Here's a glimpse into what is happening. There are websites which track climate change propaganda, it just doesn't get nearly as much mainstream media attention because they have their heads up their asses ranting and raving about Trump.
This article in particular is worth reading. IRS 990 tax forms are public record. Therefore, any of the nonprofits publishing climate change denial have publicly accessible donor records. We know that these nonprofits receive millions in funding from the Koch brothers and the Mercers.
One of these nonprofits is Heartland Institute, the same nonprofit which worked in the 1990s to push cigarette health skepticism. Heartland Insitute holds conferences. At these conferences, they brag that, for instance, they convinced Trump that climate change isn't real and see that as a good thing. Also speaking at this event is Patrick J. Michaels, who runs the Cato Institute's Study of Science, a rabid climate change denier, basically a guy paid a
bunch of money by the Koch brothers to work at their institute self-described to sway public opinion on these issues.
What you have is extremely wealthy climate change deniers spending a bunch of money creating institutions. These institutions push out a bunch of poor-quality research suggesting climate change denial, the vast majority of which is not considered valid by academic communities (
one study I glanced at claims 90% of climate change denial books are not peer reviewed). They create a culture and safe space for climate change denial. They bring in sympathetic media figures, journalists and other people with an audience, such as Patrick J. Michaels or other journalists. They repeat to them these climate change denial studies without any culture of criticism or peer review. They go and then propagate these climate change denial ideas on various sites read by Republicans, for instance, we have it on Fox News:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5795500444001/?#sp=show-clips
This man speaking to Tucker Carlson is Steven F. Hayward, treasurer and board member of the Donors Capital Fund, no doubt positions that earn him a nice salary. The DCF is a major donor to right-wing think tanks, in fact one of the largest, and pushes money from oil billionaires like the Kochs. Steven F. Hayward is also a common lecturer and speaker at conferences held by climate change denying nonprofits.
I don't think you can reasonably deny that any of these events happen. They're really a matter of public record, and I think any reasonable person would conclude that these donations do happen and these conferences do happen. I think it's plain that they influence how these right-wing media sources report on the topic of climate change. I also think you can't reasonably deny that many Republicans read these websites, and these articles. Again, this is a matter of public record. If you doubt it, I'd encourage you to go down the rabbit hole and review all of the relevant data yourself.
I suppose you could argue that, even without these articles, most Republicans would be climate change skeptics anyway. I find that implausible. For once, there's an old study which did a survey of climate change skeptic literature and concluded that
92% of the literature was coming from right-wing think tanks. In other words, the mechanism I just presented above represents far and above the biggest source of climate change denial research. What other place would they thus learn information about climate change skepticism? It seems right-wing think tanks have cornered this market, so it would take a pretty convincing argument to explain the origins of these beliefs from another source. There's also no shortage of other research documenting the role conservative think tanks have in creating climate change denial.
Here's an example which gives a thorough abstract explaining it, and there are many others you can find in academic journals.
My interpretation of all of this is that Republicans believe in climate change primarily as a result of this machine. When I say that many Republicans beliefs are because of propaganda, this is exactly what I'm referring to. You can get huffy about the accusation, that doesn't bother me. But I ask of you one thing and one thing only:
is this interpretation correct? If it's not correct, I would like a response. Not just one which pokes holes in my reasoning, but one which also advances your own alternate view on why Republicans believe in climate change denial. I think this latter part is more important. You're right to be upset that I would say this about Republicans. It sounds outrageous. But in the face of what I consider these plain and straightforward facts, I believe I'm forced to this conclusion and this conclusion only.
Moreover, since I believe the facts add up to this, and I believe Republicans are being lied to, is it not the moral choice from me to tell this to Republicans? Since I think they're being perpetually deceived by these efforts, to not say I think this is to let Orgon be deceived by Tartuffe. Permitting someone to be lied to seems like an obvious moral wrong, so it's immoral for me not to say this.