Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

There's no room for a climate of denial

Posted on 8 June 2011 by haydnwashington

This opinion piece was published in The Canberra Times by Dr Haydn Washington, co-author of Climate Change Denial, published by Earthscan.

Denial is as old as humanity but is not the same as scepticism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a sceptic as ''A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions''. We should thus all seek the truth. Genuine scepticism in science is one of the ways science progresses.

Denial is very different; it is a refusal to believe something, no matter what the evidence. Climate change deniers often call themselves ''sceptics''. However, refusing to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence is not scepticism but denial.

Paradoxically, as scientific evidence for human-caused climate change pours in, interest and belief in climate change within the public is on the decline. In Norway, the percentage of people who were worried dropped from 40 per cent in 1989 to less than 10 per cent in 2001. In Australia in 2009 the Lowy Institute reported that 56 per cent of those surveyed thought climate change was very important. However, this was down 19 per cent from 2007. How can this be?

One can divide psychological denial into three categories: literal (the denial industry, often funded by fossil fuel companies); interpretive (e.g. government spin or describing a massacre of civilians as ''collateral damage''); and implicatory (denial ''we the people'' engage in). Implicatory denial is not denying the facts about climate change per se, but denies the implications and is a failure to transform your belief into action. People accept information about human-caused climate change as true, yet choose to ignore it. We can thus let denial prosper within ourselves, through a sort of self-interested sloth.

There are various types of denial arguments. One useful classification breaks them down into ''conspiracy theories'', ''fake experts'', ''impossible expectations'', ''misrepresentations'' and ''cherry picking''. Space precludes covering all the denial arguments about climate change in detail (there are 160 of them!) though you can find the full list at my co-author's website.

Commonly, deniers cherry pick what evidence they present. One key example is ''global warming stopped in 1998'', picking one particular data source which showed a temporary levelling in air temperatures. It ignored other studies that show temperature is still increasing, and that most of the warming goes into the oceans. Global warming has not in fact gone away.

Another common denial argument is that ''climate has always changed in the past''. For the past 8000 years we have been in a stable climate. Society has never lived through the degree of climate change we are now causing. Bushfires can also be natural yet we don't dismiss the existence of arson. What most deniers conveniently overlook is that Australia is a nation at great risk from climate change. We are the driest inhabited continent in the world. Doing nothing about climate change will end up costing us far more than taking action such as instituting a carbon price.

Why do we let denial prosper? Many things are involved, including fear of change, failure in values, the belief in endless growth, ignorance of ecosystem services, and also the media itself. Researchers note the ''balance as bias'' within the media, where a denier is given equal prominence with all climate scientists. Thus the public could be forgiven for thinking the science is in doubt when it is not, as every academy of science in the world has concluded. The media thus gives deniers prominence as it loves a controversy. It is actually even worse than this, for it is common in Australia for the media to fail to give equal time to scientists.

How do we roll back climate change denial? ''Accept reality!'' is an obvious response. Climate change denial has succeeded because we as a society let it prosper. We let ourselves be deluded by the siren song of denial. When we worry about something, if it makes us afraid, if it clashes with our self-image, then we can move into denial.

However, when denial threatens society and the Earth's ecosystems, it has become not only a delusion, but a dangerous pathology. If we abandon denial, we can both solve climate change and make the world a better place. That, nobody should deny.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  

Comments 101 to 103 out of 103:

  1. Eric the Red @99, science by press release would not be a problem at all if journalists would actually do the job they are supposed to. If, when they get a juicy quote from a scientist, they first checked what NOAA or the CSIRO or the IPCC AR4 say on the subject, and report the institutional view as the main body of scientific opinion, and the scientist with the juicy quote as being a scientist who disagreed, they would accurately inform rather than consistently misinforming the public. As to the 90%, I suspect 100% of climate scientists would for some aspect of the AR4 WG1 report, disagree with the likelihood assigned to the statement in the report. Indeed, for some aspects of the report, I can prove that in 2007 around 80% of climate scientists disagreed with the likelihood assigned. But the areas of substantial disagreement all come from topics in which WG1 assigned low likelihoods; and in the core areas where WG1 assigned high likelihoods, agreement among scientists is very high - exceeding 90% and approaching 100% for some issues. Further, there is a trend in the agreement among scientists. In 1996 just 60% of climate scientists thought that the Earth was warming, and 40% that humans were responsible. Now the figure is close to 97% for both issues. Where there have been significant advances in knowledge (which covers quite a few areas), agreement among climate scientists will, therefore, probably be greater in 2011 than in 2007 (the date of the last detailed survey). The problem for you is that you disagree in core areas - areas where climate scientists have almost universal agreement. Consequently the pattern of agreement and disagreement among scientists should be no consolation to you. On the contrary, that pattern shows that the scientists are actually following evidence rather than an agenda; and hence that where they almost universally agree the evidence is much stronger than you will give it credit for.
    0 0
  2. I am curious as to what you think are the core areas. I agree about the physics concerning the relationship between CO2 and temperature. I agree that warming temperatures will result in higher water vapor. After that, I will admit that I do not agree with many of the other feedbacks (I may not disagree with them, but have not found enough evidence to allow for an agreement). Yes, I will admit that I do not agree that the evidence is as strong as you do.
    0 0
  3. Tom Curtis @98 Your overall point "My point is, however, that this is not a reason for denial in any person, or at least it is not a substantive reason." I totally agree with you on this. Most people do not seem to be scientifically literate (at least from my experience) very few would read a peer-reviewed climate article for themselves. They rely on Media to help them understand complex issues they do not have time or interest to explore at greater depth. I was posting that to explain why people are losing interest in Climate Change science and switching to a denial state of mind. On this thread you have two video posts Albatross @28 and Daniel Bailey @39. Both are expamles of using an emotional appeal to sway a mental state. "Do you want to be a blind idiot and drown even as we try to save you....severe denial" From Albatross video. Or tornado in Joplin connected to Climate Change. I read articles here daily but rarely post. The Daniel Bailey video started my posts because it so closely resembled arguments I have had on Conspiracy sites when individuals claim all bad weather events are HAARP induced. The HARRP posts are what started me looking at Historical weather events to see if things really are getting worse today. So far I have not found enough evidence on this site to verify this sentiment or any other site.
    0 0
    Response:

    [DB] This site keeps its focus on science, not on tin-hat-isms.  Please keep that in mind when constructing your comments.

Prev  1  2  3  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us