tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/climate-change-denial-2057/articlesClimate change denial – The Conversation2024-02-15T01:53:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2158152024-02-15T01:53:26Z2024-02-15T01:53:26ZCan we be inoculated against climate misinformation? Yes – if we prebunk rather than debunk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575202/original/file-20240213-24-2257zy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=239%2C58%2C4606%2C2971&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/montreal-canada-september-27-2019-woman-1547586671">Adrien Demers/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last year, the world experienced the hottest day <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/05/hottest-day-ever-recorded">ever recorded</a>, as we endured the first year where temperatures were 1.5°C warmer than the pre-industrial era. The link between extreme events and climate change is <a href="https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/extreme-heat-in-north-america-europe-and-china-in-july-2023-made-much-more-likely-by-climate-change/#:%7E:text=July%202023%20saw%20extreme%20heatwaves,China%20(CNN%2C2023).">clearer than ever</a>. But that doesn’t mean climate misinformation has stopped. Far from it. </p>
<p>Misleading or incorrect information on climate still spreads like wildfire, even during the angry northern summer of 2023. Politicians falsely claimed the heatwaves were “<a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/09/phoenix-heat-wave-republicans-00110325">normal</a>” for summer. Conspiracy theorists claimed the devastating fires in Hawaii were ignited by <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/08/11/conspiracy-theorists-go-viral-with-claim-space-lasers-are-to-blame-for-hawaii-fires/?sh=1d46579e4529">government lasers</a>. </p>
<p>People producing misinformation have shifted tactics, too, often moving from the old denial (claiming climate change isn’t happening) to the <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/16/climate/climate-denial-misinformation-youtube/index.html">new denial</a> (questioning climate solutions). Spreading doubt and scepticism has hamstrung our response to the enormous threat of climate change. And with sophisticated generative AI making it easy to generate plausible lies, it could become an <a href="https://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.889aab4188bda3f44912a32/1687863825612/SRC_Climate%20misinformation%20brief_A4_.pdf">even bigger issue</a>.</p>
<p>The problem is, debunking misinformation <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01623-8">is often not sufficient</a> and you run the risk of giving false information <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-024-05651-z">credibility</a> when you have to debunk it. Indeed, a catchy lie can often stay in people’s heads while sober facts are forgotten. </p>
<p>But there’s a new option: the <a href="https://interventions.withgoogle.com/static/pdf/A_Practical_Guide_to_Prebunking_Misinformation.pdf">prebunking method</a>. Rather than waiting for misinformation to spread, you lay out clear, accurate information in advance – along with describing common manipulation techniques. Prebunking often has a better chance of success, according to <a href="https://harpercollins.co.uk/products/foolproof-why-we-fall-for-misinformation-and-how-to-build-immunity-sander-van-der-linden?variant=39973011980366">recent research</a> from co-author Sander van der Linden. </p>
<h2>How does prebunking work?</h2>
<p><a href="https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus">Misinformation spreads</a> much like a virus. The way to protect ourselves and everyone else is similar: through vaccination. Psychological inoculation via prebunking acts like a vaccine and reduces the probability of infection. (We focus on misinformation here, which is shared accidentally, not <a href="https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/what-is-climate-misinformation-and-why-does-it-matter-disinformation-opponents-of-climate-science-greenwashing/article67771776.ece">disinformation</a>, which is where people deliberately spread information they know to be false). </p>
<p>If you’re forewarned about dodgy claims and questionable techniques, you’re more likely to be sceptical when you come across a YouTube video claiming electric cars are dirtier than those with internal combustion engines, or a Facebook page suggesting offshore wind turbines will kill whales. </p>
<p>Inoculation is not just a metaphor. By exposing us to a weakened form of the types of misinformation we might see in the future and giving us ways to identify it, we reduce the chance false information takes root in our psyches. </p>
<p>Scientists have tested these methods with some success. In <a href="https://publichealth.jmir.org/2022/6/e34615/">one study</a> exploring ways of countering anti-vaccination misinformation, researchers created simple videos to warn people manipulators might try to influence their thinking about vaccination with anecdotes or scary images rather than evidence. </p>
<p>They also gave people relevant facts about how low the actual injury rate from vaccines is (around two injuries per million). The result: compared to a control group, people with the psychological inoculation were more likely to recognise misleading rhetoric, less likely to share this type of content with others, and more likely to want to get vaccinated. </p>
<p>Similar studies have <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gch2.201600008">been conducted</a> on climate misinformation. Here, one group was forewarned that politically motivated actors will try to make it seem as if there was a lot of disagreement on the causes of climate change by appealing to fake experts and bogus petitions, while in fact <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-97-climate-consensus-is-over-now-its-well-above-99-and-the-evidence-is-even-stronger-than-that-170370">97% or more</a> of climate scientists have concluded humans are causing climate change. This inoculation proved effective. </p>
<p>The success of these early studies has spurred social media companies <a href="https://sustainability.fb.com/blog/2022/10/24/climate-science-literacy-initiative/">such as Meta</a> to adopt the technique. You can now find prebunking efforts on Meta sites such as Facebook and Instagram intended to protect people against common misinformation techniques, such as cherry-picking isolated data. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/youtube-how-a-team-of-scientists-worked-to-inoculate-a-million-users-against-misinformation-189007">YouTube: how a team of scientists worked to inoculate a million users against misinformation</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Prebunking in practice</h2>
<p>A hotter world will experience increasing climate extremes and <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020RG000726">more fire</a>. Even though many of the fires we have seen in recent years in Australia, Hawaii, Canada and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/feb/10/chile-wildfires-vina-del-mar-achupallas">now Chile</a> are the worst on record, climate misinformation actors routinely try to minimise their severity. </p>
<p>As an example, let’s prebunk claims likely to circulate after the next big fire. </p>
<p><strong>1. The claim: “Climate change is a hoax – wildfires have always been a part of nature.”</strong></p>
<p>How to prebunk it: ahead of fire seasons, scientists can demonstrate claims like this rely on the “<a href="https://newslit.org/tips-tools/news-lit-tip-false-equivalence/">false equivalence</a>” logical fallacy. Misinformation falsely equates the recent rise in extreme weather events with natural events of the past. A devastating fire 100 years ago does not disprove <a href="https://www.unep.org/resources/report/spreading-wildfire-rising-threat-extraordinary-landscape-fires">the trend</a> towards more fires and larger fires. </p>
<p><strong>2. Claim: “Bushfires are caused by arsonists.”</strong> </p>
<p>How to prebunk it: media professionals have an important responsibility here in fact-checking information before publishing or broadcasting. Media can give information on the most common causes of bushfires, from lightning (about 50%) to accidental fires to arson. <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfires-firebugs-fuelling-crisis-as-national-arson-toll-hits-183/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f#:%7E:text=Victoria's%20Crime%20Statistics%20agency%20told,older%20men%20in%20their%2060s.">Media claims</a> arsonists were the main cause of the unprecedented 2019-2020 Black Summer fires in Australia were used by climate deniers worldwide, even though arson was <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reveal-arson-not-a-major-cause/11855022">far from the main cause</a>.</p>
<p><strong>3. Claim: “The government is using bushfires as an excuse to bring in climate regulations.”</strong> </p>
<p>How to prebunk it: explain this recycled conspiracy theory is likely to circulate. Point out how it was used to claim COVID-19 lockdowns were a government ploy to soften people up for <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-lockdowns-became-new-battleground-conspiracy-driven-protest-mo-rcna80370">climate lockdowns</a> (which never happened). Show how government agencies can and do communicate openly about why climate regulations <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/strategies">are necessary</a> and how they are intended to stave off the worst damage. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575160/original/file-20240212-26-6ztcl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="firefighter putting out bushfire" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575160/original/file-20240212-26-6ztcl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/575160/original/file-20240212-26-6ztcl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575160/original/file-20240212-26-6ztcl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575160/original/file-20240212-26-6ztcl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575160/original/file-20240212-26-6ztcl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575160/original/file-20240212-26-6ztcl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/575160/original/file-20240212-26-6ztcl9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=276&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">False information on bushfires can spread like a bushfire.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/australia-bushfires-fire-fueled-by-wind-1566620281">Toa55/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Misinformation isn’t going away</h2>
<p>Social media and the open internet have made it possible to broadcast information to millions of people, regardless of whether it’s true. It’s no wonder it’s a golden age for misinformation. Misinformation actors have found effective ways to cast scepticism on established science and then sell a false alternative. </p>
<p>We have to respond. Doing nothing means the lies win. And getting on the front foot with prebunking is one of the best tools we have. </p>
<p>As the world gets hotter, prebunking offers a way to anticipate new variants of lies and misinformation and counter them – before they take root. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/7-ways-to-avoid-becoming-a-misinformation-superspreader-157099">7 ways to avoid becoming a misinformation superspreader</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215815/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Turney receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a scientific adviser and holds shares in cleantech biographite company, CarbonScape. Chris is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute, is a volunteer firefighter with the New South Wales Rural Fire Service (the NSW RFS), and is a Non-Executive Director on the boards of the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and deeptech incubator, Cicada.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sander van der Linden consults for or has received funding from Google, the EU Commission, the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization (WHO), the Alfred Landecker Foundation, Omidyar Network India, the American Psychological Association, the Centers for Disease Control, UK Government, Facebook/Meta, and the Gates Foundation.</span></em></p>When we see false information circulating, we might move to debunk it. But prebunking lies and explaining manipulation techniques can work better.Christian Turney, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research, University of Technology SydneySander van der Linden, Professor of Social Psychology in Society, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2054692023-05-17T00:01:10Z2023-05-17T00:01:10ZClimate change believers are more likely to cooperate with strangers, new research finds<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526655/original/file-20230516-27-6bhpnz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=20%2C30%2C6689%2C4436&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>People’s willingness to believe in climate change varies greatly, as does their willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviour, such as energy conservation. We tried to understand the psychological factors behind these differences in our <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-16937-2.pdf">recent study</a>. </p>
<p>The problem of climate change presents a social dilemma, one which sets up a conflict between cooperating for the common good and acting in one’s individual self-interest.</p>
<p>For instance, if all fishermen abide by fishing quotas, it is good for everyone. If one fisherman exceeds the quota while everyone else abides by it, then that individual is better off at the expense of others. </p>
<p>But if it is individually rational for one to exceed the quota, then it is rational for everyone to do so, resulting in the rapid depletion of fish stock.</p>
<p>Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is costly. If other countries reduce while one does not, the latter is better off at the expense of the others. But if everyone acts to maximise their own self-interest we get greater pollution and global warming.</p>
<h2>Willingness to cooperate</h2>
<p>One psychological mechanism that could explain variation in climate change beliefs and pro-environmental behaviour is a general willingness to cooperate in responding to social dilemmas.</p>
<p>Our study uses a set of behavioural economic games to present social dilemma problems to almost 900 New Zealanders. These games offer monetary rewards, and players must choose between prioritising the common good among a small group of strangers or maximising personal gain.</p>
<p>The choice is simple: cooperate in the group interest, which makes one vulnerable to free-riding by others, or maximise one’s self-interest. Free-riding pays more if others cooperate, but if everyone does it then cooperation unravels and everyone is worse off.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-alone-wont-change-climate-opinions-but-it-matters-10693">Science alone won't change climate opinions, but it matters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Using such micro-scale social dilemma games, we found a general psychological preference for cooperation that we refer to as the “cooperative phenotype” (phenotype being all observable characteristics of an organism). These were people who routinely cooperate with strangers even if that means sacrificing money. </p>
<p>We then show that those who behaved cooperatively in such small-scale decision tasks were more likely to report engaging in pro-environmental behaviour than individuals who cooperated less.</p>
<p>We also found a positive relationship between cooperation in these games and climate change beliefs. Individuals who cooperated more were more likely to believe in human-caused climate change than individuals who cooperated less.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526390/original/file-20230516-29-melcmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=10%2C40%2C6699%2C4426&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526390/original/file-20230516-29-melcmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526390/original/file-20230516-29-melcmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526390/original/file-20230516-29-melcmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526390/original/file-20230516-29-melcmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526390/original/file-20230516-29-melcmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526390/original/file-20230516-29-melcmo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research found those individuals who were willing to cooperate with strangers to achieve group interests were more likely to believe in human-caused climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aurora Samperio/Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Linking cooperation and action</h2>
<p>Our findings are striking because when people played our games we made no mention of any real-world scenario. The only connection between the games and climate change or the environment was the fact they all involve an opportunity to cooperate in a social dilemma. What, then, might explain the connection?</p>
<p>It is possible that cooperators in our games were also more willing to make sacrifices for the environment and come to believe in climate change as a possible justification for their actions. Here the action drives the beliefs. </p>
<p>Alternatively, it may be that those who are more cooperative find belief in climate change more palatable and as a result come to take pro-environmental action. Here the beliefs drive the subsequent actions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-relentless-seemingly-small-shifts-have-big-consequences-166139">Climate change is relentless: Seemingly small shifts have big consequences</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We found at least some evidence for the second scenario – those who are more cooperative tended to believe in the facts of climate change and were willing to take action.</p>
<p>Linking climate change to a general drive to cooperate makes us optimistic. <a href="http://www.accessecon.com/pubs/EB/2006/Volume3/EB-06C90001A.pdf">Prior work</a> using games very similar to those we used showed people were more likely to cooperate if they believed their peers would do so too. This emphasises the importance of speaking across ideological divides, rather than confining our interactions to those who think like us.</p>
<h2>Giving to big and small causes</h2>
<p>Intriguingly, we also found a larger proportion of the cooperative types tended to be Green Party supporters rather than National or Labour. This suggests the broad pro-social tendency tapped by the cooperative phenotype may also explain some of the variance in political party support. </p>
<p>This may also be an important predictor of climate change beliefs and pro-environmental behaviour.</p>
<p>Crucially, this doesn’t mean conservatives are less generous. Evidence suggests that when it comes to cooperative issues like contributing to charity, conservatives and progressives don’t differ in how much they give, so much as who they give to. </p>
<p>While progressives are more comfortable with contributing to large anonymous groups (such as charities or governmental agencies), conservative giving is often much more targeted at the <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-likely-to-fund-local-causes-but-liberals-are-more-apt-to-also-donate-to-national-and-global-groups-new-research-188571">local community level</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687">Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This may partly explain the differences in stance toward climate change, since typical climate change proposals tend to be more global than local.</p>
<p>Our findings apply primarily to a developed Western population and more work is needed to generalise beyond this. However, our work offers the promise that a potential way to change minds is to convince people that climate change issues are merely a larger-scale extension of local social dilemmas. </p>
<p>The more an individual cooperates in micro-scale social dilemmas, the more likely he or she is to cooperate in the large-scale dilemma of climate change and to believe in its reality.</p>
<p>This way of recasting the issue may provide a way of building support for combating climate change across the ideological spectrum.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205469/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ananish Chaudhuri receives funding from Royal Society of NZ Marsden Fund Grant.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Quentin Douglas Atkinson receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Claessens does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Belief in climate change seems to be linked to willingness to cooperate for the common good. This suggests there may be ways to bridge ideological divides to combat complex problems.Ananish Chaudhuri, Professor of Behavioural and Experimental Economics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauQuentin Douglas Atkinson, Professor of Psychology, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauScott Claessens, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata RauLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1983032023-04-18T10:51:28Z2023-04-18T10:51:28ZClimate change: multi-country media analysis shows scepticism of the basic science is dying out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/520517/original/file-20230412-16-b8s3ra.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C0%2C5097%2C2880&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Frame Stock Footage/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Any regular viewer of BBC’s Question Time could be forgiven for thinking that old-fashioned climate science denialism is alive and kicking. In a recent edition, panellist Julia Hartley-Brewer called the IPCC’s climate models “complete nonsense”, and dismissed the 2022 record UK heatwave and the floods in Pakistan <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/bbc-question-time-julia-hartley-brewer-b2212827.html">by saying</a>: “It’s called weather.”</p>
<p>But for some time now, researchers have suggested that the balance of arguments propagated by climate sceptics or denialists has shifted from denying or undermining climate science to challenging policy solutions designed to reduce emissions.</p>
<p>For example, computer-assisted methods applied to thousands of contrarian blogs or websites have found that since the year 2000, “evidence scepticism” which argues that climate change is not happening, or is not caused by humans or the effects won’t be too bad, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01714-4/figures/2">has been on the decline</a>, while “response” or “solutions scepticism” has been on the rise. </p>
<p>In the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963662515612276">US media</a> and UK media, there is strong evidence too that the prevalence of these arguments may be shifting. By 2019 <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac14eb">much less space was being given to those denying the science</a> in newspaper outlets in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US, except in some right-leaning titles.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521319/original/file-20230417-18-z0vd8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="tablet showing climate change news article" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521319/original/file-20230417-18-z0vd8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/521319/original/file-20230417-18-z0vd8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521319/original/file-20230417-18-z0vd8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521319/original/file-20230417-18-z0vd8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=323&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521319/original/file-20230417-18-z0vd8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521319/original/file-20230417-18-z0vd8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/521319/original/file-20230417-18-z0vd8v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">From denial to delay.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skorzewiak / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But what about television coverage? <a href="https://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2020/how-people-access-news-about-climate-change/">Recent survey work</a> finds that in most countries, television programmes, including news and documentaries, are by far the most used source of information on climate change compared to online news, print or radio.</p>
<p>In a new study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00760-2">Communications Earth & Environment</a> my colleagues and I looked at 30 news programmes on 20 channels in Australia, Brazil, Sweden, the UK and the US which included coverage of a <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/">2021 report by the IPCC</a> on the physical science basis of climate change. Australia, the UK and the US were chosen for their long history of climate scepticism, whereas Brazil and Sweden were included for the more recent arrival of scepticism among key political parties.</p>
<p>These channels included 19 “mainstream” examples such as the BBC, ABC in Australia and NBC in America, and 11 examples from a selection of “right-wing” channels ranging from Fox News, which commands a large audience, to more outliers such as GBTV in the UK, SwebbTV in Sweden, Sky News in Australia and Rede TV! in Brazil. </p>
<p>We then watched and manually coded all 30 programmes (around 220 minutes of content) for examples of the different types of scepticism present, following the broad distinction above between “evidence” and “response/policy” scepticism. But we also distinguished between “general response” scepticism, usually advanced by organised sceptical groups, and “directed” response scepticism, where country-specific economic, social and political obstacles to enacting climate policies were mentioned.</p>
<h2>Science scepticism is no longer mainstream</h2>
<p>First, we found that on mainstream channels, the presence of science scepticism, science sceptics and general contestation around the IPCC’s report was much less present in our sample than in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2535%2520(2015).">coverage of the previous round of IPCC reports</a> in 2013 and 2014, even in countries that have historically had strong traditions of science denial.</p>
<p>Second, response scepticism was in some of the coverage by mainstream channels. But in most cases, these were examples of “directed” scepticism. In contrast, there was more non-specific response scepticism on right-wing channels such as right-wing politician and pro-Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage on GBTV arguing that “whatever we do here [in the UK], it’s China that needs to do far more than us”, or a commentator on Fox News suggesting that “only being able to fly when it is morally justifiable would lead to people having to entirely change their lifestyles”.</p>
<p>Also on right-wing channels, in four countries (Australia, Sweden, the UK and the US) sceptics were combining evidence and response scepticism. For example, Fox News continued its historical record of scepticism by criticising the IPCC report and hosting evidence sceptics, but it also included a wide range of examples of response scepticism (such as the infringement on civil liberties by taking climate action). </p>
<p>Finally, we looked at the sorts of arguments that were being made, following a useful <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-01714-4/figures/1">taxonomy of climate scepticism or obstructionism</a> published in the journal Nature in 2021. We found a wide variety of claims, but the most common concerned the high cost of taking action and “whataboutism” (typically questioning the need to take action when other countries such as China were not doing enough).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505967/original/file-20230123-17-erknkr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graph showing types of policy scepticism" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505967/original/file-20230123-17-erknkr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505967/original/file-20230123-17-erknkr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505967/original/file-20230123-17-erknkr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505967/original/file-20230123-17-erknkr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505967/original/file-20230123-17-erknkr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505967/original/file-20230123-17-erknkr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505967/original/file-20230123-17-erknkr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=608&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The most common policy scepticism concerned the economic cost of climate action.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Painter et al / Nature Comms</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Why does this matter? First, how these arguments play out on television is hugely important because of its dominance as a source of climate information. Second, there is strong evidence that media has a very powerful agenda-setting effect, and in certain contexts, can exert a strong <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619328045">effect on attitudes and behaviour change</a>.</p>
<p>Legitimate policy discussion needs to be carefully distinguished from false claims put out by organised sceptical groups. But for those active in opposing organised scepticism, any definitive shift towards response scepticism across the media, such as <a href="https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/beware-misinformation-and-propaganda-about-the-cost-of-energy-crisis/">vocal opposition to net zero policies</a>, represents an important new challenge to climate action.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198303/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Painter has worked as an external consultant for the IPCC. </span></em></p>We watched 30 news programmes in five countries to see how they covered an IPCC report.James Painter, Research Associate, Reuters Institute, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1991012023-02-07T04:48:27Z2023-02-07T04:48:27ZThe new climate denial? Using wealth to insulate yourself from discomfort and change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508515/original/file-20230206-25-2k19ts.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C32%2C5447%2C3596&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>While the days of overt climate denial are <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-number-of-climate-deniers-in-australia-is-more-than-double-the-global-average-new-survey-finds-140450">mostly over</a>, there’s a distinct form of denial emerging in its stead. You may have experienced it and not even realised. It’s called <a href="https://ncse.ngo/why-it-called-denial">implicatory denial</a>, and it happens when you consciously recognise climate change as a serious threat without making significant changes to your everyday behaviour in response. </p>
<p>Much research has focused on how we intellectually distance ourselves from the unpleasant realities happening around us. What requires greater attention is how we may engage in climate denial by seeking out spaces of sensory comfort and using them to shield ourselves as the world unravels outside our window. </p>
<p>Denial, thought of in this way, is entirely sensible. My colleagues and I <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02637758231153399">asked residents</a> around the Western Sydney suburb of Penrith – famously the <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/sydneys-penrith-the-hottest-place-on-earth-amid-devastating-bushfires/zrxrj54sw">hottest place on Earth</a> during the Black Summer of 2019-20 – about their experiences during heatwave conditions. Unsurprisingly, sensory denial is central to how they cope with extremes – primarily by using air conditioning. </p>
<p>Those without access to aircon resorted to wetting towels, or using fans and spray bottles. While these low-cost strategies are actually more <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673621012095">sustainable</a> than aircon, people don’t like them as much. Given the opportunity, we’re likely to engage in sensory climate denial as a way to insulate ourselves from experiences of climate change. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508551/original/file-20230207-21-j4263a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Hot sun" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508551/original/file-20230207-21-j4263a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508551/original/file-20230207-21-j4263a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508551/original/file-20230207-21-j4263a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508551/original/file-20230207-21-j4263a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508551/original/file-20230207-21-j4263a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508551/original/file-20230207-21-j4263a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508551/original/file-20230207-21-j4263a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">If you could flee a heatwave, of course you would. But it’s a risk to pretend climate change isn’t happening.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why do our senses matter when it comes to climate denial?</h2>
<p>We tend to think of climate denial as a delaying tactic used by fossil fuel advocates. This is not wrong, given climate denial was strategically <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273">created and fostered</a> by politicians and coal, oil and gas companies with vested interests in stalling action and <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-shift-tactics-to-inactivism/">deflecting responsibility</a>. </p>
<p>Researchers have historically <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378011000173">linked climate denial</a> to inadequate knowledge, sociopolitical biases or <a href="https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/soc4.12586">emotional defence</a>. Other researchers have focused on <a href="https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/eco.2012.0051">beliefs</a>, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0023566">psychological barriers</a>, and <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/3/935">moral disengagement</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-hits-low-income-earners-harder-and-poor-housing-in-hotter-cities-is-a-disastrous-combination-180960">Climate change hits low-income earners harder – and poor housing in hotter cities is a disastrous combination</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But focusing on how and why we think overlooks the main way we actually respond to our environments: our bodies. The role of our senses and their influence on our everyday behaviour tends to be overlooked in social and political thought. Reckoning with climate change inaction demands we return to our senses. Here, we find climate denial is more than just a political tool. </p>
<p>Within our communities, it’s the way in which different segments of society are able to maintain a physical sense of normalcy and comfort, while others bear the brunt of climate disasters. </p>
<p>A heatwave in Western Sydney in 2016-17 reflects this clear divide, as colleagues and I found in <a href="https://www.sydney.edu.au/content/dam/corporate/documents/sydney-environment-institute/publications/reports/insights-into-community-urban-resilience.pdf">earlier research</a>. </p>
<p>People who lived in households without aircon were hit hard by the heat. It affected their bodies and emotions, making them fatigued, sometimes nauseous, anxious and stressed. It was hard for them to do anything other than swelter or seek out spaces of relief where possible. In contrast, people with aircon were far less affected, or even unbothered by the heat. They knew there was a heatwave, but it didn’t directly affect them. </p>
<p>One resident told us of trying to sleep without aircon: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you only get maybe three or four hours sleep – and it’s not good sleep – … it’s like, “I can cope today.” (By) the third sleep, it’s like, “Please keep away from me” … And every day after that just gets worse and worse.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another resident told us of the relief she felt at being able to leave her overheated house, taking her kids and staying at a friend’s house with both air conditioning and a pool. “It was like a holiday,” she said. </p>
<p>Both groups were being entirely rational in seeking relief from the overwhelming heat in whatever ways they could. Those without aircon longed for the relief it would bring. </p>
<p>For those with aircon, their main concern was the cost of running it. While this is a burden, the fact this was their main worry indicates aircon worked. Their relative wealth shielded them. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1353467324154540032"}"></div></p>
<h2>Why does this matter?</h2>
<p>If we use technologies like aircon to avoid dealing with the root causes of climate change, we are in denial. </p>
<p>As the world heats up, demand for air conditioning has skyrocketed. The International Energy Agency <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-cooling">has estimated</a> that by 2050, up to two-thirds of the world’s households will have installed aircon, particularly in China, India and Indonesia.</p>
<p>As a privatised answer to a public problem, aircon reliance has been normalised to the point of invisibility. When we use our air conditioners to fend off a heatwave, we can <a href="https://www.coolingpost.com/world-news/us-could-face-blackouts-due-to-domestic-ac-use">overwhelm</a> the power grid and trigger local blackouts. Worse, with today’s energy sources, our need for sensory comfort causes yet more emissions to be pumped into the atmosphere. On a street level, air conditioners make your house colder and the outside air warmer still. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508557/original/file-20230207-21-2688v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="standing fan" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508557/original/file-20230207-21-2688v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/508557/original/file-20230207-21-2688v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508557/original/file-20230207-21-2688v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508557/original/file-20230207-21-2688v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508557/original/file-20230207-21-2688v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508557/original/file-20230207-21-2688v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/508557/original/file-20230207-21-2688v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">During heatwaves, people try fans, wet towels and spray bottles - but prefer aircon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This pattern of sensory comfort for wealthier people is <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1745-5871.12498">systemically</a> reinforced in for-profit housing developments, while lower-income rentals and public housing are <a href="https://www.preventionweb.net/news/climate-change-hits-low-income-earners-harder-and-poor-housing-hotter-cities-disastrous">legally and financially excluded</a>. These residents are forced to rely instead on <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/homes-aren-t-safe-western-sydney-prepares-evacuation-shelters-for-hot-summers-20220505-p5aioj.html">evacuation shelters</a> or spending hours in airconditioned shopping centres. </p>
<p>This kind of denial, then, is tied to forms of privilege. To be able to literally shut out climate disruption and pretend everything is normal speaks to our universal desire to live in comfort and without pain. But as the climate warps, this is possible only for some. </p>
<p>If you had the opportunity, of course you would shut yourself and your loved ones away from the disruption, discomfort and danger of heatwaves, floods and bushfires. </p>
<p>The risk is we anaesthetise ourselves to what’s really going on. Inequality is rampant in Australia and worldwide, and people without the means to insulate themselves will suffer the most. </p>
<p>To tackle sensory climate denial means understanding that immunity to climate disruption is a temporary fantasy. As our ecosystems and climatic stability crumble, this kind of denial will inevitably vanish. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/high-energy-costs-make-vulnerable-households-reluctant-to-use-air-conditioning-study-86624">High energy costs make vulnerable households reluctant to use air conditioning: study</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/199101/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah Della Bosca does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If there’s an unprecedented heatwave outside, do you turn up the aircon and pretend unwelcome change isn’t happening? If so, you’re not aloneHannah Della Bosca, PhD Candidate and Research Assistant at Sydney Environment Institute, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1988732023-01-31T07:49:04Z2023-01-31T07:49:04ZWe’ve lost a giant: Vale Professor Will Steffen, climate science pioneer<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507270/original/file-20230131-17-151dp2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=134%2C74%2C9850%2C4910&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>One of Australia’s leading climate scientists, Professor Will Steffen, died on Sunday. Steffen has been hailed as a brilliant climate thinker, selfless mentor and gifted communicator. He is survived by his wife Carrie and daughter Sonja. Steffen’s colleagues and friends remember him here.</em></p>
<h2>John Finnigan - Honorary Fellow, CSIRO</h2>
<p>The last time I talked to Will was in early January. We had a drink or two before I left for a few weeks work in the United States. He was looking forward with optimism to an operation to get rid of the cancer he had dealt with for a year so he could get on with his life. Unfortunately, there were complications. </p>
<p>The world has lost an enormously influential environmental scientist. And I’ve lost a very dear friend. </p>
<p>Will Steffen and I were close friends for more than 40 years. I came from England to Canberra in the 1970s, and Will came from the US. At that time, it seemed like everyone in Canberra was from somewhere else. As a result, we formed a kind of family. We’d look after each other’s children, or do babysitting so the others could go cross-country skiing. Will and his wife Carrie looked after our kids and we looked after theirs. </p>
<p>I was a scientist at CSIRO when Will joined us as an editor and information officer. Very soon, his obvious scientific intelligence meant he was headhunted to the nascent <a href="http://www.igbp.net">International Geosphere Biosphere Program</a>, an international consortium of scientists. This was the early 1980s, when the field now known as Earth system science was just taking off. Will proved enormously effective, not just as a manager but as a synthesiser and broadcaster of his group’s ideas.</p>
<p>Many of those ideas are now mainstream but back then, they were radical. Ideas such as the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053019614564785">Great Acceleration</a> – the sudden increase in our impact on the environment since the 1950s, brought about by trends such as spiking fossil fuel use, and population growth. </p>
<p>After Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/415023a">proposed</a> that the world had entered a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, Will ran with the concept. He helped popularise the idea that our collective activity is now a force as potent as natural forces in shaping our planet.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dawn-of-the-anthropocene-five-ways-we-know-humans-have-triggered-a-new-geological-epoch-52867">Dawn of the Anthropocene: five ways we know humans have triggered a new geological epoch</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Will was also a skilled rock and ice climber who climbed mountains all over the world. In 1988 he was part of the ANU expedition which climbed Nepal’s 7,162 metre Mount Baruntse, an icy spire east of Everest. Of his climbing, Will once said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Climbing is like science. To get up a hard rock or ice climb, just like when you’re solving a problem in the carbon cycle, you have to be ultra-focused, you have to make holistic decisions and you have to be absolutely aware of your surroundings. When you come off a big climb, you really appreciate the beauty of what’s around you. That’s the buzz you get in science when you solve a big problem and suddenly see how it all fits together.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the best of ways, Will could also be a stubborn bugger. He refused to let things defeat him – whether on the mountain or taking on climate deniers. On the latter, he was never accommodating. And he’d never fall for their leading questions. He knew how easy it was to edit an interview to twist his words and was smart enough to insist interviews were live. </p>
<p>I remember one interview where he was asked if he accepted carbon dioxide was good for humanity. I might have made the mistake of saying “yes, at certain levels”. But Will knew how to avoid those traps. He said something like: “No. That’s the wrong way to think of it.” He never got boxed in. </p>
<p>During the decade of political climate wars in Australia, Will got a lot of abuse on social media. At one stage, his office at the Australian National University had to be locked down due to death threats. It didn’t stop him. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="people rally and hold signs" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507284/original/file-20230131-24-elj8ul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507284/original/file-20230131-24-elj8ul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507284/original/file-20230131-24-elj8ul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507284/original/file-20230131-24-elj8ul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507284/original/file-20230131-24-elj8ul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507284/original/file-20230131-24-elj8ul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507284/original/file-20230131-24-elj8ul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Steffen shrugged off the social media abuse he copped during the political climate wars.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Alan Porritt</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>He never saw deniers or obstructionist politicians as his personal enemies. He didn’t waste his time on the negativity of climate politics. While he was angry at the way the selfish actions of vested interests were sacrificing the future of coming generations, including his daughter, Sonja, he did not despair. Instead, he channelled his anger into action. </p>
<p>When the Abbott government <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abbott-shuts-down-climate-commission-20130919-2u185.html">shut down the Climate Commission</a> in 2013, Will and his colleagues – Tim Flannery, Lesley Hughes and Amanda McKenzie – didn’t just quit. Instead they crowd-sourced A$1 million in a week and founded the Climate Council, now a leading independent source of climate advice in Australia. </p>
<p>As well as a hugely influential scientist, Will was a really nice bloke and a true friend. He was calm, not confrontational. He had a wry sense of humour and could see the funny side, even when the climate politics were crazy. </p>
<p>Would he have been happy about recent efforts to speed up action on climate change? Yes and no. </p>
<p>He felt, as I do, that things are much further advanced and much worse than generally recognised. He felt limiting global warming to 1.5°C was already well out of reach and that it was going to be very difficult to keep it under 2°C. </p>
<p>While he was heartened by recent progress, he knew it was all but impossible to change fast enough to keep warming to a safer level. But he knew we had to try. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-stumbling-last-minute-dash-for-climate-respectability-doesnt-negate-a-decade-of-abject-failure-169891">Australia's stumbling, last-minute dash for climate respectability doesn't negate a decade of abject failure</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="bird flies in front of sun" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507282/original/file-20230131-12-8kr9t0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/507282/original/file-20230131-12-8kr9t0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507282/original/file-20230131-12-8kr9t0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507282/original/file-20230131-12-8kr9t0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507282/original/file-20230131-12-8kr9t0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507282/original/file-20230131-12-8kr9t0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/507282/original/file-20230131-12-8kr9t0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Steffen knew keeping warming to a safe level was all but impossible – but he knew we had to try.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dave Hunt/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Pep Canadell - Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO</h2>
<p>Will Steffen took global environmental research to a whole new level.</p>
<p>Beginning when fax machines were the main tool to communicate across multiple time zones, Will developed unparalleled skill in scientific diplomacy and leadership. His work helped create research networks across the world involving tens of thousands of scientists. </p>
<p>In the 1980s, environmental research labs and individual scientists were mostly still working on their own. The new scientific networks spurred on by Will’s brokering made globally coordinated research possible. This was necessary to understand the planetary changes caused by human activity.</p>
<p>Will achieved this global impact through positions such as executive director of the highly influential International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP). His most powerful tools were his never-ending appetite for the very latest science, his kind nature and genuine people skills, his focus and hard work ethic, and his exceptional communication abilities which let him convey the gravity of complex problems and the need for immediate action.</p>
<p>I came to Australia in the late 1990s to take the job Will had left when he moved to Sweden to become the director of the IGBP. I was never able to fill his shoes. But I have tried, with colleagues, to build on his work in bringing together many strands of research.</p>
<p>Will was a visionary in many ways. He understood the environmental problems we were trying to solve spanned many academic disciplines and were deeply interconnected. Few people had his ability to absorb so many diverse types of science and to work with the diverse research communities whose expertise was urgently needed as part of the solutions. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1619950968984186883"}"></div></p>
<h2>Steve Lade - ARC Future Fellow, Australian National University</h2>
<p>I first encountered Will during one of his talks in Canberra. He was an incredible public speaker and a role model for how a scientific specialist could broaden themselves into a holistic thinker on the most important topics imaginable. Hearing him as a PhD student changed the direction of my career.</p>
<p>My scientific interactions with Will began in the mid-2010s as a researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, where he was a frequent visitor. Will had recently co-developed the <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1259855">planetary boundaries framework</a>, now one of the most influential ideas in sustainability science. </p>
<p>These boundaries show us the environment is not boundless and elastic, able to absorb all that we throw at it or take from it. Our planet has limits – and if we push too far, we will <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-hate-to-say-i-told-you-so-but-australia-you-were-warned-130211">break something</a>, leading to dramatic changes to the only life-bearing planet we know of. </p>
<p>Planetary boundaries are just one of his discipline-changing contributions to sustainability science - others include co-developing the concept of the Great Acceleration and promoting the concept of the Anthropocene. His ideas were grounded in his view of the Earth as a complex, interconnected, evolving system. </p>
<p>Viewing the world <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0005-6">in this way</a> helps us understand what we have done to our environment – and how to begin fixing the problems. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1620185137718902792"}"></div></p>
<p>Will’s scientific, policy and advocacy efforts were directed at helping us recognise our role as planet-shapers. He knew we must transform our mindset from exploitation to stewardship if we, and our planet as we know it, are to survive. </p>
<p>His career is an exemplar of how to be an interdisciplinary, inclusive, caring and socially responsible sustainability scientist. Let us continue his legacy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/failure-is-not-an-option-after-a-lost-decade-on-climate-action-the-2020s-offer-one-last-chance-158913">'Failure is not an option': after a lost decade on climate action, the 2020s offer one last chance</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198873/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Mountaineer and scientist Will Steffen said climbing was similar to science: “That’s the buzz you get in science when you solve a big problem and suddenly see how it all fits together”John Finnigan, Leader, Complex Systems Science, CSIROPep Canadell, Chief Research Scientist, Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIROSteven J Lade, Resilience researcher at Australian National University, Stockholm UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1979442023-01-27T16:52:16Z2023-01-27T16:52:16ZExxon scientists accurately forecast climate change back in the 1970s – what if we had listened to them and acted then?<p>Writers of speculative- and science-fiction often identify a key point in time and explore how a seemingly insignificant event might change the path of humanity. </p>
<p>One of these moments came in the 1970s when oil giant Exxon chose to ignore its own commissioned research on the impact of fossil fuels. A new analysis published in the journal <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063">Science</a> has found that Exxon’s forecasts from that era have proven incredibly accurate, yet it did not act to prevent its own predictions from happening.</p>
<p>Instead, the company chose to maintain its role as an oil company and fund people to question the science and delay a coherent response. Staggeringly, in 1996 the company’s chief executive, Lee Raymond, <a href="https://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/global-warming-who-is-right-1996/">referred to</a> “the unproven theory that [fossil fuels] affect the earth’s climate”. The company, now known as ExxonMobil, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64241994">denies the allegations</a>, saying “those who talk about how ‘Exxon Knew’ are wrong in their conclusions”.</p>
<p>So what if the senior executives of Exxon had seen their own research as a business opportunity? Here’s one way things might have worked out.</p>
<h2>Ahead of the emissions curve</h2>
<p>Following the publication of terrifying research by Exxon in the late 1970s and the “energy crisis” in 1979, the policy direction of the US changes forever. </p>
<p>Nasa’s earth sciences funding is soon increased. The agency responds enthusiastically by launching several satellites which over the 1980s confirms the Exxon research beyond any reasonable doubt – the world is indeed warming, thanks to human-caused emissions. </p>
<p>Senator (and in this world future president) Al Gore invites Nasa’s James Hansen to present his findings, supported by the work of Exxon, to congress. As a result the US government commits to a net zero carbon economy by 2000. (A similar presentation <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html">happened in our world</a> but, faced with greater scientific scepticism, it didn’t have much immediate policy impact.) </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504906/original/file-20230117-11-6bznib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graph of long-term temperature changes" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504906/original/file-20230117-11-6bznib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504906/original/file-20230117-11-6bznib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504906/original/file-20230117-11-6bznib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504906/original/file-20230117-11-6bznib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504906/original/file-20230117-11-6bznib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504906/original/file-20230117-11-6bznib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504906/original/file-20230117-11-6bznib.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A 1977 internally-reported Exxon graph, showing a ‘carbon dioxide-induced 'super-interglacial’‘</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063">Supran et al / Science</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Solar provides power – and food</h2>
<p>Following this, Exxon establishes a massive <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-solar-thermal-electricity-51210">solar thermal power plant</a> in the Californian desert. Unfortunately, complex engineering and intermittent energy production make it a challenging addition to the US energy grid. However, after ten years of research, the tech is exported to Egypt and Morocco where the output was more than enough to power these countries. </p>
<p>Further research results in enormous economic growth as the technology not only <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211115-how-morocco-led-the-world-on-clean-solar-energy">produces power</a> but food through the use of <a href="https://seawatergreenhouse.com/">seawater greenhouses</a>. By 2000, North Africa is the main exporter of large solar power plants around the world. This economic success is matched in northern Europe with government-supported firms developing offshore wind turbines and tidal power throughout the 90s.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504908/original/file-20230117-13536-v65nkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Mirrors in desert, viewed from above" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504908/original/file-20230117-13536-v65nkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504908/original/file-20230117-13536-v65nkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504908/original/file-20230117-13536-v65nkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504908/original/file-20230117-13536-v65nkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504908/original/file-20230117-13536-v65nkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504908/original/file-20230117-13536-v65nkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504908/original/file-20230117-13536-v65nkc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Huge solar thermal plants could have been built decades earlier.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Fly_and_Dive / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Petrol becomes a quaint hobby</h2>
<p>Back in the US, Exxon teams up with General Motors to develop in the late 1980s the first production electric vehicle, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1">EV1</a>. (This existed in our world too, but not until a decade later). The car uses <a href="https://www.designnews.com/aerospace/batteries-powered-lunar-module">Nasa-patented batteries</a> and space-age materials to produce cars that outperform petroleum vehicles in every area but extreme range. </p>
<p>Exxon’s PR machine devises a “plugging into the Sun” programme promoting micro rooftop solar panels that refuel the EV1s for free. Millions of systems are manufactured and installed by subsidiaries of Exxon making it the wealthiest “energy” company on the planet. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://microgridprojects.com/india-microgrids/">micro-grids</a> developed for car charging are also suitable for developing countries without large electrical grids. A second wave of development occurs, this time driven internally by countries across the southern hemisphere. Exxon is held up as alleviating extreme poverty across the world and improving the lives of billions.</p>
<p>By the late 1990s, huge <a href="https://ambri.com/">“liquid metal” batteries</a> allow inter-seasonal energy storage, creating an energy reserve sufficient to allow the roll out of large wind and solar projects around the world. This makes coal and oil too expensive for energy production and its use is ramped down and eventually put into the history books by 1997. </p>
<p>The use of petroleum and gas does continue in the domestic sector, but <a href="https://www.hockertonhousingproject.org.uk/">construction moves beyond the need for active heating and cooling</a> by the end of the decade and use of petroleum cars is seen as a quaint hobby for those that wish to use this very risky fuel. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504911/original/file-20230117-14-nbya3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="rusty old cars with moss growing on them" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504911/original/file-20230117-14-nbya3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/504911/original/file-20230117-14-nbya3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504911/original/file-20230117-14-nbya3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504911/original/file-20230117-14-nbya3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504911/original/file-20230117-14-nbya3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504911/original/file-20230117-14-nbya3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/504911/original/file-20230117-14-nbya3c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">RIP petrol cars.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Samoli / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Collapse averted</h2>
<p>The age of oil is not entirely over. Demand for petrol continues at a level that oil companies are still able to make a small profit (environmentalists claim the oil companies are making “gas cars” cool so they don’t lose their final market). </p>
<p>However, seeing the opportunity for the manufacture of gasoline, many renewable energy firms begin the manufacture of “synth oil”, another space age output. The mineral oil companies push back but are unable to compete with the extremely low energy prices of synth oil as it uses virtually free energy from renewable energy systems off-peak.</p>
<p>By the 2000s, human society produces barely any greenhouse gases for manufacturing, transport or energy. Things are not perfect, and there are concerns about poverty, conflict, resources running out and the ecological impact of 8 billion humans and their dietary choices. The challenge for a stable, sustainable human society continues. </p>
<p>But climatic collapse – as we understand it in our world today – has largely been avoided.</p>
<p>And Exxon? Much like in our own timeline, Exxon is one of the world’s largest companies. But its massive rollout of distributed solar systems has also made it one of the world’s most liked companies.</p>
<p>In our world, former US vice president Al Gore won the Nobel peace prize in 2007 together with the UN’s climate advisory body, the IPCC. In this world, Gore still gets a Nobel for his work in the 1990s, but shares it with Exxon CEO Lee Raymond – there is less need for an IPCC as scientists were listened to three decades previously. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 10,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197944/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Grant does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An alternate timeline that ends with a Nobel prize for Exxon’s CEO.John Grant, Senior Lecturer in Natural and Built Environment, Sheffield Hallam UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1886462022-08-15T06:47:44Z2022-08-15T06:47:44ZFor 110 years, climate change has been in the news. Are we finally ready to listen?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479084/original/file-20220815-46424-gjy4pp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=580%2C59%2C3413%2C2838&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mike Marrah/Unsplash</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On August 14 1912, a small New Zealand newspaper published a short article announcing global coal usage was affecting our planet’s temperature. </p>
<p>This piece from 110 years ago is now famous, shared across the internet this time every year as one of the first pieces of climate science in the media (even though it was <a href="https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/">actually a reprint</a> of a <a href="https://www.braidwoodtimes.com.au/story/3848574/old-news-goes-viral/">piece published</a> in a New South Wales mining journal a month earlier).</p>
<p>So how did it come about? And why has it taken so long for the warnings in the article to be heard – and acted on? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Short newspaper article with the headline " src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479049/original/file-20220814-56152-53xz8d.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479049/original/file-20220814-56152-53xz8d.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479049/original/file-20220814-56152-53xz8d.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479049/original/file-20220814-56152-53xz8d.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=530&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479049/original/file-20220814-56152-53xz8d.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479049/original/file-20220814-56152-53xz8d.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479049/original/file-20220814-56152-53xz8d.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=667&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This short 1912 article made the direct link between burning coal and global temperature changes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, National Library of Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The fundamental science has been understood for a long time</h2>
<p>American scientist and women’s rights campaigner Eunice Foote is now <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687">widely credited</a> as being the first person to demonstrate the greenhouse effect back in 1856, several years before United Kingdom researcher John Tyndall <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2018.0066">published similar results</a>. </p>
<p>Her rudimentary experiments showed carbon dioxide and water vapour can absorb heat, which, scaled up, can affect the temperature of the earth. We’ve therefore known about the relationship between greenhouse gases and Earth’s temperature for at least 150 years. </p>
<p>Four decades later, Swedish scientist Svente Arrhenius did some basic calculations to estimate how much the Earth’s temperature would change if we doubled the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere. At the time, the CO₂ levels were around 295 parts per million molecules of air. This year, <a href="https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/carbon-dioxide-now-more-than-50-higher-than-pre-industrial-levels#:%7E:text=Carbon%20dioxide%20measured%20at%20NOAA's,of%20California%20San%20Diego%20announced">we’ve hit</a> 421 parts per million – more than 50% higher than pre-industrial times. </p>
<p>Arrhenius estimated doubling CO₂ would produce a world 5°C hotter. This, thankfully, is higher than <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-much-will-earth-warm-if-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels">modern calculations</a> but not too far off, considering he wasn’t using a sophisticated computer model! At the time, the Swede was more worried about moving into a new ice age than global warming, but by the 1900s he was <a href="https://twitter.com/backwards_river/status/789899093980041216?s=20&t=T5zQaDBe3lHA7ycTWuYOJQ">startling his classes</a> with news the world was slowly warming due to the burning of coal. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-understood-physics-of-climate-change-in-the-1800s-thanks-to-a-woman-named-eunice-foote-164687">Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Climate science began on the fringe</h2>
<p>The 1912 New Zealand snippet was likely based on a four-page spread from <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA339&lpg=PA339&dq=francis+molena&source=bl&ots=QvdH_SeLQp&sig=VCngnDPxcH8kWRn3Skus7fUZ6C4&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=francis%20molena&f=false">Popular Mechanics</a> magazine, which drew from the work of Arrhenius and others. </p>
<p>When climate advocates point to articles like this and say we knew about climate change, this overlooks the fact Arrhenius’ ideas were <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/climate-change-history-journalism-alice-bell.html">generally considered fringe</a>, meaning not many people took them seriously. In fact, there was backlash about how efficient carbon dioxide actually was as a greenhouse gas. </p>
<p>When the first world war began, the topic lost momentum. Oil began its rise, pushing aside promising technologies such as electric cars – which in 1900 <a href="https://www.energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car">had a third</a> of the fledgling US car market – in favour of fossil-fuel technological developments and military goals. The idea humans could affect the whole planet remained on the fringe.</p>
<h2>The Callendar Effect</h2>
<p>It wasn’t until the 1930s that human-induced climate change resurfaced. UK engineer Guy Callendar <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-mild-mannered-biker-triggered-a-huge-debate-over-humans-role-in-climate-change-in-the-early-20th-century-170954">put together weather observations</a> from around the world and found temperatures had already increased. </p>
<p>Not only was Callendar the first to clearly identify a warming trend and connect it to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide, he also teased apart the importance of CO₂ compared to water vapour, another potent greenhouse gas. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479030/original/file-20220814-50124-e51hsv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479030/original/file-20220814-50124-e51hsv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479030/original/file-20220814-50124-e51hsv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479030/original/file-20220814-50124-e51hsv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479030/original/file-20220814-50124-e51hsv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479030/original/file-20220814-50124-e51hsv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479030/original/file-20220814-50124-e51hsv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=686&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Guy Callendar’s 1938 results compared to recent global temperature trend calculations, as published in the latest IPCC assessment report.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">IPCC AR6 WG1</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just like the 1912 article, Callendar also underestimated the rate of warming we would see in the 80 years after his first results. He predicted the world would be only 0.39°C hotter by the year 2000, rather than the 1°C we observed. However it did get the attention of researchers, sparking intense scientific debate. </p>
<p>But at the end of the 1930s, the world went to war once more. Callendar’s discoveries swiftly took a backseat to battles, and rebuilding. </p>
<h2>Fresh hope scuttled by merchants of doubt</h2>
<p>In 1957, scientists began the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/feature/65-years-ago-the-international-geophysical-year-begins">International Geophysical Year</a> – an intense investigation of the Earth and its poles and atmosphere. This saw the creation of the atmospheric monitoring stations tracking our steady increase in <a href="https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/">human-caused greenhouse gases</a>. At the same time, oil companies were becoming aware of the impact their business was having on the Earth. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-big-oil-knew-about-climate-change-in-its-own-words-170642">What Big Oil knew about climate change, in its own words</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>During these post-war decades, there was little political polarisation over climate. <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iron-lady-took-strong-stance-on-climate-change/">Margaret Thatcher</a> – hardly a raging leftie – saw global warming as a clear threat during her time as UK Prime Minister. In 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen gave his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVz67cwmxTM">now famous</a> address to the US Congress claiming global warming had already arrived. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479082/original/file-20220815-41355-ysktdq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="mauna loa" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479082/original/file-20220815-41355-ysktdq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479082/original/file-20220815-41355-ysktdq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479082/original/file-20220815-41355-ysktdq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479082/original/file-20220815-41355-ysktdq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479082/original/file-20220815-41355-ysktdq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479082/original/file-20220815-41355-ysktdq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/479082/original/file-20220815-41355-ysktdq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hawaii’s Mauna Loa observatory has kept track of carbon dioxide levels since 1958, the longest observational record of greenhouse gases.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Momentum was growing. Many conservationists were encouraged by the Montreal Protocol, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/saving-the-ozone-layer-why-the-montreal-protocol-worked-9249">more or less halted</a> the use of ozone-depleting substances to tackle the growing hole in the ozone layer. Surely we could do the same to stop climate change?</p>
<p>As we now know, we didn’t. Phasing out a class of chemicals was one thing. But to wean ourselves off the fossil fuels on which the modern world was built? Much harder.</p>
<p>Climate change became politicised, with conservative pro-business parties around the world adopting climate scepticism. Global media coverage often included a sceptic in the interests of “balance”. This, in turn, made many people believe the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1808044/">jury was still out</a> – when the science was becoming ever more certain and alarming. </p>
<p>With this scepticism came delays. The 1992 Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gases took until 2005 to be ratified. Science — and <a href="https://stories.uea.ac.uk/the-story-behind-the-trick/">scientists themselves</a> — came under attack. Soon a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/aug/08/merchants-of-doubt-oreskes-conway">vicious tussle</a> was underway, with loud voices – often funded by fossil fuel interests – questioning overwhelming scientific evidence. </p>
<p>Sadly for us, these noisy efforts worked to slow action. People refusing to accept the science bought the fossil fuel industry at <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FINAL_CC_The-Lost-Decade_Low-Res.pdf">least another decade </a>, even as climate change continued to increase, with supercharged natural disasters and intensifying heatwaves. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/communicating-climate-change-has-never-been-so-important-and-this-ipcc-report-pulls-no-punches-165252">Communicating climate change has never been so important, and this IPCC report pulls no punches</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The best time to act was 1912. The next best time is now</h2>
<p>After decades of setbacks, climate science and social movements are now <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-attending-a-climate-strike-can-change-minds-most-importantly-your-own-122862">louder than ever</a> in calling for strong and meaningful action.</p>
<p>The science is beyond doubt. While the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 1990 stated global warming “could be largely due to natural variability”, the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/">latest from 2021</a> states humans have “unequivocally […] warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”. </p>
<p>We’ve even seen a <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-news-corps-new-spin-on-climate-change-169733">welcome change</a> in previously sceptical media outlets. And as we saw at May’s federal election, public opinion is on the side of <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-26/climate-change-election-what-are-labors-plans/101094986">the planet</a>. </p>
<p>National and international climate policies are stronger than ever, and although there is still much more to be done, it finally seems that government, business and public sentiment are moving in the same direction. </p>
<p>Let’s use the 110th anniversary of this short snippet as a reminder to keep speaking up and pushing, finally, for the change we must have. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-has-finally-passed-a-huge-climate-bill-australia-needs-to-keep-up-188525">The US has finally passed a huge climate bill. Australia needs to keep up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188646/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Linden Ashcroft receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Newspapers were writing about climate change more than a century ago. Here’s why it’s taken so long to start tackling it.Linden Ashcroft, Lecturer in climate science and science communication, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1759362022-01-28T16:17:52Z2022-01-28T16:17:52ZThree reasons why climate change models are our best hope for understanding the future<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443179/original/file-20220128-21-3qlehw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1413%2C0%2C4165%2C3997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/abstraction-earth-puzzle-pieces-falling-off-42186811">Dan Moeller/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893">a common argument</a> among climate deniers: scientific models cannot predict the future, so why should we trust them to tell us how the climate will change?</p>
<p>This trope recently surfaced in an interview with Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson on Joe Rogan’s podcast. <a href="https://twitter.com/thebadstats/status/1486103450446303234?s=20&t=Ez5UpHJgtKfes9FYTdw6Fg">According to Peterson</a>: “There is no such thing as climate… climate and everything are the same word.” Faced with the impossible task of including “everything” in their equations – and predicting what will happen weeks and months from now – the world’s scientists are incapable of modelling the climate accurately, in Peterson’s view.</p>
<p>As a scientist whose research involves modelling the climate on a global and regional scale, I can say with confidence that this interpretation is wrong. Here are just three reasons why. </p>
<h2>Muddling weather and climate</h2>
<p>Deniers often <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/climate-a-very-short-introduction-9780199641130?cc=gb&lang=en&">confuse the climate with weather</a> when arguing that models are inherently inaccurate. Weather refers to the short-term conditions in the atmosphere at any given time. The climate, meanwhile, is the weather of a region averaged over several decades.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A computer-generated weather map showing pressure systems with lines and colours." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443145/original/file-20220128-21-kn64wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443145/original/file-20220128-21-kn64wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443145/original/file-20220128-21-kn64wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443145/original/file-20220128-21-kn64wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443145/original/file-20220128-21-kn64wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443145/original/file-20220128-21-kn64wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443145/original/file-20220128-21-kn64wl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Forecasting the weather is quite different from modelling the climate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/weather-map-3d-rendering-1123177739">Andrey VP/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Weather predictions have got much <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-weather-forecast-will-always-be-a-bit-wrong-101547">more accurate</a> over the last 40 years, but the chaotic nature of weather means they become unreliable beyond a week or so. Modelling climate change is much easier however, as you are dealing with long-term averages. For example, we know the weather will be warmer in summer and colder in winter. </p>
<p>Here’s a helpful comparison. It is impossible to predict at what age any particular person will die, but we can say with a high degree of confidence what the average life expectancy of a person will be in a particular country. And we can say with 100% confidence that they will die. Just as we can say with absolute certainty that putting greenhouses gases in the atmosphere warms the planet.</p>
<h2>Strength in numbers</h2>
<p>There are a huge range of <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/timeline-history-climate-modelling">climate models</a>, from those attempting to understand specific mechanisms such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-clouds-are-the-missing-piece-in-the-climate-change-puzzle-140812">the behaviour of clouds</a>, to general circulation models (GCM) that are used to predict the future climate of our planet. </p>
<p>There are over 20 major <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work">international research centres</a> where teams of some of the smartest people in the world have built and run these GCMs which contain millions of lines of code representing the very latest understanding of the climate system. These models are continually tested against historic and palaeoclimate data (this refers to climate data from well before direct measurements, like the last ice age), as well as individual climate events such as large volcanic eruptions to make sure they reconstruct the climate, which they do extremely well.</p>
<p>No single model should ever be considered complete as they represent a very complex global climate system. But having so many different models constructed and calibrated independently means that scientists can be confident <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00494.x">when the models agree</a>. </p>
<p>Model predictions from the 1970s and 1980s compare stunningly well with the warming trend that actually occurred over the last four decades. And scientists have been continually testing and improving these models ever since, meaning their predictions are a very robust outcome of our science.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A line graph showing the range of model predictions and the actual temperature record since 1980." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443140/original/file-20220128-15-pet4aa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443140/original/file-20220128-15-pet4aa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443140/original/file-20220128-15-pet4aa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443140/original/file-20220128-15-pet4aa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443140/original/file-20220128-15-pet4aa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443140/original/file-20220128-15-pet4aa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443140/original/file-20220128-15-pet4aa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=454&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How the earliest climate models compared with reality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/climate-change-a-very-short-introduction-9780198867869?cc=gb&lang=en&">Mark Maslin/Oxford University Press</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Errors about error</h2>
<p>Given the climate is such a complicated system, you might reasonably ask how scientists address potential sources of error, especially when modelling the climate over hundreds of years.</p>
<p>The biggest source of uncertainty in all climate change models is how much greenhouse gases humanity will emit over the next 80 years. Scientists account for this by working with economists and social scientists to build scenarios of the future with different emissions trajectories. </p>
<p>We scientists are very aware that models are simplifications of a complex world. But by having so many different models, built by different groups of experts, we can be more certain of the results they produce. All the models show the same thing: put greenhouses gases into the atmosphere and the world warms up. We represent the potential errors by showing the range of warming produced by all the models for each scenario.</p>
<p>In its <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-the-most-sobering-report-card-yet-on-climate-change-and-earths-future-heres-what-you-need-to-know-165395">sixth assessment</a> of the science of climate change, published in August 2021, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that “it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”. How human activity will continue to affect the climate is a difficult question primarily because we do not know how the world will respond to this crisis. But we can count on models, which have a proven record of accuracy, to help us navigate what the future is likely to hold.</p>
<p>What is most worrying about this kind of climate change denial is that it still gets airtime. Shows like The Joe Rogan Experience can host guests peddling misinformation about climate change or the pandemic just to get a ratings boost. Spotify, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotify-strikes-exclusive-podcast-deal-with-joe-rogan-11589913814">it’s reported</a>, paid US$100 million (£75 million) for Rogan’s podcast in 2020 and the platform has <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/joe-rogan-jordan-peterson-spotify-b2001368.html">over 380 million users</a>. Joe Rogan surely does not need a bigger audience or a bigger pay packet, so why not have credible experts on who actually want to help build a better, safer, and healthier world? This is what listeners want to hear about – real problems, real facts, real solutions.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 10,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175936/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Maslin is a Founding Director of Rezatec Ltd, Co-Director of The London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership, a member of Cheltenham Science Festival Advisory Committee and a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board, Sheep Included Ltd and NetZeroNow Advisory Boards. He has received grant funding in the past from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, The Children's Investment Fund Foundation Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received research funding in the past from The Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP, and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.</span></em></p>Climate models from the 1970s and 80s stand up incredibly well when compared with actual warming trends.Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1742662022-01-05T13:47:17Z2022-01-05T13:47:17Z‘Don’t Look Up’: Hollywood’s primer on climate denial illustrates 5 myths that fuel rejection of science<p>Every disaster movie seems to open with a scientist being ignored. <a href="https://www.netflix.com/title/81252357">“Don’t Look Up”</a> is no exception – in fact, people ignoring or flat out denying scientific evidence is the point.</p>
<p>Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Lawrence play astronomers who make a literally Earth-shattering discovery and then try to persuade the president to take action to save humanity. It’s a satire that explores how individuals, scientists, the media and politicians respond when faced with scientific facts that are uncomfortable, threatening and inconvenient.</p>
<p>The movie is <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/12/dont-look-up-adam-mckay-netflix-movie/621104/">an allegory for climate change</a>, showing how those with the power to do something about global warming <a href="https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/michael-e-mann/the-new-climate-war/9781541758223/">willfully avoid</a> taking action and how those with vested interests can mislead the public. But it also reflects science denial more broadly, including what the world has been seeing with COVID-19.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RbIxYm3mKzI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The most important difference between the film’s premise and humanity’s actual looming crisis is that while individuals may be powerless against a comet, everyone can act decisively to stop fueling climate change. </p>
<p>Knowing the myths that feed science denial can help. </p>
<p>As research psychologists and the authors of <a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190944681.001.0001/oso-9780190944681">“Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do About It”</a>, we recognize these aspects of science denial all too well. </p>
<h2>Myth #1: We can’t act unless the science is 100% certain</h2>
<p>The first question President Orlean (Meryl Streep) asks the scientists after they explain that a comet is on a collision course with Earth is, “So how certain is this?” Learning that the certitude is 99.78%, the president’s chief of staff (Jonah Hill) responds with relief: “Oh great, so it’s not 100%!” Government scientist Teddy Oglethorpe (Rob Morgan) replies, “Scientists never like to say 100%.”</p>
<p>This reluctance to claim 100% certainty is a strength of science. Even when the evidence points clearly in one direction, scientists keep exploring to learn more. At the same time, <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-climate-report-profound-changes-are-underway-in-earths-oceans-and-ice-a-lead-author-explains-what-the-warnings-mean-165588">they recognize overwhelming evidence</a> and act on it. The <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/">evidence is overwhelming</a> that Earth’s climate is changing in dangerous ways because of human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, and it has been overwhelming for many years. </p>
<p>When politicians take a “let’s wait and see” attitude toward climate change (or “sit tight and assess,” as the movie puts it), suggesting they need more evidence before taking any action, it’s often a form of science denial.</p>
<h2>Myth #2: Disturbing realities as described by scientists are too difficult for the public to accept</h2>
<p>The title phrase, “Don’t Look Up,” portrays this psychological assumption and how some politicians conveniently use it as an excuse for inaction while promoting their own interests. </p>
<p>Anxiety is a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263">growing and understandable psychological response</a> to climate change. Research shows there are strategies people can use to effectively cope with climate anxiety, such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.004">becoming better informed and talking about the problem with others</a>. This gives individuals a way to manage anxiety while at the same time taking actions to lower the risks.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2bsm45CTCa0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>A 2021 international study found that 80% of individuals are indeed willing to <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2021/09/14/in-response-to-climate-change-citizens-in-advanced-economies-are-willing-to-alter-how-they-live-and-work/pg_2021-09-14_climate_0-01/">make changes in how they live and work</a> to help reduce the effects of climate change.</p>
<h2>Myth #3: Technology will save us, so we don’t have to act</h2>
<p>Often, individuals want to believe in an outcome they prefer, rather than confront reality known to be true, a response that psychologists call <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480">motivated reasoning</a>. </p>
<p>For example, belief that a single technological solution, such as <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">carbon capture</a>, will fix the climate crisis without the need for change in policies, lifestyles and practices may be more grounded in hope than reality. Technology can help reduce our impact on the climate; however, research suggests advances are <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200420125510.htm">unlikely to come quickly enough</a>.</p>
<p>Hoping for such solutions diverts attention from significant changes needed in the way we work, live and play, and is a form of science denial.</p>
<h2>Myth #4: The economy is more important than anything, including impending crises predicted by science</h2>
<p>Taking action to slow climate change will be expensive, but not acting has extraordinary costs – in lives lost as well as property. </p>
<p>Consider the costs of recent Western wildfires. Boulder County, Colorado, lost nearly 1,000 homes to a <a href="https://theconversation.com/devastating-colorado-fires-cap-a-year-of-climate-disasters-in-2021-with-one-side-of-the-country-too-wet-the-other-dangerously-dry-173402">fire on Dec. 30, 2021</a>, after a hot, dry summer and fall and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/12/31/colorado-fires-climate-weather-drought/">little recent rain or snow</a>. A study of California’s fires in 2018 – another hot, dry year – when the town of Paradise burned, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00646-7">estimated the damage</a>, including health costs and economic disruption, at about $148.5 billion.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A runner passes the outlines of burned homes, with unburned houses behind them" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439417/original/file-20220104-19-tp2a2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439417/original/file-20220104-19-tp2a2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439417/original/file-20220104-19-tp2a2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439417/original/file-20220104-19-tp2a2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439417/original/file-20220104-19-tp2a2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439417/original/file-20220104-19-tp2a2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/439417/original/file-20220104-19-tp2a2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nearly 1,000 homes burned in Boulder County, Colo., as strong winds whipped a grass fire through unusually dry landscape on Dec. 30, 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-walks-by-burned-homes-in-the-coal-creek-ranch-news-photo/1362152925">Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When people say we can’t take action because action is expensive, they are in denial of the cost of inaction.</p>
<h2>Myth #5: Our actions should always align with our social identity group</h2>
<p>In a politically polarized society, individuals may feel pressured to make decisions based on what their social group believes. In the case of beliefs about science, this can have dire consequences – as the world has seen with the COVID-19 pandemic. In the U.S. alone, more than <a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days">825,000 people with COVID-19 have died</a> while powerful identity groups actively discourage people from getting vaccines or taking other precautions that could protect them.</p>
<p>Viruses are oblivious to political affiliation, and so is the changing climate. Rising global <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">temperatures</a>, worsening storms and sea level rise will affect everyone in harm’s way, regardless of the person’s social group.</p>
<p><iframe id="gQxOd" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/gQxOd/6/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>How to combat science denial – and climate change</h2>
<p>A comet headed for Earth might leave little for individuals to do, but <a href="https://www.count-us-in.org/en-gb/16-steps/">this is not the case with climate change</a>. People can change their own practices to reduce carbon emissions and, importantly, pressure leaders in government, business and industry <a href="https://thesolutionsproject.org/project-drawdown-solutions-climate-change-sustainable-development/?gclid=CjwKCAiAzrWOBhBjEiwAq85QZ6WdGTMbcwFnZbKi18De_7FXZ77ZDzClaLJrDYGyhyYY-XGUa69_bBoCp3QQAvD_BwE">to take actions</a>, such as reducing fossil fuel use, converting to cleaner energy and changing agricultural practices to reduce emissions.</p>
<p>In our <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Science-Denial-Happens-What-About/dp/0190944684">book</a>, we discuss steps that individuals, educators, science communicators and policymakers can take to confront the science denial that prevents moving forward on this looming issue. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Individuals can check their own motivations and beliefs about climate change and remain open minded to scientific evidence.</p></li>
<li><p>Educators can teach students how to source scientific information and evaluate it.</p></li>
<li><p>Science communicators can explain not just what scientists know but how they know it.</p></li>
<li><p>Policymakers can make decisions based on scientific evidence.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>As scholars who work to help people make sound decisions about complex problems, we encourage people to consume news and science information from sources outside their own identity group. Break out of your social bubble and listen to and talk with others. Look up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174266/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gale Sinatra has received funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, and Mattel Children's Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Barbara K. Hofer has received research funding from the National Science Foundation and Vermont EPSCOR.</span></em></p>Just because something isn’t 100% certain doesn’t mean you ignore it, and other lessons from two researchers who study the problem of science denial.Gale Sinatra, Professor of Education and Psychology, University of Southern CaliforniaBarbara K. Hofer, Professor of Psychology Emerita, MiddleburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1716392021-11-18T21:55:46Z2021-11-18T21:55:46ZClimate change denial 2.0 was on full display at COP26, but there was also pushback<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432719/original/file-20211118-13-6og9cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=95%2C60%2C5682%2C3854&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The consensus-based nature of the UN climate change summits means any single country with a significant fossil fuel interest can either weaken or sink an otherwise stronger multilateral agreement.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali) </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The COP26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland, saw <a href="https://unfccc-cop26.streamworld.de/webcast/us-delegation-cop26-update-3">incremental progress on addressing climate change</a>. <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/world/cop26-pledges-climate-change-analysis/index.html">But even if countries meet their current commitments to reduce emissions</a>, the planet is on course to <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/press/Glasgows-one-degree-2030-credibility-gap-net-zeros-lip-service-to-climate-action/">heat up 2.4 C by the end of the century</a>. This warming will submerge low-lying islands and coastal regions and lead to climate disasters globally.</p>
<p>Despite knowing this, it <a href="https://theconversation.com/30-years-ago-global-warming-became-front-page-news-and-both-republicans-and-democrats-took-it-seriously-97658">remains difficult for governments to address the climate crisis</a>. Part of the reason is the phenomena of <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291353557_Challenging_Climate_Change_The_Denial_Countermovement">climate change denial</a>, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346088327_Sources_and_Amplifiers_of_Climate_Change_Denial">obstructionism</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12211">the lobbying and public relations efforts of the fossil fuel sector</a>.</p>
<p>We are three sociologists who study social aspects of climate change, environmental politics and other environmental issues. One of us (David) attended the climate summit in Glasgow, as well as the Paris conference in 2015. The most recent conference illustrates the shifts in the tactics used by climate change deniers towards what we call “climate change denial 2.0.”</p>
<h2>Climate change denial</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/handbook-of-anti-environmentalism-9781839100215.html">Climate change denial takes several forms</a>. The “classic” form involves <a href="https://www.asanet.org/sociological-view-effort-obstruct-action-climate-change">strategic action by organizations to challenge or spread doubt</a> that human-caused climate change is real.</p>
<p>As several analysts have shown, organized climate change denial has played a major role in shaping <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.370">media coverage</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003">public opinion</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2020.1783730">thwarting progress on climate change policy</a> for the past three decades. Some of the key players include: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x">corporations, conservative think tanks and foundations</a>; wealthy individuals (such as Charles and David Koch), who help fund <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7">key organizations involved in climate change denial</a>; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2241-z">lobbying firms</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764212469800">conservative media</a>. Researchers who have studied the relationships among these groups found they constitute a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2875">climate change denial movement network</a>.</p>
<p>This network has thwarted effective national level climate policy, especially in the United States. It has also contributed to slowing efforts at addressing climate change in other countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. </p>
<p>For example, according to an <a href="https://www.policynote.ca/climate-leadership-plan-big-oils-boardroom/">investigation by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives</a>, the fossil fuel industry played a central role in crafting British Columbia’s disappointing 2016 climate change plan. In addition, key government meetings were held at the headquarters of Canada’s largest fossil fuel industry lobbying organization, where lobbyists reportedly led an effort to weaken the text.</p>
<h2>Climate change denial 2.0</h2>
<p>While outright climate denial works to varying degrees in the context of domestic politics in some countries, it would not be credible in <a href="https://unfccc.int/conference/glasgow-climate-change-conference-october-november-2021">the forum of the COP process</a>. New strategies were needed.</p>
<p>Newer forms of this phenomenon might be called climate change denial 2.0. Backers do not deny that climate change is real or serious. Instead they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13">undermine the need to take immediate bold action, and obstruct progress on decarbonization</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi speaks at a podium during an event during COP26." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432724/original/file-20211118-21-gq875t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432724/original/file-20211118-21-gq875t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432724/original/file-20211118-21-gq875t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432724/original/file-20211118-21-gq875t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432724/original/file-20211118-21-gq875t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432724/original/file-20211118-21-gq875t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432724/original/file-20211118-21-gq875t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A preliminary draft of the Glasgow pact called on nations to ‘accelerate the phasing-out of coal and subsidies for fossil fuels.’ But during the final negotiations China and India said they would agree only to ‘phase-down unabated coal.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Evan Vucci, Pool)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A recent incident during a COP26 plenary held on Nov. 4 illustrates this. The plenary was devoted to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) recent report on the physical science basis for climate change, part of the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-i/">Sixth Assessment report</a>. A delegate representing India told Valérie Masson-Delmotte, the plenary speaker and the report’s lead author, that the report was too gloomy. He said <a href="https://unfccc-cop26.streamworld.de/webcast/sbsta-ipcc-special-event-on-the-working-group-i-co">India had previously requested that a section on mitigation be removed, as well as references to to low-probability high-risk events</a> (like the collapse of Antarctic ice sheets), and again insisted that these changes be made. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coal-why-china-and-india-arent-the-climate-villains-of-cop26-171879">Coal: why China and India aren't the climate villains of COP26</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This all seemed somewhat incongruous to both the audience and the presenters. While the IPCC reports inform the COP negotiations, they are separate, independent, prior processes, and are based on science not political considerations. Nevertheless, this intervention highlights denial 2.0 efforts. </p>
<h2>Denial efforts during negotiations</h2>
<p>Denial 2.0 efforts often involve the symbolic politics of saying the right things on climate change, while nudging or redirecting climate policy to minimize its impacts on the interests of the fossil fuel sector. Heading into the conference Saudi Arabia, Japan and Australia were among those countries that asked the United Nations “to play down the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels,” as <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58982445">a document leak reported by BBC revealed</a>.</p>
<p>At COP26, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59199484">fossil fuel interests also had an outsized presence</a>. There were <a href="https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/hundreds-fossil-fuel-lobbyists-flooding-cop26-climate-talks/">503 fossil fuel lobbyists accredited for the meetings</a>, more than the number of accredited delegates for any single country. NGO representatives noted there were about <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/cop26-glasgow-oil-gas-lobbyists-b1953513.html">twice as many fossil fuel lobbyists present as accredited Indigenous representatives</a>, even though <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/707823">Indigenous Peoples are among the most negatively affected by climate change</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman wearing a red jacket holds a sign that reads: Why is the fossil fuel industry inside?" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432720/original/file-20211118-26-1iipmcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432720/original/file-20211118-26-1iipmcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432720/original/file-20211118-26-1iipmcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432720/original/file-20211118-26-1iipmcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432720/original/file-20211118-26-1iipmcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432720/original/file-20211118-26-1iipmcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432720/original/file-20211118-26-1iipmcc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Youth climate activists protest that representatives of the fossil fuel industry have been allowed inside the COP26 venue.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Alastair Grant)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Push back against climate denial</h2>
<p>The environmental movement has mobilized against messages of climate denial and efforts to maintain and expand the fossil fuel energy sector. Climate activists have been vocal in their support for a just transition away from fossil fuels. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.683">Their tactics include</a>: litigation, targeting businesses, working within the political system and confrontational protest.</p>
<p>This played out in Glasgow with the <a href="https://www.nationalobserver.com/2021/11/09/news/young-people-greta-thunberg-will-insure-climate-activism-here-stay">Climate Strike organized by Fridays for the Future</a>, which was attended by 25,000 people on Nov. 6. Youth activists and Fridays for Future (along with with other groups) also established <a href="https://unfccc-cop26.streamworld.de/webcast/fossil-fuel-treaty-initiative-standearth-2">the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty</a>, which pushes for the rapid phase out of fossil fuels. It has now been endorsed by <a href="https://fossilfueltreaty.org/youth-letter">150 legislators from 30 countries, as well as by 100 Nobel Prize laureates, and several thousand scientists</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A group of people with their hands in the air. Their palms have 1.5 or an eye drawn on them in black marker." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432721/original/file-20211118-27-1ca84c3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432721/original/file-20211118-27-1ca84c3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432721/original/file-20211118-27-1ca84c3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432721/original/file-20211118-27-1ca84c3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432721/original/file-20211118-27-1ca84c3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432721/original/file-20211118-27-1ca84c3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432721/original/file-20211118-27-1ca84c3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young people, with eyes drawn on their hands to show they are watching, take part in a Fridays for Future protest during the COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, in November 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Furthermore, a group co-chaired by Denmark and Costa Rica launched the <a href="https://unfccc-cop26.streamworld.de/webcast/denmark-and-costa-rica">Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance</a>, which aims to phase out the production of oil and gas. Québec, which had recently committed to permanently banning all oil and gas exploration and extraction, joined the alliance last week.</p>
<p>These actions have been important in helping to shape discourse about the need for climate action, focusing the attention of the the general public and influencing the leaders of some countries. Indeed, youth climate activists were frequently mentioned by world leaders during their speeches inside COP26.</p>
<h2>The Glasgow climate pact</h2>
<p>For the first time in 26 years of COP meetings, <a href="https://unfccc.int/documents/310475">the text of the final agreement</a> directly mentioned fossil fuels. However, in the end, the wording was watered down to call for “the phase down of unabated coal power and phase-out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.”</p>
<p>It would seem that pressure from the fossil fuel sector, and from countries with significant interests in fossil fuels, including India and China, prevented the text from calling directly for the phase out of fossil fuels.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs29638">In denial 2.0 fashion</a>, this clause of the Glasgow climate pact gives the appearance of taking climate change seriously, while adding qualifying phrases that legitimize the continued use of fossil fuels so long as some pollution is reduced and production is efficient. </p>
<p>The structure of the COP process, which is multilateral and consensus-based, makes it difficult to move beyond the lowest common denominator, as any single country with a significant fossil fuel interest can either weaken or sink an otherwise stronger multilateral agreement.</p>
<p>COP26 was yet another win for the fossil-fuel sector, but a loss for the planet. And as Greta Thunberg said, it’s simply more “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDKzI9BEV5w">Blah, blah, blah</a>.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Tindall receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This is an agency that provides funding for academic research. The funding is for research expenses, not the salary of the author. David Tindall has a volunteer affiliation with the Climate Reality Project Canada, for whom he periodically gives educational presentations to public audiences on climate change.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark CJ Stoddart receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Riley E Dunlap does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The recent climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland, shows that climate change deniers have shifted their tactics to thwart the efforts of countries to phase out fossil fuel use.David Tindall, Professor of Sociology, University of British ColumbiaMark CJ Stoddart, Professor, Department of Sociology, Memorial University of NewfoundlandRiley E Dunlap, Regents Professor and Dresser Professor Emeritus, Oklahoma State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1703702021-10-28T19:15:32Z2021-10-28T19:15:32ZThe ‘97% climate consensus’ is over. Now it’s well above 99% (and the evidence is even stronger than that)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428997/original/file-20211028-17-1z114vn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C6233%2C3648&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Martin Meissner/AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite the <a href="https://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911">overwhelming evidence</a>, it’s still common to see <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-stumbling-last-minute-dash-for-climate-respectability-doesnt-negate-a-decade-of-abject-failure-169891">politicians</a>, media commentators or social media users cast doubt on the role of humans in driving climate change.</p>
<p>But this denialism is now almost nonexistent among climate scientists, as a <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966">study released this month</a> confirms. US researchers examined the peer-reviewed literature and found more than 99% of climate scientists now endorse the evidence for human-induced climate change. </p>
<p>That’s even higher than the 97% reported by an influential <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta">2013 study</a>, which has become a widely cited statistic by both climate change deniers and those who accept the evidence. </p>
<p>Why has the needle evidently shifted even more firmly in favour of the evidence-based consensus? Or, to put it another way, what happened to the 3% of researchers who rejected the consensus of human caused climate change? Is this change purely because of the growing weight of evidence published over the past few years?</p>
<h2>Unpicking the polls</h2>
<p>We must first ask whether the two studies are directly comparable. The answer is yes. The <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966">latest study</a> has reexamined the literature published since 2012, and is based on the same methods as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/consensus-confirmed-over-90-of-climate-scientists-believe-were-causing-global-warming-57654">2013 study</a>, albeit with some important refinements.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/consensus-confirmed-over-90-of-climate-scientists-believe-were-causing-global-warming-57654">Consensus confirmed: over 90% of climate scientists believe we're causing global warming</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Both studies searched the <a href="https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science/">Web of Science</a> database – an independent worldwide repository of scientific paper citations – using the keywords “global climate change” and “global warming”. However, the recent study added “climate change” to the other two keyword searches, because the <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966">authors found</a> that most climate-contrarian papers would not have been returned with only the two original terms.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta">2013 study</a> examined 11,944 climate research papers and found almost one-third of them expressed a position on the cause of global warming. Of these 4,014 papers, 97% endorsed the consensus position that humans are the cause, 1% were uncertain, and 2% explicitly rejected it.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5">2015 review</a> examined 38 climate-contrarian papers published over the preceding decade, and identified a range of methodological flaws and sources of bias.</p>
<p>One of the <a href="https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/">reviewers commented</a> that “every single one of those analyses had an error – in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis – that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus”.</p>
<p>For example, many of the contrarian papers had “<a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cherry-pick">cherrypicked</a>” results that supported their conclusion, while ignoring important context and other data sources that contradicted it. Some of them simply ignored fundamental physics.</p>
<p>The 2015 reviewers also made the important point that “science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subjected to sustained scrutiny”. This is the cornerstone of the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method">scientific method</a>, and few if any climate scientists would disagree with this statement. </p>
<h2>Separating the human influence from the natural</h2>
<p>The recently published Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/">Synthesis Report</a>, says “it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”, and warns that the Paris Agreement goals of 1.5°C and 2°C above pre-industrial levels will be <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-all-2030-climate-targets-are-met-the-planet-will-heat-by-2-7-this-century-thats-not-ok-170458">exceeded during this century</a> without dramatic emissions reductions.</p>
<p>In reaching this conclusion, it is important to distinguish between changes caused by <a href="https://www.science.org.au/curious/earth-environment/enhanced-greenhouse-effect">human activities</a> altering the atmosphere’s chemistry, and <a href="https://www.pacificclimatefutures.net/en/help/climate-projections/understanding-climate-variability-and-change/">climate variability</a> caused by natural factors. </p>
<p>These natural variations include small changes in the <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/">Sun’s energy output</a> due to sunspots and solar flares, infrequent <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcanoes-can-affect-climate">volcanic eruptions</a>, and the effects of <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/interactive-much-el-nino-affect-global-temperature">El Niño</a> weather patterns in the Pacific Ocean. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428996/original/file-20211028-17-1y4ntru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphs of global temperatures" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428996/original/file-20211028-17-1y4ntru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428996/original/file-20211028-17-1y4ntru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428996/original/file-20211028-17-1y4ntru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428996/original/file-20211028-17-1y4ntru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=314&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428996/original/file-20211028-17-1y4ntru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428996/original/file-20211028-17-1y4ntru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428996/original/file-20211028-17-1y4ntru.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">History of global temperature change and causes of recent warming.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">IPCC</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Excluding these natural variations, Earth’s surface temperature was generally stable from about 2,000 to 1,000 years ago. After that, the planet cooled by about 0.3°C over <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/">several centuries</a>, before the advent of fossil fuel-based industrialisation in the 1800s.</p>
<p>One <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344709426_Prominent_role_of_volcanism_in_Common_Era_climate_variability_and_human_history">study</a> identified 12 major volcanic eruptions from 100 to 1200 CE, compared with 17 eruptions from 1200 to 1900 CE. Hence, heightened volcanic activity over roughly the past 800 years was associated with a general global cooling before the industrial revolution. </p>
<p>Current rates of global warming are <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/">unprecedented</a> in more than 2,000 years and temperatures now exceed the warmest (multi-century) period in <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/">more than 100,000 years</a>. Global average <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/">surface temperature</a> for the decade from 2011-20 was about 1.1°C higher than in 1850-1900. Each of the past four decades has been warmer than any preceding decade since 1850, when reliable weather observations began.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911">99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Researchers can separate human and natural factors in the modern global temperature record. This involves a process called <a href="https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/climate-data-primer/predicting-climate/climate-models">hindcasting</a>, in which a climate model is run backwards in time to simulate human and natural factors, and then compared with the observed data to see which combination of factors most accurately recreates the real world. </p>
<p>If human factors are removed from the data set and only volcanic and solar factors are included, then global average surface temperatures since 1950 should have remained similar to those over the preceding 100 years. But of course they haven’t.</p>
<p>The evidence, and the scientific consensus on it, are both clearer than ever.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170370/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steve Turton has previously received funding from the Australian Government. Steve is the independent chair of the Wet Tropics Healthy Waterways Partnership, an initiative of the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan.</span></em></p>One of the most famous stats in the climate debate is the 97% of scientists who endorse the consensus on human-induced global heating. Ahead of the Glasgow summit, that figure has climbed even higher.Steve Turton, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Geography, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1658872021-08-11T20:06:46Z2021-08-11T20:06:46ZFossil fuel misinformation may sideline one of the most important climate change reports ever released<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415602/original/file-20210811-19-ns6maj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3468%2C2321&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>This week’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-the-most-sobering-report-card-yet-on-climate-change-and-earths-future-heres-what-you-need-to-know-165395">landmark report</a> on the state of the climate paints a sobering picture. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that, without deep and immediate cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, the world is very likely headed for climate catastrophe. </p>
<p>In November, world leaders will gather in Glasgow for the latest round of United Nations climate talks. It’s the most crucial round of climate negotiations since those which led to the <a href="https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement#:%7E:text=The%20Paris%20Agreement%20is%20a%20legally%20binding%20international%20treaty%20on%20climate%20change.&text=Its%20goal%20is%20to%20limit,compared%20to%20pre%2Dindustrial%20levels.">Paris Agreement</a> in 2015.</p>
<p>The question is: will governments around the world now listen to the climate science? Or will misinformation campaigns backed by vested interests continue to delay action?</p>
<p>If we’re to avert a climate disaster, we must not underestimate the power of climate misinformation campaigns to undermine the IPCC findings and ensure governments continue to ignore the science.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Person in crowd holds sign" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415603/original/file-20210811-27-zvvxyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415603/original/file-20210811-27-zvvxyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415603/original/file-20210811-27-zvvxyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415603/original/file-20210811-27-zvvxyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415603/original/file-20210811-27-zvvxyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415603/original/file-20210811-27-zvvxyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415603/original/file-20210811-27-zvvxyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Science must be at the heart of policy-making if climate change is to be addressed.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A history of heeding the science</h2>
<p>Scrutiny of Australia’s climate policies will be particularly harsh at the Glasgow meeting, given the Morrison government’s failure to implement substantive policies to reduce emissions. We can expect renewed international pressure on Australia to commit to net-zero emissions by 2050 and set out a national plan to decarbonise the economy this decade.</p>
<p>For those who believe in the power of science, the failure of world leaders to act urgently is frustrating, to say the least.</p>
<p>We have acted on the concerns of scientists in the past. In fact, it was scientists such as NASA’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html">James Hansen</a> who put climate change on the agenda back in 1988, triggering international negotiations.</p>
<p>Scientific concern over the growing hole in the ozone layer prompted the 1987 <a href="https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol">Montreal Protocol</a>, an international agreement to curb the use of ozone-depleting substances.</p>
<p>And of course, scientific advice is guiding the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>There are many reasons why the calls of climate scientists are not being heeded at present. But one factor has been particularly successful in delaying climate action: scientific misinformation campaigns.</p>
<p>These campaigns damage public understanding of science, erode trust in research findings, and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1536504217696081">undermine</a> evidence-based policy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273">A brief history of fossil-fuelled climate denial</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Earth from space" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415604/original/file-20210811-17-162u6ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415604/original/file-20210811-17-162u6ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415604/original/file-20210811-17-162u6ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415604/original/file-20210811-17-162u6ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415604/original/file-20210811-17-162u6ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415604/original/file-20210811-17-162u6ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415604/original/file-20210811-17-162u6ed.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Governments heeded scientific warnings over the ozone hole – so why not climate change?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Muddying the waters</h2>
<p><a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7">Research has shown</a> climate misinformation campaigns are often backed by <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/113/1/92">corporate</a> interests which stand to lose if the world transitions to a cleaner energy future.</p>
<p>Such a future could bring incredible benefits to Australia – a country with some of the world’s best solar and wind resources.</p>
<p>The campaigns have wrought untold damage to the public debate on climate science. These corporations have funded industry associations, think tanks and front groups (even including <a href="https://thelensnola.org/2018/05/04/actors-were-paid-to-support-entergys-power-plant-at-new-orleans-city-council-meetings/">paid actors</a>) to mobilise a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/soin.12333">counter movement</a> to climate action.</p>
<p>Examples of the phenomenon <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273">abound</a>. In the United States, oil and gas giant ExxonMobil <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding">reportedly</a> <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/">knew</a> of climate change 40 years ago, but funded climate deniers for decades.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/facebook-fossil-fuel-industry-environment-climate-change">Reports emerged</a> last week that Facebook <a href="https://influencemap.org/EN/report/Climate-Change-and-Digital-Advertising-a40c8116160668aa2d865da2f5abe91b#">failed</a> to prevent a climate misinformation campaign by the oil and gas industry during last year’s US presidential election.</p>
<p>The war against climate science has been waged in Australia, too. <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/scorcher">Researchers</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com.au/Carbon-Club-influential-politicians-Australias/dp/1760875996/ref=asc_df_1760875996/?tag=googleshopdsk-22&linkCode=df0&hvadid=457372754798&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2009111361913877162&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9071971&hvtargid=pla-996778473327&psc=1">journalists</a> have described the lengths the oil, gas and coal industries have gone to challenge the scientific consensus on climate change, and to kill off policies put in place to limit emissions.</p>
<p>Australian media companies such as News Corp have also been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/14/james-murdoch-criticises-fathers-news-outlets-for-climate-crisis-denial">criticised</a> for downplaying the significance of the climate crisis. Little wonder, then, that Australian news consumers are far <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-number-of-climate-deniers-in-australia-is-more-than-double-the-global-average-new-survey-finds-140450">more likely</a> to believe climate change is “not at all” serious compared to news users in other countries. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/with-the-release-of-a-terrifying-ipcc-report-australia-must-face-its-wilful-political-blindness-on-climate-165868">With the release of a terrifying IPCC report, Australia must face its wilful political blindness on climate</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="man holding sign reading 'Tell the Truth'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415605/original/file-20210811-26-12cmlsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415605/original/file-20210811-26-12cmlsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415605/original/file-20210811-26-12cmlsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415605/original/file-20210811-26-12cmlsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415605/original/file-20210811-26-12cmlsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415605/original/file-20210811-26-12cmlsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415605/original/file-20210811-26-12cmlsr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">News Corp has been accused of underplaying the seriousness of climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Calling out misinformation</h2>
<p>The latest IPCC report was five years in the making. It involved 234 leading scientists from more than 60 countries, who rigorously assessed more than 14,000 research papers to produce their synthesis. The result is the most authoritative, reliable report on the state of Earth’s climate since the last IPCC report of its kind in 2013.</p>
<p>But as the history of climate action has shown, incontrovertible science is not enough to shift the needle – in large part due to climate misinformation which deceives the public and weakens pressure on governments to act.</p>
<p>We must call out attempts by those who seek to delay climate action in the name of profit – and then counter those attempts. As the IPCC has shown this week, further delay equals catastrophe.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-have-the-vaccine-for-climate-disinformation-lets-use-it-130008">We have the vaccine for climate disinformation – let's use it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165887/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christian Downie receives funding from the Australian Research Council</span></em></p>If we’re to avert a climate disaster, we must not underestimate the power of climate misinformation campaigns to undermine this week’s IPCC findings.Christian Downie, Associate professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1629222021-06-21T20:12:42Z2021-06-21T20:12:42ZA controversial US book is feeding climate denial in Australia. Its central claim is true, yet irrelevant<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406942/original/file-20210617-21-9dt1xv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=36%2C27%2C6006%2C4185&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ben Rushton/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>My heart sank last week to see conservative Australian commentator Alan Jones championing a contentious book about climate science which has gained traction in the United States.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Cover of 'Unsettled' by Steven Koonin" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406938/original/file-20210617-15-1m8y6ec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406938/original/file-20210617-15-1m8y6ec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406938/original/file-20210617-15-1m8y6ec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406938/original/file-20210617-15-1m8y6ec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406938/original/file-20210617-15-1m8y6ec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406938/original/file-20210617-15-1m8y6ec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406938/original/file-20210617-15-1m8y6ec.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">BenBella Books</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The book, titled Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, is authored by US theoretical physicist Steven Koonin. Notably, Koonin is not a climate scientist. </p>
<p>As the title suggests, the book’s bold central theme is that climate science is far from settled, and should not be relied on to make policy choices in areas such as energy, transport and economics. </p>
<p>Jones <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/alan-jones-scott-morrison-must-decide-where-he-stands-on-the-climate-nonsense/news-story/53e1024a6596d818e82379e678dec491">cited Koonin’s book</a> in a Daily Telegraph column last week. He decried the “nonsense” of governments in Australia and abroad aiming for net-zero carbon emissions, saying it was as though Koonin’s book “didn’t exist”.</p>
<p>So does the book hold up? I have been researching and writing about climate change since the 1980s. I wanted to give the book a fair reading, so I put any preconceived thoughts aside and tried to fairly weigh up Koonin’s arguments. If true, they would be very important findings.</p>
<p>Koonin frames his book as a brave attempt to reveal how the climate science we’ve been relying on all these years is, in fact, uncertain. But the book’s major flaw is to imply these uncertainties are news to climate scientists.</p>
<p>This is patently untrue. Science is never settled. But there is enough confidence in the science to justify significant climate action.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="'There's no Planet B' sign with smoke stacks" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406939/original/file-20210617-27-1tfkoab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406939/original/file-20210617-27-1tfkoab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406939/original/file-20210617-27-1tfkoab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406939/original/file-20210617-27-1tfkoab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406939/original/file-20210617-27-1tfkoab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406939/original/file-20210617-27-1tfkoab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406939/original/file-20210617-27-1tfkoab.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientific uncertainty does not justify climate inaction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Uncertainty is par for the course</h2>
<p>Koonin opens the book by saying he accepts that Earth is warming, and humans are contributing to this. But he muddies the waters with passages such as the following:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Past variations of surface temperature and ocean heat content do not at all disprove that the (approximately 1°C) rise in the global average surface temperature anomaly since 1880 is due to humans, but they do show that there are powerful natural forces driving the climate as well.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, Koonin says, the real question is “to what extent this warming is being caused by humans”.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Steven Koonin" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406940/original/file-20210617-15-1b2ryzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406940/original/file-20210617-15-1b2ryzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406940/original/file-20210617-15-1b2ryzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406940/original/file-20210617-15-1b2ryzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406940/original/file-20210617-15-1b2ryzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406940/original/file-20210617-15-1b2ryzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406940/original/file-20210617-15-1b2ryzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The book’s author, Steven Koonin, is not a climate scientist.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kelly Kollar</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>No rational person could deny that natural forces drive the climate. The climate record shows <a href="https://theconversation.com/while-we-fixate-on-coronavirus-earth-is-hurtling-towards-a-catastrophe-worse-than-the-dinosaur-extinction-130869">significant</a> climate changes long before humans existed; clearly we’re not responsible for the planet being much warmer many millions of years ago.</p>
<p>However the five assessment reports of the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> have expressed steadily increasing confidence that humans are the dominant cause of global warming this century. </p>
<p>Koonin attacks former US secretary of state and now Biden climate envoy, John Kerry, who once said of climate change “the science is unequivocal”. </p>
<p>It is true to say climate science is somewhat uncertain. Science is always a work in progress. Scientific integrity demands a willingness to look carefully at new data and theories to see if they require us to revise what we thought we knew. </p>
<p>But Koonin is wrong to imply scientists are somehow unaware of, or deny, this uncertainty. To the contrary, I have heard decision-makers express exasperation when we scientists seek to qualify our advice on the basis that our knowledge is limited. </p>
<p>Every reputable climate scientist I know is always willing to look at new data. But policy-makers must make decisions based on the current scientific understanding.</p>
<p>Koonin states, accurately, that few in the general public receive scientific information directly from research papers. Most people receive climate change information after it’s been filtered by governments and the media – which, in Koonin’s mind, often overstate the seriousness of climate change. </p>
<p>However Koonin fails to note the opposite forces at play – governments and media organisations, such as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentisfree/2020/nov/20/rupert-murdoch-tries-to-weather-news-corps-climate-crisis-at-agm">Murdoch press</a> in Australia and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/17/fox-news-inner-struggle-with-climate-misinformation">Fox News</a> in the US, which systematically misreport climate science and underestimate the climate threat.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-is-the-arctic-warming-faster-than-other-parts-of-the-world-160614">Climate explained: why is the Arctic warming faster than other parts of the world?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Polar bears on melting ice" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406941/original/file-20210617-23-bmahqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406941/original/file-20210617-23-bmahqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406941/original/file-20210617-23-bmahqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406941/original/file-20210617-23-bmahqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=371&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406941/original/file-20210617-23-bmahqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406941/original/file-20210617-23-bmahqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406941/original/file-20210617-23-bmahqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=466&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Humans are the dominant cause of global warming this century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ignorance is not bliss</h2>
<p>Koonin concludes by questioning the wisdom of reaching net-zero emissions in the second half of this century - a central goal of the Paris Agreement. He argues that when one balances the cost and efficacy of slashing emissions “against the certainties and uncertainties in climate science”, the net-zero goal looks implausible and unfeasible.</p>
<p>This is effectively an assertion that ignorance is bliss: because we don’t have perfect understanding that allows us to make exact projections about the future climate, we should not take serious action to reduce emissions. </p>
<p>Koonin proposes a different response: for society to adapt to a changing climate, and embrace “geoengineering” technology to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/climate-science-geoengineering-save-world">artificially control</a> Earth’s climate. </p>
<p>Both adaptation and <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/geoengineer-the-planet-more-scientists-now-say-it-must-be-an-option">geoengineering</a> have their place in the climate response. But neither are <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25762/reflecting-sunlight-recommendations-for-solar-geoengineering-research-and-research-governance">sufficient</a> substitutes for dramatically cutting carbon emissions. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/solar-geoengineering-is-worth-studying-but-not-a-substitute-for-cutting-emissions-study-finds-157828">Solar geoengineering is worth studying but not a substitute for cutting emissions, study finds</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="wind turbines" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406963/original/file-20210617-15-1lcmrdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/406963/original/file-20210617-15-1lcmrdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406963/original/file-20210617-15-1lcmrdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406963/original/file-20210617-15-1lcmrdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406963/original/file-20210617-15-1lcmrdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406963/original/file-20210617-15-1lcmrdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/406963/original/file-20210617-15-1lcmrdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The world must urgently reduce emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Proceed with caution</h2>
<p>Under the Hawke government, science minister Barry Jones was one of the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/barry-jones-still-hauling-around-his-loaded-cart-of-knowledge-20200625-p5563o.html">first public figures</a> in Australia to sound warnings about climate change. </p>
<p>Jones and I both appeared on a panel at a landmark <a href="https://www.cawcr.gov.au/projects/Climatechange/impact/policy-relevant-science/conferences/">climate conference</a> in 1987. I recall Jones, when asked how decision-makers should respond, said we should consider the consequences of both acting and not acting. </p>
<p>If policymakers acted on inaccurate climate science, Jones argued, the worst that would happen is our energy would be cleaner – albeit, at that time, more expensive. But if the science was right and we ignored it, the consequences could be catastrophic. </p>
<p>Jones was essentially describing the precautionary principle, which is contained in a number of international treaties including the UN’s Rio Declaration, <a href="https://www.jus.uio.no/lm/environmental.development.rio.declaration.1992/15.html">which states</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The principle demands we act to avoid disastrous outcomes, even if the science is uncertain. Because the uncertainty works both ways: things might get worse than we expect, rather than better.</p>
<p>The fundamental point of Koonin’s book is true, but irrelevant. The science is not settled – but we know enough to act decisively.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/even-without-new-fossil-fuel-projects-global-warming-will-still-exceed-1-5-but-renewables-might-make-it-possible-162591">Even without new fossil fuel projects, global warming will still exceed 1.5℃. But renewables might make it possible</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/162922/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a study of intimidation of scientists, including climate scientists. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.</span></em></p>Science is never settled. But contrary to the claims of a new book, there is enough confidence in the science to justify significant climate action.Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1308782021-06-11T04:22:30Z2021-06-11T04:22:30ZMatt Canavan suggested the cold snap means global warming isn’t real. We bust this and 2 other climate myths<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405844/original/file-20210611-15-13gibsw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=12%2C0%2C4226%2C2822&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steven Saphore/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Senator Matt Canavan sent many eyeballs rolling yesterday when he tweeted photos of snowy scenes in regional New South Wales with a sardonic two-word caption: “climate change”. </p>
<p>Canavan, a renowned <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/punch-in-the-face-canavan-lashes-foreign-powers-over-net-zero/news-story/3a0f72b6313da330913453fc3178ccd2">opponent</a> of climate action and <a href="https://www.mattcanavan.com.au/the_importance_of_coal_for_australia_s_manufacturing_sector">proponent</a> of the coal industry, appeared to be suggesting that the existence of an isolated cold snap means global warming isn’t real.</p>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/05/scott-morrison-promises-aid-package-for-areas-ravaged-by-australia-bushfires">previously insisted</a> there is “no dispute in this country about the issue of climate change, globally, and its effect on global weather patterns”. But Canavan’s tweet would suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>The reality is, as the climate warms, record-breaking cold weather is becoming less common. And one winter storm does not negate more than a century of human-caused global warming. Here, we take a closer look at the cold weather misconception and two other common climate change myths.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1402784839653199879"}"></div></p>
<h2>Myth #1: A cold snap means global warming isn’t happening</h2>
<p>Canavan’s tweet is an example of a common tactic used by climate change deniers that deliberately conflates <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH298zSCQzY">weather and climate</a>. </p>
<p>Parts of Australia are currently in the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/09/cold-snap-brings-snow-and-bitter-weather-to-eastern-australia">grip of a cold snap</a> as icy air from Antarctica is funnelled up over the eastern states. This is part of a normal weather system, and is temporary.</p>
<p>Climate, on the other hand, refers to weather conditions over a much longer period, such as several decades. And as our <a href="https://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science-data/climate-science/understanding-climate-change/indicators">climate warms</a>, the probability of such weather systems bringing record-breaking cold temperatures reduces dramatically.</p>
<p>Just as average temperatures in Australia have risen markedly over the past century, so too have winter temperatures. That doesn’t mean climate change is not happening. In a warming world, extremely cold winter temperatures can still occur, but less often than they used to. </p>
<p>In fact, human-caused climate change means extreme winter warmth now occurs more often, and across larger parts of the country. <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL065793">Record-breaking</a> hot events in Australia now far outweigh record breaking cold events.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Extreme cold and warm winter temperatures in Australia" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405805/original/file-20210611-14-sxr3o3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405805/original/file-20210611-14-sxr3o3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405805/original/file-20210611-14-sxr3o3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405805/original/file-20210611-14-sxr3o3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405805/original/file-20210611-14-sxr3o3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405805/original/file-20210611-14-sxr3o3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/405805/original/file-20210611-14-sxr3o3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Percentage of Australia experiencing extreme cold (bottom 10%) and extreme warmth (top 10%) in winter since 1910. Data from the Bureau of Meteorology.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Myth #2: Global warming is good for us</h2>
<p>Yes, climate change may bring isolated benefits. For example, warmer global temperatures <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-there-positive-benefits-global-warming">may mean</a> fewer people die from extreme cold weather, or that shorter shipping routes open up across the Arctic as sea ice melts. </p>
<p>But the perverse benefits that may flow from climate change will be far outweighed by the damage caused.</p>
<p>Extreme heat can be <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/107/21/9552">fatal</a> for humans. And a global study found 37% of heat-related deaths are a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01058-x">direct consequence</a> of human-caused climate change. That means <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-blamed-for-more-than-a-third-of-heat-related-deaths-20210531-p57wpy.html">nearly 3,000</a> deaths in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne between 1991 and 2018 were due to climate change. </p>
<p>Extreme heat and humidity may make some parts of the world, especially those near the Equator, essentially <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2833">uninhabitable</a> by the end of this century. </p>
<p>Global warming also kills plants, animals and ecosystems. In 2018, an estimated one-third of Australia’s spectacled flying foxes <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46859000">died</a> when temperatures around Cairns reached 42°C. And there is evidence many Australian plants will not cope well in a warmer world – and are already nearing their <a href="https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/hie/stories/future_heatwaves_a_threat_to_aussie_plant_life">tipping point</a>. </p>
<p>Heatwaves also damage oceans. The Great Barrier Reef has suffered <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-just-spent-two-weeks-surveying-the-great-barrier-reef-what-we-saw-was-an-utter-tragedy-135197">three mass bleaching events</a> in just five years. Within decades the natural wonder is unlikely to <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-3/">exist in is current form</a> – badly hurting <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/deloitte-au-economics-great-barrier-reef-230617.pdf">employment and tourism</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-making-ocean-waves-more-powerful-threatening-to-erode-many-coastlines-160998">Climate change is making ocean waves more powerful, threatening to erode many coastlines</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m-DDSdAUtos?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Myth #3: More CO₂ means Earth will definitely get greener</h2>
<p>In January last year, News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt caused a stir with <a href="https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/andrew-bolt/andrew-bolt-the-truth-that-warmists-continue-to-dodge/news-story/097a81d4783b2d0bfa73d72d4d9421f9">an article</a> that suggested rising carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions were “greening the planet” and were therefore “a good thing”.</p>
<p>During photosynthesis, plants absorb CO₂. So as the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere increases, some researchers predict the planet will become greener and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13893">crop yields</a> will increase. </p>
<p>Consistent with this hypothesis, there is indirect evidence of <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22030">increased global photosynthesis</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004">satellite-observed greening</a>. There is also indirect evidence of increased “<a href="https://www.earth-syst-sci-data.net/11/1783/2019/">carbon sinks</a>”, whereby CO₂ is drawn down from the atmosphere by plants, then stored in soil.</p>
<p>Rising temperatures <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168192312002869">lead to</a> an earlier onset of spring, as well as prolonged summer plant growth – particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. <a href="https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/3269/2020/">Researchers think</a> this has triggered an increase in the land carbon sink.</p>
<p>However, there’s also widespread evidence some trees are not <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2313">growing</a> as might be expected given the increased CO₂ levels in our atmosphere. For example, a study of how Australian eucalypts might respond to future CO₂ concentrations has so far found <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2128-9">no increase in growth</a>. </p>
<p>Increased plant growth may also cause them to use more water, causing <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2831">significant reductions in streamflow</a> that will compound water availability issues in dry regions. </p>
<p>Overall, attempts to reconcile the various lines of evidence of how climate change will alter Earth’s land vegetation have proved <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.16866">challenging</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1221566966730641408"}"></div></p>
<h2>So, are we doomed?</h2>
<p>After all this bad news, you might be feeling a bit dejected. And true, the current outlook isn’t great.</p>
<p>Earth has already warmed by <a href="https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures">about 1°C</a>, and current policies have the world on track for at least <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-the-nations-leading-and-failing-on-climate-action-123581">3°C warming</a> this century. But there is still reason for hope. While every extra bit of warming <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/">matters</a>, so too does every action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>And there are promising signs of increasing ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/spot-the-difference-as-world-leaders-rose-to-the-occasion-at-the-biden-climate-summit-morrison-faltered-159295">global front</a> – from the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan and others. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, Australia is far behind our international peers, instead pushing the burden of action onto <a href="https://theconversation.com/wake-up-mr-morrison-australias-slack-climate-effort-leaves-our-children-10-times-more-work-to-do-157136">future generations</a>. We now need the political leadership to set our country, and the world, on a safer and more secure path. Ill-informed tweets by senior members of the government only set back the cause.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/spot-the-difference-as-world-leaders-rose-to-the-occasion-at-the-biden-climate-summit-morrison-faltered-159295">Spot the difference: as world leaders rose to the occasion at the Biden climate summit, Morrison faltered</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130878/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nerilie Abram receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin De Kauwe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>One cold winter doesn’t negate more than a century of global warming. We need the political leadership to set the world on a safer path. Ill-informed tweets by government senators won’t help.Nerilie Abram, Professor; ARC Future Fellow; Chief Investigator for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes; Deputy Director for the Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, Australian National UniversityMartin De Kauwe, Senior lecturer, UNSW SydneySarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, ARC Future Fellow, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1610802021-05-19T03:01:20Z2021-05-19T03:01:20ZMost people consider climate change a serious issue, but rank other problems as more important. That affects climate policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401457/original/file-20210519-19-1r79a8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C179%2C5000%2C3143&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/riekephotos</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Straight denial of climate change is now relatively rare. Most people believe it is happening and is a <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/for-the-first-time-the-alarmed-are-now-the-largest-of-global-warmings-six-americas/">serious problem</a>. But many rank other issues — healthcare and the economy — as more important. </p>
<p>This means people can’t be easily classified as either deniers or believers when it comes to climate change. In <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1369148119888827">my research</a>, I focused on understanding the complexity of climate opinion in light of the slow political response to climate change around the world. </p>
<p>I conducted an online survey in the UK and found 78% of respondents were extremely or fairly certain climate change is happening. </p>
<p>But when asked to rank eight issues (climate change, healthcare, education, crime, immigration, economy, terrorism and poverty) from most to least important to the country, 38% ranked climate change as least important, with a further 15% placing it seventh out of eight.</p>
<p>Recent pledges from a number of large countries to reach <a href="https://eciu.net/netzerotracker">net zero</a> in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 have led <a href="https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/">Climate Action Tracker</a> to project that limiting warming to 2°C by 2100 may be possible. </p>
<p>Although this progress is heartening, it has taken many years to reach this point and the challenges in actually meeting these emission targets cannot be overstated.</p>
<h2>Climate ranking in other countries</h2>
<p>I found similar results in other countries. Based on a <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/eurobarometer">Eurobarometer</a> survey of 27,901 European Union citizens, a majority of the populations in all EU member countries are concerned about climate change, but only 43% across the EU rank it in the top four most important issues for the world. There are some differences between countries — climate change tends to be ranked higher in Nordic countries and lower in Eastern Europe. </p>
<p>Fewer than 5% of 3,445 respondents in the 2017 <a href="http://nzes.org/exec/show/2017">New Zealand Election Study</a> said the environment was the most important election issue and an even smaller number specifically mentioned climate change. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nz-election-2020-survey-shows-voters-are-divided-on-climate-policy-and-urgency-of-action-146569">NZ election 2020: survey shows voters are divided on climate policy and urgency of action</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Why are some people more engaged with climate change than others? People’s worldview or ideology seem to be particularly important. </p>
<p>In many countries — including, as illustrated in my research, the UK and New Zealand — there are <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/">partisan and political divides in climate change</a> with supporters of right-wing parties less likely to support climate change policies or to see it as an important issue. </p>
<p>People who support free-market economics, hold authoritarian attitudes or have exclusionary attitudes towards minorities are also less likely to engage with climate change.</p>
<h2>Consequences for climate policy</h2>
<p>In democracies, politicians often respond to public opinion; ignoring it risks being voted out at the next election. But the degree to which they do so depends on how important the issue is to the public relative to other issues. </p>
<p>If people are not thinking about an issue when they go to vote, politicians are less likely to give that issue much attention. As my research shows, people in most countries don’t give climate change a high importance ranking, and politicians are therefore not under enough public pressure to take the difficult steps required to combat climate change.</p>
<p>There are other reasons for the slow political response to climate change, besides the low importance of climate change among the public. Vested interests, such as fossil fuel companies, are undoubtedly involved in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending">slowing the adoption</a> of strong climate policies in many countries. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-are-climate-change-skeptics-often-right-wing-conservatives-123549">Climate explained: Why are climate change skeptics often right-wing conservatives?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Although only a minority of the population, climate change deniers may also make some politicians hesitate to act. But, regardless of the influence of vested interests and deniers, it is difficult for politicians to act on climate change when the public believes other issues are more important.</p>
<p>Understanding the relationship between public opinion and climate policy can help focus the efforts of climate campaigners. Perhaps less attention could be paid to the influence of vested interests. </p>
<p>Given the deep ideological reasons climate change deniers have for their disbelief, it’s unlikely they will be convinced otherwise. Fortunately, this may not be required to move climate policy forward.</p>
<p>As my research reveals, the majority of the public want action on climate change but tend to be more concerned about other issues. Campaigners might find it useful to focus their attention on persuading this section of the population about the urgency of climate action.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161080/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sam Crawley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Vested interests have lobbied against climate policy worldwide, but that’s only one reason for the slow political response. While most people want climate action, they rank other issues as more urgent.Sam Crawley, Researcher, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of WellingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1557322021-03-02T13:54:48Z2021-03-02T13:54:48ZThree possible futures for global climate scepticism<p>Climate change scepticism has been present in politics for as long as climate change itself. Part of a wider outlook of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2019.1633101">environmental scepticism</a>, it encompasses a range of views from outright denial that the world is warming through to attempts to downplay or sideline the risks stemming from a changing climate.</p>
<p>For most of its history, climate scepticism was a niche political tendency, and where it did exist the more vocal forms tended to be the minority. But an increasingly globalised world and a proliferation of climate-sceptical leaders have made it a global force. </p>
<p>This was best exemplified by Donald Trump’s candidacy and presidency. Trump described climate change <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/1/15726472/trump-tweets-global-warming-paris-climate-agreement">as a “hoax”</a> and withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement. He shepherded into the mainstream a more overtly right-wing populist variation of environmental scepticism in which environmentalists are framed as part of the “corrupt elite” acting <a href="https://amc.sas.upenn.edu/cas-mudde-populism-twenty-first-century">against the interests of the “pure” people</a>.</p>
<p>But with Trump’s presidency giving way to Joe Biden’s, what are the future prospects for environmental scepticism? There are three broad scenarios:</p>
<h2>1: Retreat</h2>
<p>In the first possible scenario, global climate scepticism will fade into obscurity and return to its previous niche position, its influence limited to true believers. This is the most appealing scenario for anyone hoping to address the climate emergency. However, given that climate change denial and other manifestations of environmental scepticism existed and <a href="https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/GLEP_a_00105">had political influence</a> before Trump, it is likely that they will not disappear quietly. </p>
<p>In countries which are not currently led by deniers, it may be possible to sideline the more extreme ideas in the mainstream media. In the UK, media regulator Ofcom’s <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/195621/Loveworld-Sanction.pdf">use of sanctions</a> to deal with coronavirus misinformation could provide a framework for doing this. Of course, this in itself could have the unfortunate side effect of creating a backlash against perceived censorship.</p>
<h2>2: Re-liberalisation</h2>
<p>The second possible future involves a retreat from right-wing populist scepticism and outright climate denial, and a movement back towards the more “<a href="https://www.ideology-theory-practice.org/blog/the-rise-and-possible-fall-of-environmental-scepticism">liberal humanitarian</a>” varieties.</p>
<p>The most prominent example of this strand is the political scientist Bjorn Lomborg, whose book <a href="https://www.lomborg.com/skeptical-environmentalist">The Skeptical Environmentalist</a> set the tone for climate scepticism in Europe from the early 21st century. Global warming is happening, in his view, but its threat has been exaggerated. Lomborg makes a resource-based argument for reducing the priority given to climate change: we do not, he argues, have the money to address every threat, so we should focus our efforts on solving problems posing a greater immediate threat to human life, such as <a href="https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/cc08_results_final_0.pdf">malnutrition or disease</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387230/original/file-20210302-17-191vhrd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Offshore wind farm from above." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387230/original/file-20210302-17-191vhrd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/387230/original/file-20210302-17-191vhrd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387230/original/file-20210302-17-191vhrd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387230/original/file-20210302-17-191vhrd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387230/original/file-20210302-17-191vhrd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387230/original/file-20210302-17-191vhrd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/387230/original/file-20210302-17-191vhrd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lomborg says solar and wind power are inefficient uses of our resources.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">fokke baarssen / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Arguments like this fit neatly with the current concerns of UK chancellor Rishi Sunak, who has made <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/15/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-treasury-clash-green-agenda-environment-spending">similar objections</a> to prime minister Boris Johnson’s plans for a “green industrial revolution”, and more generally with the complexities of incorporating green elements into pandemic relief efforts. </p>
<p>It is likely that the more moderate and scientifically-aware climate scepticism of Lomborg and newcomers to the scene such as “ecomodernist” and nuclear energy advocate <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/04/the-environmentalists-apology-how-michael-shellenberger-unsettled-some-of-his-prominent-supporters">Michael Shellenberger</a> will grow in influence if the Trumpian variety fades.</p>
<h2>3: Business as usual</h2>
<p>While the US is no longer led by a climate change denier, the populist strain of global climate scepticism is still well represented around the world. As such, it is possible to imagine climate scepticism continuing in a similar manner as before, albeit with a temporary reduction of geopolitical power. </p>
<p>Poland’s recently re-elected president Andrzej Duda is a case in point, tying a defence of his country’s coal industry into a <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/duda-climate-emissions-poland/">nationalist critique of EU decarbonisation policies</a>. Australia’s prime minister Scott Morrison could rival Duda in his <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-wildfires-climate-change-scott-morrison-coal-industry-a9258811.html">protectiveness of the coal industry</a>, while Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro has even <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-fires-idUSKCN2572WB">denied the existence</a> of widespread forest fires in the Amazon. Taken individually, none of these leaders rivals a US president’s impact on the global political scene. However, collectively, they have the potential to form the nucleus of a global anti-environmentalist bloc.</p>
<p>And what of the US and the UK in this scenario? The low-key but persistent <a href="https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Constable-Covid-GreenDeal.pdf">backlash</a> against the pro-environmental policies of Joe Biden and Boris Johnson suggest a holding pattern is in place. For climate sceptics in both countries, the likely aim will be to delay policies coming into effect or knock the more effective edges off them before they can be enacted, rather than halting them altogether.</p>
<p>This list is of course highly speculative, based on early indications. It is likely that the scenarios I’ve just listed will each pan out in some form, with some blurring at the edges between them. For example, re-liberalisation could occur in countries where it would gain the most sympathy, with business as usual in countries led by vocal climate sceptics. A partial retreat could also be combined with re-liberalisation in some cases. </p>
<p>The least likely scenario, however, is the one in which climate scepticism ceases to be a force to be reckoned with.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note on correction: This article has been amended to remove reference to Zion Lights, who was incorrectly identified as a climate sceptic. Zion Lights tells us, which we accept, that they have never questioned the science on climate change and have in fact been active in the movement for effective action on global warming</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155732/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eloise Harding does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Retreat, re-liberalisation, or business as usual.Eloise Harding, Teaching Fellow in Politics, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1477122020-10-12T14:30:26Z2020-10-12T14:30:26Z‘God intended it as a disposable planet’: meet the US pastor preaching climate change denial<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/363005/original/file-20201012-17-ule3xp.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Reverend John MacArthur. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._MacArthur#/media/File:John_F._MacArthur_Jr..JPG">Wikimedia</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every so often you come across a piece of writing so extraordinary that you cannot help but share it. One such piece is a sermon on global warming by American pastor John MacArthur. Full of beautifully constructed rhetorical flourishes, it is forcefully delivered by an experienced and impassioned preacher to a large and appreciative audience.</p>
<p>For me, as a man of science, it is the most complete compilation of unsound arguments, factual errors and misleading analogies as I have seen in discussions of this subject. But it’s important because climate change is a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-10-07/biden-considering-new-white-house-office-on-climate-change">big election issue</a> this November in the US, where there is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/faith-and-politics-mix-to-drive-evangelical-christians-climate-change-denial-143145">growing movement</a> of evangelical Christians who deny its existence, while Joe Biden <a href="https://joebiden.com/climate-plan/#%20%20and%20has%20been%20endorsed%20by%20Greta%20Thunberg%20https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/520473-teen-climate-change-activist-greta-thunberg-endorses-biden">promises a “clean air revolution”</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Read more: <a href="https://theconversation.com/faith-and-politics-mix-to-drive-evangelical-christians-climate-change-denial-143145">Faith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial</a></strong></em> </p>
<hr>
<p>The minister of the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwDnIjYCxdc">COVID-denying</a>, law-defying <a href="https://www.gracechurch.org/news/posts/1988">Grace Community Church</a> in Sun Valley, California – which has encouraged worshippers to congregate as normal despite state COVID-19 restrictions – MacArthur is an impressive figure whose <a href="https://www.thomasnelson.com/9781401677404/niv-the-macarthur-study-bible-hardcover/">Study Bible</a> has sold almost 2 million copies.</p>
<p>He regards the infallibility of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, as essential to his faith, and his <a href="https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-361/the-end-of-the-universe-part-2">sermon</a> about global warming can only be understood in that context. MacArthur’s rejection of the science is shared by other major US ministries and organisations such as <a href="https://answersingenesis.org/">Answers in Genesis</a>, <a href="https://creation.com/">Creation Ministries International</a> and the <a href="https://www.discovery.org/">Discovery Institute</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZTlYl8E_B14?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In this sermon, MacArthur paraphrases “a scientist at <a href="https://www.caltech.edu/about">Cal Tech</a>” (except not a scientist at all, but the novelist Michael Crichton, best known for <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/"><em>Jurassic Park</em></a>), as <a href="http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html">saying in a lecture</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Consensus science is the first refuge of scoundrels … invoked only in situations where there is a political, social, financial agenda but no scientific support.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The reverend has the most serious reasons possible for rejecting the scientific consensus concerning the age of the Earth, the origins of humankind, the history and prehistory of the ancient near East and the peopling of continents: it is totally incompatible with the Genesis account of creation, Adam and Eve, the flood and the dispersion of peoples from the Tower of Babel.</p>
<h2>Error, denial and misunderstanding</h2>
<p>As for global warming itself, the reverend channels standard climate change denial, but all his arguments are unsound and have been convincingly refuted to the satisfaction of an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists (see in-depth discussion at <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/">Skeptical Science</a>). He understates the amount of global warming, incorrectly describes the full record as dating back only 30 years, and cites the <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/04/01/how-the-little-ice-age-changed-history">Little Ice Age</a> as evidence that the changes currently taking place are natural. There’s more:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Here’s the key, friends, this is the real deal. Legitimate science recognises a close correlation between sunspots and climate change … The sun is the source of temperature changes because of its infrared variations. … There is absolutely no evidence that CO₂ contributes to warming. On the contrary the opposite is true. Warming produces CO₂ … It’s the other way round.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here we have a collection of half-truths and misunderstandings, typical of denialists claiming to represent “legitimate science”. As the graph below shows, the 11-year sunspot cycle is a minor deviation, and the temperature increase since 1980 has occurred despite the fact that over that period the amount of solar energy falling on Earth has gone down slightly. Incidentally, this solar energy input is concentrated mainly in the visible, not the infrared, region of the spectrum, and it is the roughly balancing heat outflow from the Earth that is in the infrared.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Graph showing global temperature change between 1980 and 2015" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362960/original/file-20201012-15-g2tmqa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/362960/original/file-20201012-15-g2tmqa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362960/original/file-20201012-15-g2tmqa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362960/original/file-20201012-15-g2tmqa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362960/original/file-20201012-15-g2tmqa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362960/original/file-20201012-15-g2tmqa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/362960/original/file-20201012-15-g2tmqa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=526&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/#">NASA</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>MacArthur offers a false dichotomy between saying that CO₂ warms the oceans, and warmer oceans release more CO₂. Unfortunately, both these statements are true. There is a positive feedback loop: human-released CO₂ is the primary driver, but its effect is amplified by the fact that yet more CO₂ is then released from non-human sources. Regarding CO₂ itself, MacArthur seems to be even more confused:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>By the way, plants produce CO₂. What man produces is marginal … Industry doesn’t affect CO₂ in the environment or atmosphere. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Plants do produce CO₂ but they <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-18/plant-respiration-co2-findings-anu-canberra/9163858#:%7E:text=During%20daylight%20hours%2C%20plants%20take,absorb%20more%20than%20they%20emit.">absorb more than they emit</a>. However, when it comes to humans, their activity may cause only a small imbalance each year between CO₂ emission and natural uptake, but this imbalance is cumulative. CO₂ levels are now 50% above pre-industrial, and subtle atomic differences <a href="https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2017/07/how-do-we-know-where-the-carbon-is-coming-from.html">clearly show</a> that fossil fuel is the source. But according to MacArthur, “There is no scientific reason to believe that ice caps are melting”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O9uunW_DBZE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Despite <a href="https://www.amap.no/about">the Arctic Monitoring and Assement Programme’s</a> video on this subject, the reverend does not think that the evidence for ice-cap melting is scientific, and that other factors are at play:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is all political [and] financial agendas, class warfare, class envy … By the way, US$100 billion has been spent to make a case for global warming … driven by the socialist mentality … even some of the feminist mentality that resents male success.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>All is now clear. Talk of global warming is part of a politically motivated conspiracy. But US$100 billion? That’s <a href="https://research.noaa.gov/External-Affairs/Budget">600 years’ worth</a> of all federal climate research spending. Clearly, those pesky socialists and feminists are formidable fundraisers. However, none of this matters because environmentalism is fundamentally misplaced. As MacArthur puts it, citing Revelation and the integrity of scripture: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>God intended us to use this planet, to fill this planet for the benefit of man. Never was it intended to be a permanent planet. It is a disposable planet. Christians ought to know that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And that is a statement that would leave anybody who cares about this world speechless.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147712/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Braterman is a paid-up member of the US National Center for Science Education, but receives no funding from that source. </span></em></p>John MacArthur’s long-held view that climate change is fiction is just part of a wider Christian movement coalescing around this important election issue.Paul Braterman, Hon. Research Fellow; Professor Emeritus in Chemistry, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1431452020-09-09T12:17:00Z2020-09-09T12:17:00ZFaith and politics mix to drive evangelical Christians’ climate change denial<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357049/original/file-20200908-20-1wnhd7p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=312%2C7%2C4276%2C3141&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A churchgoer’s thoughts on climate change may not have much to do with Christian teaching.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/an-area-transformed-into-a-cemetery-of-200-crosses-made-news-photo/491552854">Josep Lago/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>U.S. Christians, especially evangelical Christians, identify as environmentalists at very low rates compared to the general population. According to a <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/06/23/two-thirds-of-americans-think-government-should-do-more-on-climate/">Pew Research Center poll from May 2020</a>, while 62% of religiously unaffiliated U.S. adults agree that the Earth is warming primarily due to human action, only 35% of U.S. Protestants do – including just 24% of white evangelical Protestants.</p>
<p>Politically powerful Christian interest groups publicly dispute the climate science consensus. A coalition of major evangelical groups, including Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, <a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/an-evangelical-backlash-against-environmentalism/">launched a movement</a> opposing what they describe as “the false worldview” of environmentalism, which supposedly is “striving to put America, and the world, under its destructive control.”</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/faith-and-politics-mix-to-drive-evangelical-christians-climate-change-denial-143145&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Studies show that belief in miracles and an afterlife is associated with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.02.003">lower estimates of the risks posed by climate change</a>. This raises the question: Does religion itself predispose people against climate science?</p>
<p>Surveys of people around the world, as well as social science research on denial, suggest the answer to this question is more nuanced than a simple yes or no.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357052/original/file-20200908-14-phbf9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="congregants in an evangelical church" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357052/original/file-20200908-14-phbf9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357052/original/file-20200908-14-phbf9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357052/original/file-20200908-14-phbf9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357052/original/file-20200908-14-phbf9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357052/original/file-20200908-14-phbf9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357052/original/file-20200908-14-phbf9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357052/original/file-20200908-14-phbf9a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Some Christian evangelical teachings are at odds with science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/congregants-at-first-baptist-dallas-church-celebrate-news-photo/1161797905">Ilana Panich-Linsman for The Washington Post via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Where religion and science can’t be reconciled</h2>
<p>An automatic resistance to science would seem to make sense for some religious believers. </p>
<p>There are several ways that core aspects of modern scientific knowledge tend to undermine literalist or fundamentalist readings of religious texts. In particular, evolution by natural selection, the central concept underlying the biological sciences, is <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-there-is-a-war-between-science-and-religion-108002">utterly incompatible with most creationist faith traditions</a>.</p>
<p>Religion offers the comforts of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x">a measure of control and reassurance</a> via an omnipotent deity that can be <a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393008319">placated by ritual</a>. In contrast, the scientist’s naturalistic universe offers neither an intrinsic moral order nor a final reward, which can be unsettling for the devout and in conflict with their faith.</p>
<p>Because of these mismatches, one might expect those with a strong religious affiliation to be reflexively suspicious of scientific findings. Indeed, in a <a href="https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018/summary-key-findings">large international survey</a>, 64% of those who described religion as an “important part” of their life said they would side with their religious teachings in a disagreement between science and their religion. Other studies find that, for the faithful, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.07.013">religion and science are at odds</a> as ultimate explanations for natural phenomena.</p>
<h2>Climate science denial may stem more from politics than religion</h2>
<p>Social scientist Dan Kahan rejects the idea of an automatic link between religiosity and any anti-science bias. He argues that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246">religiosity only incidentally tracks science denial</a> because some scientific findings have become “culturally antagonistic” to some identity groups.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2014/11/10/what-accounts-for-public-conflict-over-science-religiosity-o.html">Kahan’s data</a>, identification as a political conservative, and as white, is much more predictive of rejecting the climate consensus than overall religiosity. He argues that anti-science bias has to do with threats to values that define one’s cultural identity. There are all kinds of topic areas wherein people judge expert qualifications based on whether the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246">“expert” confirms or contradicts the subject’s cherished view</a>.</p>
<p>Social scientist Donald Braman <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-conservative-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics/">agrees that science denial is context dependent</a>. He points out that while conservative white males are more likely to be skeptics on global warming, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-1-patterns-underlying-public-views-about-science/">different demographic groups disagree with experts</a> on other particular topics.</p>
<p>For example, where a conservative person invested in the social and economic status quo might feel threatened by evidence for global warming, liberal egalitarians might be threatened by evidence, say, that nuclear waste could be safely stored underground. </p>
<p>As I explain in my book, “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-truth-about-denial-9780190062279?q=truth%20about%20denial&lang=en&cc=us">The Truth About Denial</a>”, there’s ample evidence for a universal human tendency toward <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/motivated-reasoning">motivated reasoning</a> when faced with facts that threaten one’s ideological worldview. The motivated reasoner begins with a conclusion to which he or she is committed, and assesses evidence or expertise according to whether it supports that conclusion.</p>
<p>White American evangelicals <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/12/02/white-evangelical-protestants-and-the-partisan-divide/">trend very strongly toward political conservatism</a>. They also exhibit the strongest correlation, among any faith group, between religiosity and either climate science denial or a general anti-science bias.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, African-American Protestants, who are theologically aligned with evangelical Protestants but politically aligned with progressives, show some of the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/10/22/religion-and-views-on-climate-and-energy-issues/">highest levels of climate concern</a>.</p>
<p>North America is the only high-income region where people who follow a religion are substantially more likely to say they <a href="https://wellcome.ac.uk/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018/chapter-4-science-and-society">favor their religious teachings over science</a> when disagreements arise. This finding is driven mainly by politically conservative U.S. religious denominations – including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1821-z">conservative Catholics</a>.</p>
<p>A major new study looking at data from 60 countries showed that, while religiosity in the U.S. is correlated with more negative attitudes about science, you don’t see this kind of association <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620923239">in many other countries</a>. Elsewhere, religiosity is sometimes even correlated with disproportionately positive attitudes about science.</p>
<p>And the U.S. is generally an outlier in terms of attitudes toward human-caused global warming: <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/18/a-look-at-how-people-around-the-world-view-climate-change/">Fewer Americans accept</a> the climate science consensus than residents of most other countries.</p>
<p>All this would suggest that climate science resistance has more to do with cultural identity politics than religiosity. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357053/original/file-20200908-22-iz7ws4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="person seated on stone bench in outdoor preaching area" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357053/original/file-20200908-22-iz7ws4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/357053/original/file-20200908-22-iz7ws4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357053/original/file-20200908-22-iz7ws4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357053/original/file-20200908-22-iz7ws4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=347&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357053/original/file-20200908-22-iz7ws4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357053/original/file-20200908-22-iz7ws4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/357053/original/file-20200908-22-iz7ws4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=436&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Beliefs about human dominion over nature may be the key factor.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/preaching-meditation-in-bhutan-royalty-free-image/1044829292">Nitish Waila/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Which comes first?</h2>
<p>But the available evidence cuts both ways. A landmark study from the 1980s suggested that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/63.2.555">fundamentalist religious traditions</a> are associated with a commitment to <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-passages-in-the-bible-justify-cutting-down-forests-76448">human dominion over nature</a>, and that this attitude may explain anti-environmentalist positions.</p>
<p>Even after controlling for political ideology, those committed to an “end-times theology” – like U.S. evangelicals – still <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912442243">show a greater tendency</a> to <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2111617">oppose the scientific consensus</a> on environmental issues.</p>
<p>[<em>Get facts about coronavirus and the latest research.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=coronavirus-facts">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.</a>]</p>
<p>Perhaps some specific theologies bias the believer against the idea that human beings could be responsible for the end of humanity. This bias could show up as an automatic rejection of environmental science. </p>
<p>We are left with something of a “chicken and egg” problem: Do certain religious communities adopt politically conservative positions on climate change because of their religious tradition? Or do people adopt a religious tradition that stresses human dominion over nature because they were raised in a politically conservative community? The direction of causation here may be difficult to resolve.</p>
<p>It wouldn’t be surprising to find either religious dogmatism or political conservatism linked with anti-science attitudes – each <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/after-service/201609/how-powerful-is-status-quo-bias">tends to favor the status quo</a>. Fundamentalist religious traditions are defined by their fixed doctrines. Political conservatives <a href="https://philpapers.org/rec/MULCHA">by definition</a> favor the preservation of the traditional social and economic order. </p>
<p>Consider that perhaps the single essential aspect of the scientific method is that it has no respect for cultural traditions or received views. (Think of Galileo’s findings on the motion of the Earth, or Darwin on evolution.) Some would argue that scientific inquiry’s “<a href="https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/chris-mooney/the-republican-war-on-science/9780465003860/">constant onslaught on old orthodoxies</a>” is the reason both conservatives and frequent churchgoers report a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225">decreasing overall trust in science</a> which <a href="https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Politics?measure=consci">continues to this day</a>.</p>
<p>Even if politics and culture rather than religion itself may be driving climate science denial, religious communities – <a href="http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html">as some religious leaders, including the Roman Catholic Pope, have recognized</a> – bear a responsibility to exercise some self-awareness and concern for well-being rather than blindly denying the overwhelming consensus on a civilization-ending threat like human-caused global warming.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143145/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Bardon received funding from the Humility and Conviction in Public Life project at the University of Connecticut.</span></em></p>Few white evangelicals in the U.S. say they believe in human-made climate change. This strand of science denial seems to have as much to do with conservative politics as the Bible’s teachings.Adrian Bardon, Professor of Philosophy, Wake Forest UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1419912020-07-30T09:10:24Z2020-07-30T09:10:24ZClimate denial hasn’t gone away – here’s how to spot arguments for delaying climate action<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349975/original/file-20200728-29-13tw0no.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4133%2C3099&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/budapest-hungary-0405-young-protestor-demonstration-1360382603">Jambor Orsolya/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The UK and many other rich countries have set ambitious targets for emissions cuts to tackle climate change, and have already made much headway in recent years. Further progress can be achieved while making sure that fossil fuels are used responsibly, and with promising new technology such as aircraft powered by batteries.</p>
<p>The UK should not do more though, while countries like China and the US continue to emit far more than we do. It’s hard to see why hard-working families should be denied simple pleasures either, like flying on foreign holidays.</p>
<p>In fact, why should we limit emissions at all, since the worst of climate change is already looking inevitable?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If these sorts of claims sound familiar – reasonable even – that’s because they are some of the most common ways of arguing for less ambition on tackling the climate crisis. Outright denial of climate change is becoming rarer, but is simply being replaced by more subtle ways of downplaying the need for urgent and far-reaching action.</p>
<p>In new research, we have identified what we call 12 “<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/7B11B722E3E3454BB6212378E32985A7/S2059479820000137a.pdf/discourses_of_climate_delay.pdf">discourses of delay</a>”. These are ways of speaking and writing about climate change that are commonly used by politicians, media commentators and industry spokespeople. Though they shy away from denying the reality of climate change, their effect on the collective effort to respond to it is no less corrosive.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349689/original/file-20200727-29-l7faoy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A graphic depicting the 12 different types of 'delay' arguments, grouped into four categories." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349689/original/file-20200727-29-l7faoy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349689/original/file-20200727-29-l7faoy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349689/original/file-20200727-29-l7faoy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349689/original/file-20200727-29-l7faoy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349689/original/file-20200727-29-l7faoy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349689/original/file-20200727-29-l7faoy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349689/original/file-20200727-29-l7faoy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Delay arguments are often different in type, but have the same desired effect – to undermine action on climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/global-sustainability/article/discourses-of-climate-delay/7B11B722E3E3454BB6212378E32985A7">William Lamb</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Delay is the new denial</h2>
<p>Some of these arguments direct responsibility to others (“<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/">what about China?</a>”) or stress the supposed downsides of taking action (“<a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8128492/labour-holiday-tax-family-break/">why should ordinary people pay?</a>”). At other times, past achievements or future plans may be emphasised when pushing solutions that aren’t likely to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions (“<a href="https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2019-06-05/260610/">we have world-beating climate targets</a>”), or it may simply be argued that it is now too late to do anything anyway (“<a href="https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending">the climate apocalypse is coming</a>”).</p>
<p>When people make appeals to delay or limit action on climate change, it is often couched in the language of optimism and progress. Take the remarks on aviation by UK health minister Matt Hancock in January 2020. He said that there is no need to reduce how much we fly because <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/top-tory-says-should-carry-21283119">electric planes are on the horizon</a> (disclaimer: <a href="https://theconversation.com/electric-planes-are-here-but-they-wont-solve-flyings-co-problem-125900">they aren’t</a>). On the other hand, tackling climate change can just as easily be undermined by a sense of <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/faulty-science-doomism-and-flawed-conclusions-deep-adaptation/">futility or hopelessness</a> in the potential for meaningful action.</p>
<p>It’s important to appreciate that many of these arguments contain at least a grain of truth – and may be used by people in good faith. After all, who hasn’t wondered at some point whether cycling to work instead of driving has much bearing on a vast global problem?</p>
<p>Likewise, it’s not fair to expect those who have contributed the least to climate change to be held back from attaining a decent standard of living. Nor is it reasonable to expect someone in rented housing to pay to upgrade a poorly insulated property in the UK. Genuine concerns about the wider impacts of climate policies become delay arguments only when they are used to downplay the scale of the problems we face, or to obscure the need for <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/unep-1-5c-climate-target-slipping-out-of-reach">immediate and radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions</a>.</p>
<h2>How to respond</h2>
<p>By defining the most common delay arguments, we can better understand the obstacles being placed in the path of tackling the climate crisis. They are part of a wider range of <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.429">stories used to describe climate change</a> that act as important influences on public opinion. They can make the difference between engendering a resolve to act and spreading disgruntled resignation.</p>
<p>A clearer understanding of these arguments also forces us to engage with and find better responses to them. For instance, it’s convenient to view action on climate change as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629617301433">a situation</a> where one country determined to continue polluting can take advantage of the goodwill of others who reduce their emissions. The argument that if I take action it will be exploited by someone else unwilling to do the same (which we call the “free rider” excuse) has been used by the US president, Donald Trump, to pit developing countries against the US on emissions reductions, and to press the case for <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-world-is-coping-1-year-after-trump-abandoned-paris-climate-pact/">withdrawal from the Paris Accord</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A coastal coal fired power station in Indonesia surrounded by small boats in the bay." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349981/original/file-20200728-19-1ycewvk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/349981/original/file-20200728-19-1ycewvk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349981/original/file-20200728-19-1ycewvk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349981/original/file-20200728-19-1ycewvk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349981/original/file-20200728-19-1ycewvk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349981/original/file-20200728-19-1ycewvk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/349981/original/file-20200728-19-1ycewvk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">All nations bear responsibilities for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions – some greater than others.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/coal-power-plant-pt-indonesia-ujp-683968324">Ares Jonekson/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is also <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/8/3484">an argument used</a> to dispute the value of action at the individual level. An emphasis instead on emissions reduction as something for which we all have shared responsibility and obligations – as citizens, communities and countries – is one response to this type of claim. Another is to highlight the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02761-y?utm_source=toc">opportunities for fairer and better societies</a> that can flourish with the right sort of climate action.</p>
<p>Now that the human hand in climate change is <a href="https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS8_toplines_issue_9_climatechange.pdf">recognised by most people</a>, debate should concern where we are headed as societies, how fundamental are the changes that we need to make, how to compel the vested interests of fossil-fuelled industries to make those changes (whether they want to or not), and how to wrestle with the worrying signs of a changing climate without abandoning our resolve to prevent it worsening. Discourses of delay risk obscuring this essential conversation. We must learn to recognise and answer them with confidence.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141991/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Capstick receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). He is affiliated with the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST Centre) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia K. Steinberger receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust for her Research Leadership Award on 'Living Well Within Limits' RL2016–048.</span></em></p>New research exposes the common tropes of bad faith arguments about climate change.Stuart Capstick, Research Fellow in Psychology, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1408012020-06-16T13:29:58Z2020-06-16T13:29:58ZHow much do people around the world care about climate change? We surveyed 80,000 people in 40 countries to find out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342175/original/file-20200616-23247-9x14x2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ra2 studio / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2020/how-people-access-news-about-climate-change/">New survey results</a> from 40 countries shows that climate change matters to most people. In the vast majority of countries, fewer than 3% said climate change was not serious at all.</p>
<p>We carried out this research as part of the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute annual <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/">Digital News Reports</a>. More than 80,000 people were surveyed online in January and February of this year. </p>
<p>Almost seven in ten think climate change is “a very, or extremely serious, problem”, but the results show notable country differences. Lack of concern is far higher in the US (12%) as well as in Sweden (9%), Greta Thunberg’s home country. Despite disastrous bush fires at the time of our fieldwork, 8% of respondents in Australia report that climate change is not serious at all. These groups with low levels of concern tend to be right wing and older.</p>
<p>Four of the five countries showing the highest levels of concern (85-90%) were from the global south, namely Chile, Kenya, South Africa and the Philippines. However, in countries with lower levels of internet penetration, our online survey samples over-represent people who are more affluent and educated.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342179/original/file-20200616-23231-126wzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342179/original/file-20200616-23231-126wzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342179/original/file-20200616-23231-126wzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342179/original/file-20200616-23231-126wzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342179/original/file-20200616-23231-126wzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342179/original/file-20200616-23231-126wzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342179/original/file-20200616-23231-126wzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342179/original/file-20200616-23231-126wzf0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=220&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Almost everyone in Chile and Kenya thinks climate change is serious. But that’s not the case in Scandinavia and the Low Countries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters Institute Digital News Report</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps surprisingly, the five countries with the lowest levels of concern are all in Western Europe. In Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands, only around half (or less) think that climate change is a serious problem.</p>
<p>It is the first time that results from survey questions on climate change have been included in the Reuters Institute’s reports, so it is difficult to draw out historical trends. However, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/05/1-concern-about-climate-change-and-its-consequences/climate-change-report-40/">results in 2015 from the Pew Center</a> based on surveys in 40 countries (with different questions and countries to those in our survey) found that 54% of those surveyed thought that climate change was “a very serious” problem. </p>
<p>So it looks like concern for climate change may be rising globally. There is certainly strong evidence that it is increasing in some countries. In the US, in November 2019 <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-november-2019/4/">two in three Americans (66%) said they were at least “somewhat worried” about global warming</a>, an increase of 10 percentage points over the past five years. </p>
<p>In the UK, <a href="https://cast.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/CAST-Briefing-paper-02-Pubic-opinion-in-a-time-of-climate-emergency-min.pdf">data from the CAST centre at Cardiff University</a> showed that in 2019 levels of “worry” about climate change were at their highest recorded point. Extreme weather events, media reporting and wider publicity were mentioned by respondents as reasons for their increase in concern.</p>
<p>In our survey, across countries and markets, individuals who identify as left-wing tend to report higher levels of concern. This finding is even more visible in more polarised societies such as the US where 89% of those who self-identify on the left note that climate change is serious, compared to only 18% of those who self-identify on the right.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342164/original/file-20200616-23247-14v3f5z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342164/original/file-20200616-23247-14v3f5z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342164/original/file-20200616-23247-14v3f5z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342164/original/file-20200616-23247-14v3f5z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342164/original/file-20200616-23247-14v3f5z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=558&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342164/original/file-20200616-23247-14v3f5z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=701&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342164/original/file-20200616-23247-14v3f5z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=701&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342164/original/file-20200616-23247-14v3f5z.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=701&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Right-wingers tend to take climate change less seriously – especially in the US and Sweden.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters Institute Digital News Report</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We also find a similar divide in Sweden. As Sweden is widely considered one of the world’s most progressive nations, these results surprised us and we asked <a href="https://www.chalmers.se/en/staff/Pages/Martin-Hultman.aspx">Martin Hultman</a>, a researcher in climate denialism at Chalmers University in Gothenburg, what to make of them. </p>
<p>“These figures do not surprise me”, he told us in an email. “Since 2010, the leadership of the far-right political party Sweden Democrats has been against all types of policies to tackle climate change, including the Paris Agreement.”</p>
<p>“And we know that the spread of climate change denial ideas and rhetoric is widespread in Sweden – not least when digitally-born far-right media sites spread conspiracy theories about <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/why-climate-change-denial-persists/11729332">Greta Thunberg</a>.”</p>
<h2>TV news still dominates</h2>
<p>Across all countries, people say they pay most attention to climate news on television (35%). Online news sites of major news organisations are the second most popular news source (15%), followed by specialised outlets covering climate issues (13%), then alternative sources such as social media and blogs (9%).</p>
<p>Figures from the UK, US and Australia are broadly in line with these preferences. Printed newspapers and radio are way down, with only around 5% saying each was the source they paid most attention to. In Chile, where the concern is high, specialised outlets covering climate issues (24%) as well as alternative sources such as social media (17%) are nearly as popular as television (26%).</p>
<p>The differences in climate news consumption are also visible among different age groups. Younger generations, more specifically the so-called Generation Z (aged 18-24), are more likely to report paying attention to alternative sources on climate change (17%) as well as TV (23%) and online news sites from major news organisations (16%). Older people, however, rely more heavily on TV (42%) and use less of the online news sites (12%) or alternative sources such as social media (5%). </p>
<p>Respondents from both sides of the political spectrum criticise the media for either being too doom-laden, or not bold enough, in their coverage of climate change. That said, our survey shows that almost half of our respondents (47%) think that news media generally do a good job of informing them about climate change, and 19% think that they do a bad job.</p>
<p>However, those who have low levels of concern are much more inclined to say that the news media are doing a bad job (46%). This might indicate a lack of trust in climate change coverage or a more general loss of confidence in the news media.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simge Andı is affiliated with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. The underlying research was published with the support of Google and the Digital News Initiative.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Painter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Major new survey shows big national variations in levels of concern, polarisation and media usage.Simge Andı, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of OxfordJames Painter, Research Associate, Reuters Institute, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1330442020-03-17T12:11:46Z2020-03-17T12:11:46ZHow to talk to someone you believe is misinformed about the coronavirus<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319364/original/file-20200309-118890-j7fnka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=888%2C181%2C3779%2C2925&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Don't shout or lecture – just talk.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/friendly-female-colleagues-having-good-relationships-1246077505">fizkes/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The medical evidence is clear: The coronavirus global health threat is not an elaborate hoax. Bill Gates did not create the coronavirus to sell more vaccines. Essential oils are <a href="https://nccih.nih.gov/health/in-the-news-in-the-news-coronavirus-and-alternative-treatments">not effective</a> at protecting you from coronavirus. </p>
<p>But those facts have not stopped contrary claims from spreading both on and offline.</p>
<p>No matter the topic, people often hear conflicting information and must decide which sources to trust. The internet and the fast-paced news environment mean that information travels quickly, leaving little time for fact-checking. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Li4FgBUAAAAJ&hl=en">researcher</a> interested in science communication and controversies, I study how scientific misinformation spreads and how to correct it. </p>
<p>I’ve been very busy lately. Whether we are talking about the coronavirus, climate change, vaccines or something else, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/05/tech/facebook-google-who-coronavirus-misinformation/index.html">misinformation abounds</a>. Maybe you have shared something on Facebook that turned out to be false, or retweeted something before <a href="https://theconversation.com/4-ways-to-protect-yourself-from-disinformation-130767">double-checking the source</a>. <a href="https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/future-alternative-facts">This can happen</a> to anyone.</p>
<p>It’s also common to encounter people who are misinformed but don’t know it yet. It’s one thing to double-check your own information, but what’s the best way to talk to someone else about what they think is true – but which is not true?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319101/original/file-20200306-118890-18pyx36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319101/original/file-20200306-118890-18pyx36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319101/original/file-20200306-118890-18pyx36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319101/original/file-20200306-118890-18pyx36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319101/original/file-20200306-118890-18pyx36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319101/original/file-20200306-118890-18pyx36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/319101/original/file-20200306-118890-18pyx36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It can be easier – and more worthwhile – helping a friend or loved one overcome misinformation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/good-talk-friend-two-young-beautiful-1191176773">G-Stock Studio/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Is it worth engaging?</h2>
<p>First, consider the context of the situation. Is there enough time to engage them in a conversation? Do they seem interested in and open to discussion? Do you have a personal connection with them where they value your opinion? </p>
<p>Evaluating the situation can help you decide whether you want to start a conversation to correct their misinformation. Sometimes we interact with people who are closed-minded and not willing to listen. <a href="https://rightingamerica.net/when-the-juice-is-not-worth-the-squeeze-distinguishing-between-productive-and-unproductive-conversations/">It’s OK</a> not to engage with them.</p>
<p>In interpersonal interactions, correcting misinformation can be helped by the strength of the relationship. For example, it may be easier to correct misinformation held by a family member or partner because they are already aware that you care for them and you are interested in their well-being.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318982/original/file-20200305-106589-1eugb1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318982/original/file-20200305-106589-1eugb1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318982/original/file-20200305-106589-1eugb1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318982/original/file-20200305-106589-1eugb1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318982/original/file-20200305-106589-1eugb1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318982/original/file-20200305-106589-1eugb1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318982/original/file-20200305-106589-1eugb1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318982/original/file-20200305-106589-1eugb1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People shut down when they’re being lectured, no matter their age.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/angry-young-dad-sit-on-couch-1407481472">fizkes/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Don’t patronize</h2>
<p>One approach is to engage in a back-and-forth discussion about the topic. This is often called a <a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-christians-climate-views-can-lead-to-better-conversations-about-the-environment-115693">dialogue</a> approach to communication.</p>
<p>That means you care about the person behind the opinion, even when you disagree. It is important not to enter conversations with a patronizing attitude. For example, when talking to climate change skeptics, the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/05/09/527541032/there-must-be-more-productive-ways-to-talk-about-climate-change">attitude</a> that the speaker holds toward an audience affects the success of the interaction and can lead to conversations ending before they’ve started.</p>
<p>Instead of treating the conversation as a corrective lecture, treat the other person as an equal partner in the discussion. One way to create that common bond is to acknowledge the shared struggles of locating accurate information. Saying that there is a lot of information circulating can help someone feel comfortable changing their opinion and accepting new information, instead of <a href="https://bigthink.com/age-of-engagement/study-warns-of-boomerang-effects-in-climate-change-campaigns">resisting and sticking to</a> their previous beliefs to avoid admitting they were wrong.</p>
<p>Part of creating dialogue is asking questions. For example, if someone says that they heard coronavirus was all a hoax, you might ask, “That’s not something I’d heard before, what was the source for that?” By being interested in their opinion and not rejecting it out of hand, you open the door for conversation about the information and can engage them in evaluating it. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318983/original/file-20200305-106562-1vd13pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318983/original/file-20200305-106562-1vd13pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318983/original/file-20200305-106562-1vd13pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318983/original/file-20200305-106562-1vd13pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318983/original/file-20200305-106562-1vd13pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318983/original/file-20200305-106562-1vd13pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318983/original/file-20200305-106562-1vd13pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318983/original/file-20200305-106562-1vd13pw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Exchange sources with each other – your reliable ones for their questionable ones. Then discuss what you each find.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-portrait-man-women-students-exchanging-1332257849">StunningArt/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Offer to trade information</h2>
<p>Another strategy is to introduce the person to new sources. In my <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Communication-Strategies-for-Engaging-Climate-Skeptics-Religion-and-the/Bloomfield/p/book/9781138585935">book</a>, I discuss a conversation I had with a climate skeptic who did not believe that scientists had reached a 97% consensus on the existence of climate change. They dismissed this well-established number by referring to nonscientific sources and blog posts. Instead of rejecting their resources, I offered to trade with them. For each of their sources I read, they would read one of mine.</p>
<p>It is likely that the misinformation people have received is not coming from a credible source, so you can propose an alternative. For example, you could offer to send them an article from the <a href="http://cdc.gov/">Centers for Disease Control</a> for medical and health information, the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> for environmental information, or the reputable debunking site <a href="http://snopes.com/">Snopes</a> to compare the information. If someone you are talking to is open to learning more, encourage that continued curiosity.</p>
<p>It is sometimes hard, inconvenient, or awkward to engage someone who is misinformed. But I feel very strongly that opening ourselves up to have these conversations can help to correct misinformation. To ensure that society can make the best decisions about important topics, share accurate information and combat the spread of misinformation.</p>
<p>[<em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133044/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Emma Frances Bloomfield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s common to encounter people who are misinformed, but don’t know it yet. What’s the best way to talk to someone else about what they think is true?Emma Frances Bloomfield, Assistant Professor of Communication Studies, University of Nevada, Las VegasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1321582020-03-09T12:22:22Z2020-03-09T12:22:22ZHow technology can combat the rising tide of fake science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318753/original/file-20200304-66112-vybpt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=63%2C13%2C1178%2C840&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A crop circle in Switzerland.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CropCircleW.jpg">Jabberocky/Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science gets a lot of respect these days. Unfortunately, it’s also getting a lot of competition from misinformation. Seven in 10 Americans think the benefits from science outweigh the harms, and nine in 10 think science and technology will create <a href="https://nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/highlights">more opportunities for future generations</a>. Scientists have made dramatic progress in understanding the universe and the mechanisms of biology, and advances in computation benefit all fields of science. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Americans are surrounded by a rising tide of misinformation and fake science. Take climate change. Scientists are in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024">almost complete agreement that people are the primary cause of global warming</a>. Yet polls show that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9">a third of the public disagrees</a> with this conclusion.</p>
<p>In my <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=OrRLRQ4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">30 years of studying and promoting scientific literacy</a>, I’ve found that college educated adults have large holes in their basic science knowledge and they’re disconcertingly <a href="https://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/17315">susceptible to superstition and beliefs that aren’t based on any evidence</a>. One way to counter this is to make it easier for people to detect pseudoscience online. To this end, my lab at the University of Arizona has developed an artificial intelligence-based pseudoscience detector that we plan to freely release as a web browser extension and smart phone app.</p>
<h2>Americans’ predilection for fake science</h2>
<p>Americans are prone to superstition and paranormal beliefs. An annual survey done by sociologists at Chapman University finds that <a href="https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2018/10/16/paranormal-america-2018/">more than half believe in spirits and the existence of ancient civilizations</a> like Atlantis, and more than a third think that aliens have visited the Earth in the past or are visiting now. Over 75% hold multiple paranormal beliefs. The survey shows that these numbers have increased in recent years.</p>
<p><iframe id="IbP7D" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IbP7D/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Widespread belief in astrology is a pet peeve of my colleagues in astronomy. It’s long had a foothold in the popular culture through horoscopes in newspapers and magazines <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/the-new-age-of-astrology/550034/">but currently it’s booming</a>. Belief is strong even among the most educated. My surveys of college undergraduates show that three-quarters of them <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2010040">think that astrology is very or “sort of” scientific</a> and only half of science majors recognize it as not at all scientific.</p>
<p>Allan Mazur, a sociologist at Syracuse University, has delved into <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203788967">the nature of irrational belief systems</a>, their cultural roots, and their political impact. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, resistant to evidence or data that might prove them false. Some are at least amusing. Adherents of the flat Earth theory turn back the clock on two millennia of scientific progress. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/9/16424622/reddit-conspiracy-theories-memes-irony-flat-earth">Interest in this bizarre idea has surged in the past five years</a>, spurred by social media influencers and the echo chamber nature of web sites like Reddit. As with climate change denial, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47279253">many come to this belief through YouTube videos</a>.</p>
<p>However, the consequences of fake science are no laughing matter. In matters of health and climate change, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190161">misinformation can be a matter of life and death</a>. Over a 90-day period spanning December, January and February, people liked, shared and commented on posts from sites containing <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/coronavirus-misinformation-is-increasing-newsguard-finds/">false or misleading information about COVID-19</a> 142 times more than they did information from the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. </p>
<p>Combating fake science is an urgent priority. In a world that’s increasingly dependent on science and technology, civic society can only function when the electorate is well informed. </p>
<p>Educators must roll up their sleeves and do a better job of teaching critical thinking to young people. However, the problem goes beyond the classroom. The internet is the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report">first source of science information</a> for 80% of people ages 18 to 24. </p>
<p>One study found that a majority of a random sample of 200 YouTube videos on climate change <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036">denied that humans were responsible or claimed that it was a conspiracy</a>. The videos peddling conspiracy theories got the most views. Another study found that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis">a quarter of all tweets on climate were generated by bots</a> and they preferentially amplified messages from climate change deniers.</p>
<h2>Technology to the rescue?</h2>
<p>The recent success of machine learning and AI in <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00648">detecting fake news</a> points the way to detecting fake science online. The key is <a href="https://www.explainthatstuff.com/introduction-to-neural-networks.html">neural net</a> technology. Neural nets are loosely modeled on the human brain. They consist of many interconnected computer processors that identify meaningful patterns in data like words and images. Neural nets already permeate everyday life, particularly in <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02709">natural language processing</a> systems like Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s language translation capability.</p>
<p>At the University of Arizona, we have trained neural nets on handpicked popular articles about climate change and biological evolution, and the neural nets are 90% successful in distinguishing wheat from chaff. With a quick scan of a site, our neural net can tell if its content is scientifically sound or climate-denial junk. After more refinement and testing we hope to have neural nets that can work across all domains of science. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neural net technology under development at the University of Arizona will flag science websites with a color code indicating their reliability (left). A smartphone app version will gamify the process of declaring science articles real or fake (right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Impey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The goal is a web browser extension that would detect when the user is looking at science content and deduce whether or not it’s real or fake. If it’s misinformation, the tool will suggest a reliable web site on that topic. My colleagues and I also plan to gamify the interface with a smart phone app that will let people compete with their friends and relatives to detect fake science. Data from the best of these participants will be used to help train the neural net.</p>
<p>Sniffing out fake science should be easier than sniffing out fake news in general, because subjective opinion plays a minimal role in legitimate science, which is characterized by evidence, logic and verification. Experts can readily distinguish legitimate science from conspiracy theories and arguments motivated by ideology, which means machine learning systems can be trained to, as well. </p>
<p>“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” These words of <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/moynihan-letters-201011">Daniel Patrick Moynihan</a>, advisor to four presidents, could be the mantra for those trying to keep science from being drowned by misinformation.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Impey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The internet has allowed pseudoscience to flourish. Artificial intelligence could help steer people away from the bad information.Chris Impey, University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1228932019-11-28T13:00:57Z2019-11-28T13:00:57ZThe five corrupt pillars of climate change denial<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304259/original/file-20191128-178062-1ks4kh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1954%2C579%2C2259%2C1992&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Don't let the green naysayers drown you out. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/concept-green-umbrella-floating-on-flooded-479203771">Component/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#2f06b9e87c4f">US$200 million a year on lobbying</a> to control, delay or block binding climate policy.</p>
<p>Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/climate-change-poll-americans">75% of Americans</a> think humans are causing climate change. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/school-climate-strikes-69510">School climate strikes</a>, <a href="https://rebellion.earth/">Extinction Rebellion</a> protests, national governments declaring a <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677">climate emergency</a>, improved <a href="https://www.cjr.org/covering_climate_now/covering-climate-partnerships.php/">media coverage of climate change</a> and an increasing number of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/extreme-weather">extreme weather events</a> have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis. </p>
<p>But this means lobbying has changed, now employing more subtle and more vicious approaches – what has been termed as “<a href="https://www.patreon.com/posts/note-on-climate-29360296">climate sadism</a>”. It is used to mock young people going on <a href="https://theconversation.com/theyll-give-me-a-detention-but-itll-be-worth-it-a-climate-scientist-interviews-his-climate-striking-daughter-117689">climate protests</a> and to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/02/greta-thunberg-responds-to-aspergers-critics-its-a-superpower">ridicule Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old</a> young woman with Asperger’s, who is simply telling the scientific truth. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303185/original/file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303185/original/file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303185/original/file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303185/original/file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303185/original/file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303185/original/file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303185/original/file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303185/original/file-20191122-74580-15mrufe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anti-climate change lobbying spend by the five largest publicly-owned fossil fuel companies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/">Statista</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At such a crossroads, it is important to be able to identify the different types of denial. The below taxonomy will help you spot the different ways that are being used to convince you to delay action on climate change.</p>
<h2>1. Science denial</h2>
<p>This is the type of denial we are all familiar with: that the science of climate change is not settled. Deniers suggest climate change is just part of the natural cycle. Or that climate models are unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>Some even suggest that CO₂ is such a small part of the atmosphere it cannot have a large heating affect. Or that climate scientists are <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/science-environment-50396797/climate-change-how-did-a-hacking-scandal-impact-climate-science">fixing the data to show the climate is changing</a> (a global conspiracy that would take thousands of scientists in more than a 100 countries to pull off).</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/five-climate-change-science-misconceptions-debunked-122570">All these arguments are false</a> and there is a clear consensus among scientists <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans">about the causes of climate change</a>. The climate models that predict global temperature rises have remained <a href="https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00494.x">very similar over the last 30 years</a> despite the huge increase in complexity, showing it is a robust outcome of the science.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/five-climate-change-science-misconceptions-debunked-122570">Five climate change science misconceptions – debunked</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303164/original/file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303164/original/file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303164/original/file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303164/original/file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303164/original/file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303164/original/file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303164/original/file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303164/original/file-20191122-74557-14gavfe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Model reconstruction of global temperature since 1970. Average of the models in black with model range in grey compared to observational temperature records from NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, Cowtan and Way, and Berkeley Earth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work">Carbon Brief</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-climate-change-sceptic-nigel-lawson-real-humans-causing-a7307456.html">now agrees that humans are causing climate change</a>, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/">It says</a> it is “open-minded on the contested science of global warming, [but] is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated”. In other words, climate change is now about the cost not the science. </p>
<h2>2. Economic denial</h2>
<p>The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by <a href="https://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-economists-stern-review-20827">spending 1% of world GDP</a>. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved <a href="https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018/">human health and expansion of the global green economy</a> are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.</p>
<p>We should also remember that in 2018 the world generated <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/09/fifteen-countries-represent-three-quarters-total-gdp/">US$86,000,000,000,000 and every year this World GDP grows by 3.5%</a>. So setting aside just 1% to deal with climate change would make little overall difference and would save the world a huge amount of money. What the climate change deniers also forget to tell you is that they are protecting a fossil fuel industry that receives <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509">US$5.2 trillion</a> in annual subsidies – which includes subsidised supply costs, tax breaks and environmental costs. This amounts to 6% of world GDP. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509">International Monetary Fund estimates</a> that efficient fossil fuel pricing would lower global carbon emissions by 28%, fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46%, and increase government revenue by 3.8% of the country’s GDP.</p>
<h2>3. Humanitarian denial</h2>
<p>Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the 2010 “Moscow” heatwave <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3984022/">killed 11,000 people</a>, devastated the <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/220">Russian wheat harvest</a> and increased global food prices. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304069/original/file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304069/original/file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/304069/original/file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304069/original/file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304069/original/file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304069/original/file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304069/original/file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/304069/original/file-20191127-112484-1oqe1pq.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=421&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Geographical zones of the world. The tropical zones span from the Tropic of Cancer in the North to the Tropic of Capricorn in the South (red shaded region) and contains 40% of the World population.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperate_climate#/media/File:Latitude_zones.png">Maulucioni/Wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>More than <a href="https://news.mongabay.com/2014/07/booming-populations-rising-economies-threatened-biodiversity-the-tropics-will-never-be-the-same/">40% of the world’s population also lives in the Tropics</a> – where from both a <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32596-6/fulltext">human health prospective</a> and <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-desertification-and-the-role-of-climate-change">an increase in desertification</a> no one wants summer temperatures to rise. </p>
<p>Deniers also point out that plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to grow so having more of it acts like a fertiliser. This is indeed true and the <a href="https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/">land biosphere has been absorbing about a quarter</a> of our carbon dioxide pollution every year. Another <a href="https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/ocean-atmosphere-co2-exchange/">quarter of our emissions is absorbed by the oceans</a>. But losing massive areas of natural vegetation through deforestation and changes in land use <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/">completely nullifies this minor fertilisation effect</a>.</p>
<p>Climate change deniers will tell you that more people die of the cold than heat, so warmer winters will be a good thing. This is deeply misleading. Vulnerable people die of the cold because of poor housing and not being able to afford to heat their homes. Society, not climate, kills them.</p>
<p>This argument is also factually incorrect. In the US, for example, heat-related deaths are <a href="https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/">four times higher than cold-related ones</a>. This may even be an underestimate as many heat-related deaths are recorded by cause of death such as heart failure, stroke, or respiratory failure, all of which are exacerbated by excessive heat.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303174/original/file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303174/original/file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303174/original/file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303174/original/file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303174/original/file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303174/original/file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303174/original/file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303174/original/file-20191122-74542-18pg9xy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">US weather fatalities for 2018 alongside the ten- and 30-year average.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.weather.gov/hazstat/">National Weather Service</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Political denial</h2>
<p>Climate change deniers argue we cannot take action because other countries are not taking action. But not all countries are equally guilty of causing current climate change. <a href="https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html">For example</a>, 25% of the human-produced CO₂ in the atmosphere is generated by the US, another 22% is produced by the EU. Africa produces just under 5%.</p>
<p>Given the historic legacy of greenhouse gas pollution, developed countries have an ethical responsibility to lead the way in cutting emissions. But ultimately, all countries need to act because if we want to minimise the effects of climate change then the world must go <a href="https://eciu.net/briefings/net-zero/net-zero-why">carbon zero by 2050</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303181/original/file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303181/original/file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/303181/original/file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303181/original/file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303181/original/file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=296&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303181/original/file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303181/original/file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/303181/original/file-20191122-74603-s1g9im.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Per capita annual carbon dioxide emissions and cumulative country emissions. Data from the Global Carbon Project.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-019-02711-4/index.html">Nature. Data from the Global Carbon Project</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Deniers will also tell you that there are problems to fix closer to home without bothering with global issues. But many of the solutions to climate change are win-win and will improve the lives of normal people. Switching to renewable energy and electric vehicles, for example, reduces air pollution, which improves people’s overall health.</p>
<p>Developing a green economy provides <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-green-economy-growth-dwarfs-donald-trumps-highest-hopes-for-the-fossil-fuel-industry-123062">economic benefits and creates jobs</a>. Improving the environment and reforestation provides protection from <a href="https://theconversation.com/reforesting-an-area-the-size-of-the-us-needed-to-help-avert-climate-breakdown-say-researchers-are-they-right-119842">extreme weather events and can in turn improve food and water security</a>.</p>
<h2>5. Crisis denial</h2>
<p>The final piece of climate change denial is the argument that we should not rush into changing things, especially given the uncertainty raised by the other four areas of denial above. Deniers argue that climate change is not as bad as scientists make out. We will be much richer in the future and better able to fix climate change. They also play on our emotions as many of us don’t like change and can feel we are living in the best of times – especially if we are richer or in power.</p>
<p>But similarly hollow arguments were used in the past to delay ending slavery, granting the vote to women, ending colonial rule, ending segregation, decriminalising homosexuality, bolstering worker’s rights and environmental regulations, allowing same sex marriages and banning smoking. </p>
<p>The fundamental question is why are we allowing the people with the most privilege and power to convince us to delay saving our planet from climate change? </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1122893">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122893/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Maslin is a Founding Director of Rezatec Ltd, Director of The London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and a member of Cheltenham Science Festival Advisory Committee. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board. He has received grant funding in the past from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Society, DIFD, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust and British Council. He has received research funding in the past from The Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. </span></em></p>How to identify and understand different types of denial: scientific, economic, humanitarian, political and crisis.Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1223762019-11-22T17:58:12Z2019-11-22T17:58:12ZFight or switch? How the low-carbon transition is disrupting fossil fuel politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297728/original/file-20191018-56234-jty18o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3514%2C2377&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Commuters idle in rush-hour traffic outside Philadelphia. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/AP-Poll-Climate-Taking-Action/e015e1e136814576845a004e8af8f401/13/0">AP Photo/Jacqueline Larma</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the Trump administration works to <a href="https://www.cpr.org/2019/01/29/the-trump-rollbacks-on-fossil-fuel-industry-regulations-carry-a-steep-cost/">weaken regulations on fossil fuel production and use</a>, a larger struggle is playing out across multiple industries. Until recently, oil companies and their defenders generally reacted to calls for regulating carbon emissions by <a href="https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">spreading doubt and promoting climate denialism</a>. However, I believe this approach is becoming less effective as climate change effects worsen and <a href="https://rebellion.earth/">public demands for action</a> intensify worldwide. </p>
<p>As a scholar who focuses on the <a href="https://liberalarts.vt.edu/departments-and-schools/department-of-political-science/faculty/cara-daggett.html">politics of energy and the environment</a>, I see growing anxiety among corporate elites. Some fossil fuel defenders are embracing a new strategy that I call <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829818775817">climate defiance</a>. With a transition to a low-carbon economy looming, they are accelerating investments in fossil fuel extraction while <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuel-interests-have-outspent-environmental-advocates-101-on-climate-lobbying">pressuring governments</a> to delay climate action.</p>
<p>Climate defiance is leading to some surprising clashes between the Trump Administration, bent on extreme deregulation and extraction, and many other companies who recognize that the fossil fuel economy is unsustainable, even if they have not embarked upon a green transition. Climate change is sparking this self-reflection, which is writing a new chapter in global warming politics. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301847/original/file-20191114-26262-18vdhpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301847/original/file-20191114-26262-18vdhpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301847/original/file-20191114-26262-18vdhpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301847/original/file-20191114-26262-18vdhpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301847/original/file-20191114-26262-18vdhpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301847/original/file-20191114-26262-18vdhpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301847/original/file-20191114-26262-18vdhpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301847/original/file-20191114-26262-18vdhpu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Workers tend to a well head during a hydraulic fracturing operation outside Rifle, in western Colorado, March 29, 2013.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/CORRECTION-Fracking-Colorado/740908cd76904f4ca1273b0ecbfce953/183/0">AP Photo/Brennan Linsley</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Car wars</h2>
<p>One high-profile example is the Trump administration’s effort to weaken corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards negotiated by the Obama administration, which were projected to reduce U.S. oil consumption by an estimated <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard">two million barrels per day</a>. Early in the Trump presidency, both <a href="https://autoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Letter-to-EPA-Admin.-Pruitt-Feb.-21-2016-Signed.pdf">an auto industry consortium</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html">fossil fuel producers</a> <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/how-the-carmakers-trumped-themselves/562400/">lobbied hard</a> for the Trump administration to weaken the emissions standards. </p>
<p>But when it became clear that the Trump administration planned to go further than simply weakening the standards, and to freeze them altogether in 2020, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/climate/epa-auto-pollution-pruitt.html">some automakers balked</a>. California and more than a dozen other states insisted on the right to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/01/california-17-other-states-sue-trump-administration-to-defend-obama-era-vehicle-efficiency-rules/">keep higher standards</a>, and four major automakers – Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW – joined <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/climate/trump-auto-emissions-rollback-disarray.html">them</a>. </p>
<p>Those companies, who represent about 30% of the U.S. market, have now agreed to adhere to stricter emissions standards similar to the Obama plan, citing the need for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/climate/automakers-rejecting-trump-pollution-rule-strike-a-deal-with-california.html?module=inline">more regulatory certainty</a>. In retaliation, the Justice Department recently opened an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/climate/automakers-california-emissions-antitrust.html">antitrust investigation</a> into the pact. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, Toyota, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/climate/general-motors-california-emissions-trump.html?action=click&module=inline&pgtype=Homepage">siding with the Trump administration</a>. Their decision surprised many industry watchers, particularly given <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/toyota-california-emissions-honda-gm-chrysler.html">Toyota’s leadership</a> in designing low-emissions vehicles. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297727/original/file-20191018-56220-1vbfjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/297727/original/file-20191018-56220-1vbfjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297727/original/file-20191018-56220-1vbfjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297727/original/file-20191018-56220-1vbfjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297727/original/file-20191018-56220-1vbfjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297727/original/file-20191018-56220-1vbfjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/297727/original/file-20191018-56220-1vbfjtb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=517&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols, center, with Gov. Gavin Newsom, left, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. The state is suing the Trump administration for revoking California’s authority to set its own vehicle emissions standards.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump-Fuel-Economy/02f4d17a72dc4193b58f5d7537e5a827/2/0">Rich Pedroncelli/AP</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Methane capture</h2>
<p>Another divisive issue is the Trump administration’s plan to ease regulations curbing methane emissions from natural gas production. Energy companies tout natural gas as a <a href="https://www.igu.org/natural-gas-cleanest-fossil-fuel">cleaner fossil fuel</a> because it generates fewer carbon dioxide emissions than coal or oil. </p>
<p>However, methane – the main component of natural gas – is a greenhouse gas that contributes significantly to global warming. According to some studies, methane leaks from natural gas extraction and production, known as fugitive emissions, may make natural gas extracted from shale rock <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5">worse than coal in terms of its greenhouse gas footprint</a>.</p>
<p>Several major oil companies, including BP and Royal Dutch Shell, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ceraweek-energy-bp-methane/bp-teams-up-with-edf-to-tackle-methane-leaks-idUSKBN1QU1IB">oppose Trump’s plan to further deregulate methane</a>. Why? They have invested heavily in natural gas as a way to extend their fossil fuel business, and <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/BP-America-chief-It-s-time-for-the-Trump-13721656.php">methane leaks pose a serious threat</a> to the notion that natural gas should play a prominent role in a green transition, especially as renewable energy <a href="https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2019/May/Falling-Renewable-Power-Costs-Open-Door-to-Greater-Climate-Ambition">costs continue to decline</a>. </p>
<p>In contrast, the American Petroleum Institute and smaller oil and gas companies <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/business/energy-environment/methane-regulation-reaction.html">support the rollback</a>, claiming that methane control is too expensive. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WsQmxnk3gps?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Thermal cameras show methane leaking from oil and gas operations.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Shades of green</h2>
<p>Beyond these specific controversies, many companies in the energy sector and beyond have voiced support for moving to a lower-carbon economy. </p>
<p>For example, in August 2019 the Business Roundtable, a corporate advocacy group comprised of almost 200 CEOs from major American corporations, declared that corporate responsibility meant <a href="https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans">more than just serving shareholders</a>. Instead they adopted a broader definition that includes serving customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders, and pledged to “protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses.”</p>
<p>Such declarations are easy to dismiss as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575332">corporate greenwashing</a>. Corporate responses to climate change have largely touted market-based reforms, like <a href="https://www.leadoncarbonpricing.com/news/">pricing carbon emissions</a>, which would not jeopardize ongoing fossil fuel extraction and profits. </p>
<p>Indeed, global fossil fuel and overall energy consumption <a href="https://www.iea.org/geco/">are still rising</a>. And while banks may highlight their
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/23/10-banks-renewable-and-slashing-their-environmental-impact.html">support for renewable energy projects</a>, they also have provided <a href="https://www.ran.org/bankingonclimatechange2019/">at least US$1.9 trillion</a> in fossil fuel financing since the 2016 Paris Agreement entered into force.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/">recent climate change assessments</a> warn that avoiding warming on a catastrophic scale will require “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems.” Many experts assert that change on this scale will ultimately require countries to <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/12/151207-climate-change-holdren-white-house-science-paris/">stop burning fossil fuels altogether</a>. </p>
<p>Others assert that investments in renewable energy alone <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1451">will not stave off drastic warming</a>. Historically, they argue, new renewable energy additions have mostly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.01.008">increased overall energy consumption</a>, rather than displacing fossil fuels. From this perspective, phasing out fossil fuels will require political action. </p>
<p>Such a shift poses an existential threat to major oil companies. Big Oil touts its green projects, but renewable energy accounts for only <a href="https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/003/858/original/CDP_Oil_and_Gas_Executive_Summary_2018.pdf?1541783367">1% to 4% of its new investments</a>. In the view of energy scholars Daniel Sperling and Lewis Fulton, Big Oil has “<a href="https://theconversation.com/oil-companies-are-thinking-about-a-low-carbon-future-but-arent-making-big-investments-in-it-yet-122365">no clear road map</a>” for a green transition. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1191724212282646528"}"></div></p>
<h2>An existential choice</h2>
<p>In my view, struggles between the Trump administration and major corporations over environmental deregulation signal an awareness that the fossil fuel economy’s days are numbered. Although climate deniers occupy prominent positions in the White House, Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency today, recent polls show that <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/a-growing-majority-of-americans-think-global-warming-is-happening-and-are-worried/">two-thirds of Americans</a> are worried about climate change and believe it will harm them.</p>
<p>As I argue in my <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-birth-of-energy">recent book</a>, our fossil fuel system was set up to put the world to work for the benefit of European and American powers. Its profits come from undervaluing the labor and resources that feed it, which I believe has led not only to climate change but to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-025852">extreme global wealth inequality</a>.</p>
<p>A green transition is therefore not only a technical project. As <a href="https://www.c40.org/press_releases/global-gnd">global interest</a> in Green New Deals suggests, climate change <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/green-new-deal-economic-principles/582943/">calls fossil fuel capitalism itself into question</a>. </p>
<p>I see corporations beginning to sense this challenge. Some companies, especially those built upon fossil fuels, will continue to resist moving toward a lower-carbon future. Others will promote market reforms rather than broader systemic changes. I believe, however, that the most forward-looking must begin to imagine how they will fit into a just and decarbonized economy. </p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122376/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cara Daggett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As the effects of climate change become clearer and more ominous, fossil fuel companies face a choice: Defy warnings of catastrophic climate change, or envision their roles in a post-carbon world.Cara Daggett, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Virginia TechLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1268312019-11-13T05:28:12Z2019-11-13T05:28:12Z‘Like volcanoes on the ranges’: how Australian bushfire writing has changed with the climate<p>Bushfire writing has long been a part of Australian literature. </p>
<p>Tales of heroic rescues and bush Christmases describe a time when the fire season was confined only to summer months and Australia’s battler identity was forged in the flames. </p>
<p>While some of these early stories may seem melodramatic to the modern reader, they offer vital insights into the scale and timing of fires and provide an important counterpoint to suggestions from <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/raving-inner-city-lunatics-michael-mccormack-dismisses-link-between-climate-change-and-bushfires-20191111-p539ap.html">some politicians</a> this week that Australia’s fire ecology remains unchanged in the 21st century.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mr-morrison-i-lost-my-home-to-bushfire-your-thoughts-and-prayers-are-not-enough-126754">Mr Morrison, I lost my home to bushfire. Your thoughts and prayers are not enough</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301438/original/file-20191113-77295-18cd5vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301438/original/file-20191113-77295-18cd5vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301438/original/file-20191113-77295-18cd5vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301438/original/file-20191113-77295-18cd5vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301438/original/file-20191113-77295-18cd5vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301438/original/file-20191113-77295-18cd5vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301438/original/file-20191113-77295-18cd5vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301438/original/file-20191113-77295-18cd5vi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">After an apparent bushfire, a horse team pulls timber at Lavers Hill in Victoria, circa 1895.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/226109421?q=bushfire&l-decade=189&l-format=Photograph&c=picture&versionId=248009771">Museum Victoria/NLA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A contender for the first fictional representation of an Australian bushfire is <a href="http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/vidal-mary-theresa-2759">Mary Theresa Vidal</a>’s <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/19424144?q&versionId=22824217">The Cabramatta Store</a> (1850). Although she does not specify a month, Vidal is very clear regarding the season and the oppressive, sweltering heat:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It was one of the hottest days of an unusually hot and dry Australian summer. No breeze stirred the thin, spare foliage of the gum-trees, or moved the thick grove of wattles which grew at the back of a rough log hut.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Vidal’s account of the bushfire that ensues is evocative and intense:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The tall trees were some of them red hot to the top; the fire seemed to run apace, and every leaf and stack was so dry there was nothing to impede its progress.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Postcards from Australia</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301446/original/file-20191113-77363-aykksv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301446/original/file-20191113-77363-aykksv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301446/original/file-20191113-77363-aykksv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301446/original/file-20191113-77363-aykksv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301446/original/file-20191113-77363-aykksv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=927&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301446/original/file-20191113-77363-aykksv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301446/original/file-20191113-77363-aykksv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301446/original/file-20191113-77363-aykksv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1165&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ladys-visit-to-the-gold-diggings-of-australia-in-185253/7F94DEB6DEC7393BC04D00A05DEE4556">Cambridge University Press</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Vidal was not alone in treating fire as a fleeting, one-off incident. Other early accounts, such as <a href="http://gutenberg.net.au/pages/clacy.html">Ellen Clacy</a>’s 1854 romance story A Bushfire, or the prolific novelist William Howitt’s <a href="https://archive.org/details/boysadventuresin00howi/page/16">A Boy’s Adventures in the Wilds of Australia</a> of the same year follow Vidal in depicting the bushfire as an isolated catastrophe.</p>
<p>Howitt’s novel takes the form of a notebook kept by Herbert, a recent young migrant, who recounts the wonder of his new life in the Bush. Though he doesn’t experience a fire at first-hand, Herbert regales the reader with another family’s bushfire adventure in lieu of his own. Yet in closing his account, dated January 14, he writes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I wonder whether, after all, I shall see a bush-fire. During the last week we have seen lurid smoke by day, and a deep-red cloud by night … immense fires are raging in the jungle. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>For Herbert, surviving a bushfire is a settler rite of passage and again, the dating of his entry emphasises the fire as a uniquely summer concern. The boyish narrator, though, cannot appreciate the trauma and severity of Antipodean fire.</p>
<h2>An annual event</h2>
<p>Over time, the settler community began to understand fire as a recurring phenomenon and the tone of fire stories shifted from a triumphant celebration of settler endurance, to a more brooding acceptance that the flames would return another year. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301449/original/file-20191113-77320-o0xku1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301449/original/file-20191113-77320-o0xku1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301449/original/file-20191113-77320-o0xku1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301449/original/file-20191113-77320-o0xku1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301449/original/file-20191113-77320-o0xku1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=903&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301449/original/file-20191113-77320-o0xku1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301449/original/file-20191113-77320-o0xku1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301449/original/file-20191113-77320-o0xku1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1135&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.dymocks.com.au/book/harry-heathcote-of-gangoil-by-philip-bates-and-anthony-trollope-9781548411152?utm_source=googleps&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-KGCxKzm5QIVkIiPCh1wrQVSEAkYCCABEgLAy_D_BwE">Dymocks</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So season-bound was this understanding, a sub-genre of bushfire fiction emerged: the Christmas fire story. These works responded to the Victorian enthusiasm for yuletide tales, while at the same time highlighting the often horrific seasonal tribulations of bush-dwellers. </p>
<p>While there are many examples of Christmas fire stories, one of the best-known is Anthony Trollope’s novella <a href="https://trollopesociety.org/book/harry-heathcote-gangoil/">Harry Heathcote of Gangoil</a> (1874). </p>
<p>The plot, which takes place in the sugar-growing region of Queensland, revolves around the protagonist Harry’s deep fear of fire. Trollope highlights the hostility of the climate, the dangers posed by deforestation, and the deep-rooted anxieties that haunted migrant farmers each summer. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301432/original/file-20191113-77295-1rt0ykc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301432/original/file-20191113-77295-1rt0ykc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/301432/original/file-20191113-77295-1rt0ykc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301432/original/file-20191113-77295-1rt0ykc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301432/original/file-20191113-77295-1rt0ykc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301432/original/file-20191113-77295-1rt0ykc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301432/original/file-20191113-77295-1rt0ykc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/301432/original/file-20191113-77295-1rt0ykc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=561&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Exotic and dangerous tales from Australia - these images were published in The Australasian sketcher, April 9, 1884 - depicted life for settlers and visitors to those back in England.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo-explore/fulldisplay?vid=MAIN&docid=SLV_VOYAGER1777016&context=L">Troedel & Co, lithographer/State Library of Victoria</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are countless other works that allow us to map the Victorian era fire season. </p>
<p>Henry Kingsley’s sprawling 1859 novel <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12904981-the-recollections-of-geoffry-hamlyn">The Recollections of Geoffry Hamlyn</a> begins with another date reference: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Near the end of February 1857 … it was near the latter end of summer, burning hot, with the bushfires raging like volcanoes on the ranges, and the river reduced to a slender stream of water. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Once again here, the date identifies fires specifically with the summertime. </p>
<h2>Climate emergency fiction</h2>
<p>While 19th century fire stories offer a date-stamped and clearly defined fire season, today’s novelists work with a much less predictable set of environmental conditions. </p>
<p>The backdrops for the crime novelist Jane Harper’s thrillers <a href="https://www.panmacmillan.com.au/9781743549995/">The Dry</a> (2016) and <a href="https://www.panmacmillan.com.au/9781743549100/">The Lost Man</a> (2018) are tinder-dry rural communities, where years of drought mean fire could erupt at any moment. </p>
<p>Realist writing is capturing changing conditions, just as it did for settlers more than 150 years ago. Australia may always have been the “<a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/27661019?q&versionId=33365213+38307560+41081277+50560669+178737262">continent of fire</a>”, as historian Tom Griffiths terms it, but literature shows us those fires are more prolific and less predictable now than ever before.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126831/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Grace Moore has received funding for the research in this article from the ARC Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions (project CE110001011).</span></em></p>Tales of heroic rescues and bush Christmases in Australian fiction of the 19th century describe a time when the fire season was confined to summer.Grace Moore, Senior lecturer in English, the University of Otago, New Zealand, University of OtagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.