-caused, or reversible.”

    liem.bahneman.com · Bluesky ↗
many voices

Climate change is real and accelerating; inaction now guarantees catastrophic future consequences for all.

  • “We're reaching the point where it may be to late to do much about it and yet, corporations still refuse to do anything about it.”

    dhumph.bsky.social · Bluesky ↗

Scott Horton Social media commentator

Scott Horton: Populist parties deny climate science despite unequivocal evidence
bsky.app

How it unfolded 2 developments, newest first · click a bar or a number to jump postscomments

Peak 22 pieces in two hours at Sep 16, 1 PM; 74 pieces over 8 days (1 post · 73 comments) Sep 16, 9 AM — 7 pieces · 1 post · 6 comments — Bluesky 7Sep 16, 11 AM — 15 pieces · 15 comments — Bluesky 15Sep 16, 1 PM — 22 pieces · 22 comments — Bluesky 22Sep 16, 3 PM — 12 pieces · 12 comments — Bluesky 12Sep 16, 5 PM — 7 pieces · 7 comments — Bluesky 7Sep 16, 7 PM — 3 pieces · 3 comments — Bluesky 3Sep 16, 9 PM — 3 pieces · 3 comments — Bluesky 3Sep 16, 11 PM — 2 pieces · 2 comments — Bluesky 2Sep 17, 1 AM — quietSep 17, 3 AM — quietSep 17, 5 AM — quietSep 17, 7 AM — 1 piece · 1 comment — Bluesky 1Sep 17, 9 AM — quietSep 17, 11 AM — quietSep 17, 1 PM — 2 pieces · 2 comments — Bluesky 2Sep 17, 3 PM — quietSep 17, 5 PM — quietSep 17, 7 PM — quietSep 17, 9 PM — quietSep 17, 11 PM — quietSep 18, 1 AM — quietSep 18, 3 AM — quietSep 18, 5 AM — quietSep 18, 7 AM — quietSep 18, 9 AM — quietSep 18, 11 AM — quietSep 18, 1 PM — quietSep 18, 3 PM — quietSep 18, 5 PM — quietSep 18, 7 PM — quietSep 18, 9 PM — quietSep 18, 11 PM — quietSep 19, 1 AM — quietSep 19, 3 AM — quietSep 19, 5 AM — quietSep 19, 7 AM — quietSep 19, 9 AM — quietSep 19, 11 AM — quietSep 19, 1 PM — quietSep 19, 3 PM — quietSep 19, 5 PM — quietSep 19, 7 PM — quietSep 19, 9 PM — quietSep 19, 11 PM — quietSep 20, 1 AM — quietSep 20, 3 AM — quietSep 20, 5 AM — quietSep 20, 7 AM — quietSep 20, 9 AM — quietSep 20, 11 AM — quietSep 20, 1 PM — quietSep 20, 3 PM — quietSep 20, 5 PM — quietSep 20, 7 PM — quietSep 20, 9 PM — quietSep 20, 11 PM — quietSep 21, 1 AM — quietSep 21, 3 AM — quietSep 21, 5 AM — quietSep 21, 7 AM — quietSep 21, 9 AM — quietSep 21, 11 AM — quietSep 21, 1 PM — quietSep 21, 3 PM — quietSep 21, 5 PM — quietSep 21, 7 PM — quietSep 21, 9 PM — quietSep 21, 11 PM — quietSep 22, 1 AM — quietSep 22, 3 AM — quietSep 22, 5 AM — quietSep 22, 7 AM — quietSep 22, 9 AM — quietSep 22, 11 AM — quietSep 22, 1 PM — quietSep 22, 3 PM — quietSep 22, 5 PM — quietSep 22, 7 PM — quietSep 22, 9 PM — quietSep 22, 11 PM — quietYesterday, 1 AM — quietYesterday, 3 AM — quietYesterday, 5 AM — quietYesterday, 7 AM — quietYesterday, 9 AM — quietYesterday, 11 AM — quietYesterday, 1 PM — quietYesterday, 3 PM — quietYesterday, 5 PM — quietYesterday, 7 PM — quietYesterday, 9 PM — quietYesterday, 11 PM — quietToday, 1 AM — quiet 1–2
Sep 17Sep 18Sep 19Sep 20Sep 21Sep 22yesterdaynow · 3:43 AM ET
  1. 2

    Commenters debate climate science evidence and denial motivations

    Dozens of Bluesky users responded with arguments about the scientific consensus, emissions data, fossil fuel industry incentives, and the motivations behind climate denial by populist movements.

    “Why would thousands of people devote their careers to studying climate science just to perpetuate a myth of man-made climate change?”
    — himself132.bsky.social, Bluesky commenter · source
    • Why would thousands of people devote their careers to studying climate science just to perpetuate a myth of man-made climate change? And why would unqualified MAGA idiots be the only people who could recognise this hoax?

      himself132.bsky.socialBluesky7d ago17▲view on Bluesky ↗
    2 more of the top 3 · 71 posts in this stretch
    • jazzcomposer.bsky.social

      No recurring "fuel" costs for solar or wind: The lifecycle emissions of solar energy are far lower than those of all fossil fuel sources: PV and CSP: 43 and 28 grams of CO2-eq/KWh Coal: 1,001 grams of CO2-eq/KWh Natural gas: 486 grams of CO2-eq/KWh Source:

      jazzcomposer.bsky.socialBluesky7d ago11▲view on Bluesky ↗
    • I think the tobacco execs claimed that nicotine was not addictive as well. Always look at the incentives. The top tier of the gop is funded by oil. They would like to keep burning fossil fuels.

      jezwallusa.bsky.socialBluesky7d ago8▲view on Bluesky ↗
    all of them →
  2. 1

    Scott Horton asserts populist parties reject climate science

    Horton posted that a fundamental tenet of MAGA and other populist movements globally is denial that global warming is real and that climate scientists should not be believed, despite unequivocal evidence.

    “A fundamental tenet of MAGA and all the other "populist" parties (Reform UK, RN, AfD, etc) is that global warming is a hoax and we must not believe the climate scientists. But the evidence is unequivocal.”
    — Scott Horton
    • robertscotthorton.bsky.social

      A fundamental tenet of MAGA and all the other "populist" parties (Reform UK, RN, AfD, etc) is that global warming is a hoax and we must not believe the climate scientists. But the evidence is unequivocal.

      robertscotthorton.bsky.socialBluesky7d ago2.7k▲view on Bluesky ↗
    1 more of the top 2 · 3 posts in this stretch
    • Don't forget bernjob! Hes a populist... aamof he's a MAGA doppelganger. Another one like Trump who'd have us FALSELY believe change is possible within the existing dominant two-factions-of-a-plutocrat-owned-duopoly shitstem. It ISNT POSSIBLE.

      iamhereticali.bsky.socialBluesky7d agoview on Bluesky ↗
    all of them →

What people are saying 20 voices from 1 site · best of 74 · verbatim