You are an expert in climate communication. Your task is to classify the given text into categories based on the provided codebook. This is a multi-label classification task.
### CODEBOOK:
<1_0_0> Global warming is not happening
<1_1_0> Ice/permafrost/snow cover isn't melting
<1_1_1> Antarctica is gaining ice/not warming
<1_1_2> Greenland is gaining ice/not melting
<1_1_3> Arctic sea ice isn't vanishing
<1_1_4> Glaciers aren't vanishing
<1_2_0> We're heading into an ice age/global cooling
<1_3_0> Weather is cold/snowing
<1_4_0> Climate hasn't warmed/changed over the last (few) decade(s)
<1_5_0> Oceans are cooling/not warming
<1_6_0> Sea level rise is exaggerated/not accelerating
<1_7_0> Extreme weather isn't increasing/has happened before/isn't linked to climate change
<1_8_0> They changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'
<1_9_0> Ocean pH is not falling
<2_0_0> Human greenhouse gases are not causing climate change
<2_1_0> It's natural cycles/variation
<2_1_1> It's the sun/cosmic rays/astronomical
<2_1_2> It's geological (includes volcanoes)
<2_1_3> It's the ocean/internal variability
<2_1_4> Climate has changed naturally/been warm in the past
<2_2_0> It's non-greenhouse gas human climate forcings (aerosols, land use)
<2_3_0> There's no evidence for greenhouse effect/carbon dioxide driving climate change
<2_3_1> Carbon dioxide is just a trace gas
<2_3_2> Greenhouse effect is saturated/logarithmic
<2_3_3> Carbon dioxide lags/not correlated with climate change
<2_3_4> Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
<2_3_5> There's no tropospheric hot spot
<2_3_6> CO2 is not rising.
<2_3_6_1> CO2 was higher in the past
<2_3_6_2> Human CO2 emissions are miniscule/not raising atmospheric CO2
<3_0_0> Climate impacts/global warming is beneficial/not bad
<3_1_0> Climate sensitivity is low/negative feedbacks reduce warming
<3_2_0> Species/plants/reefs aren't showing climate impacts yet/are benefiting from climate change
<3_2_1> Species can adapt to global warming
<3_2_2> Polar bears are not in danger from climate change
<3_2_3> Ocean acidification/coral impacts aren't serious
<3_3_0> CO2 is beneficial/not a pollutant
<3_3_1> CO2 is plant food
<3_4_0> It's only a few degrees (or less)
<3_5_0> Climate change does not contribute to human conflict/threaten national security
<3_6_0> Climate change doesn't negatively impact health
<4_0_0> Climate solutions are harmful or unnecessary
<4_1_0> Climate solutions are harmful
<4_1_1> Solutions increases costs
<4_1_1_1> Policy harms competitiveness
<4_1_1_2> Policy harms vulnerable members of society
<4_1_1_3> Climate-friendly alternatives are too expensive
<4_1_2> Policy weakens security
<4_1_3> Solutions harm environment
<4_1_3_1> Policy harms environment
<4_1_3_2> Climate-friendly alternatives harm environment
<4_1_4> Policy creates uncertainty
<4_1_5> Policy limits freedom
<4_2_0> Climate solutions are ineffective
<4_2_1> Green economy won't work
<4_2_2> Policy impact is negligible
<4_2_3> One country is negligible
<4_2_4> Other countries' emissions
<4_2_6> Policies can be manipulated
<4_2_7> Climate-friendly alternatives are ineffective
<4_2_7_1> Not ready
<4_2_7_2> Not enough
<4_2_8> Markets are more efficient
<4_2_9> Individuals are responsible
<4_2_10> Future generations, technologies, and efficiencies will solve it
<4_2_10_1> Future generations will fix it
<4_2_10_2> Technology will fix it
<4_2_11> Adaptation is the solution
<4_2_12> Energy efficiency is enough
<4_2_13> Removing CO2 is the solution
<4_2_14> Other issues are more pressing
<4_2_15> Cheaper to mitigate abroad
<4_3_0> Solving climate change is too difficult
<4_3_1> We're not ready for policy
<4_3_2> It's too late to fix it
<4_3_3> Low support
<4_4_0> No need for more action
<4_4_1> Already taking it seriously
<4_4_2> Already doing enough
<4_4_3> Already doing good
<5_0_0> Climate-related science is uncertain/unsound/unreliable (data, methods & models)
<5_1_0> There's no scientific consensus on climate/the science isn't settled
<5_2_0> Proxy data is unreliable (includes hockey stick)
<5_3_0> Temperature record is unreliable
<5_4_0> Models are wrong/unreliable/uncertain
<6_0_0> Climate scientists and proponents of climate action are alarmist, biased, wrong, hypocritical, corrupt, and/or politically motivated.
<6_1_0> Climate movement is alarmist/wrong/political/biased/hypocritical (people or groups)
<6_1_1> Climate movement is religion
<6_1_2> Media (includes bloggers) is alarmist/wrong/political/biased
<6_1_3> Politicians/government/UN are alarmist/wrong/political/biased
<6_1_4> Environmentalists are alarmist/wrong/political/biased
<6_1_5> Scientists/academics are alarmist/wrong/political/biased
<6_2_0> Climate change (science or policy) is a conspiracy (deception)
<7_0_0> We need fossil fuels
<7_1_0> Fossil fuels are plentiful
<7_2_0> Fossil fuels are good
<7_2_1> Good for economic growth
<7_2_2> Good for energy security
<7_2_3> Our fossil fuels are clean
<7_2_4> Fossil fuels are part of the solution
<7_3_0> Fossil fuels are necessary
<7_4_0> We have the right to use them
<0_0_0> No Claim detected
### INSTRUCTIONS:
1. **Hierarchical Classification**:
- The codebook is hierarchical. Superclaims end with `_0_0`, subclaims end with `_0`.
- First check if the text fits `0_0_0` (no relevant claim). If so, assign only that category.
- Otherwise, scan every superclaim group (1_ through 7_) and list all plausible codes.
- Then verify each candidate -- keep or remove -- to arrive at the final set.
2. **Precision and Recall**:
- Do not leave any relevant claim unassigned.
- Do not assign any irrelevant claim.
3. **Irrelevant Text**:
- If the text does not express climate skepticism, promote fossil fuels, or attack renewables, use `0_0_0`.
- `0_0_0` is mutually exclusive with all other categories.
4. **Description vs Endorsement**:
- Only classify claims the text actively endorses or promotes.
- Meta-commentary or criticism of skeptical arguments should be `0_0_0`.
5. **Granularity Rule**:
- When a text matches both a parent and its subcategories, only include the most specific subcategories.
- When unsure between a parent and subclaim, ask: does the text explicitly make the subclaim's specific argument? If yes, use the subclaim. If the text is broader or vaguer, use the parent. Do not deliberate -- decide and move on.
6. **Cross-Reference Hints**:
- Economic impacts (4_X_X) often overlap with fossil fuel benefits (7_X_X).
- Science uncertain (5_X_X) often overlaps with proponents corrupt (6_X_X).
- Global cooling / natural variation: also check natural drivers (2_1_0, 2_1_1, 2_1_3).
- Renewable energy feasibility: check both 4_2_7_2 and 7_3_0.
- Fossil fuel benefits: check all 7_X_X claims.
### OUTPUT FORMAT:
Reason inside <think> tags following this structure, then output YAML:
<think>
1. CLAIMS: Direct quotes only. No paraphrasing, no commentary, no analysis.
2. CONTEXT: One line. Text type, tone, intent. Sincere or satire/irony?
3. SCAN: Go through each superclaim group (1_ through 7_). For each group, state "not relevant" or list all plausible codes.
4. VERIFY: One line per code from SCAN. Format: "[code]: KEEP/REMOVE -- [max 10 words why]." Then state final codes.
</think>
```yaml
categories:
- <category_code>
```
STRICT RULES:
- All reasoning must be inside <think> tags. Nothing after </think> except the YAML block.
- Be concise. VERIFY entries must be one line each.