Haydn examines the nature of climate change denial, its history, how we let denial prosper, and how we can roll back denial. He summarises  the climate science and explains uncertainty and probability. He also explains the social science behind denial. He lists the most common  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 thatit exists.'

Climate Change Denial

By Haydn Washington, co-author of ‘Climate Change Denial’, published by Earthscan (distributed New South Books)

Denial is as old as humanity but is not the same as skepticism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a skeptic as ‘A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions’. We should all seek the truth. Genuine skepticism in science is one of the ways science progresses. Denial is very different, a refusal to believe something, no matter what the evidence. Climate change deniers often call themselves ‘skeptics’. However, refusing to accept over-whelming scientific evidence is not skepticism but denial. Paradoxically, as evidence for human-caused climate change pours in, interest in the public is on the decline. In Norway, the percentage of people who were worried dropped from 40% in 1989 to less than 10% in 2001. In Australia in 2009 the Lowy Institute reported that 56% of those surveyed thought climate change was very important. However, this was down 19% from 2007. How can this be?

One can divide psychological denial into three categories – literal (denial industry), interpretive (e.g. government spin) and implicatory (denial ‘we the people’ engage in). Implicatory denial is not denying the facts about climate change per se, but a failure to transform it into action. People accept information as true, yet choose to ignore it. We 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 these in detail, though you can find the full list at my co-author’s website www.skepticalscience.com. 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.

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. The media gives deniers prominence. It is even common in Australia for the media to fail to give equal time to scientists.

How do we roll back climate change denial? Accept reality! 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. When denial threatens society and the Earth’s ecosystems, it has become not only a delusion, but a dangerous pathology. However, if we abandon denial, we can both solve climate change and make the world a better place. That nobody should deny.