Let's Talk About Climate Denial (Part 1)
Let’s Talk About Climate Denial
Part 1: Five Common Climate Denial Arguments You’re Bound to Hear (and Probably Already Have)
The oceans are heating up, the Antarctic ice sheets and glaciers all over the world are shrinking, and sea levels are on the rise.
While climate change is a concerning reality to a lot of us, each of us probably has at least one person in our social or family circles who doesn’t believe climate change is real. The good news is that polls are showing the percentage of the American population who believe in climate change (and that it’s being accelerated by human activity) is steadily rising (70%-80% of Americans, a 70% increase from 2015). This is good news! But that number still means you’re likely going to find some climate-denying or climate-dismissive arguments at some point.
To help prepare you for your next encounter, we’ve compiled a list of the top 5 arguments against climate change, and we’re even dedicating our next blog post to the psychology of climate denial and how to handle those conversations.
You can thank us later.
1) Scientists can’t even agree, so 🤷
So in 2013, a study concluded that 97% of climate scientists are in agreement that the Earth is rapidly warming and human activity is the culprit. This is the origin of the famous “97%” figure you typically hear at some point during this argument. However, the lead author of that study, John Cook, is conducting a follow-up study. Now, he says, that number is up to 99% and “could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.”
There are a few directions you could take this argument:
a) If you were diagnosed with a serious illness and decided to get 99 second opinions, would you listen to the 97-99 specialists who told you to get treatment immediately? Or would you listen to the 1-3 experts who told you nothing was wrong or that maybe you do have a serious condition, but we don’t know for sure what caused it so it may just clear up on its own?
b) Do you question experts in other fields? Oncologists administering chemotherapy, aerospace engineers designing airplanes, or computer scientists encrypting your online banking data?
c) Requiring a 100% scientific consensus is logical fallacy. Scientists know that future evidence could upend a current, accepted theory, so they often make decisions based on the weight of the evidence. This is “the idea of ‘warrant.’ You believe things based on how strong the evidence is.” A former climate-denier put it this way:
“I realized that there wasn’t a choice between everything is right, or nothing is right. Some is more right than others, and there [is] some very good core evidence to show that the essence of climate change is in fact a thing.”
2) It’s cold outside! So much for global warming.
Firstly, global temperature averages are undoubtedly rising. Compared to a few decades ago (1951-1980), we’re 100 times more likely to experience extremely hot days now.
Secondly, weather and climate are two totally different things (more on this later). A low-pressure system coming through your area in December doesn’t negate the rising temperature patterns that climate scientists are observing all over the world. The warming of the planet actually disrupts the typical systems (i.e. pressure patterns) that contribute to the weather we experience, meaning that rare weather phenomena like polar vortexes become more common. Cold days won’t disappear, but they will (and have) become less common.
3) I can’t even get an accurate forecast for rain tomorrow, but scientists are telling me what the weather is going to be like in 40 years? Please.
As mentioned earlier, weather and climate are two different things. Weather is the atmospheric state of a certain place at a certain time regarding temperature, rain, humidity, wind, etc. Climate is an average of factors over a longer amount of time, typically 30 years. Climate scientists are not trying to predict the weather you’re going to experience in 40 years; they’re predicting the climate you’ll be encountering based on historic averages. The planet’s climate systems are multifaceted and complicated, so climate scientists can’t tell you without a doubt that the earth will warm up 1.89 degrees by July 17, 2047. But they can tell you with high confidence that the evidence shows our planet has been and will keep on warming because of the burning of fossil fuels.
4) Maybe Earth is warming, but there’s no way of knowing if it’s our fault! Variation: The Earth goes through climate cycles, and this is no different.
Has Earth’s climate been different in the past? Of course! We’ve all learned about ice ages before, or at least seen the cute, animated movie. In fact, there are several points in Earth’s history that show CO2 levels rising, that’s right, naturally! (see graph) Scientists actually believe a mass extinction was caused by high CO2 levels about 580 million years ago. Obviously, humans weren’t around back then, so we can’t be the reason.
Thanks, NASA!
But the point is that something is always a reason. In the past, slight orbital changes affecting the amount of sun we receive or high volcanic activity (releasing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere) were the reason for warming. We know that when more carbon dioxide is in the air, it traps more heat in the atmosphere. In the past, carbon dioxide levels were increased by lots of antsy volcanos. Now, humans burning fossil fuels are responsible.
We also know the warming that’s happening right now is different than warming in the past. Increased carbon dioxide levels from “natural cycles” took a “natural” amount of time — hundreds or even thousands of years. What we’re seeing now is happening 20-50 times faster. Historical temperature changes (like ice ages) took place slowly and eventually spread to different regions. We know from our global communication structure that this climate change is happening all over the world at the same time.
5) But it’s not worth the hit to the bottom line!
Climate change is already affecting the bottom line in several ways! Firstly, higher temperatures mean more heat-related illnesses and death and even more infectious disease. Warmer temperatures cause smog to develop more quickly, and the rising number and severity of wildfires contribute to air pollution as well. Natural disasters like hurricanes are more frequent and powerful. All of this increases deaths, health costs, and structural damages that we’re already paying for at a rate of about $24 billion a year.
According to The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), curbing the effects of climate change would hinder global GDP by 0.2% a year. That pans out to about 5.5% of the world’s GDP by 2050. Not mitigating climate change, though? The OECD estimates that inaction could be as much as 14% of GDP.
On the other hand, “[t]ransitioning to a low-carbon electricity system would bring the global economy an estimated $1.8 trillion in financial savings” in a 20-year period. Even domestically, the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars every year ($649 billion in 2015 alone) subsidizing fossil fuel companies. In fact, fossil fuel subsidies have outweighed defense spending “in recent years.”
Mitigating the effects of climate change will save lives, decrease pollution, and save the U.S. (and the world) billions of dollars in a few short decades. If the wind and solar sectors are any indicator, we’ll even come out of it with plenty of new middle-class jobs fueling our economy! Our bottom line depends on climate action.
So now you’re armed with facts and arguments! But this information is readily available already through reporting and published studies. What if facts don’t do the job? Part 2 of this blog will focus on the psychology of climate denial and how to navigate a conversation with someone who isn’t quite convinced...yet.