How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website
What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming evidence they refuse to accept
• Browse the Guardian's ultimate climate change FAQ
• Browse the Guardian's ultimate climate change FAQ
Well-known climate sceptic Viscount Christopher Monckton. Photograph: Alan Porritt/EPA
by John Cook, The Guardian, April 27, 2011
My exploration of climate change denial began innocuously enough – namely some vigorous discussions with sceptical family members. This provoked me to dig a little deeper into the science (no one wants to lose an argument with their father-in-law), but before I knew it, I had wandered into a bewildering labyrinth of raging online debates and bottomless pits of misinformation. How to make sense of it all?
At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began constructing a database of climate 'sceptic' arguments. To cut to the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority. There's no higher standard than evidence-based research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge.
The case for human-caused global warming is robust. It's based on many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single, consistent answer. This preponderance of evidence is why we have a consensus among scientists. It's not about tree-hugging or secret plans to control the world – it's rooted in empirical measurements and the laws of physics.
Patterns in the sceptic arguments began to emerge. Instead of considering all the evidence in their search for the truth, climate 'sceptics' refuse to accept evidence that humans are causing global warming. This is not scepticism but denial. To deny a scientific consensus based on so much evidence, you have to deny the scientific evidence.
There are a number of methods to deny evidence and believe me, I've seen them all. The simplest method is to avoid the evidence altogether by smearing climate scientists or indulging in conspiracy theories. This is what "climategate," the theft or leaking of scientists' emails, was all about. A smattering of quotes taken out of context from a handful of emails does nothing to change the vast weight of evidence showing global warming.
The most common denial technique is cherry picking. If the full body of evidence doesn't give you the answer you want, carefully select the bits and pieces that give the desired impression and sweep the rest of the evidence off the table. Deniers post pictures of weather stations positioned near car parks and tarmacs, convinced global warming is an artefact of poor measurements. This line of thinking denies the thousands of natural thermometers that also indicate warming – rising sea levels, shifting seasons, retreating glaciers, melting ice sheets, even tree lines are moving.
Greenland is not losing hundreds of billion of tonnes of ice every year because someone placed a thermometer near an air conditioner.
So I started the Skeptical Science website, with the sceptics' arguments collected together as the website's backbone. The systematic database, and more importantly, the rebuttals built on a foundation of peer-reviewed science, inspired Melbourne company Shine Technologies to create a hugely popular iPhone app of it, making the science easily accessible (and cool). While Shine were developing the app, I was contacted by environmental scientist Haydn Washington, who proposed co-authoring a book, Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.
I had always focused on the external aspects of climate change denial – the how. Washington was interested in the why. What drives climate denial? If only there was a simple answer. Human psychology is not rocket science – it's much more complicated. Many factors are involved, including conservative ideology, misinformation campaigns (often funded by the fossil fuel companies whose profits are threatened by climate action), fear of change, failure in values and the media itself.
When climate deniers are given equal prominence with the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, the public could be forgiven for thinking the science is in doubt – when it is not.
How do we roll back climate change denial? We need to look the evidence full in the face and accept reality. Global warming is happening. We're causing it. Just as important, we also need to stop denying climate action. We can solve climate change – we have the plans to cut our pollution and the technology to switch to cleaner energy. To achieve this, we must abandon denial and demand climate action, from both ourselves and our leaders.
• Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand by Haydn Washington and John Cook is published on Thursday, 30 April 2011, by Earthscan.
No comments:
Post a Comment