Climate Change denial is now part of the problem.
As New Zealand, and most of the world, struggles with how to overcome problems associated with mitigation and adaption to climate change, an additional impediment to progress towards a solution has emerged.
This recent impediment comes under the general heading of denialism. It is a uniquely human response to a perceived threat or challenge. It is not confined to the unintelligent and it is much more than a “head in the sand” response but has a deep and ancient psychological basis.
In earth sciences, and human psychology, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are indisputable by logic and widely supported by scientific consensus. It is an irrational action that refuses to accept provable reality.
Sometimes that reality is too confronting or contrary to traditional beliefs for some people to accept. In that context denialism is not new as Christopher Columbus (1451-1506) and Galileo (1564-1642) both encountered it.
In the last century we had Holocaust and AIDS denial and we now have climate change denial which is the rejection of the scientific fact that the climate is rapidly changing due in recent times to human activity. That is a huge and very complex subject which adds to the impulse to reject it. In a free society such as ours, people have a democratic right to do that as a way to avoid believing an uncomfortable truth.
Less complex but equally dramatic predicted events are much easier to accept. A good example is the acceptance of scientific predictions that the Alpine Fault could rupture at any time with a highly destructive earthquake across most of the South Island. There is no visual evidence or personal experience to support that prediction, just the warnings of trusted geologists which nobody has questioned.
By comparison there is a huge body of peer reviewed, highly visible and undeniable evidence of climate change from about 30,000 international scientists. In New Zealand in the past year we have had devastating storms and floods exacerbated by over-heated oceans. We have also had serious drought in eastern South Island, until recent rains.
Internationally there are unprecedented and lethal heat waves across North American, India and Africa. But still the deniers refuse to accept the reality of what is in front of them. Some reject scientific data by suggesting the huge number of international experts are involved in some form of conspiracy. Others select an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or use outdated, flawed, and discredited papers.
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has significant implications for society. Philosophers continue to debate the difference between scientific theories and pseudoscience. They have reached a widespread agreement that creationism, astrology, homeopathy, Kirlian photography, dowsing, ufology, ancient astronaut theory, Holocaust denialism, Velikovskian catastrophism, and climate change denialism are pseudosciences.
In 2009 author Michael Specter defined group denialism as “when an entire segment of society, often struggling with the trauma of change, turns away from reality in favour of a more comfortable lie.”
Apart from infantile abuse directed at those who are working to find solutions, and there has been some of that in the past few weeks magnified by the reach of toxic social media platforms, many deniers offer no credible counter scientific arguments to explain the undeniable changes in the worlds weather patterns. When the parties to a dispute descend to calling each other names or make accusations of dishonesty it is a clear sign they are no longer listening to each other.
This often happens when one or both parties, become frustrated at not being able to convince the other to accept their opinion. Too often both parties then take an entrenched position from which they hurl petty insults and accusations at each other with little possibility of useful resolution. The long-established rules of dispute resolution and democratic decision making are pushed aside and people with passionately held opinions sometimes forget or ignore one of the basic rules of civilised society. This requires them to accept that others don’t have to agree with them or follow their advice. At that point such groups have several options. The least effective is name calling and disruptive protest which too many groups adopt as a first response. The second, more difficult but potentially more effective, option is persuasion. That requires the art of reasoned and sound debate, a knowledge of the subject matter and a genuine willingness to listen and honestly consider the opposing view. Climate change deniers are entitled to their beliefs for whatever reason suits them but we cannot allow them to impede or prevent the development of mitigation and adaptive strategies while we still have time. No amount of procrastination, mindless bone pointing or dragon slaying should get in the way of that.