Scientific skepticism is healthy because it leads to an improved understanding, but that’s not what’s happening with climate change denial. Instead, skeptics are vigorously criticizing all evidence that supports human-made global warming, essentially playing the role of climate and science deniers rather than skeptics. There is no scientific backing to their elements of doubt. The ones fueling this mindset are the media moguls, political lobbyists, and the fossil fuel industry, the latter having spent hundreds of millions yearly on lobbying to delay, control, or block binding climate policy.
Alas, the times are changing, and their hold on the public seems to be waning. The growing number of extreme weather events, as well as the Extinction Rebellion protests, school climate strikes, national governments declaring a climate emergency, and growing optimism that we can deal with the crisis, have contributed to the shift. We are now at the point that 75% of Americans think humans are responsible for the climate crisis.
However, this has only brought about “climate sadism” – a more subtle and more vicious approach to lobbying. For example, people ridiculing Greta Thunberg for merely telling the scientific truth. How does that prove climate change isn’t real? It doesn’t. It’s only meant to try and persuade others not to believe the facts she is sharing. Now more than ever, you must know how to identify the different forms of denial. The following methods are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.
Science
The most common type of denial states that the science is not settled, that climate models are unreliable because they are too sensitive to carbon dioxide, and that climate change is merely part of the planet’s natural cycle. Some even say that CO2 cannot make any impact because it only makes up a small percentage of the air in the atmosphere. All of these arguments are false and only undermine science but don’t prove anything.
Another aspect of this type is to claim that climate scientists are fixing the data – that it’s all a big conspiracy (one that would require thousands of scientists spread across over 100 countries conspiring together to pull off). However, most of these scientists are working separately, and there is a clear consensus about the cause of climate change coming from their research results.
Economic
A more subtle but effective form of climate denial is to say it’s too expensive to fix. However, economists have estimated that if we fix climate change now, it will cost only 1% of world GDP. That’s not even considering how much money the world would save from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy. And if we wait till 2050 without doing anything, it could cost more than 20% of world GDP.
Climate change deniers fueling this type of doubt leave out one fundamental fact: the fossil fuel industry receives US$5.2 trillion in annual subsidies – which amounts to 6% of world GDP.
Humanitarian
Climate change is good for us, the climate change deniers say! They argue that longer and warmer summers in the temperate zone will increase farming production. However, they leave out the part that there are also drier summers and an increased frequency of heatwaves that kill people and devastate crops.
For example, in Moscow there was a heatwave a few years ago that was so bad it killed 11,000 people and destroyed the Russian wheat harvest which increased food prices worldwide.
On that note, in the US, heat-related deaths occur four times more often than cold-related ones.
Political
Not all countries are equal because not all countries have the means to contribute to fighting the climate crisis. Some climate deniers will use this argument by saying they won’t take action because other countries aren’t doing anything either. However, those countries that can’t help as much aren’t contributing much to the cause of climate change anyways. For example, the entire continent of Africa produces less than 5% of the human-produced CO2 in the atmosphere while the US generates 25% and the EU 22%.
Another political approach to instilling doubt is telling you there are local issues that need to be resolved first before helping with global problems. However, many solutions to climate change will fix and improve lives closer to home too. For example, transitioning the transportation system to zero-carbon choices and the electricity to renewable sources will reduce air pollution, which in turn improves the health of everyone, local and abroad.
Crisis
Deniers will say that climate change isn’t as bad as it seems, and we shouldn’t rush into changing things because we don’t even know for sure anything is happening (then references to types previously outlined). This type plays on human emotions because most people don’t like change. Such hollow arguments were used countless times in history. For example, to delay ending colonial rule, ending slavery, ending segregation, granting the vote to women, bolstering worker’s rights and environmental regulations, decriminalizing homosexuality, allowing same-sex marriages, banning smoking, etc.
Final Word
At the end of the day, ask yourself this: why are we letting those with the most power sow seeds of doubt to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change?
