Climate Change Denial

Heads in the Sand

Haydn Washington, John Cook

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781136530043
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Política medioambiental y energética

Humans have always used denial. When we are afraid, guilty, confused, or when something interferes with our self-image, we tend to deny it. Yet denial is a delusion. When it impacts on the health of oneself, or society, or the world it becomes a pathology. Climate change denial is such a case. Paradoxically, as the climate science has become more certain, denial about the issue has increased. The paradox lies in the denial. There is a denial industry funded by the fossil fuel companies that literally denies the science, and seeks to confuse the public. There is denial within governments, where spin-doctors use 'weasel words' to pretend they are taking action. However there is also denial within most of us, the citizenry. We let denial prosper and we resist the science. It also explains the social science behind denial. It contains a detailed examination of the principal climate change denial arguments, from attacks on the integrity of scientists, to impossible expectations of proof and certainty to the cherry picking of data. Climate change can be solved - but only when we cease to deny that it exists. This book shows how we can break through denial, accept reality, and thus solve the climate crisis. It will engage scientists, university students, climate change activists as well as the general public seeking to roll back denial and act.

1

Denial and the Nature of Science

What Is Denial?

Denial is as old as humanity, and possibly nobody is free from it (Zerubavel, 2006) . But what is denial? Is it the same as skepticism, as some people seem to think? This is a crucial question for the whole climate change debate. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of a skeptic is:

A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions.

So we should all be skeptics in many ways, as we should all seek the truth. Skepticism is about seeking the truth and realizing the world is a complex place. Skepticism is about stepping away from superstition and dogma. Genuine skepticism in science is one of the ways that science progresses, examining assumptions and conclusions (Pittock, 2009). Denial is something very different, it is a refusal to believe something no matter what the evidence. Those in denial demonstrate a ‘wilful ignorance’ and invoke logical fallacies to buttress their unshakeable beliefs (Specter, 2009). In fact deniers commonly use ‘Bulverism’, a method of argument that avoids the need to prove that someone is wrong by first assuming they are wrong, then explaining why they hold such a fallacious view (Hamilton, 2010). For example, climate scientists are just wrong, and they are wrong because they are too ‘liberal’. Denial isn't about searching for truth, it's about the denial of a truth one doesn't like. So skepticism and denial are in some ways opposites. An objective scientist should be skeptical: one should not jump to conclusions or believe something simply because it is fashionable and agrees with current dogma. When the sociologist Robert Merton (1973) wrote about the structure of science, he stated that scientists operated by four principles – organized skepticism, universalism, communalism and disinterestedness. More precisely, in the scientific method skeptics need to do three things – apply critical faculties to both sides of an argument, admit uncertainties on both sides of the argument and accept that risk management may require appropriate policy responses despite the uncertainty (Pittock, 2009). Deniers don't do these three things, while genuine ‘skeptics’ do.

It is thus important to understand the difference between skepticism and denial, especially in terms of the climate change debate. Many climate change deniers call themselves climate ‘skeptics’; indeed there is a ‘climate skeptics’ political party in Australia (www.climatesceptics.com.au). However, refusing to accept the overwhelming ‘preponderance of evidence’ is not skepticism, it is denial and should be called by its true name. Accordingly, in this book we will refer to climate change deniers, not skeptics. Others use the term ‘denialists’, but ‘deniers’ is more succinct and also acknowledges that everybody denies something. In the US it is also common to use the term ‘contrarians’ for climate change deniers (Hansen, 2009). The use of the term ‘climate skeptic’ is a distortion of reality, of what is really going on, similar to the term ‘junk science’ that deniers apply to mainstream science. Skepticism is healthy in both science and society; denial is not.

So denial and skepticism are very different, but what of ‘denial’, how common is it? We all deny, and the ability to deny is an ‘amazing human phenomenon, largely unexplained and often inexplicable’ (Cohen, 2001). Stanley Cohen believes this is ‘a product of the sheer complexity of our emotional, linguistic, moral and intellectual lives’. But what is it that we deny? The answer is many things – the things we don't want to admit exist. In our daily lives most of us tend to deny something, whether it's about our looks, age, finances or health. We deny some things as they force us to confront change. We deny other things because they are just too painful. For example, some of us cannot face the death of a loved one. We deny other things because they worry us and make us afraid. Sometimes we can't see a solution, so things appear unsolvable. Often we go around in a ‘mind loop’ considering the problem, worrying about it, not finding a solution and then returning to the problem. These ‘knots’ can be very stressful (Laing, 1970). Thus many of us deny the root cause of the problem. After all, it would be much easier for us if the world just went along in the same old comfortable way. Psychoanalysis sees denial as an ‘unconscious defence mechanism for coping with guilt, anxiety or other disturbing emotions aroused by reality’ (Cohen, 2001). Sociologist Eviatar Zerubavel (2006), in his book The Elephant in the Room, notes that the most public form of denial is silence, where some things are not spoken of. Silence about climate change has certainly been one aspect of its denial over the last few decades. But now the silence in general society has been broken. We now ‘talk’ about climate change, though the denial continues on in other ways, as we shall see.

Zerubavel (2006) cites the fable of the Emperor's new clothes as a classic example of a conspiracy of silence, a situation where everyone refuses to acknowledge an obvious truth. But the denial of social realities – whether incest, alcoholism, corruption or even genocide – is no fairytale. Nor is the denial of climate change. Zerubavel sheds light on the social and political underpinnings of silence and denial – the keeping of ‘open secrets’. He shows that conspiracies of silence exist at every level of society, ranging from small groups to large corporations, from personal friendships to politics. Zerubavel shows how such conspiracies evolve, illuminating the social pressures that cause people to deny what is right before their eyes. Each conspirator's denial is complemented by the others’, and the silence is usually more intense when more people conspire, and especially when there are significant power differences among them. Denial is thus common, and it is important we understand this. As a form of denial, silence helps us avoid pain. When facing a frightening situation we often resort to denial. The early reports of Nazi massacres of Jews were actually dismissed by many Jews in Europe as sheer lies (Zerubavel, 2006). The prospect of the ‘final solution’ was just too frightening to believe. Zerubavel also refers to the ‘ominous silence surrounding the spectre of a nuclear war’. He points out that denial is inherently delusional and inevitably distorts one's sense of reality. People often get upset when confronted with information challenging their selfdelusional view of the world around them. Many indeed prefer such illusions to painful realities and thus cherish their ‘right to be an ostrich’. They seem to believe that ‘ignorance is bliss’ and that ‘what you don't know won't hurt you’. The longer we ignore the ‘elephants’, the larger they loom in our minds, as each avoidance triggers an even greater spiral of denial (Zerubavel, 2006). Climate change has now got to the point where the elephant is all but filling the room. We may now talk about it, but we still deny it.

It can be seen from the above that denial is everywhere. Our society – and each of us who makes up society – is involved in denial at some level. It is thus a fundamental part of the human psyche that needs to be acknowledged. Denial is, however, a delusion, one that we will argue can become a pathology when it endangers the ecosystems humans rely on. However, while some people will accept that denial exists, like all things people will seek to coopt it, to define it for themselves, and define it for their particular purposes. For example, journalist Michael Specter (2009) defines ‘denialism’ as the replacement of ‘the rigorous and open-minded skepticism of science with the inflexible certainty of ideological commitment’. He provides evidence of the denial that HIV causes AIDS, denial about the value of vaccines and denial about some practices in alternative medicine. For him ‘denialism’ is limited to the denial of science, particularly the denial of science he agrees with. His definition is thus narrow, ignoring all the other things we deny, and ignoring just how prevalent denial is within our society. Specter relies on ‘facts’ that he approves of, but denies others he does not support. He thus supports nuclear power and genetic engineering, conveniently ignoring any science that raises concerns about these. Similarly, he discounts the problems of pesticides, mercury and population. It seems that while he is not in denial about some things, he is in denial about others he disapproves of (and doesn't acknowledge there is a scientific debate about). Indeed he uses denial as a means of espousing human mastery of nature. Specter (2009) wishes to usher in the technological dream of humans ‘being able to program life’ and ‘teach nature’ how to solve problems. However, many others (for example Hamilton, 2010; Oreskes and Conway, 2010) point out that this dream of mastery is what got us into this mess in the first place. Nonetheless, the main problem with Specter's treatment of ‘denialism’ is its narrowness and the fact that it ignores how prevalent denial really is within our society.

So denial is an understandable and very human trait. However, that does not mean it isn't dangerous, for it sometimes is. Just as the parable from historian Pliny the Elder of the ostrich sticking its head in the sand doesn't work for the ostrich, neither does denial of something that could be life-threatening. Ignoring a serious disease can lead to one's death. Similarly, denial of serious environmental problems may lead to the collapse of ecosystems upon which humans rely. It is in this category – denial of something that worries you – where climate change denial fits in. The ramifications of climate change denial are serious, including a changed climate where many species could go extinct, sea levels rise (flooding cities), and a world where agriculture could be hit hard, increasing famine. These examples could just be the harbinger of things to come.

Global climate change is arguably the single most significant environmental problem of our time, with potentially drastic consequences for human society and global ecosystems (IPCC, 2007). It is also a highly significant global environmental justice issue (Agarwal and Narain, 1991; Baer et al, 2000; Athanasiou and Baer, 2002; Norgaard, 2003). Despite the seriousness of this global environmental problem, there has been (until recently) meagre public response in the way of social movement activity, behavioural changes or public pressure on governments (Norgaard, 2003, 2006a and 2006b). Public apathy with respect to global warming has been identified as a significant concern by environmental sociologists (Kempton et al, 1995; Dunlap, 1998; Bulkeley, 2000; Rosa, 2001) and social psychologists working in the area of risk perception (Stern, 1992; Slovic, 2000). The study of public response to global warming comes predominantly from the fields of environmental sociology, risk analysis and perception, and the concept of a ‘risk society’ (Beck, 1992). Paradoxically, as evidence for climate change pours in and scientific consensus has increased, interest in the issue in some industrialized countries (such as Norway) is on the decline (Norgaard, 2003 and 2006a). National survey research found a downward trend in Norwegian interest and concern about environmental issues over the past decade. The percentage of respondents who replied that they were ‘very much worried’ about climate change declined steadily from 40 per cent in 1989 to less than 10 per cent in 2001 (Hellevik, 2002). In Australia in 2009 the Lowy Institute reported that 56 per cent of those surveyed thought climate change was very important. However this is down 10 per cent from 2008 and 19 per cent from 2007 (ABC, 2009). How can this be?

Existing research in environmental sociology and social psychology has previously emphasized the notion that information is the limiting factor in public non-response to this issue, an approach that has been characterized as the ‘information deficit model’ (Bulkeley, 2000; Norgaard, 2003). There is the sense that ‘if people only knew’ they would act differently: drive less, ‘rise up’ and put pressure on their governments (Halford and Sheehan, 1991). However, other scholars (for example Hulme, 2009) have come to believe that the ‘deficit model’ explanation is no longer tenable. There are other barriers than lack of scientific knowledge to changing the status of climate change in the minds of the public – psychological, emotional and behavioural barriers. We need to understand the complex ‘cultural circuits’ of science communication in which framing, language, imagery, marketing devices, media norms and agendas all play their part.

People in Norway avoided thinking about climate change because doing so raised feelings of ‘helplessness’ and ‘guilt’ that threatened individual self-identity (‘ontological security’, Norgaard, 2003) and also a collective sense of identity (Giddens, 1991). Instead of integrating this information into daily life, community members used a number of strategies to hold information about climate change at arm's length, thereby minimizing ‘cognitive dissonance’ and maintaining a sense of normal reality (Norgaard, 2003 and 2006b). ‘Cognitive dissonance’ is the uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously (Norgaard, 2003) or when we realize that something we believe to be true is contradicted by evidence (Hamilton, 2010). We shall return to consider these issues later.

Biologist Jared Diamond (2005) has argued in his book Collapse that societies that deny or ignore their environmental problems tend to collapse. He notes that many of them tend to collapse at the height of their power, when presumably the idea of possible collapse would have seemed unthinkable. Thus, denial of some problems can be not only life-threatening, but even society-threatening. Climate change, even rapid climate change, is not going to send humans extinct, or turn the world into a burnt cinder. However, runaway climate change could stress societies to the point of collapse. There are already large numbers of environmental refugees around the world, with a prediction that there will be between 200 million and a billion refugees by 2050 (Assadourian, 2010). These will be victims of environmental degradation, often in the form of drought or overpopulation (Conisbee and Simms, 2003). Hundreds of millions of extra environmental refugees could well push societies over the edge. Water will become a critical issue, one that could even lead to war (Shiva, 2002). The cause of all this is not that the problems are impossible to solve, it's that we deny them.

Science, Uncertainty and the ‘Preponderance of Evidence’

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon opened the 2007 Bali Climate Conference with the words (quoted in Hulme, 2009):

We gather because the time for equivocation is over. Climate change is the defining challenge of our age. The science is clear; climate change is happening, the impact is real. The time to act is now.

However, despite this statement, climate change and climate change science are still being denied. Why is this? The word science derives from the Latin, scientia, for knowledge. Various definitions of science have been given, such as ‘organized knowledge’, ‘a highly integrated form of knowledge which makes a worldview’ and ‘proven knowledge’ (Chalmers, 1976; Bronowski, 1978; Medawar, 1984). Science is thus seen as an organized, proven, highly integrated form of knowledge that can answer questions and give explanations and predictions.

The scientific method is about probability rather than certainty. It can thus not be seen as the road to absolute truth. The Universe is not certain, nor is the world or our lives. We may fool ourselves into believing in ‘certainty’, but it is a delusion. We are all at the mercy of fate or, to put it another way, there is always uncertainty. That is the nature of reality, one that many people tend to deny. Indeed this uncertainty is scary unless one accepts it....