tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/climate-sceptic-21167/articlesclimate sceptic – The Conversation2022-09-13T05:32:36Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1896452022-09-13T05:32:36Z2022-09-13T05:32:36ZInside the mind of a sceptic: the ‘mental gymnastics’ of climate change denial<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483627/original/file-20220909-15-s3i724.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C1579%2C8392%2C5570&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>The numbers of climate sceptics <a href="https://news.griffith.edu.au/2022/04/28/what-australians-really-think-about-climate-change-survey/">are dwindling</a>. But they remain a noisy and at times powerful minority that continues to have political influence. This group is unmoved by the near-universal agreement among scientists on the reality and impact of climate change.</p>
<p><a href="https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/38/1/153/6333558%20https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095937801100104X">Past research</a> into climate change scepticism has focused on sociodemographics. It has found people are more likely to express scepticism if they are older, male, highly value individualistic beliefs and don’t value the environment.</p>
<p>These characteristics are generally entrenched. It means this information, while interesting, may be of little use when trying to increase public support for climate action. </p>
<p>Our latest <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/09636625221116502">study</a> of Australian sceptics focused on potentially more malleable factors – including the thought processes of people who reject climate science messaging. Our findings suggest some people reject consensus science and generate other explanations due to mistrust in climate science and uncritical faith in “alternative science”.</p>
<p>We hope these findings help researchers, scientists and those responsible for public messaging to understand and overcome sceptics’ concerns.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/almost-90-of-us-now-believe-climate-change-is-a-problem-across-all-political-persuasions-183038">Almost 90% of us now believe climate change is a problem - across all political persuasions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What factors did the study consider?</h2>
<p>For our research, we surveyed 390 Australian climate change sceptics. They were recruited via social media, including from sceptic interest groups and websites. We explored whether the following variables predicted climate change scepticism above and beyond sociodemographic factors:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the extent to which you feel your life’s outcomes are within your personal control, or are mostly influenced by external factors</p></li>
<li><p>information-processing style</p></li>
<li><p>trust in those who defend the industrial capitalist system against accusations that its activities are causing harm.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>We broke scepticism down into four types based on rejection of, or uncertainty about:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the reality of climate change</p></li>
<li><p>its causes</p></li>
<li><p>its impacts</p></li>
<li><p>the need to follow scientific advice. </p></li>
</ul>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1304909264935219200"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-old-school-climate-denial-has-had-its-day-117752">Why old-school climate denial has had its day</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Similar to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095937801100104X">previous research</a>, our study found:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>older people were more likely to be sceptical of the reality of climate change</p></li>
<li><p>conservatives were more likely to be sceptical of the reality, causes and impacts of climate change</p></li>
<li><p>lower environmental values were strongly linked to all types of scepticism.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Unlike in the United States, we found religious beliefs had little influence on climate change sceptics in the largely secular Australian population. Instead, they had faith in “alternative” or pseudo-science explanations. </p>
<p>Those who favoured explanations of chance, believing that luck determines outcomes, were also more likely to believe there was no need to act on climate change. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1455991226470060035"}"></div></p>
<p>This suggests those who believe outcomes in life are beyond their control are more likely to think individual action on climate change is of little use. Hence, we suggest increased efforts to emphasise the difference individual efforts can make. </p>
<p>Those with stronger individualistic worldviews – their priority is individual autonomy as opposed to a more collectivist worldview – were more sceptical about humans causing climate change. </p>
<p>Contrary to our predictions, people with high analytical abilities were even more likely to be sceptical about this. Our further analyses suggested that mistrust in climate science and uncritical faith in “alternative science” prompted them to reject consensus science and generate other explanations.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-some-people-still-think-climate-change-isnt-real-124763">Climate explained: why some people still think climate change isn't real</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How people explain their scepticism</h2>
<p>We asked participants to explain their scepticism. From their responses, we identified five overarching themes:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>faith in alternative science – they offered answers such as “real science concerning solar activity and other factors such as planetary tides” to explain their rejection of climate science</p></li>
<li><p>belief that climate changes naturally and cyclically – expressions such as “the climate has always changed quite naturally and always will. Nothing we can do about it” defend against the overwhelming evidence of human-enhanced climate change for five decades or more</p></li>
<li><p>mistrust in climate science – questions such as “how can anyone support a premise supported by consensus science based on adjusted temps?” invoke claims of data manipulation to support the supposedly nefarious aims of climate scientists</p></li>
<li><p>predictions not becoming reality – explanations such as “seeing climate change alarmists’ predictions being completely false” result from a basic misunderstanding of model-based climate projections (“prediction” is rarely used any more) and probabilities</p></li>
<li><p>ulterior motives of interested parties – claims such as “the Man-Made climate change HOAX is pushed by the UN to transfer wealth to poorer nations and make wealthier nations poorer” are contradicted by <a href="https://www.cell.com/one-earth/pdf/S2590-3322(19)30008-9.pdf">recent</a> <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-022-09997-2">studies</a> that suggest soaring adaptation costs in developed countries like Australia will limit their future generosity to poorer neighbours. </p></li>
</ol>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/pacific-islands-must-stop-relying-on-foreign-aid-to-adapt-to-climate-change-because-the-money-wont-last-132095">Pacific Islands must stop relying on foreign aid to adapt to climate change, because the money won’t last</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1013876769286512640"}"></div></p>
<h2>So how do we begin to change minds?</h2>
<p>In all, our results suggest climate change scepticism may be influenced by:</p>
<ul>
<li>favoured explanations of pseudoscience and/or belief that events happen by chance</li>
<li>a belief that the problem is too large, complex and costly for individuals to deal with alone.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>Unlike sociodemographic characteristics, these thought processes may more open to targeted public messaging.</p>
<p>In the end, reality bites. Multi-year droughts and successive never-before-seen floods will struggle to fit a sceptic narrative of yet another “one-in-100-year event”. Even the attitudes of Australian farmers, including some of the most entrenched sceptics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/farmers-climate-denial-begins-to-wane-as-reality-bites-103906">are shifting</a>.</p>
<p>Climate change is upon us, and scepticism is rapidly becoming a topic for historians, not futurists.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189645/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick D. Nunn receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council (UK) and the British Academy (UK)</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachael Sharman 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 findings of a new study suggest mistrust in climate science and uncritical faith in “alternative science” lead people to reject consensus science and generate alternative explanations.Rachael Sharman, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of the Sunshine CoastPatrick D. Nunn, Professor of Geography, School of Law and Society, University of the Sunshine CoastLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1645992021-08-26T01:47:32Z2021-08-26T01:47:32Z‘Do-gooders’, conservatives and reluctant recyclers: how personal morals can be harnessed for climate action<p>There’s no shortage of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/26/record-shattering-heat-becoming-much-more-likely-says-climate-study">evidence</a> pointing to the need to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2021/jul/26/the-great-barrier-reef-is-a-victim-of-climate-change-but-it-could-be-part-of-the-solution">act urgently</a> on climate change. Most recently, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <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">confirmed</a> Earth has warmed 1.09°C since pre-industrial times and many changes, such as sea-level rise and glacier melt, cannot be stopped.</p>
<p>Clearly, emissions reduction efforts to date have fallen abysmally short. But why, when the argument in favour of climate action is so compelling? </p>
<p>Decisions about climate change require judging what’s important, and how the world should be now and in future. Therefore, climate change decisions are <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1323-9">inherently moral</a>. The rule applies whether the decision is being made by an individual deciding what <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89/5/1704S/4596965?login=true">food</a> to eat, or national governments setting <a href="https://ukcop26.org/cop26-goals/">goals</a> at international climate negotiations.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343521000774">research</a> reviewed the most recent literature across the social and behavioural sciences to better understand the moral dimensions of climate decisions. We found some moral values, such as fairness, motivate action. Others, such as economic liberty, stoke inaction. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="graph with arrow leading upwards" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Those who prioritise economic liberty may be less willing to take climate action.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Morals as climate motivators</h2>
<p>Our research uncovered a large body of research confirming people’s moral values are connected to their willingness to act on climate change.</p>
<p>Moral values are the yardstick through which we understand things to be right or wrong, good or bad. We develop personal moral values <a href="https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/environment-in-the-lives-of-children-and-families">through our families in childhood</a> and our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304422X18303322?via%3Dihub">social and cultural context</a>. </p>
<p>But which moral values best motivate personal actions? Our research documents <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163852">a study</a> in the United States, which found the values of compassion and fairness were a strong predictor of someone’s willingness to act on climate change.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://moralfoundations.org">moral foundations theory</a>, the value of compassion relates to humans’ evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel and dislike the pain of others. </p>
<p>Fairness relates to the evolutionary process of “<a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_3598-1">reciprocal altruism</a>”. This describes a situation whereby an organism acts in a way that temporarily disadvantages itself while benefiting another, based on an expectation that the altruism will be reciprocated at a later time.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ordinary-people-extraordinary-change-addressing-the-climate-emergency-through-quiet-activism-160548">Ordinary people, extraordinary change: addressing the climate emergency through 'quiet activism'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Conversely, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494415000201?casa_token=ti54dZZ0c9QAAAAA:oxAvuOGeVK2v30PIuo1Q2fs4jLCusQPT5VqAB8QuSV3MDU5YW7L4wTw8W5qZh2AttDaXRmni4w">a study</a> in Australia found people who put a lower value on fairness, compared to either the maintenance of social order or the right to economic freedom, were more likely to be sceptical about climate change. </p>
<p>People may also use moral “disengagement” to justify, and assuage guilt over, their own climate inaction. In other words, they convince themselves that ethical standards do not apply in a particular context. </p>
<p>For example, a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajsp.12423#:%7E:text=Our%20results%20suggest%20that%20disengagement,reduced%20engagement%20in%20pro%2Denvironmental">longitudinal study</a> of 1,355 Australians showed over time, people who became more morally disengaged became more sceptical about climate change, were less likely to feel responsible and were less likely to act. </p>
<p>Our research found the moral values driving efforts to reduce emissions (mitigation) were different to those driving climate change adaptation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2017.1287624">Research in the United Kingdom</a> showed people emphasised the values of responsibility and respect for authorities, country and nature, when talking about mitigation. When evaluating adaptation options, they emphasised moral values such as protection from harm and fair distribution of economic costs. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="people on crowd hold signs" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Moral reasoning helps shape climate beliefs, including climate scepticism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joel Carrett/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Framing climate decisions</h2>
<p>How government and private climate decisions are framed and communicated affects who they resonate with, and whether they’re seen as legitimate.</p>
<p>Research suggests climate change could be made morally relevant to more people if official climate decisions appealed to moral values associated with right-wing political leanings.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797612449177">US study</a> found liberals interpreted climate change in moral terms related to harm and care, while conservatives did not. But when researchers reframed pro-environmental messages in terms of moral values that resonated with conservatives, such as defending the purity of nature, differences in the environmental attitudes of both groups narrowed. </p>
<p>Indeed, research shows moral reframing can change pro-environmental behaviours of different <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116301056?via%3Dihub">political groups</a>, including <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/40/2/350/2911026?login=true">recycling habits</a>. </p>
<p>In the US, people were found to recycle more after the practice was reframed in moral terms that resonated with their political ideology. For conservatives, the messages appealed to their sense of civic duty and respect for authority. For liberals, the messages emphasised recycling as an act of fairness, care and reducing harm to others.</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>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="person opens lid of recycling bin" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.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">Reframing of messages can help encourage habits such as recycling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Ross/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>When moralising backfires</h2>
<p>Clearly, morals are central to decision-making about the environment. In some cases, this can extend to people adopting – or being seen to adopt – a social identity with moral associations such as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/22/zero-waste-millennial-bloggers-trash-greenhouse-gas-emissions">zero-wasters</a>”, “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/symb.312">voluntary simplifiers</a>” and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847817303054?via%3Dihub">cyclists</a>. </p>
<p>People may take on these identities overtly, such as by posting about their actions on social media. In other cases, a practice someone adopts, such as cycling to work, can be construed by others as a moral action.</p>
<p>Being seen to hold a social identity based on a set of morals may actually have unintended effects. Research has found so-called “<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02362/full">do-gooders</a>” can be perceived by others as irritating rather than inspiring. They may also trigger feelings of inadequacy in others who, as a self-defense mechanism, might then dismiss the sustainable choices of the “do-gooder”.</p>
<p>For example, sociologists have <a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12366">theorised</a> that some non-vegans avoid eating a more plant-based diet because they don’t want to be associated with the social identity of veganism.</p>
<p>It makes sense, then, that gentle encouragement such as “meat-free Mondays” is likely <a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/josi.12366">more effective</a> at reducing meat consumption than encouraging people to “go vegan” and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494421000451">eliminate</a> meat altogether. </p>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>Personal climate decisions come with a host of moral values and quandaries. Understanding and navigating this moral dimension will be critical in the years ahead.</p>
<p>When making climate-related decisions, governments should consider the moral values of citizens. This can be achieved through procedures like <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0591-9">deliberative democracy</a> and <a href="https://www.climateassembly.uk/">citizen’s forums</a>, in which everyday people are given the chance to discuss and debate the issues, and communicate to government what matters most to them.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<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">This is the most sobering report card yet on climate change and Earth's future. Here’s what you need to know</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacqueline Lau is affiliated with WorldFish—an international, not for profit research organization and part of the CGIAR that seeks to deliver research for a more food secure world, particularly for societies most vulnerable women and men. This research was supported by the ARC Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies, and the CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Song receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Blythe receives funding from the Social Science Research Council (SSHRC).</span></em></p>Understanding the moral dimensions of climate decisions could help promote fairer and more effective climate actionJacqueline Lau, Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook UniversityAndrew Song, Lecturer / ARC Discovery Early Career Research Fellow (DECRA), University of Technology SydneyJessica Blythe, Assistant Professor, Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1378902020-05-06T19:53:13Z2020-05-06T19:53:13Z3 times Michael Moore’s film Planet of the Humans gets the facts wrong (and 3 times it gets them right)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332982/original/file-20200506-49556-s8pw5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=4%2C0%2C2757%2C1548&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">planetofthehumans.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Documentary maker <a href="https://michaelmoore.com">Michael Moore’s</a> latest offering, <a href="https://planetofthehumans.com">Planet of the Humans</a>, rightly argues that infinite growth on a finite planet is “suicide”. But the film’s bogus claims threaten to overshadow that message.</p>
<p>Planet of the Humans is directed and narrated by longtime Moore collaborator Jeff Gibbs. It makes particularly contentious claims about solar, wind and biomass (organic material which can be burnt for energy). Some claims are valid. Some are out of date, and some are just wrong. </p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/newsletter"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/320030/original/file-20200312-116261-a6ugi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=90&fit=crop&dpr=2" alt="Sign up to The Conversation" width="100%"></a></p>
<p>The film triggered a storm after its free release <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE">on YouTube</a> late last month. At the time of writing, it had been watched 6.5 million times. Climate sceptics <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6152283926001">here</a> and <a href="https://www.heartland.org/multimedia/podcasts/in-the-tank-ep240--review-michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans">abroad</a> reacted with glee. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/may/03/once-again-michael-moore-stirs-the-environmental-pot-but-conservationists-turn-up-the-heat-on-him">Environmentalists say</a> the film has caused untold damage when climate action has never been more urgent.</p>
<p>For 50 years, I have studied and written about energy supply and use, and its environmental consequences. So let’s take a look at how Planet of the Humans is flawed, and where it gets things right.</p>
<h2>Where the film goes wrong</h2>
<p>Critics have compiled a <a href="https://www.vox.com/2020/4/28/21238597/michael-moore-planet-of-the-humans-climate-change">long list</a> of questionable claims made in the film. I will examine three relating to renewable energy. </p>
<p><strong>1. Solar panels take more energy to produce than they generate</strong></p>
<p>It’s true that some energy is required to build solar panels. The same can be said of coal-fired power stations, oil refineries and gas pipelines.</p>
<p>But the claim that solar panels generate less energy in their lifetime than that taken to manufacture them has long been <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/graph-of-the-day-myth-of-solar-pv-energy-payback-time-22167/">disproved</a>. It would not be true even if, as the film says, solar panels converted just 8% of the energy they receive into electricity.</p>
<p>But that 8% figure is at least 20 years old. The solar panels now installed on more than two million Australian roofs typically operate at at <a href="https://www.cleanenergyreviews.info/blog/most-efficient-solar-panels">15-20% efficiency</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1256322296039436289"}"></div></p>
<p><strong>2. Renewables can’t replace fossil fuels</strong></p>
<p>The film claims green energy is not replacing fossil fuels, and that coal plants cannot be replaced by renewables.</p>
<p>To disprove this claim we need look no further than Australia, where wind turbines and solar panels have <a href="https://7news.com.au/politics/coal-use-declines-in-australian-energy-mix-c-451130">significantly reduced</a> our dependence on coal.</p>
<p>In South Australia, for example, the expansion of solar and wind has led to the <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/last-coal-fired-power-generator-in-south-australia-switched-off-88308/">closure</a> of all coal-fired power stations. </p>
<p>The state now gets most of its power from solar and wind, <a href="https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/Planning_and_Forecasting/SA_Advisory/2019/2019-South-Australian-Electricity-Report.pdf">exporting</a> its surplus to Victoria when its old coal-fired power stations prove unreliable on hot summer days.</p>
<p>What’s more, a <a href="https://arena.gov.au/blog/75-renewable-nem-possible-by-2025-aemo/">report released this week</a> by the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) said with the right regulations, renewables could at times supply 75% of electricity in the national electricity market by 2025.</p>
<p><strong>3. Solar and wind need fossil fuel back-up</strong></p>
<p>Some renewables systems use gas turbines to fill the gap when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. However renewable energy storage is a cleaner option and is fast becoming cheaper and more widely used.</p>
<p><a href="https://aemo.com.au/en/news/battery-storage">AEMO forecasts</a> battery storage installations will rise from a low base today to reach 5.6 gigawatts by 2036–37. The costs of storage are also projected to fall faster than previously expected. </p>
<p>South Australia’s famous grid-scale Tesla battery is <a href="https://arena.gov.au/projects/hornsdale-power-reserve-upgrade/">being expanded</a>. And the New South Wales government’s <a href="https://energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/clean-energy-initiatives/hydro-energy-and-storage">pumped hydro plan</a> shows how by 2040, the state could get 89% of its power from solar and wind, backed by pumped hydro storage. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-an-aussie-invention-could-soon-cut-5-of-the-worlds-greenhouse-gas-emissions-121571">How an Aussie invention could soon cut 5% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In Australia on Easter Saturday this year, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/renewables-green-energy-solar-wind-supplied-half-national-grid/12147956">renewables supplied 50%</a> of the national electricity market, which serves the vast majority of the population.</p>
<p>Countries such as <a href="https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-publications-and-technical-papers/energy-in-new-zealand/">New Zealand</a> and <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/iceland-a-100-renewables-example-in-the-modern-era-56428/">Iceland</a> essentially get all their power from renewables, backed up by storage (predominantly hydro). </p>
<p>And putting aside the federal government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/snowy-2-0-will-not-produce-nearly-as-much-electricity-as-claimed-we-must-hit-the-pause-button-125017">problematic</a> Snowy 2.0 project, Australia could get all its energy from renewables with <a href="https://theconversation.com/want-energy-storage-here-are-22-000-sites-for-pumped-hydro-across-australia-84275">small-scale storage</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332988/original/file-20200506-49589-163n834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332988/original/file-20200506-49589-163n834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332988/original/file-20200506-49589-163n834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332988/original/file-20200506-49589-163n834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332988/original/file-20200506-49589-163n834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332988/original/file-20200506-49589-163n834.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332988/original/file-20200506-49589-163n834.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">South Australia’s huge battery storage project is being expanded.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Hornsdale Power Reserve</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does the film get right?</h2>
<p>Planet of the Humans makes several entirely valid points. Here are a few:</p>
<p><strong>1. We need to deal with population growth</strong></p>
<p>The film observes that population growth is the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change. It says politicians are reluctant to talk about limits to population growth “because that would be bad for business”. </p>
<p>As one observer in the film says, the people in charge aren’t nervous enough. I agree. </p>
<p>An increasing population means <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-growth-climate-change">increasing demand</a> for energy and other resources, accelerating climate change. </p>
<p><strong>2. Biomass energy does more harm than good</strong></p>
<p>While the film unfairly criticises the environmental benefits of solar energy, it’s true that some so-called clean technologies are not green at all.</p>
<p>As the film asserts, destroying forests for biomass energy does more harm than good – due to loss of habitat, damage to water systems, and the time taken for some forests to recover from the removal of wood. </p>
<p>Most advocates of cleaner energy systems recognise the <a href="http://academicscience.co.in/admin/resources/project/paper/f201406301404147508.pdf">limitations of biomass</a> as an energy source. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332989/original/file-20200506-49573-1l8mc8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/332989/original/file-20200506-49573-1l8mc8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332989/original/file-20200506-49573-1l8mc8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332989/original/file-20200506-49573-1l8mc8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332989/original/file-20200506-49573-1l8mc8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332989/original/file-20200506-49573-1l8mc8s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/332989/original/file-20200506-49573-1l8mc8s.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">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A still from the film, showing a biomass plant.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Planet of the Humans</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>3. Infinite growth on a finite planet is suicide</strong></p>
<p>The film calculates the sum total of human demands on natural systems as about 1,000 times what it was 200 years ago. It says there are ten times as many people now, each using 100 times the resources, on average.</p>
<p><a href="https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229">Experts</a> have repeatedly warned that human demand for resources is damaging the natural systems that all life depends on.</p>
<p>For <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a">large parts of the world</a>, the consequences could be catastrophic. </p>
<h2>Get the message</h2>
<p>Several other aspects of the film have been savaged by critics – not least its claims about emissions produced by electric cars, which had previously been <a href="https://nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0488-7">debunked</a>.</p>
<p>Personal attacks on two prominent US clean energy advocates, Bill McKibben and Al Gore, also detract from the film’s impact.</p>
<p>It’s clear renewable energy has an important role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and slowing climate change. But it won’t solve the fundamental problem: that humans must live within Earth’s natural limits. </p>
<p>Those cheering the film’s criticism of renewables would do well to consider its overriding message.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-is-in-the-box-seat-to-power-the-world-126341">Australia is in the box seat to power the world</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p><em>Correction: A previous version of this article said the claim that solar panels produce less energy than they generate in their lifetime has long been disproved. This has been amended.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137890/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Lowe received funding from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council for a study of Australia's energy needs from 1980 to 2030. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014, and is a patron of Sustainable Population Australia.</span></em></p>Environmentalists say the new film has caused untold damage at a time when change has never been more urgent. So why is it so controversial?Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1300082020-01-30T19:10:02Z2020-01-30T19:10:02ZWe have the vaccine for climate disinformation – let’s use it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/312395/original/file-20200129-93023-1ing9ol.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C8%2C5447%2C3604&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Exposing people to likely disinformation campaigns about bushfire causes will help inoculate them.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">JASON O'BRIEN/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia’s recent bushfire crisis will be remembered for many things – not least, the tragic loss of life, property and landscape. But one other factor made it remarkable: the deluge of disinformation spread by climate deniers. </p>
<p>As climate change worsens – and with it, the bushfire risk – it’s well worth considering how to protect the public against disinformation campaigns in future fire seasons. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-hate-to-say-i-told-you-so-but-australia-you-were-warned-130211">Scientists hate to say 'I told you so'. But Australia, you were warned</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So how do we persuade people not to be fooled? One promising answer lies in a branch of psychology called “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4746429/">inoculation theory</a>”. The logic is analogous to the way a medical vaccine works: you can prevent a virus spreading by giving lots of people a small dose.</p>
<p>In the case of bushfire disinformation, this means exposing, ahead of time, the myths most likely to be perpetrated by sceptics.</p>
<h2>Bushfire bunkum</h2>
<p>Disinformation can take many forms, including <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378016300577?via%3Dihub">cherry-picking or distorting data</a>, questioning of the scientific consensus by <a href="https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513">presenting fake experts</a>, and <a href="http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/Misreprestn_Views/EFCViews.htm">outright fabrication</a>.</p>
<p>On the issue of bushfires in Australia, there is little scientific doubt <a href="https://sciencebrief.org/briefs/wildfires">that human-caused climate change is increasing their magnitude and frequency</a>. But spurious claims on social media and elsewhere of late sought to muddy the waters: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>bots and trolls <a href="https://theconversation.com/bushfires-bots-and-arson-claims-australia-flung-in-the-global-disinformation-spotlight-129556">disseminated false arson claims</a> which downplayed the impact of climate change on the bushfires</p></li>
<li><p>NewsCorp reported <a href="https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfires-firebugs-fuelling-crisis-asarson-arresttollhits183/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f?__twitter_impression=true">more than 180 arsonists</a> had been arrested “in the past few months”. The figure was a gross exaggeration and distorted the real numbers</p></li>
<li><p>The misleading arson claim went viral after Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, <a href="https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1214565369697845249?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1214565369697845249&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.motherjones.com%2Fenvironment%2F2020%2F01%2Fsurprise-surprise-don-jr-just-told-an-outrageous-lie-about-australias-wildfires%2F">tweeted it</a>. A UK government minister, Heather Wheeler, also repeated the false claim <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2020-01-09/debates/C0EB1D8B-1DAE-42E3-837F-0DCC0B9E8F35/AustralianBushfires">in the House of Commons</a> </p></li>
<li><p>NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro, among others, <a href="https://www.2gb.com/we-dont-do-enough-deputy-premier-admits-governments-failed-bushfire-prevention/">wrongly suggested</a> a lack of hazard reduction burning – the fault of the Greens – had caused the fires</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/unhappy-new-year-but-fires-arent-end-of-the-world/news-story/2ef3423d389d2ef6be3bbbbbe47e9151">Conservative commentators claimed</a> the 2019-20 bushfires were no worse than those of the past.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Where will it go next?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/fire-weather-centre/bushfire-weather/index.shtml">Climate science</a> clearly indicates Australia faces <a href="https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391">more dangerous fire weather conditions in the future</a>. Despite this, organised climate denial will inevitably continue.</p>
<p><a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175799%20">Research</a> has <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gch2.201600008">repeatedly shown</a> that if the public knows, ahead of time, what disinformation they are likely to encounter and why it is wrong, they are less likely to accept it as true.</p>
<p>This inoculation involves two elements: an explicit warning of an impending
attempt to misinform, and a refutation of the anticipated disinformation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/merchants-of-misinformation-are-all-over-the-internet-but-the-real-problem-lies-with-us-123177">Merchants of misinformation are all over the internet. But the real problem lies with us</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For example, research has shown that if people were told how the tobacco industry used fake experts to mislead the public about the health risks of smoking, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">they were less likely to be misled by similar strategies used to deny climate change</a>. </p>
<p>It is therefore important to anticipate the next stage of disinformation about the causes of bushfire disasters. One likely strategy will be to confuse the public by exploiting the role of natural climate variability.</p>
<p>This tactic has been used before. When natural variability slowed global warming in the early 2000s, some falsely claimed that <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html">global warming “had stopped”</a>. </p>
<p>Of course, the warming never stopped – <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep16784">an unexceptional natural fluctuation</a> merely slowed the process, which subsequently resumed. </p>
<p>Natural climate variability may bring the occasional mild fire season in future. So lets arm ourselves with the facts to combat the inevitable attempts to mislead.</p>
<h2>Here are the facts</h2>
<p>The link between human-caused climate change and extreme weather conditions is well established. But natural variability, such as <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/about/australian-climate-influences.shtml?bookmark=enso">El Niño and La Niña events in the Pacific Ocean</a> may at times overshadow global warming for a few years.</p>
<p>The below video illustrates this. We used historical data from Adelaide to project the expected incidence of extreme heatwaves for the rest of the century, assuming a <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps">continued warming trend of 0.3°C per decade</a>. </p>
<p>The top panel shows the distribution of all 365 daily maximum temperatures for a year, with the annual average represented by the vertical red line. As the years tick over, this distribution is moving up slowly; the red line increasingly diverges from the average temperature observed before the climate started changing (the vertical black line).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Ew1x_6dVBA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The bottom panel shows the expected incidence of extreme heatwaves for each year until 2100. Each vertical line represents an intense heatwave (five consecutive days in excess of 35°C or three days in excess of 40°C). Each heatwave amplifies the fire danger in that year.</p>
<p>The analysis in the video clarifies several important aspects of climate change: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>the number and frequency of extreme heatwaves will increase as the climate continues to warm</p></li>
<li><p>for the next few decades at least, years with heatwaves may be followed by one or more years without one</p></li>
<li><p>the respite will only be brief because the inexorable global warming trend makes extreme fire conditions more and more inevitable.</p></li>
</ol>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>When it comes to monster bushfire seasons, the link to climate change is undeniable. This season’s inferno is a sign of worse to come – even if it doesn’t happen every year.</p>
<p>Educating the public on climate science, and the tactics used by disinformers, increases the chance that “alternative facts” do not gain traction.</p>
<p>Hopefully, this will banish disinformation to the background of public debate, paving the way for meaningful policy solutions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/some-say-weve-seen-bushfires-worse-than-this-before-but-theyre-ignoring-a-few-key-facts-129391">Some say we've seen bushfires worse than this before. But they're ignoring a few key facts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130008/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Volkswagen Foundation, and the ESRC (via CREST).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Hunter has received funding from the Department of Climate Change and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and was previously employed by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC based at the University of Tasmania. He is a member of Climate Tasmania, an expert body set up to replace the Tasmanian Climate Action Council, which was disbanded by the Tasmanian government in 2014.</span></em></p>The best way to inoculate the public against climate disinformation campaigns is to tell them what’s coming.Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolJohn Hunter, University Associate, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1287442019-12-16T15:58:08Z2019-12-16T15:58:08ZClimate change: three ways to market the science to reach the sceptics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307157/original/file-20191216-124031-8hvxex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5228%2C3025&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's more than one way to frame the science of climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/nKNrOZ5MXZY">Vlad Tchompalov/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Climate change sceptics may be a minority, but they are a sizeable one. One in five Americans <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll.">think that climate change is a myth</a>, or that humans aren’t responsible for it. What’s more, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/">they’re backed up by many</a> in the Middle East and parts of Asia, especially China. They’re a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it">vocal minority too</a> – and with the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45859325">ear of the US president</a>, they are therefore a serious obstacle to collective climate action.</p>
<p>So what can we do about them?</p>
<p>You might think that the answer is more or better science education. The more you know about climate science, the more likely you will be to think that climate change is real.</p>
<p>But the science says that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-knowledge-about-science-has-a-limited-tie-to-peoples-beliefs-about-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/">this isn’t true</a>. If you want to predict what someone’s attitude to climate change is, you are better off asking them about their politics than about science. In fact, in the US, the more numerate and scientifically literate a Republican you are, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547">the more sceptical you are about climate change</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-political-beliefs-predict-how-we-feel-about-climate-change-69435">Our political beliefs predict how we feel about climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>What climate science really needs is better marketing. Researchers might think that the science sells itself. But, while people might trust scientists in general, the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/">picture is more mixed</a> when it comes to politically charged issues such as climate change. With many <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-climate-change-skeptic-denial/510359/">politicians actively persuading people</a> that the science isn’t that serious, we need to persuade people that these politicians are wrong and the climate scientists are right.</p>
<p>And luckily, there are three key marketing tools we can use to do so.</p>
<h2>Fit the frame</h2>
<p>Think about how climate change is framed. We are <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-climate-is-like-reckless-banking-before-the-crash-its-time-to-talk-about-near-term-collapse-128374">usually asked</a> what we as individuals, businesses, and states can do to <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/">reduce the carbon emissions</a> that are undoubtedly but imperceptibly heating up the planet. Given that these emissions have <a href="https://www.degrowth.info/en/2015/10/the-decoupling-debate-can-economic-growth-really-continue-without-emission-increases/">powered the global economy’s growth over the last century</a>, this narrative can sometimes be perceived as pitting science against free market economics and our desire to lead our lives as we choose.</p>
<p>This framing <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-get-conservative-climate-contrarians-to-really-listen-try-speaking-their-language-94296/">doesn’t work for all audiences</a>. Just as a good marketer fits their message to their audience, a good science communicator will understand that when communicating an issue so broad and that affects so many, it makes sense to frame climate change in different ways to different groups of people.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.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">Framing acting on climate change as a duty to care for the planet is more likely to resonate with religious communities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-hands-holding-caring-young-green-179410019">wk1003mike/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, framing climate change as an opportunity for technological innovation <a href="https://www.universetoday.com/108799/why-people-resist-the-notion-of-climate-change">helps keep staunch defenders of the free market on side</a>, minimising political resistance to climate action. Framing climate change as a <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2019-05081-001">“stewardship” issue</a> – that is, a sacred duty to care for the Earth – may help get religious believers on side.</p>
<h2>Don’t debunk, prebunk</h2>
<p>Debunks of climate myths <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-climate-change-science-misconceptions-debunked-122570">abound on the internet</a>. But debunking misinformation is tricky, because once a piece of informatin has entered someone’s mind, it’s <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf">hard to dislodge</a> it – especially if the information confirms previously held beliefs.</p>
<p>An alternative strategy is <a href="http://theconversation.com/inoculation-theory-using-misinformation-to-fight-misinformation-77545">“prebunking”</a>. Inspired by <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/inoculate-public-misinformation-climate-change/">inoculation theory</a> – the idea that it is better to a prevent a disease than to treat it – prebunking aims to prevent misinformation from spreading in the first place, rather than debunk it once it has spread.</p>
<p>This can be done by identifying common argumentative strategies used by climate change sceptics, such as spurious <a href="https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/">appeals to expertise</a> or exaggerations about the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12171">uncertainties</a> in climate models, and explaining why they are dodgy.</p>
<p>Of course, this information needs to reach the right people. Much like protection against disease, the most effective inoculation starts in childhood, with education. <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMED42A..06B/abstract">Misconception-based learning</a>, an approach which sets out to avoid misconceptions, provides a framework for doing this. Climate breakdown is not a flash in the pan problem, and our strategies to combat it need to be designed for the long haul.</p>
<h2>Master the messenger</h2>
<p>Finally, it’s important to focus not just on the message, but the messenger too. We would rather listen to people who <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3162009">share</a> our political views than “experts” who disagree with us. This means that if you want to effectively communicate a pro-science message, you need to have people from different corners of the political spectrum making the case.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.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">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg can’t reach everyone. But there are an increasing number of more conservative politicians backing action on climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portland-pdx-oregon-september-20-2019-1510628321">Robert P. Alvarez/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s great that activists like Greta Thunberg are spreading the word, but not everyone wants to listen to them, and there are politically diverse groups out there who share the same message. For instance, when he was president Barack Obama <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/07/22/champions-change-people-faith-acting-climate">reached out to religious leaders</a>, who played an <a href="https://qz.com/1709793/evangelical-leaders-are-making-climate-change-a-religious-issue/">active role</a> in promoting environmental issues in their communities.</p>
<h2>Marketing isn’t always a bad thing</h2>
<p>Marketing is manipulative. It can try to trick us into buying things we don’t want. So using it to sell climate science and interfere with our basic right to make up our own minds might seem suspect.</p>
<p>But it’s important to remember that while climate change is a contentious political issue, its effects are real and severe no matter what you, I or anyone else think. We have the right to decide how or even whether to change our behaviour in light of a destabilising climate. But we don’t have the right to decide that our actions have no impact on the climate. As the saying goes, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/opinion/sunday/daniel-patrick-moynihan.html">we are not entitled to our own facts</a>.</p>
<p>What’s more, there is a difference between the aims of marketers and those of scientists trying to communicate with the public. The marketer wants to sell us stuff. The scientist wants us to break through our <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-are-climate-change-skeptics-often-right-wing-conservatives-123549">ideological biases</a>and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/climate-change-apathy-not-denial-threat-planet">apathy</a> to engage with the truth.</p>
<p>The strategies I have outlined are designed to create the conditions for these breakthroughs. They don’t detract from our ability to make up our own minds. In fact, they may enhance it, precisely because they neuter our ideological biases. Sometimes, we need a little help to think for ourselves.</p>
<p>Of course, good marketing is no guarantee of a sale. Even if scientists use these methods, climate change sceptics may refuse to buy it. But good marketers also don’t give up. If these methods don’t work, we can always look for some other ones.</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=Imagineheader1128744">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/128744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin McKenna 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 science says that more or better climate education won’t convince sceptics. Here’s what we can do instead.Robin McKenna, Lecturer in Philosophy, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1235942019-09-16T20:39:41Z2019-09-16T20:39:41ZThe gloves are off: ‘predatory’ climate deniers are a threat to our children<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292532/original/file-20190916-19063-131y5d0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A child jumps from a rock outcrop into a lagoon in the low-lying Pacific island of Tuvalu.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In this age of <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/4/graphic-dramatic-glacier-melt/">rapidly melting glaciers</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/magazine/paradise-camp-fire-california.html">terrifying megafires</a> and ever more puissant <a href="https://blogs.nasa.gov/hurricanes/tag/dorian-2019/">hurricanes</a>, of <a href="http://theconversation.com/acid-oceans-are-shrinking-plankton-fuelling-faster-climate-change-121443">acidifying</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/climigration-when-communities-must-move-because-of-climate-change-122529">rising</a> oceans, it is hard to believe that any further prod to climate action is needed.</p>
<p>But the reality is that we continue to live in a business-as-usual world. Our media is filled with enthusiastic announcements about <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/cooper-energy-discovers-new-gas-field-20190906-p52onn.html">new fossil fuel projects</a>, or the unveiling of the latest <a href="https://www.drive.com.au/news/2019-frankfurt-motor-show-hits-and-misses-122435">fossil-fuelled supercar</a>, as if there’s no relationship between such things and climate change. </p>
<p>In Australia, the disconnect among our political leaders on the deadly nature of fossil fuels is particularly breathtaking.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292545/original/file-20190916-19055-i8uqn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292545/original/file-20190916-19055-i8uqn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292545/original/file-20190916-19055-i8uqn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292545/original/file-20190916-19055-i8uqn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292545/original/file-20190916-19055-i8uqn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292545/original/file-20190916-19055-i8uqn6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292545/original/file-20190916-19055-i8uqn6.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">Energy Minister Angus Taylor, left, and Prime Minister Scott Morrison. Both believe the polluting coal industry has a strong future in Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Prime Minister Scott Morrison continues to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/09/scott-morrison-brings-coal-to-question-time-what-fresh-idiocy-is-this">sing the praises of coal</a>, while members of the government call for subsidies for coal-fired power plants. A few days ago, Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor urged that the nation’s old and polluting coal-fired power plants be allowed to <a href="https://minister.environment.gov.au/taylor/news/2019/2019-australian-energy-update">run “at full tilt”</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-to-attend-climate-summit-empty-handed-despite-un-pleas-to-come-with-a-plan-123187">Australia to attend climate summit empty-handed despite UN pleas to ‘come with a plan'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the past, many of us have tolerated such pronouncements as the utterings of idiots – in the true, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/opinion/trump-and-the-true-meaning-of-idiot.html">original Greek meaning of the word</a> as one interested only in their own business. But the climate crisis has now <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">grown so severe</a> that the actions of the denialists have turned predatory: they are now an immediate threat to our children.</p>
<h2>A ‘colossal failure’ of climate activism</h2>
<p>Each year the situation becomes more critical. In 2018, global emissions of greenhouse gases <a href="https://www.iea.org/geco/">rose by 1.7%</a> while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere <a href="https://research.noaa.gov/News/Scientist-Profile/ArtMID/536/ArticleID/2461/Carbon-dioxide-levels-hit-record-peak-in-May">jumped by 3.5 parts per million</a> – the largest ever observed increase.</p>
<p>No climate report or warning, no political agreement nor technological innovation has altered the ever-upward trajectory of the pollution. This simple fact forces me to look back on my <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/tim-flannery/10644160">20 years of climate activism</a> as a colossal failure.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rivf479bW8Q?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Many climate scientists think we are already so far down the path of destruction that it is <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/negative-emissions-is-it-feasible-to-remove-co2-from-the-air">impossible to stabilise the global temperature at 1.5°C</a> above the pre-industrial average without yet to be developed <a href="https://www.anu.edu.au/events/welcome-to-the-2018-negative-emissions-conference-integrating-industry-technology-and-society">drawdown technologies</a> such as those that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. On current trends, within a decade or so, stabilising at 2°C will likewise be beyond our grasp.</p>
<p>And on the other side of that threshold, nature’s <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/">positive feedback loops</a> promise to fling us into a hostile world. By 2100 - just 80 years away – if our trajectory does not change, it is estimated that Earth will be <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2865/a-degree-of-concern-why-global-temperatures-matter/">4°C warmer</a> than it was before we began burning fossil fuels.</p>
<h2>Far fewer humans will survive on our warming planet</h2>
<p>That future Earth may have enough resources to support <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-bn/index.html">far fewer people</a> than the 7.6 billion it supports today. British scientist James Lovelock <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-5336856.html">has predicted a future human population of just a billion people</a>. Mass deaths are predicted to result from, among other causes, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-global-warming-is-adding-to-the-health-risks-of-poor-people-109520">disease outbreaks</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-set-to-increase-air-pollution-deaths-by-hundreds-of-thousands-by-2100-81830">air pollution</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-set-to-increase-air-pollution-deaths-by-hundreds-of-thousands-by-2100-81830">malnutrition and starvation</a>, <a href="https://www.brown.edu/news/2017-07-25/warming">heatwaves</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-will-increase-deaths-by-suicide-102156">suicide</a>. </p>
<p>My children, and those of many prominent polluters and climate denialists, will probably live to be part of that <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-weve-created-a-civilisation-hell-bent-on-destroying-itself-im-terrified-writes-earth-scientist-113055">grim winnowing</a> – a world that the <a href="https://twitter.com/alanjones?lang=en">Alan Joneses</a> and <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt">Andrew Bolts</a> of the world have laboured so hard to create. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292540/original/file-20190916-19030-1lcc3au.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292540/original/file-20190916-19030-1lcc3au.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292540/original/file-20190916-19030-1lcc3au.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292540/original/file-20190916-19030-1lcc3au.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292540/original/file-20190916-19030-1lcc3au.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292540/original/file-20190916-19030-1lcc3au.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292540/original/file-20190916-19030-1lcc3au.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">Thousands of school students from across Sydney attend the global climate strike rally at Town Hall in Sydney in March 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climigration-when-communities-must-move-because-of-climate-change-122529">'Climigration': when communities must move because of climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>How should Australia’s parents deal with those who labour so joyously to create a world in which a large portion of humanity will perish? As I have become ever more furious at the polluters and denialists, I have come to understand they are threatening my children’s well-being as much as anyone who might seek to harm a child.</p>
<p>Young people themselves are now mobilising against the danger. Increasingly they’re giving up on words, and resorting to actions. <a href="https://rebellion.earth">Extinction Rebellion</a> is the Anthropocene’s answer to the UK working class <a href="https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/politics/g7/">Chartists</a>, the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript">US Declaration of Independence</a>, and the defenders of the <a href="https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/eureka-stockade">Eureka Stockade</a>.</p>
<p>Its <a href="https://rebellion.earth/declaration/">declaration states</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is our darkest hour. Humanity finds itself embroiled in an event unprecedented in its history, one which, unless immediately addressed, will catapult us further into the destruction of all we hold dear […] The wilful complicity displayed by our government has shattered meaningful democracy and cast aside the common interest in favour of short-term gain and private profit […] We hereby declare the bonds of the social contract to be null and void.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Words have not cut through. Is rebellion the only option?</h2>
<p>Not yet a year old, Extinction Rebellion has had an enormous impact. In April it <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/22/people-arrested-at-london-climate-protests">shut down six critical locations in London</a>, overwhelmed the police and justice system with 1,000 arrests, and forced the British government to become the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48126677">first nation ever</a> to declare a climate emergency.</p>
<p>So unstable is our current societal response that a single young woman, <a href="https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Greta Thunberg</a>, has been able to spark a profoundly powerful global movement. Less than a year ago she went on a one-person school strike. Today school strikes for climate action are a <a href="https://www.schoolstrike4climate.com">global phenomenon</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292547/original/file-20190916-19063-1s0diz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292547/original/file-20190916-19063-1s0diz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292547/original/file-20190916-19063-1s0diz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292547/original/file-20190916-19063-1s0diz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292547/original/file-20190916-19063-1s0diz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292547/original/file-20190916-19063-1s0diz7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292547/original/file-20190916-19063-1s0diz7.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">Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old climate change activist from Sweden, participates in a school strike in Washington in September 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shawn Thew/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-the-defining-issue-of-our-time-were-giving-it-the-attention-it-deserves-123592">Climate change is the defining issue of our time – we're giving it the attention it deserves</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On September 20 in Australia and elsewhere, school principals must decide whether they will allow their students to <a href="https://www.schoolstrike4climate.com/sept20">march in the global climate strike</a> in an effort to save themselves from the climate predators in our midst, or force them to stay and study for a future that will not, on current trends, eventuate.</p>
<p>I will be marching with the strikers in Melbourne, and I believe teachers should join their pupils on that day. After all, us older generation should be painfully aware that our efforts have not been enough to protect our children.</p>
<p>The new and carefully planned rebellion by the young generation forces us earlier generations of climate activists to re-examine our strategy. Should we continue to use words to try to win the debate? Or should we become climate rebels? Changing the language around climate denialism will, I hope, sharpen our focus as we ponder what comes next.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123594/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Flannery works for the Climate Council and the not-for-profit Ocean Forests Foundation. He receives funding from both organisations. He is affiliated with the Australian Museum and Melbourne University's Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute. </span></em></p>Climate deniers have joyously laboured to create a world potentially uninhabitable for our children. Our activism has failed, and rebellion may be the only answer.Tim Flannery, Professorial fellow, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1207412019-07-30T11:09:17Z2019-07-30T11:09:17ZClimate denial: Donald Trump mimics criminal behaviour when justifying his stance<p>While much of the world now recognises the need for immediate action, there are still those who question the <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">scientific consensus on climate change</a> and deter efforts to tackle it. As might be expected, they have the attention of US President Donald Trump and his Republican administration.</p>
<p>The Heartland Institute’s <a href="https://climateconference.heartland.org/">International Conference on Climate Change</a> was held at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC on July 25 2019. The Heartland Institute considers itself one of “the world’s leading free market think-tanks”, which “promotes free market solutions to social and economic problems”. It’s perhaps best known for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12246">its climate scepticism</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://climateconference.heartland.org/schedule/">Discussions at the annual event</a> include disputing scientific observations on climate change, criticising “climate alarmists” and promoting fossil fuels. As the choice of venue might suggest, the arguments made here seem to overlap with what the president and the ruling Republican Party has previously said <a href="https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/4/26/18512213/climate-change-republicans-conservatives">on climate change</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285475/original/file-20190724-110187-1r03els.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285475/original/file-20190724-110187-1r03els.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285475/original/file-20190724-110187-1r03els.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285475/original/file-20190724-110187-1r03els.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285475/original/file-20190724-110187-1r03els.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285475/original/file-20190724-110187-1r03els.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285475/original/file-20190724-110187-1r03els.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285475/original/file-20190724-110187-1r03els.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Temperature data shows rapid warming in the past few decades. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">NASA's Earth Observatory</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>From my background studying criminal behaviour, I found something striking about the way Trump justifies inaction on climate change. Through his own words, the president’s arguments mimic patterns in criminal behaviour that criminologists call “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12246">techniques of neutralisation</a>”.</p>
<p>Criminologists contend that criminals use techniques of neutralisation to help deny or justify a crime they have committed. These five techniques were <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118517390.wbetc228">first defined in 1964</a> from the types of arguments given by young people in the criminal justice system when justifying their actions. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Denial of responsibility – it is not the offender’s fault.</p></li>
<li><p>Denial of injury of harm – the crime does not cause significant harm or may have positive results.</p></li>
<li><p>Denial of victim – there is no clear victim.</p></li>
<li><p>Condemnation of the condemner – the offender criticises the criminal justice system to avoid criticism of the offender.</p></li>
<li><p>Appeal to higher loyalties – deviant behaviour was in aid of a greater good or to benefit someone else.</p></li>
</ol>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286209/original/file-20190730-186814-427qnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286209/original/file-20190730-186814-427qnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286209/original/file-20190730-186814-427qnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286209/original/file-20190730-186814-427qnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286209/original/file-20190730-186814-427qnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286209/original/file-20190730-186814-427qnx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286209/original/file-20190730-186814-427qnx.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">When justifying their actions in interviews, the answers offenders give often follow a predictable pattern.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/image-worried-male-suspect-during-police-368571212?src=edJTOOhdmOpslXsIcNNJsA-1-1&studio=1">Photographee.eu/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When we flip the context from petty criminals to powerful politicians and lobbyists, it’s not hard to see the same pattern emerging.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Denial of responsibility – climate change is happening, but humans aren’t the cause.</p></li>
<li><p>Denial of injury or harm – there’s no significant harm caused by human action and there may even be some benefits.</p></li>
<li><p>Denial of victim – there’s no climate change and so no victims, but if such victims of climate change victims existed, they’d deserve to be victimised.</p></li>
<li><p>Condemnation of the condemner – climate change research is misrepresented by scientists, and manipulated by the media, politicians and environmentalists.</p></li>
<li><p>Appeal to higher loyalties – economic progress and development are more important than preventing climate change. This will help protect us from energy poverty and allow developing nations to prosper.</p></li>
</ol>
<h2>Deception trumps climate action</h2>
<p>How can a criminologist’s perspective help us understand how President Trump and climate deniers obscure the scientific consensus on climate change? I believe it helps us see their statements in a new light. Rather than being ill-informed interventions on the topic, Trump’s words reflect a deliberate attempt to shift blame, erase the plight of those already suffering from climate change and turn the fire on climate scientists who study the problem.</p>
<p>In tweets, speeches, and in conversations with journalists, these patterns appear to play out. When <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/">denying responsibility</a> for tackling the climate problem, external competitors like China make for a useful scapegoat.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"265895292191248385"}"></div></p>
<p>Trump’s comments on climate change often deflect blame, but they may just as often question if it’s happening at all. This ambivalence helps to undermine concerns that climate change will cause a great deal of harm to people in the US and worldwide.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I believe that there’s a change in weather and I think it <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48531019">changes both ways …</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99">no credible possibility</a> that climate change isn’t happening, but by engineering a false sense of uncertainty about the science, Trump can condemn <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/25/trump-administration-climate-crisis-denying-scientist">those condemning him for inaction</a> – the climate scientists themselves.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming, that wasn’t working, then it was called climate change, now it’s actually called extreme weather because <a href="https://www.cnsnews.com/video/trump-it-used-be-called-global-warming-extreme-weather-you-cant-miss">with extreme weather you can’t miss</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/242/docs/National_Climate_GapFact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf">poorest are predicted to suffer</a> the worst consequences of climate change in the US, but by withdrawing the world’s largest economy from the Paris Climate Accords, Trump argues he is standing up for these people by acting in their best interest.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers – who I love – and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/">vastly diminished economic production</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given the grave consequences of the US doing nothing on climate change, should deflecting blame, sowing uncertainty and condemning experts on such a scale be labelled criminal? I believe that these perceived similarities – between how offenders justify their behaviour to the criminal justice system and how Trump justifies his position on climate change to the world – are no coincidence. We shouldn’t always read ignorance in what Trump says – it might suit him and climate deniers more than we think.</p>
<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=Imagineheader1120741">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/120741/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth McKie 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>Climate deniers recently gathered to talk shop at Donald Trump’s hotel in Washington DC. There’s more to their links with the president than a reservation, though.Ruth McKie, Lecturer in Criminology, De Montfort UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1177522019-06-12T20:16:56Z2019-06-12T20:16:56ZWhy old-school climate denial has had its day<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276713/original/file-20190528-92765-10ox7aq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New South Wales, which was 100% drought-declared in August 2018, is already suffering climate impacts. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/157067200@N03/32872663567">Michael Cleary</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Coalition has been re-elected to government, and after six years in office it has <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/politics/australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-continue-to-rise-20190228-h1bum1">not created any effective policies for reducing greenhouse emissions</a>. Does that mean the Australian climate change debate is stuck in 2013? Not exactly. </p>
<p>While Australia still lacks effective climate change policies, the debate has definitely shifted. It’s particularly noticeable to scientists, like myself, who were very active participants in the Australian climate debate just a few years ago. </p>
<p>The debate has moved away from the basic science, and on to the economic and political ramifications. And if advocates for reducing greenhouse emissions don’t fully recognise this, they risk shooting themselves in the foot.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276507/original/file-20190527-187157-1ik6hml.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=541&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions are not falling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Department of Environment and Energy</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The old denials</h2>
<p>Old-school climate change denial, be it denial that warming is taking place or that humans are responsible for that warming, featured prominently in Australian politics a decade ago. In 2009 Tony Abbott, then a Liberal frontbencher jockeying for the party leadership, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/tony-abbott-draws-battlelines-for-the-liberal-party/2674932">told ABC’s 7.30 Report</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The theory and evidence base for human-induced climate change is vast and growing. In contrast, the counterarguments were so sloppy that there were many targets for scientists to shoot at. </p>
<p>Climate “<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-sceptic-or-climate-denier-its-not-that-simple-and-heres-why-117913">sceptics</a>” have always been very keen on cherrypicking data. They would make a big fuss about <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/climate-change-deniers-raise-the-heat-on-the-bureau-of-meteorology-20140909-10eedk.html">some unusually cold days, or alleged discrepancies at a handful of weather stations</a>, while ignoring broader trends. They made <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009">claims of data manipulation</a> that, if true, would entail a global conspiracy, despite the availability of <a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis-code/">code</a> and data. </p>
<p>Incorrect predictions of <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/sorry-to-ruin-the-fun-but-an-ice-age-cometh/news-story/e886912c2f02d7a22e0fb9a568e4f4da">imminent global cooling</a> were made on the basis of rudimentary analyses rather than sophisticated models. Cycles were invoked, in a manner reminiscent of epicycles and stock market “<a href="https://www.worldfinance.com/wealth-management/the-myth-of-chartism">chartism</a>” – but doodling with spreadsheets cannot defeat carbon dioxide. </p>
<p>That was the state of climate “scepticism” a decade ago, and frankly that’s where it remains in 2019. It’s old, tired, and increasingly irrelevant as the impact of climate change becomes clearer. </p>
<p>Australians just cannot ignore the <a href="https://theconversation.com/drought-wind-and-heat-when-fire-seasons-start-earlier-and-last-longer-101663">extended bushfire season</a>, <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs70.pdf">drought</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-great-barrier-reef-has-been-bleaching-for-at-least-400-years-but-its-getting-worse-101691">bleached coral reefs</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1131162014733090816"}"></div></p>
<h2>Partisans</h2>
<p>Climate “scepticism” was always underpinned by politics rather than science, and that’s clearer now than it was a decade ago. </p>
<p>Several Australian climate contrarians describe themselves as libertarians - falling to the right of mainstream Australian politics. David Archibald is a climate sceptic, but is now better known as candidate for the <a href="https://www.watoday.com.au/federal-election-2019/fraser-anning-recycles-wa-candidate-who-says-single-mothers-are-lazy-and-ugly-20190425-p51hb3.html">Australian Liberty Alliance, One Nation and (finally) Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party</a>. The climate change denying Galileo Movement’s <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190308085928/www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php">claim to be to be non-partisan</a> was always suspect - and now doubly so with its former project leader, Malcolm Roberts, representing One Nation in the Senate. </p>
<p>Given this, it isn’t surprising that relatively few Australians reject the science of climate change. Just <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-record-share-of-australians-say-humans-cause-climate-change-poll-20190328-p518go.html">11%</a> of Australians believe recent global warming is natural, and only <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/a-record-share-of-australians-say-humans-cause-climate-change-poll-20190328-p518go.html">4%</a> believe “there’s no such thing as climate change”.</p>
<p>Old-school climate change denial isn’t just unfounded, it’s also unpopular. Before last month’s federal election, Abbott <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/07/tony-abbott-bet-me-100-the-climate-will-not-change-in-10-years">bet a cafe patron in his electorate A$100 that “the climate will not change in ten years”</a>. It reminded me of similar <a href="https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-science-bet/">bets made and lost over the past decade</a>. We don’t know whether Abbott will end up paying out on the bet – but we do know he lost his seat.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1125647633488465921"}"></div></p>
<h2>The shift</h2>
<p>So what has changed in the years since Abbott was able to gain traction, rather than opprobrium, by disdaining climate science? The Australian still runs Ian Plimer and Maurice Newman on its opinion pages, and Sky News “after dark” often features climate cranks. But prominent politicians rarely repeat their nonsense any more. When the government spins Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/whichever-way-you-spin-it-australias-greenhouse-emissions-have-been-climbing-since-2015-118112">rising emissions</a>, it does it by claiming that investing in natural gas helps cut emissions elsewhere, rather than by pretending CO₂ is merely “plant food”.</p>
<p>As a scientist, I rarely feel the need to debunk the claims of old-school climate cranks. OK, I did recently discuss the weather predictions of a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/astrology/11130220">“corporate astrologer” with Media Watch</a>, but that was just bizarre rather than urgent.</p>
<p>Back in the real world, the debate has shifted to costs and jobs.</p>
<p>Modelling by the economist Brian Fisher, who concluded that climate policies would be very expensive, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/new-modelling-to-unleash-explosive-row-over-climate-change-costings-20190501-p51j5e.html">featured prominently in the election campaign</a>. Federal energy minister Angus Taylor, now also responsible for reducing emissions, used the figures to attack the Labor Party, despite expert <a href="https://twitter.com/frankjotzo/status/1107742351139602432">warnings</a> that the modelling used “absurd cost assumptions”.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1123334993185361920"}"></div></p>
<p>Many people still assume the costs of climate change are in the future, despite us increasingly seeing the impacts now. While scientists work to <a href="https://twitter.com/ProfTerryHughes/status/1133172695871320064">quantify the environmental damage</a>, arguments about the costs and benefits of climate policy are the domain of economists.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/don-t-buy-into-the-fake-coal-war-union-calls-on-labor-candidates-to-back-mining-20190411-p51d8g.html">Jobs associated with coal mining</a> were a prominent theme of the election campaign, and may have been decisive in Queensland’s huge anti-Labor swing. It is obvious that burning more coal makes more CO₂, but that fact <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-everyone-cares-about-climate-change-but-reproach-wont-change-their-minds-118255">doesn’t stop people wanting jobs</a>. The new green economy is uncharted territory for many workers with skills and experience in mining.</p>
<p>That said, there are <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-23/the-math-on-adani-s-carmichael-coal-mine-doesn-t-add-up">economic arguments against new coalmines</a> and new mines <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-23/macmines-abandons-mining-lease-applications/11138310">may not deliver the number of jobs promised</a>. Australian power companies, unlike government <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-new-coal-fired-power-plant-would-cost-3-billion-drive-up-energy-prices-and-take-eight-years-to-build-20180403-p4z7jg.html">backbenchers</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-28/clive-palmers-waratah-coal-meets-with-queensland-government/11155728">Clive Palmer</a>, have <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/big-power-companies-snub-government-underwriting-for-new-coal-plants-20190311-p513a2.html">little enthusiasm for new coal-fired power stations</a>. But the fact remains that these economic issues are largely outside the domain of scientists.</p>
<p>Debates about climate policy remain heated, despite the scientific basics being widely accepted. Concerns about economic costs and jobs must be addressed, even if those concerns are built on flawed assumptions and promises that may be not kept. We also cannot forget that climate change is already here, <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/State-of-the-Climate-2018.pdf">impacting agriculture in particular</a>. </p>
<p>Science should inform and underpin arguments, but economics and politics are now the principal battlegrounds in the Australian climate debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117752/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. I. Brown receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and Monash University.
</span></em></p>Ten years ago, politicians such as Tony Abbott would routinely voice disdain for climate science. Now, while the policy debate remains fierce, the battleground has shifted to economics and jobs.Michael J. I. Brown, Associate professor in astronomy, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1035732018-12-10T14:44:05Z2018-12-10T14:44:05ZCOP24 in coal country: why Poland is Europe’s climate denial capital<p>European <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0120.1">polling</a> on climate change denial puts Poland towards the top – or bottom, depending on which way you view it – of the leader board. Though the UN’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/cop24-62779">COP24 climate conference</a> is currently being hosted in its southern city of Katowice, Poland itself has displayed little concern over global warming. Indeed, the EU’s <a href="http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nrg_101a&lang=en">largest coal producer</a> often opposes any attempt to get it to cut its carbon emissions. What’s driving such potent scepticism?</p>
<p>With minimal media coverage of climate change, climate impacts, or policy, Poland is an outlier in Europe. This is particularly surprising because EU climate policy, and the possibility of a stiff carbon tax in future, has significant long-term implications for the country’s economy.</p>
<p>The issue partly dates back to the collapse of communism in Poland that began in 1989. The resulting industrial decline and overhaul of outdated and highly polluting sectors caused a rapid decrease in CO₂ emissions. </p>
<p>All this meant that when Poland joined the EU and signed up to the Kyoto Protocol it could easily meet its generous emissions targets as they were set relative to 1988, when its polluting industries were still in full swing. However, new EU climate and energy legislation will soon kick in and comparing Polish emissions with a more recent year will make things harder.</p>
<h2>A climate of denial</h2>
<p>In our <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394890">academic research</a>, we have looked at why there is so little coverage of climate issues in the Polish media. </p>
<p>In part, it’s a reflection of the prominence of climate deniers, both politicians and scientists, in the media. Many politicians in Poland have <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394890">publicly announced scepticism</a>, not only about climate policy but also about the scientific findings on climate change.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247965/original/file-20181129-170235-h99ug3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247965/original/file-20181129-170235-h99ug3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247965/original/file-20181129-170235-h99ug3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247965/original/file-20181129-170235-h99ug3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247965/original/file-20181129-170235-h99ug3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247965/original/file-20181129-170235-h99ug3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247965/original/file-20181129-170235-h99ug3.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">An unbalanced media is responsible for much of the climate scepticism in Poland.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/creative-tv-manipulation-brainwash-background-people-1061128493?src=cwryxXXw6UwX2kbGRjbZLA-2-38">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is also relatively easy for incompetent people to gain a sizeable platform. We found that, typically, denialist scientists featured in the Polish media <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0120.1">are not climatologists</a>, but rather medical scientists, geologists, economists, or engineers from the energy or mining sectors.</p>
<p>There is also no publicly-owned media in Poland, except for <a href="https://en.ejo.ch/recent/poland">public television and radio</a>, which has <a href="http://visegradrevue.eu/polish-media-under-fire-a-great-transformation-or-a-standard-changing-of-the-guard/">been politicised</a> by the coal-friendly ruling party. Commercial media competes for a small audience, and as a result is much more likely to touch on controversial points of view than to try to analyse them.</p>
<p>There has also been little media coverage in Poland of the UN’s IPCC reports on the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-1-5-report-heres-what-the-climate-science-says-104592">scientific consensus about climate change</a>, and a complete absence of politicians promptly reacting to the reports. This lack of coverage can be partly explained by the relative scarcity of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394890">IPCC authors from Poland</a>. But journalists and editors are unlikely to choose a topic that they know is of little interest to their audiences and it appears that many Poles believe the cure – climate change mitigation – could be worse for Poland than the disease.</p>
<h2>A powerful coal lobby</h2>
<p>Much of this can be traced back to the influence of the coal lobby, which has been powerful ever since communist times when exports were a vital source of convertible (foreign) currency. Poland is today the largest coal producer in the EU, and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394890">around 60%</a> of the country’s overall energy comes from coal. No wonder sentiment towards fossil fuel <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0120.1">remains strong</a>.</p>
<p>This is why most Polish politicians will nominally support taking action on climate change, regardless of political orientation – but only as long as it does not mean moving away from coal. They frequently speak of the importance of coal to the economy and energy security, yet they conveniently ignore or downplay the coal-climate link. There is a strong <a href="https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-17-0120.1">“inconvenient truth”</a> at work as burning coal is, globally, responsible for much of the ongoing climate change. </p>
<p>Even past increases in the price of domestic coal have not helped renewable energies, but rather resulted in Poland <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394890">importing cheaper coal</a> from abroad while <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/poland-coal-idUSL8N13T2YO20151204">propping up its own industry</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247968/original/file-20181129-170253-1t6gdut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/247968/original/file-20181129-170253-1t6gdut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247968/original/file-20181129-170253-1t6gdut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247968/original/file-20181129-170253-1t6gdut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247968/original/file-20181129-170253-1t6gdut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247968/original/file-20181129-170253-1t6gdut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/247968/original/file-20181129-170253-1t6gdut.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">Poland’s energy supply is largely dominated by coal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/coal-mining-open-pit-637050169?src=8BzaUp1boZLWHZDdYYZSAA-1-2">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Too great a cost?</h2>
<p>Most Poles recognise the benefits of being in the EU and understand that Poland must play by the rules. Yet many other voices are demanding renegotiation of an EU climate and energy package that they say is <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394890">harmful to their nation</a>. Indeed, many perceived this an externally-driven policy problem, imposed from abroad. They expect more effective action from non-EU countries which emit most of the world’s carbon dioxide.</p>
<p>Like other EU members, Poland would eventually like to decarbonise its energy sector. However, concerns remain over the abrupt introduction of a high carbon tax and the threat of “carbon leakage” where <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394890">coal production and jobs shift eastwards from Poland</a> to countries that are not obliged to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.</p>
<p>For now, a switch from cheap coal to a more costly low-emission economy is politically unpalatable. Popular opinion and a wide range of politicians simply do not support the vision of leaving coal underground and paying more for energy. The country is still poorer than those in Western Europe, and the fear of energy price hikes is overwhelming. Don’t expect Poland or its media to embrace climate action any time soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103573/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Painter received funding for the original research via the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) Climate Project “AR5 in Europe,” funded by the Norwegian Research Council (Norges Forskningsråd).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz 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 UN climate talks are being held in a nation dominated by cheap coal.Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, Professor of Earth Sciences , Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchJames Painter, Research Associate, Reuters Institute, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1044132018-10-23T01:39:16Z2018-10-23T01:39:16ZA priest says sceptics should stop demanding proof of climate change, as that’s not how science works<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/241560/original/file-20181022-105757-q0qiya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An Anglican priest teaching climate change is often asked about the difference between science and faith.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/catalina.m</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As an Anglican priest teaching in philosophy and in climate change at two universities, I am often asked about the difference between science and my own faith convictions.</p>
<p>“Isn’t science about objective proof and evidence and certainty,” they ask with a quizzical look. The question then trails off but the implication is obvious, “and isn’t your faith about subjective, personal belief and values?”</p>
<p>Their quizzical looks arise from a misunderstanding about the nature of scientific knowledge, and more generally about what it means to make a truth claim, that lies behind climate scepticism.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/wheres-the-proof-in-science-there-is-none-30570">Where's the proof in science? There is none</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Any announcement on climate change opens the door to climate sceptics and deniers who doubt that human activities have a significant influence on global climate.</p>
<p>But the sceptics have a point: there is no proof. If that shakes your confidence as a true climate change believer, think again.</p>
<p>We have been led to believe that science offers proof and certainty, and anything less than that is just a theory or not even science at all.</p>
<p>But the problem isn’t with the science, it’s with our naïve and impossible expectations of science. And the climate change sceptic often has unrealistic standards of evidence that we simply do not accept in everyday life.</p>
<h2>Forensic proof: ‘beyond reasonable doubt’</h2>
<p>In most of life the unwritten rules for what counts as evidence are those of the law court: proof beyond reasonable doubt. What is considered beyond reasonable doubt is left for a juror to decide.</p>
<p>Even in mathematics – where proof has a more fixed meaning – some axioms need to be accepted to start raising the edifice of knowledge.</p>
<p>In natural science, just as in economics or sociology or history, theories are provisionally accepted because they seem to make the most sense of the evidence as it is understood.</p>
<p>What counts as evidence is determined according to the sort of truth claim being made. Particle physics seeks different evidence to historical claims; economics offers different sorts of evidence to moral philosophy. It’s horses for courses when it comes to evidence and truth claims.</p>
<p>In climate science, empirical observations blend with theories and modelling. Theories and models are tested as far as possible but in the end no amount of testing and confirmation can absolutely prove the case. </p>
<p>This is the nature of the inductive thinking that grounds science. “All swans are white” was accepted as true (because all the evidence pointed that way) until <a href="https://theconversation.com/black-swans-and-other-deviations-like-evolution-all-scientific-theories-are-a-work-in-progress-95544">Europeans visited Australia and found black swans</a>. </p>
<p>The latest <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/">special report</a> from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch">IPCC</a>) is based on the scientific consensus of the experts in their respective fields.</p>
<p>One of the IPCC report’s authors is Professor <a href="https://gci.uq.edu.au/professor-ove-hoegh-guldberg">Ove Hoegh-Guldberg</a>, head of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute, and he <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/ipcc-report-findings-2018-10">said</a> that it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…strongly concludes that climate change is already affecting people, ecosystems and livelihood all around the world, and that it is beyond reasonable doubt that humans are responsible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While we may have good reasons for believing in climate change and for taking action, that still does not constitute proof or absolute certainty – which brings us back to the sceptics.</p>
<h2>The fallacious sceptical argument</h2>
<p>Here’s one way the climate change sceptical argument works:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Premise 1: Science gives us proof and certainty.</p></li>
<li><p>Premise 2: Climate change is not proven or certain.</p></li>
<li><p>Conclusion: Climate change is not science.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>This argument is good in one sense: it is logically coherent. So if you want to challenge the conclusion you need to challenge one or other premise. </p>
<p>But it would be a (common) mistake to challenge Premise 2 by arguing the unwinnable case that climate science is proven to be true in some absolute sense. In fact, the problem is with Premise 1, as explained above: science does not offer the sort of proof or certainty that the sceptic demands.</p>
<p>This provisionality is recognised in the careful wording of the IPCC which does not speak of proof: just look at page 4 of the <a href="http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf">latest report</a> where the word “likely” appears seven times and where “high” or “medium confidence” appear nine times. Careful science speaks of degrees of confidence.</p>
<p>Eminent scientist turned philosopher of science, Michael Polanyi, was one of the first to highlight the provisionality of scientific claims. His purpose in writing his main work, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=oIqFAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228#v=onepage&q&f=false">Personal Knowledge</a>, was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…to achieve a frame of mind in which I may hold firmly to what I believe to be true, even though I know that it might conceivably be false.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>John Polkinghorne, former professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University (and also an Anglican priest) <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lW6pAwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT24&dq=a%20tightening%20grasp%20of%20a%20never%20completely%20comprehended%20reality&pg=PT24#v=onepage&q=a%20tightening%20grasp%20of%20a%20never%20completely%20comprehended%20reality&f=false">observed in his book One World: The Interaction of Science and Theology</a> that science results in:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…a tightening grasp of a never completely comprehended reality.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uns-1-5-c-special-climate-report-at-a-glance-104547">The UN's 1.5°C special climate report at a glance</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/144214-scientific-knowledge-is-a-body-of-statements-of-varying-degrees">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty, some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite the sceptics’ muddying of the waters, climate science is good science, the stakes are enormous, and we proceed with business as usual at our peril. While the evidence does not amount to certain proof, it is beyond reasonable doubt and leaves no room for delay.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104413/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Mulherin 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 Anglican priest teaching about climate change says people have a naïve view of how science really works.Chris Mulherin, Lecturer, Executive Director of ISCAST–Christians in Science, and Anglican minister, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1021142018-09-27T20:19:44Z2018-09-27T20:19:44ZWill 2018 be the year of climate action? Victorian London’s ‘Great Stink’ sewer crisis might tell us<p>In the late 19th century, the irrepressible Mark Twain is reputed to have <a href="https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/04/23/everybody-talks-about-the-weather/">said in a speech</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He’s said to have borrowed that quote from a friend, but if Twain were alive today he would no doubt have more to say on the subject. In a time when we are becoming increasingly accustomed to extremes in the climate system, the events of this year have risen above the background noise of political turmoil to dominate the global headlines. </p>
<p>While global leadership in dealing with climate change may be depressingly limited, I can’t help but wonder if 2018 will be the year our global tribe feels threatened enough to act. </p>
<p>Encouragingly, there may be a historical (and largely unknown) precedent for tackling climate change: Victoria London’s handling of the “Great Stink”, where growth had turned the River Thames into an open sewer.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/lowy-institute-poll-shows-australians-support-for-climate-action-at-its-highest-level-in-a-decade-98625">Lowy Institute Poll shows Australians' support for climate action at its highest level in a decade</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Climate system extremes</h2>
<p>2018 is breaking all manner of records. </p>
<p>In January, the eastern USA and western Europe fell under persistent frigid Arctic conditions brought about by a weakening of the polar vortex. </p>
<p>Six months later, the north has been experiencing exceptional hemispheric-wide <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/climate-change-gobal-warming-freak-weather-explained/">summer warming and drought</a>, most likely amplified by a weakening of Atlantic Ocean circulation – the latter (ironically) being expressed by unusually <a href="https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1036358788268400641">cool surface ocean waters</a>. </p>
<p>In recent weeks, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45517260">Florence</a>, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45517803">Mangkhut</a> and <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/uk-weather-storm-helene-approaches-with-70mph-gusts-11499729">Helene</a> have become the latest household names to mark a succession of storms battering the USA, Asia and Europe this year. </p>
<p>Closer to home, New South Wales is now suffering a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-27/drought-continues-in-nsw-despite-weekend-rain/10166682">state-wide drought</a>, along with other regions in Australia. Early wildfires and the threat of more to come has resulted in the earliest government <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/it-s-all-bad-earliest-total-fire-bans-on-record-an-ominous-sign-20180815-p4zxn8.html">total fire ban on record</a>. </p>
<p>As the crisis deepens, it’s worth reflecting on Victorian London’s “Great Stink” sewage problem - where things finally got so bad that authorities were forced to accept evidence, reject sceptics, and act.</p>
<h2>A ‘deadly sewer’</h2>
<p>In the Victorian age, London’s growth had turned the River Thames into an open sewer. Conditions were so bad they inspired many to write on the risks to public health. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237998/original/file-20180926-149955-1eq16ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237998/original/file-20180926-149955-1eq16ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237998/original/file-20180926-149955-1eq16ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237998/original/file-20180926-149955-1eq16ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237998/original/file-20180926-149955-1eq16ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237998/original/file-20180926-149955-1eq16ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237998/original/file-20180926-149955-1eq16ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237998/original/file-20180926-149955-1eq16ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=576&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 silent highwayman’, an 1858 cartoon from Punch magazine, commenting on the deadly levels of pollution in the River Thames.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink">Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Charles Dickens provided a lurid description in Little Dorrit, describing the Thames as a <a href="http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/bigstink.html">“deadly sewer”</a> while the scientist Michael Faraday <a href="https://todayinsci.com/F/Faraday_Michael/FaradayMichael-ThamesPollutionLetter.htm">wrote</a> to The Times of London that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>if we neglect this subject, we cannot expect to do so with impunity; nor ought we to be surprised if, ere many years are over, a hot season give us sad proof of the folly of our carelessness.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237996/original/file-20180926-149982-c2v25n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237996/original/file-20180926-149982-c2v25n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237996/original/file-20180926-149982-c2v25n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=821&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237996/original/file-20180926-149982-c2v25n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=821&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237996/original/file-20180926-149982-c2v25n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=821&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237996/original/file-20180926-149982-c2v25n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1031&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237996/original/file-20180926-149982-c2v25n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1031&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/237996/original/file-20180926-149982-c2v25n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1031&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An 1855 cartoon from Punch Magazine in which Michael Faraday gives his card to ‘Father Thames’, commenting on Faraday gauging the river’s ‘degree of opacity’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink#/media/File:Caricature;_Faraday_giving_his_card_to_Father_Thames._Wellcome_M0012507.jpg">Wikimedia</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1854, medic John Snow demonstrated the source of cholera in the London suburb of Soho was a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow">local water pump</a>. To test his ideas, officials removed the handle on the pump, and the number of cases all but disappeared. </p>
<h2>Sewage sceptics</h2>
<p>But there was an intransigence about meeting the threat. Ignoring scientific evidence, “sewage sceptics” held the view that poor air quality – <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121911/">so called “miasma”</a>– was the cause of the frequent outbreaks of cholera and other diseases. </p>
<p>They convinced the government to reject the evidence, considering there to be “no reason to adopt this belief”. The scale of the sewage problem in London was considered too large to be solved, possibly encouraged by political pressure from the thriving water industry that delivered direct to those who could afford it. For several more years, this view persisted. </p>
<p>That was until the year of the “Great Stink”.</p>
<h2>The ‘Great Stink’ arrives</h2>
<p>In the summer heatwave of 1858, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink">the Thames’ sewage turned noses across London</a>. Conditions were so bad, teams of men were employed to shovel lime at the many sewage outlets into the capital’s river in a vain attempt to stop the smell. </p>
<p>Even the national legislators were not spared, with the windows of the Houses of Parliament covered in lime-soaked sack cloths. Serious thought was even given to relocating government outside London, at least until the air had cleared. The conditions created a heady stench that cut through the politically charged rhetoric of the day, and forced a rethink.</p>
<p>Within nine years of the “Great Stink”, the 900-kilometre London Sewage Network was constructed - an engineering marvel of the Victorian age. The politicians at the time weren’t immediately convinced the new infrastructure would help public health but the disappearance of disease accepted as the norm for the capital convinced even the most ardent of sceptics. No one talks about miasma as a real thing anymore.</p>
<p>The Great Stink of 1858 overturned beliefs founded on misinformation. A challenge considered impossible, was solved. </p>
<h2>Our generation’s ‘Great Stink’</h2>
<p>Fast forward 160 years and the recent spate of climate headlines is on the back of an increasing trend towards greater extremes, with all the associated human, environmental, and financial costs.</p>
<p>In August of this year, <a href="http://actuariesclimateindex.org/home/">the Actuaries Climate Index</a> – which monitors changes in sea level rise and climate extremes for the North American insurance industry since the 1960s – reported that the five-year moving average reached a new high in 2017. This year promises to continue the trend and is no single outlier.</p>
<p>Will 2018 be the year when the world does something about climate change? </p>
<p>Will 2018 be our generation’s “Great Stink”? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/while-nations-play-politics-cities-and-states-are-taking-up-the-climate-challenge-78839">While nations play politics, cities and states are taking up the climate challenge</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Turney consults for cleanech company CarbonScape (<a href="http://www.carbonscape.com">www.carbonscape.com</a>) and receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>As climate extremes mount, let’s reflect on Victorian London’s ‘Great Stink’ sewage crisis - when things finally became so bad authorities were forced to accept evidence, reject sceptics, and act.Christian Turney, Professor of Earth Science and Climate Change, ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/942962018-05-15T04:06:37Z2018-05-15T04:06:37ZTo get conservative climate contrarians to really listen, try speaking their language<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218918/original/file-20180515-100722-geswk1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People will listen more when they like what they're hearing.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s a well-studied fact that facts don’t speak for themselves. This is especially apparent with climate change. Some brilliant studies in the past ten years have shown that people respond to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pops.12057/full">narratives about climate change</a>, not raw facts. </p>
<p>We also know that politics, not scientific knowledge, shapes people’s view of climate change. Hence <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057">deniers are generally politically conservative</a>, regardless of scientific literacy. That means a climate change narrative that appeals to conservative values is a high priority.</p>
<p>The effects of climate change are potentially catastrophic. Currently, a minority of conservative contrarians, including politicians in several countries, have an outsized influence on our lack of action. It makes sense that a big chunk of our campaigning efforts should be targeted at them. </p>
<p>But how many climate change campaigns are specifically targeted at people with a conservative worldview? Given what we know from the research, the answer is roughly none. Environmentalists, policy wonks and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8">Brian Cox</a> continue to preach to the choir. Yet more facts, lucidly explained, will actually make <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547">people double down on their pre-existing positions</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074">Facts won't beat the climate deniers – using their tactics will</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Climate change holdouts are not necessarily ill-informed. But they naturally – like everyone else – do not welcome information that conflicts with their worldview. Conservatives are likely to disregard or filter out information that threatens economic growth, standards of living, and business interests. </p>
<p>They’re also likely to be unmoved by messages that emphasise the impact of climate change on the world’s poor. Especially ineffective are morally tinged narratives about how climate change is humanity’s fault and that we’re getting our comeuppance.</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how accurate any of these narratives are; they won’t work with someone who isn’t open to them. Instead, we need to tailor new climate change narratives that appeal specifically to people with a conservative worldview.</p>
<p>Importantly, although politically targeted, these narratives don’t compromise or warp the science of climate change in any way. They simply emphasise different effects.</p>
<h2>What might these narratives look like?</h2>
<p>The first suggestion is that carbon dioxide emissions could be explained as a disruption to the status quo (of the climate), and thus <a href="https://www-nature-com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/articles/nclimate2943">at odds with conservative values</a>. Climate change is a radical, anarchic experiment with the world’s atmosphere and vital systems. </p>
<p>So, rather than going on with “business as usual”, the sensible thing to do is to stop conducting a foolhardy all-in bet with the world’s water and air. A risk-averse, sane, conservative person should want to adopt the precautionary principle and suspend further greenhouse emissions.</p>
<p>Conservatives are <a href="http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-384">more likely to respond to positive messages</a> that emphasise agency rather than doom and gloom. <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716214559002">Promoting geoengineering</a> or market-based solutions like a carbon tax is a good idea. Even if your own political identity is opposed to these specific solutions, it’s at least worth using them to win conservatives round to the idea that climate change is real.</p>
<p>Third, climate change can be framed as a matter of <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612449177">impurity rather than harm</a>. Harm to marginalised people and the environment is how many liberal-minded people conceive of climate change. But conservatives think more in terms of purity or sanctity. No worries. The effects of climate change can be no less accurately framed as being a violation of the purity or sanctity of the planet. Instead of harm to ecosystems, it’s a contamination of God’s green Earth.</p>
<p>Finally, we come to a difficult but potentially powerful narrative. It involves turning big industries in general against parts of the energy industry in particular. The more severe effects of climate change threaten the interests of everyone, including those of most large corporations. </p>
<p>We need to compose a narrative about the biggest emitters among fossil fuel companies not pulling their weight, and spoiling things for other industries. It might mobilise traditionally conservative business interests to support action on climate change.</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>
<p>Whatever narratives we use, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2562025">we need to test them</a> to make sure that they are effective. </p>
<h2>Selling the truth</h2>
<p>For some, even the word “narrative” carries connotations of marketing spin, PR, propaganda, or lies. The bitter joke is that as science communicators, armed with mountains of facts, real stakes and endorsements from the best-looking celebrities, we have nonetheless failed to sell the truth. </p>
<p>But it’s not spin if it’s true. All I’m advocating is that we package the facts in a way that will appeal to an audience that has so far remained unmoved. It’s a matter of strategy. </p>
<p>Fossil fuel companies have savvy communications strategies and obvious material incentives to lie. They have donated <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273">millions of dollars to climate denial</a>. </p>
<p>We don’t have to lie about climate change. It’s sadly all too real.</p>
<p>It’s time to play smart and win by engaging conservatives. Climate change shouldn’t be a political issue. But combating it has to take people’s political identities into account. Ignoring this fact is almost as naïve as believing that humans are not changing the climate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jamie Freestone 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>Facts will only get you so far when it comes to climate change. To get conservatives on side, climate communicators must focus on the values conservatives hold dear, such as preserving the status quo.Jamie Freestone, PhD student in literature, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/849692017-10-09T03:28:01Z2017-10-09T03:28:01ZTony Abbott, once the ‘climate weathervane’, has long since rusted stuck<p>Tonight former Prime Minister Tony Abbott will be in London to give a speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, titled “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/02/daring-to-doubt-tony-abbott-to-address-london-climate-sceptic-group">Daring to Doubt</a>”, in which he will <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/betweenthelines/tony-abbott/9016116">reportedly argue</a> that climate policy is “shutting down industries”. (It’s not clear if he’s bought <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3_CYdYDDpk">carbon offsets</a> for the 10 tonnes of carbon that a return flight to the UK will release into the atmosphere.) </p>
<p>Whatever talking points and soundbites he presents will inevitably be interpreted as yet another salvo in the Coalition’s ferocious and interminable war over energy and climate policy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/two-new-books-show-theres-still-no-goodbye-to-messy-climate-politics-80957">Two new books show there's still no goodbye to messy climate politics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The venue is the same one where Abbott’s mentor John Howard <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/election-ploy-john-howard-climate">U-turned on his earlier climate policy U-turn</a>. In a 2013 speech, Howard disparagingly declared that “<a href="http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/12/Howard-2013-Annual-GWPF-Lecture.pdf">one religion is enough</a>”, despite having belatedly pledged in 2006 to introduce an emissions trading scheme, only to lose to Kevin Rudd the following year.</p>
<h2>Who are the GWPF anyway?</h2>
<p>The Global Warming Policy Foundation was set up in 2009 by Nigel Lawson, who in the 1980s served as Chancellor of the Exchequer (the UK equivalent of treasurer) in Margaret Thatcher’s government, but is arguably more famous these days as Nigella’s dad. </p>
<p>The foundation was founded just days after the first so-called “Climategate” emails were leaked. But after <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/75857/">complaints</a>, in 2014 the UK Charity Commission <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-global-warming-policy-foundation-case-report">rejected the notion</a> that the organisation provides an educational resource, concluding that: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The [GWPF] website could not be regarded as a comprehensive and structured educational resource sufficient to demonstrate public benefit. In areas of controversy, education requires balance and neutrality with sufficient weight given to competing arguments.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Ahead of the Commission’s report, the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/09/nigel-lawson-climate-sceptic-thinktank">Global Warming Policy Forum was born</a> as the organisation’s campaigning arm, free from the regulations that govern charities. </p>
<p>Despite its loud demands for crystal-clear transparency about climate science, and its repeated claims that scientists are swayed by big fat grants, the GWPF is oddly cagey about its own funding. In a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nl8gm">2012 BBC Radio programme</a>, Lawson said he relied on friends who “tend to be richer than the average person and much more intelligent than the average person”. An <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation">investigation by the website DeSmog</a> has dug up some more information.</p>
<p>More recently the GWP Forum has been in the news because it appointed a <a href="https://www.desmog.uk/2017/08/07/oil-company-boss-and-major-tory-brexit-donor-named-director-climate-science-denying-gwpf">pro-Brexit oil company boss to its board</a> and because in August Lawson appeared on BBC Radio to attack Al Gore, accusing the Nobel prizewinning climate activist of peddling “the same old claptrap” and adding: “People often fail to change and he says he hasn’t changed, he’s like the man who goes around saying ‘the end of the world is nigh’ with a big placard”.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-al-gores-climate-missions-to-australia-81023">A brief history of Al Gore's climate missions to Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Lawson wasn’t done. He also claimed that “according to the official figures, during this past 10 years, if anything, mean global temperature, average world temperature, has slightly declined”.</p>
<p>Factcheckers were <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-lord-lawson-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-change-bbc-radio-four">quick off the mark</a>, and the BBC was <a href="http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-08-10/radio-4-labelled-ignorant-and-irresponsible-for-giving-airtime-to-climate-change-sceptic-lord-lawson/">chided by, among others, Professor Brian Cox</a> (a year on from <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video">bringing his graph to Q&A</a> to try to educate the British-Australian politician Malcolm Roberts).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nigel-lawson-climate-change-sceptics-global-temperatures-fall-false-claim-warming-gwpf-bbc-radio-4-a7894686.html">Days later Lawson admitted</a> that his figures were not from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but from a meteorologist who works for the Cato Institute, a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/17/dark-money-review-nazi-oil-the-koch-brothers-and-a-rightwing-revolution">libertarian think tank founded by Charles Koch</a>.</p>
<h2>Abbott the weathervane</h2>
<p>Anyway, back to Abbott. Digging around in the archives throws up some amusing surprises about him, as befits a man who has been <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/50th-birthday/a-tyro-makes-his-mark/story-fnlk0fie-1226899809752">making headline since 1977</a>. In 1994 an environmental campaign to recreate Tasmania’s Lake Pedder found an unusual ally in the newly minted Member for Warringah, who wrote an article in The Australian that plaintively asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If we can renovate old houses and old cars, rejuvenate works of art, recreate forgotten languages and restore degraded bushland, why can’t we rehabilitate the site of a redundant dam?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Abbott seems not to have been particularly exercised by climate policy during the first decade of his parliamentary career. But once the issue hit the top of the political agenda, Abbott was – in his own words to Malcolm Turnbull – “a bit of a weathervane”. </p>
<p>He helped convince Howard to agree to some sort of ETS proposal during the ultimately futile bid to fend off Kevin Rudd in 2007. In July 2009, in a front-page story in The Australian headed “Abbott – we have to vote for ETS”, he was quoted as saying: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The [Rudd] government’s emissions trading scheme is the perfect political response to the public’s fears. It’s a plausible means to limit carbon emissions that doesn’t impose any obvious costs on voters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, by September 2009, with Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership on the rocks (remember <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utegate">Godwin Grech</a>?), Abbott made a fateful trip to Beaufort in rural Victoria, and discovered that the room loved him saying “climate change is <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/politics/the-town-that-turned-up-the-temperature/news-story/6fe0d32a32e42341a12b999f6da82ec5">absolute crap</a>”. The weathervane had made an abrupt about-face.</p>
<p>As Paul Kelly notes in his 2014 opus <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_%26_Demise:_The_Broken_Promise_of_a_Labor_Generation">Triumph and Demise</a>, then-Senator Nick Minchin was crucial in convincing Abbott that there was no serious electoral price to be paid in opposing Kevin Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.</p>
<p>Turnbull was on the ropes, and Abbott won the leadership ballot by one vote. As David Marr <a href="https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/political-animal">recounts</a>, the party was almost as stunned as the nation. “God Almighty,” one of the Liberals cried in the party room that day. “What have we done?”</p>
<p>The ensuing years need no extended <a href="https://theconversation.com/ten-years-of-backflips-over-emissions-trading-leave-climate-policy-in-the-lurch-69641">recap</a>, though two points are worth mentioning. The first is the admission by Abbott’s former chief of staff Peta Credlin that the “carbon tax” that was going to be the end of the world… <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/02/12/carbon-tax-just-brutal-politics-credlin">wasn’t a carbon tax</a>. </p>
<p>The second is that former environment minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/24/liberal-mps-didnt-stand-in-abbotts-way-on-renewables-target-greg-hunt-says">Greg Hunt recently rebutted</a> the claim that backbenchers prevented further cuts to the Renewable Energy Target under Abbott’s prime ministership.</p>
<h2>Backed into a corner</h2>
<p>The upshot is that Abbott has, as <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/tony-abbott-prepared-to-change-on-all-but-a-few-principles-20170922-gymlj4">Philip Coorey recently observed</a>, totally painted himself into a corner on energy and renewables. </p>
<p>Mind you, it may not matter that much to him, given that his apparent aim is not to “do a Rudd” and return to the helm, but simply to drive a wrecking ball through Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership – with climate and energy policy as collateral damage. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coal-and-the-coalition-the-policy-knot-that-still-wont-untie-83565">Coal and the Coalition: the policy knot that still won't untie</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As Abbott accepts another pat on the back from a roomful of climate deniers in London, we may wonder how long business interests in Australia will tolerate his wrecking, undermining and sniping. There is bewilderment and dismay at the destabilising effect on policy. </p>
<p>Among the business lobby, <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/whats-next-minerals-councils-coal-climate-policy-18763/">BHP has evidently forced the departure of Brendan Pearson as head of the Minerals Council</a> in protest at the council’s similarly backward stance. That much is within their gift. But with regard to the Coalition government, those businesses can do little but despair at the handful of recalcitrant MPs who have nominated climate policy as the ditch in which they will die, in service of the culture war.</p>
<p>The hot air just doesn’t seem to be letting up, any more than our <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-reality-of-living-with-50-temperatures-in-our-major-cities-85315">hot summers</a> will in the future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84969/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Tony Abbott will deliver a speech to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Has the human weathervane stopped spinning? What does it mean for climate politics?Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/725602017-02-10T04:15:20Z2017-02-10T04:15:20ZWhat do gorilla suits and blowfish fallacies have to do with climate change?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156267/original/image-20170209-8651-7wgd5a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pardon me while I blow this out of proportion.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/white-belly-blowfish-252458971">Blowfish image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A famous psychology experiment instructed participants to watch a short video, counting the number of times players in white shirts passed the ball. If you haven’t seen it before, I encourage you to give the following short video your full attention and follow the instructions:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vJG698U2Mvo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Follow the instructions in this video before reading on.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the end, participants discovered the point of the video when asked if they had observed the gorilla walking through the players. Half the participants didn’t <a href="http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/videos.html">notice the gorilla at all</a>. The lesson? When we laser-focus on specific details (like players in white shirts), we can miss the gorilla in the room.</p>
<p>What does this have to do with climate change? I’m a <a href="http://climatechangecommunication.org/portfolio-view/john-cook/">cognitive psychologist</a> interested in better understanding and countering the techniques used to distort the science of climate change. I’ve found that understanding why some people reject climate science offers insight into how they deny science. By better understanding the techniques employed, you can counter misinformation more effectively.</p>
<p>Every movement that has rejected a scientific consensus, whether it be on evolution, climate change or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibits the same <a href="https://youtu.be/wXA777yUndQ">five characteristics of science denial</a> (concisely summarized by the acronym FLICC). These are <a href="https://youtu.be/WAqR9mLJrcE">fake experts</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5kejSYPD7U&feature=youtu.be">logical fallacies</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_jKXcgR_QA&feature=youtu.be">impossible expectations</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lepc2OKX6uQ&feature=youtu.be">cherry picking</a> and <a href="http://jspp.psychopen.eu/article/view/443/html">conspiracy theories</a>. When someone wants to cast doubt on a scientific finding, FLICC is an integral part of the misinformation toolbox.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156104/original/image-20170208-17349-193kp0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156104/original/image-20170208-17349-193kp0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156104/original/image-20170208-17349-193kp0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156104/original/image-20170208-17349-193kp0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156104/original/image-20170208-17349-193kp0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=289&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156104/original/image-20170208-17349-193kp0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156104/original/image-20170208-17349-193kp0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156104/original/image-20170208-17349-193kp0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=363&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 five characteristics of science denial.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Logical fallacies are a broad umbrella, including a number of other misleading techniques. For example, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring">red herring</a> is a term that likely originated from the technique of using strong-smelling fish to throw dogs off a scent. Similarly, irrelevant information or arguments can be used to distract people from important information.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156105/original/image-20170208-17349-i0yums.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156105/original/image-20170208-17349-i0yums.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156105/original/image-20170208-17349-i0yums.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=735&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156105/original/image-20170208-17349-i0yums.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=735&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156105/original/image-20170208-17349-i0yums.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=735&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156105/original/image-20170208-17349-i0yums.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=924&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156105/original/image-20170208-17349-i0yums.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=924&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156105/original/image-20170208-17349-i0yums.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=924&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 blowfish fallacy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is a special class of red herring – a specific technique of denial often employed to distract people from important scientific findings. To maintain the fish metaphor, I characterize this as the blowfish fallacy. </p>
<p>This is the technique of laser-focusing on an inconsequential methodological aspect of scientific research, blowing it out of proportion in order to distract from the bigger picture. If you persuade people to focus hard enough on specific details, they can miss the gorilla in the room.</p>
<h2>The 97 percent scientific consensus on climate change</h2>
<p>One example of the blowfish strategy is the attempt to distract from the scientific consensus on climate change. Study after study, using a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002">wide range of independent methods</a>, has found overwhelming agreement among climate scientists that human beings are causing global warming.</p>
<p>I was the coauthor of one of these studies. We read through 21 years of climate papers, identifying which papers endorsed or rejected human-caused global warming. Among the papers stating a position, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024">97 percent agreed that humans are causing global warming</a>. Our research has been <a href="https://thewinnower.com/discussions/research-on-climate-consensus-provokes-strong-reactions">relentlessly attacked</a> by conservative think tanks, politicians and newspapers. Typically, criticisms of our study focus on <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Cook_2014_Reply_Tol.pdf">tiny methodological details or false assumptions</a> that have little to no bearing on our final result.</p>
<p>Most criticisms fail to acknowledge that our study has been <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002">replicated by multiple independent studies</a>. Every criticism of our study has avoided the fact that, even within our own study, we independently replicated the 97 percent consensus result. In addition to categorizing papers ourselves, we also invited the scientists who wrote the climate papers to categorize whether their paper stated a position on human-caused global warming. Among papers self-rated as stating a position, 97 percent endorsed the consensus. </p>
<h2>Replicating the global temperature record</h2>
<p>A number of different scientific teams have constructed global temperature records. They are all remarkably consistent with each other, confirming that we are in a period of long-term warming and experiencing record warm temperatures in the last few years. The fact that these basic findings have been replicated by so many different groups of scientists from around the world shows that our understanding of the increase in global temperature is solid.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156115/original/image-20170208-17320-18iy76w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156115/original/image-20170208-17320-18iy76w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156115/original/image-20170208-17320-18iy76w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156115/original/image-20170208-17320-18iy76w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156115/original/image-20170208-17320-18iy76w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156115/original/image-20170208-17320-18iy76w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156115/original/image-20170208-17320-18iy76w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/156115/original/image-20170208-17320-18iy76w.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Global temperature records from NOAA, NASA, Berkeley, Hadley and Cowtan & Way.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Zeke Hausfather, Carbon Brief</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One way to distract from the strong understanding of how our climate is changing is to resort to the so-called blowfish fallacy. Recently, U.K. journalist <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/david-rose">David Rose</a> claimed that <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html">methodological flaws by NOAA scientists cast doubt</a> on the global temperature record. Rose neglected to acknowledge that the data he was attacking had been independently <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise">replicated by a number of other scientific teams</a>.</p>
<p>Rose’s misinformation was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/05/mail-on-sunday-launches-the-first-salvo-in-the-latest-war-against-climate-scientists">promptly</a> and <a href="http://icarus-maynooth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/on-mail-on-sunday-article-on-karl-et-al.html">comprehensively</a> <a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2017/01/much-ado-about-noaathing.html">debunked</a>. Within days, the so-called “whistle blower” who was the source of the article <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended">distanced himself from Rose’s characterizations</a>. Contrary to Rose’s breathless conclusions, data scientist John Bates said there was “…no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”</p>
<p>Rose’s out-of-proportion response was best <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/article-names-whistleblower-who-told-congress-that-noaa-manipulated-data/">summed up by science writer Scott Johnson</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“…it’s not much more substantial than claiming the Apollo 11 astronauts failed to file some paperwork and pretending this casts doubt on the veracity of the Moon landing.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The climate change gorilla</h2>
<p>The case for climate change is a loud, unmissable gorilla. Our acceptance that global warming is happening is based on <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm">tens of thousands of lines of evidence</a>: not just thermometer readings but <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/">melting ice sheets</a>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6918/abs/nature01286.html">migrating species</a>, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-glaciers">retreating glaciers</a> and <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/">rising sea levels</a>, to name just a few.</p>
<p>Similarly, our scientific understanding that human beings are causing modern global warming is based on <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm">many independent human fingerprints</a>, observed by <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html">satellites</a>, <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD011800/abstract">surface measurements of infrared heat</a> and, in fact, the <a href="http://www.math.nyu.edu/%7Egerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-2003.pdf">shifting structure of our atmosphere</a>. </p>
<p>To avoid seeing the climate gorilla requires conspiracy theories and distracting techniques such as the blowfish fallacy. Often these arguments are accompanied with the false narrative that our scientific understanding of climate change is like a house of cards – remove one card and the whole edifice topples down. </p>
<p>Science is more like a jigsaw puzzle, with each line of evidence building a more complete picture. Removing one piece doesn’t change the overall picture. In the case of humanity’s role in causing climate change, we have many pieces and the picture is clear.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72560/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook 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>Laser-like focus on a tiny, unimportant detail can mean you miss the gorilla in the room – a tactic climate change deniers use to cast doubt on the science.John Cook, Research Assistant Professor, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/694352016-11-28T11:17:28Z2016-11-28T11:17:28ZOur political beliefs predict how we feel about climate change<p>The man who called global warming <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en">a fabrication invented by the Chinese to make US manufacturing less competitive</a> is now president-elect of the US. His followers expect him to withdraw the US from the Paris climate change agreement and eliminate the environmental regulations introduced by his predecessor. </p>
<p>But recently, Donald Trump has shown a few signs that he might be open to being convinced that climate change is a real problem requiring action. In <a href="http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html">discussion</a> with journalists at the New York Times, he expressed the view that there is “some connectivity” between human activity and climate change, adding that he’s keeping an open mind about it.</p>
<p>Will his commitments on climate change go the way of his vow <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/conway-no-clinton-charges-donald-trump/">to prosecute Hillary Clinton</a>? I doubt it. I suspect that in the end, the words of his close advisers will be more persuasive than those of climate scientists. He will retain only a figleaf of regulation, at best.</p>
<p>Trump <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/12/im-like-a-really-smart-person-donald-trump-exults-in-outsider-status">often</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/332308211321425920?lang=en">boasts</a> of his intelligence. Many people might take his scepticism about climate change as evidence against his inflated sense of his own abilities. I don’t think it is. I have no high opinion of Trump’s intelligence, but scepticism about climate change is not the result of a lack of mental capacity or of rationality. The minds of sceptics are not working any less well than those who accept the consensus. They are more victims of bad luck than of bad thinking.</p>
<h2>Left-right divide</h2>
<p>In fact, there is <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057">little relationship</a> between intelligence and knowledge and beliefs on climate change (or other hot button issues, such as evolution). It is political affiliation – and not knowledge or intelligence – that predicts attitudes concerning climate change.</p>
<p>Whereas for those on the left, more knowledge and higher intelligence predicts a higher rate of acceptance of the consensus, for those on the right <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057">the opposite is true</a>. Sceptics are not less intelligent or less knowledgeable. Instead, our political biases strongly influence how we process information – and especially what sources we are likely to trust.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"803106857518710784"}"></div></p>
<p>We get a great deal of information via the testimony of other agents. We have to. We can’t check everything out for ourselves. When we go to a doctor, we rely on their expertise to diagnose our ailment. We don’t have the time to do a medical degree ourselves. The doctor is in the same position with regards to their lawyer and mechanic. Even in their own field, they depend on the testimony of others: they likely have no idea how to construct an X-ray machine and may have little idea how to interpret an fMRI scan.</p>
<p>Contemporary societies, with their deep division of labour, make our reliance on others for knowledge obvious – but the phenomenon is not new. <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Not-Genes-Alone-Transformed-Evolution/dp/0226712125/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1456052802&sr=1-1&keywords=not+by+genes+alone">Even in traditional societies</a> there is a division of labour as a result of the fact that some skills take a long time to acquire. So deep is our reliance on a division of knowledge-sector labour, we seem to have adaptations for acquiring beliefs from others.</p>
<h2>Choosing who to believe</h2>
<p>Though human beings are disposed to acquire beliefs from others, we do so selectively. From an early age – and to an extent that increases across childhood – we rely on certain cues to distinguish reliable from unreliable informants. Among the cues for reliability, two stand out: <a href="https://www2.unine.ch/files/content/sites/cognition/files/shared/documents/to_trust_or_not_to_trust-_Children_s_social_epistemology.pdf">evidence of competence and evidence of benevolence</a>. Children are more likely to reject the testimony of competent individuals who seem to them ill-motivated. That makes sense, of course – we want to be able to filter testimony so that we are not easily exploited.</p>
<p>In his work on the partisan divide over matters of fact, American psychologist Dan Kahan <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2459057">suggests</a> that testimony may play a role in explaining this divergence. As he says, both sides may defer in their beliefs to genuinely more competent people around them who share their political outlook. I suggest that the filters we apply in accepting testimony are at work here. We accept the testimony of those who give signs of greater competence than us and who are also benevolent to us and our interests: taking a shared political orientation as a proxy for benevolence seems a reasonable enough thing to do.</p>
<p>Liberals (using that word in the US sense) and conservatives come to their views on a wide range of issues, such as climate change, via testimony. And they do so in a way that is individually rational. They identify people who are genuinely more competent than they are and who give other signs of trustworthiness – and then they defer to them. If that’s right, then neither side can be said to be more rational than the other.</p>
<h2>Merchants of doubt</h2>
<p>But this doesn’t mean that beliefs – particularly on climate change – are equally justified by all the evidence. Beliefs we acquire via other people can be justified when they trace back to individuals – or, in this case more plausibly, groups of individuals – who have a demonstrable grasp of the issues and are able to present relevant evidence.</p>
<p>On the question of climate change, conservatives’ chain of testimony traces back to “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464660922&sr=1-1&keywords=merchants+of+doubt">merchants of doubt</a>”, who may have deliberately and knowingly fabricated falsehoods, as well as cranks – and, yes, a very few genuinely knowledgeable people, who themselves dissent rationally. Liberals’ chain of testimony, meanwhile, traces back to a much broader set of genuinely expert people.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147727/original/image-20161128-22727-1nk49uk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147727/original/image-20161128-22727-1nk49uk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147727/original/image-20161128-22727-1nk49uk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147727/original/image-20161128-22727-1nk49uk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147727/original/image-20161128-22727-1nk49uk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147727/original/image-20161128-22727-1nk49uk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147727/original/image-20161128-22727-1nk49uk.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=553&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147727/original/image-20161128-22727-1nk49uk.png?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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This confident report turned out to be misleading.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Daily Mail</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Conservatives like Trump may thereby come to have false beliefs through no fault of their own. And it’s not just conservatives who are vulnerable to this kind of bad luck in belief. Merchants of doubt may find a hospitable environment on the left, too. That has probably happened less often in recent history, simply because it takes money to effectively hijack a debate and corporate interests have been aligned with the political right. </p>
<p>That may change, however. In the US, there is evidence that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democrats-become-favorites-of-the-rich.html?_r=1">the Democrats are starting to become the party of the wealthy</a>. Perhaps Trump’s election will reverse this trend – if it does not, moneyed interests may in future distort signals of benevolence so it is the left that finds itself defending nonsense.</p>
<p><em>Next, listen to our The Anthill podcast’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/anthill-7-on-belief-69448">special episode on belief</a>: from the allure of cults and conspiracy theories, to the effect of trauma on faith, to the way dogma has influenced science – and if technology can actually shift our beliefs.</em></p>
<iframe width="100%" height="166" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/295146179&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69435/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Levy receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Wellcome Trust. In the past, he has received funding from the Templeton Foundation and the Leverhulme Trust. </span></em></p>Sceptics are not necessarily less intelligent or knowledgeable.Neil Levy, Senior Research Fellow, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/693492016-11-25T04:37:40Z2016-11-25T04:37:40ZTrump or NASA – who’s really politicising climate science?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147530/original/image-20161125-15351-1hifmh8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">NASA has a long history of conducting climate science. Here, a NASA camera captures a storm over South Australia.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">NASA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Climate research conducted at NASA had been “heavily politicised”, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research">said Robert Walker</a>, a senior adviser to US President-elect Donald Trump.</p>
<p>This has led him to recommend stripping funding for climate research at NASA.</p>
<p>Walker’s claim comes with a great deal of irony. Over the past few decades, climate science has indeed become heavily politicised. But it is ideological partisans cut from the same cloth as Walker who engineered such a polarised situation.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, climate change used to be a bipartisan issue. In 1988, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000669">Republican George H.W. Bush pledged</a> to “fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect”.</p>
<p>Since those idealistic days when conservatives and liberals marched hand-in-hand towards a safer climate future, the level of public discourse has deteriorated. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995?journalCode=venv20">Surveys of the US public</a> over the past few decades show Democrats and Republicans growing further apart in their attitudes and beliefs about climate change.</p>
<p>For example, when asked whether most scientists agree on global warming, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995">perceived consensus</a> among Democrats has steadily increased over the last two decades. In contrast, perceived consensus among Republicans has been in stasis at around 50%.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147487/original/image-20161124-15339-1pmws99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147487/original/image-20161124-15339-1pmws99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147487/original/image-20161124-15339-1pmws99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147487/original/image-20161124-15339-1pmws99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147487/original/image-20161124-15339-1pmws99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147487/original/image-20161124-15339-1pmws99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147487/original/image-20161124-15339-1pmws99.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147487/original/image-20161124-15339-1pmws99.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">Polarisation of perceived consensus among Republicans and Democrats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dunlap et al. (2016)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>How is it that party affiliation has become such a strong driver of people’s views about scientific topics? </p>
<p>In the early 1990s, <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644010802055576">conservative think-tanks sprang to life on this issue</a>. These are organisations promoting conservative ideals such as unregulated free markets and limited government.</p>
<p>Their goal was to delay government regulation of polluting industries such as fossil fuel companies. Their main tactic was to cast doubt on climate science. </p>
<p>Using a constant stream of books, newspaper editorials and media appearances, they generated a glut of misinformation about climate science and scientists.</p>
<p>The conservative think-tanks were assisted by corporate funding from the fossil fuel industry – a partnership that Naomi Oreskes <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org">poetically describes</a> as an “unholy alliance”. </p>
<p>Over the past few decades, conservative organisations that receive corporate funding have <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273">grown much more prolific in publishing polarising misinformation</a> compared to groups that didn’t receive corporate funding.</p>
<h2>Politicising the scientific consensus</h2>
<p>Robert Walker <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research">also brought up</a> the topic of agreement among climatologists. The scientific consensus on human-caused global warming is a topic I’ve been rather heavily involved in over the past few years.</p>
<p>In 2013, I was part of a team that <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-true-97-of-research-papers-say-climate-change-is-happening-14051">analysed 21 years worth of peer-reviewed climate papers</a>. We found that among papers stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97% endorsed the consensus.</p>
<p>Our 97% consensus paper has been incessantly critiqued by Republican senators, right-wing think-tanks, Republican congressmen and contrarian blogs promoting a conservative agenda (eagle-eyed readers might detect a pattern here). </p>
<p>This led us to publish a <a href="https://theconversation.com/consensus-confirmed-over-90-of-climate-scientists-believe-were-causing-global-warming-57654">follow-up paper summarising the many different studies into consensus</a>. A number of surveys and analyses independently found around 90% to 100% scientific agreement on human-caused global warming, with multiple studies converging on 97% consensus.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147488/original/image-20161124-15368-14jcj5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147488/original/image-20161124-15368-14jcj5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147488/original/image-20161124-15368-14jcj5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147488/original/image-20161124-15368-14jcj5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147488/original/image-20161124-15368-14jcj5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147488/original/image-20161124-15368-14jcj5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147488/original/image-20161124-15368-14jcj5s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147488/original/image-20161124-15368-14jcj5s.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">Summary of consensus studies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Raising doubt about the scientific consensus has been an integral part of the conservative strategy to polarise climate change. A clear articulation of this strategy came from an <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf">infamous memo</a> drafted by Republican strategist Frank Luntz. He recommended that Republicans win the public debate about climate change by casting doubt on the scientific consensus:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming in the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Conservatives dutifully heeded the market-research-driven recommendations from Luntz. One of the <a href="http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800.abstract">most common arguments against climate change in conservative opinion pieces</a> has been “<a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm">there is no consensus</a>”. </p>
<p>Their persistence has paid off. There continues to be a huge gap between public perception of consensus and the actual 97% consensus among climate scientists (although <a href="http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/6/4/2158244016676296">new data</a> indicates the consensus gap is closing). </p>
<p>In the following graph, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-for-climate-change-only-feeds-the-denial-how-do-you-beat-that-52813">taken from my own research into public perceptions of consensus</a>, the horizontal axis is a measure of political ideology, with liberals to the left and conservatives to the right. </p>
<p>The slope in the curve visualises the polarisation of climate perceptions. While perceived consensus is lower for more conservative groups, there is a significant gap between perceived consensus and the 97% reality even among liberals. </p>
<p>This “liberal consensus gap” has two contributing factors: a lack of awareness of the 97% consensus, or the impact of misinformation.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147493/original/image-20161125-15339-1qo5li1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/147493/original/image-20161125-15339-1qo5li1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147493/original/image-20161125-15339-1qo5li1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147493/original/image-20161125-15339-1qo5li1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147493/original/image-20161125-15339-1qo5li1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147493/original/image-20161125-15339-1qo5li1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/147493/original/image-20161125-15339-1qo5li1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The consensus gap: the divide between public perception of consensus and the 97% consensus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This data, consistent with <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00139157.2016.1208995?journalCode=venv20">Riley Dunlap’s polarisation data</a> mentioned at the start of this article, indicates that many conservatives think the consensus is around 50%. This matches what Walker <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research">claimed to The Guardian</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world”. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Given the multitude of studies finding consensus between 90% and 100%, where does this 50% figure come from? Further clues come from an <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.3864045/trump-adviser-wants-to-cut-nasa-climate-change-research-calls-it-politicized-science-1.3864051">interview on Canadian radio</a> where Walker again claims that only half of climatologists agree that humans are causing global warming.</p>
<p>The source for Walker’s consensus figure seems to be the National Association of Scholars, a <a href="https://www.nas.org/about/issues_and_ideals">conservative group that lists</a> “multiculturalism”, “diversity” and “sustainability” in academia as sources of concerns. A <a href="https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming">press release on the group’s website</a> includes the following excerpt:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>S. Fred Singer said in an interview with the National Association of Scholars (NAS) that “the number of sceptical qualified scientists has been growing steadily; I would guess it is about 40% now”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Multiple studies have measured the consensus among climatologists by diverse methods including examining their papers, looking at their public statements, and simply asking them. </p>
<p>But Walker doesn’t appear to be interested in evidence. Instead, he seems to be relying on an unsupported guess by retired physicist S. Fred Singer.</p>
<p>It’s telling that Walker cites conservative sources in his efforts to manufacture doubt about the scientific consensus. If there is any politicising of science going on, it appears to be by Walker, not by the scientists.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/69349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook 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>One of Donald Trump’s senior advisers has recommended cutting NASA climate research because the science has become “heavily politicised”. The question is: by whom?John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/686942016-11-14T11:02:10Z2016-11-14T11:02:10ZAnglophone political populism and the cultural rejection of climate change<p>Donald Trump’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/2016-us-presidential-election-23653">US election victory</a> follows hard on the back of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">UK’s Brexit vote</a> in June. The results – an expression of collective public preference from the electorate – have shaken political and cultural establishments on both sides of the Atlantic. And they have unsettled me also.</p>
<p>However, I’m interested in how the results of these different “referenda” in two of the world’s oldest democracies open a different window into understanding the cultural politics of climate change.</p>
<p>At one level, a political analysis would conclude that both results are a setback for national climate policies and international climate change agreements. A UK withdrawing from the EU, and its <a href="https://theconversation.com/experts-agree-eu-membership-is-good-for-britains-natural-environment-58021">embedded environmental legislation</a> is a UK that would seem more climate-sceptical than many climate progressives would wish for. And in the US, Trump has made <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en-gb">fairly clear</a> his own personal beliefs about human-induced climate change. With a Republican senate and house, it is not impossible to think of the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36401174">US’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement</a>.</p>
<p>But I’m interested in a deeper cultural reading of what these two popular votes signify in the context of climate change. In their light it is perhaps ironic that it was largely US and UK science which, from the 1970s through the 1990s, really drove the scientific, public and political construction of the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Margaret Thatcher famously backed <a href="http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107346">the reality of the enhanced greenhouse effect</a> in 1990, as too did <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/09/opinion/the-white-house-and-the-greenhouse.html">George Bush Sr in 1989</a>.</p>
<p>So why now, in 2016, have clear electoral majorities in these two nations voted for political movements and parties which are predominantly sceptical of climate change? It is more than just a result of nefarious fossil-fuel corporations or <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">well-funded libertarian think-tanks</a>. Climate commentators and analysts need to look beyond these narrow explanations of resistance.</p>
<h2>Climate change has become ideological</h2>
<p>The connecting factor, I suggest, is a popular antipathy towards the shadowy ideology of globalism, the unexamined belief that the world will inevitably be a better place through transnational coordination of governance, finance and science, through the free flow of goods and people, and through a commitment to multiculturalism. This is the ideology which British and American citizens in their millions have voted against; yet in the minds of many, this is <a href="http://alt-market.com/articles/2764-ecological-panic-the-new-rationale-for-globalist-cultism">the ideology</a> that lies behind the science, discourse and policies of climate change.</p>
<p>The rise of an anti-globalist populism in recent years, and its clear expression this year in these two electoral moments, should help us to read the phenomenon of climate change differently. We cannot understand it simply in terms of science and the environment or even in terms of economics and politics. How climate change is believed in or denied, how it is acted upon or resisted, can only be understood at the level of much deeper beliefs people hold about themselves and about <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-ill-talk-politics-with-climate-change-deniers-but-not-science-34949">how the world is and should be</a>.</p>
<p>We can see this played out through the different types of climate agreements that have been sought-for over three decades. The idea of human-induced global climate change first emerged in public in a very particular era: in the 1980s and early 1990s when globalism and the new international world order was ascendant. It therefore was as much a cultural idea as it was a scientific discovery, as both <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/466372?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">sociologist Andrew Ross</a> and Indian scholars <a href="http://cseindia.org/challenge_balance/readings/GlobalWarming%20Book.pdf">Anil Agarwal and Sunita Narain</a> observed astutely, in different ways, back in 1991.</p>
<p>Since then we have seen the idea of climate change and how it should be dealt with continue to evolve, from the centralised targets and timetables of Kyoto in 1997; to the failure to extend this form of climate governance at Copenhagen in 2009; to the optimistic volunteerism of Paris in 2015; and now into a new era where we will see the gap between international political rhetoric and national climate policy continue to get wider and wider in the years ahead.</p>
<h2>A populist approach to climate change?</h2>
<p>With the rise in populism and nationalism some new and nifty policy entrepreneurialism is needed, and it will have to tackle the risks of climate change obliquely. This is the strategy a group of colleagues and I called for in the <a href="http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf">Hartwell Paper back in 2010</a> as a response to the financial crisis. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145591/original/image-20161111-9081-196t3u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145591/original/image-20161111-9081-196t3u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145591/original/image-20161111-9081-196t3u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145591/original/image-20161111-9081-196t3u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145591/original/image-20161111-9081-196t3u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145591/original/image-20161111-9081-196t3u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145591/original/image-20161111-9081-196t3u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145591/original/image-20161111-9081-196t3u4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=670&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Made in the USA: electric cars.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/7408451314/">Steve Jurvetson</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Energy security will become a more powerful driver of policy which, if played the right way, can make some low-carbon energy sources appeal to populist political instincts; as too can the argument for cleaner and smarter cities driven by new generation transport technologies which reduce congestion and improve air quality. If Trump were serious about reinvigorating the US motor industry then this would be one way to go, and sell to the world.</p>
<p>A turn away from globalism also gives greater legitimacy to arguments for investing in carbon-light/climate-resilient infrastructure. Trump’s plan to renew America’s ailing public infrastructure <a href="http://grist.org/politics/donald-trump-is-right-about-something-kinda/">is an opportunity</a> to do so in a way that is both energy-efficient and resilient to weather hazards. The trick is just don’t call it climate policy. “Solving climate change” is likely to become a motivating narrative of ever diminishing political and public value in these new populist times.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68694/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The story of climate and its changes, and how it is entangled with human culture, has deep beginnings which I narrate in my new book Weathered: Cultures of Climate, published this month by Sage.
</span></em></p>Can concern for the environment survive in the age of Trump and Brexit?Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate and Culture, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/593872016-05-30T05:54:51Z2016-05-30T05:54:51ZTen years on: how Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth made its mark<p>Ten years ago, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/">An Inconvenient Truth</a> opened in cinemas in the United States.</p>
<p>Starring former US vice president Al Gore, the documentary about the threat of climate change has undoubtedly made a mark. It won two Academy Awards, and Gore won the <a href="http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/laureates/laureates-2007/announce-2007/">2007 Nobel Peace Prize</a> for his efforts to communicate human-induced climate change.</p>
<p>An Inconvenient Truth (AIT for short) is the <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm">11th-highest-grossing documentary</a> in the United States. According to <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10708-008-9128-x?LI=true">Texan climatologist Steve Quiring</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>AIT has had a much greater impact on public opinion and public awareness of global climate change than any scientific paper or report. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>But has the film achieved what it set out to do – raise public awareness and change people’s behaviour in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?</p>
<h2>Measuring the film’s impact</h2>
<p>A <a href="http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/417.pdf">public survey</a> by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press found that in the months following the documentary’s release, the percentage of Americans attributing global warming to human activity rose from 41% to 50%. But how do we know whether AIT contributed to this increase?</p>
<p>Several studies have experimentally tested the impact of viewing the film. A <a href="http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle/j$002fsemi.2011.2011.issue-187$002fsemi.2011.066$002fsemi.2011.066.xml">UK study</a> found that showing selective clips from AIT resulted in participants feeling more empowered and more motivated to make lifestyle changes to fight climate change.</p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="http://eab.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/01/20/0013916509357696.abstract">surveys of moviegoers and students</a> found that watching AIT increased knowledge about the causes of global warming and willingness to reduce greenhouse gases. However, this increased willingness didn’t necessarily translate into action. A follow-up survey conducted a month later found little change in behaviour.</p>
<p>One <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069610001014">novel approach</a> found a 50% increase in the purchase of voluntary carbon offsets in areas where AIT was shown. This is encouraging evidence that the film did lead to tangible behaviour change. But again, the effect wasn’t long-lasting. A year later, there was little difference in carbon offset purchases.</p>
<p>An <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0403-y">analysis of drivers of public attitudes towards climate change</a> found a significant relationship between media mentions of AIT and public perception of the urgency of climate change. In other words, the film produced a significant positive jump in the general public’s perceptions of the issue. </p>
<p>This study also found that polarisation decreased after the release of AIT, pouring cold water on the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-and-the-culture-war/2012/01/16/gIQA6qH63P_story.html">claim</a> that Al Gore polarised the climate debate. Rather, the polarised positions on climate science among Democratic and Republican leaders (one party broadly accepting the science, the other significantly rejecting it) was found to be the key driver of public polarisation on climate change.</p>
<p>This led the study’s author, Robert Brulle, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/06/419371/study-debunks-al-gore-polarized-the-debate-myths-of-public-opinion-climate-change/">to state</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think this should close down forever the idea that Al Gore caused the partisan polarisation over climate change.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This body of research underscores the difficulties confronting any public awareness campaign. AIT was successful in raising public awareness of climate change, increasing willingness to change behaviour and, in some cases, actually changing behaviour. </p>
<p>However, the effect didn’t last long. This indicates that persistent communication efforts are required to promote sustained behaviour change.</p>
<h2>Scientists critique An Inconvenient Truth</h2>
<p>While AIT was effective among the general public, there is no tougher crowd for a science documentary than scientists. A <a href="http://scx.sagepub.com/content/34/4/435.short">survey</a> of members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that among the scientists who had seen and rated AIT, 72% said the film was either somewhat or very reliable. </p>
<p>To put this in perspective, only 12% of scientists who had read Michael Crichton’s contrarian novel <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear">State of Fear</a> rated it as somewhat or very reliable.</p>
<p>Going into more detail, an <a href="http://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-2-804786-0">edition of GeoJournal</a> had four scientists critique the scientific accuracy of AIT. Unfortunately, the panel was made up of two mainstream scientists and two contrarian scientists – a false-balance form of coverage that actually causes confusion rather than increases literacy in the <a href="https://woods.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/files/Global-Warming-Skeptics-Technical-Detail.pdf">context of media coverage</a>. (For an incisive look at false-balance coverage of climate change, watch John Oliver’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg">statistically representative climate change debate</a>.)</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cjuGCJJUGsg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A statistically significant climate change debate.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The outcome is somewhat predictable, with mainstream scientists reporting a more positive assessment of the accuracy of AIT than the contrarian scientists. Nevertheless, a <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10708-008-9127-y">useful overview of the exercise</a> is provided by Texan climatologist Gerald North, who concluded that while there were some inaccuracies in AIT, on the whole it represented mainstream scientific views on global warming. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the factual inaccuracies in AIT were deemed inconsequential and <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10708-008-9130-3">don’t undermine the main message of the film</a>.</p>
<h2>Inspiring others</h2>
<p>While most of the research into the impact of AIT investigates the direct effect on viewers, a potentially more significant impact is the film’s role in <a href="https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-198546988/rhetorical-leadership-and-transferable-lessons-for">inspiring others</a> to follow Gore’s example in communicating the issue of climate change to others.</p>
<p>Personally, I can attest to this influence. Before 2006, I hadn’t given much thought to the climate change issue. Watching AIT raised a number of questions about the human role in global warming. </p>
<p>With the issue salient in my mind, I got into <a href="http://ncse.com/blog/2016/05/friend-planet-skeptical-science-0017064">conversations with family members</a> who happened to reject the scientific consensus on climate change. This precipitated the founding of <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com">Skeptical Science</a>, which led to me becoming a <a href="http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/john-cook">researcher in climate communication</a> at the University of Queensland.</p>
<p>I’ve spoken to or know of many other climate communicators whose awareness of the issue dawned with their viewing of AIT. While the direct effect of the original screening of the film may have dissipated, the impact of those inspired to communicate the realities of climate change persists.</p>
<p>For me, the film precipitated a series of events that ultimately redirected the course of my life. An Inconvenient Truth wasn’t just behaviour-changing, it was life-changing.</p>
<p>No lab experiment can quantify that level of impact.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59387/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook 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>Ten years have passed since Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth hit the US box office. Has the film been successful in increasing awareness and action on climate change?John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/592432016-05-13T03:59:13Z2016-05-13T03:59:13ZThe things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122201/original/image-20160512-18128-11krp42.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">So many questions on climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Kuznetsov Dmitry </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s been almost a month since the paper I co-authored on the <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002">synthesis of research</a> into the scientific consensus on climate change was published. Surveying the many studies into scientific agreement, we found that more than 90% of climate scientists agree <a href="https://theconversation.com/consensus-confirmed-over-90-of-climate-scientists-believe-were-causing-global-warming-57654">that humans are causing global warming</a>.</p>
<p>It’s a topic that has generated much interest and discussion, culminating in American Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4594408/senator-whitehouse-cook-et-al-2016">highlighting our study on the US Senate floor</a> this week. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LcTsIlgNbeg?wmode=transparent&start=784" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>My co-authors and I even participated in an Ask Me Anything (AMA) session on the online forum <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4f6f6g/science_ama_series_we_just_published_a_study/">Reddit</a>, answering questions about the scientific consensus. </p>
<p>While <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-for-climate-change-only-feeds-the-denial-how-do-you-beat-that-52813">my own research</a> indicates that explaining the scientific consensus isn’t that effective with those who reject climate science, it does have a positive effect for people who are open to scientific evidence. </p>
<p>Among this “undecided majority”, there was clearly much interest with the session generating 154,000 page views and our AMA briefly featuring on the Reddit homepage (where it was potentially viewed by 14 million people).</p>
<p>Here is an edited selection of some of the questions posed by Reddit readers and our answers.</p>
<p><strong>Q: Why is this idea of consensus so important in climate science? Science isn’t democracy or consensus, the standard of truth is experiment.</strong></p>
<p>If this were actually true, wouldn’t every experiment have to reestablish every single piece of knowledge from first principles before moving on to something new? That’s obviously not how science actually functions. </p>
<p>Consensus functions as a scaffolding allowing us to continue to build knowledge by addressing things that are actually unknown. </p>
<p><strong>Q: Does that 97% all agree to what degree humans are causing global warming?</strong></p>
<p>Different studies use different definitions. Some use the phrase “humans are causing global warming” which carries the implication that humans are a dominant contributor to global warming. Others are more explicit, specifying that humans are causing most global warming.</p>
<p>Within <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta">some of our own research</a>, several definitions are used for the simple reason that different papers endorse the consensus in different ways. Some are specific about quantifying the percentage of human contribution, others just say “humans are causing climate change” without specific quantification. </p>
<p>We found that no matter which definition you used, you always found an overwhelming scientific consensus.</p>
<p><strong>Q: It’s very difficult to become/remain a well-respected climate scientist if you don’t believe in human-caused climate change. Your papers don’t get published, you don’t get funding, and you eventually move on to another career. The result being that experts either become part of the 97% consensus, or they cease to be experts.</strong></p>
<p>Ask for evidence for this claim and enjoy the silence (since they won’t have any). </p>
<p>As a scientist, the pressure actually is mostly reversed: you get rewarded if you prove an established idea wrong. </p>
<p>I’ve heard from contrarian scientists that they don’t have any trouble getting published and getting funded, but of course that also is only anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>You can’t really disprove this thesis, since it has shades of conspiratorial thinking to it, but the bottom line is there’s no evidence for it and the regular scientific pressure is to be adversarial and critical towards other people’s ideas, not to just repeat what the others are saying.</p>
<p><strong>Q: What’s the general reasoning of the other 3%?</strong></p>
<p>Interesting question. It is important and diagnostic that there is no coherent theme among the reasoning of the other 3%. Some say “there is no warming”, others blame the sun, cosmic rays or the oceans. </p>
<p>Those opinions are typically mutually contradictory or incoherent: Stephan Lewandowsky <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/conspiracy/suspect-science/stephan-lewandowsky/alice-through-looking-glass-mechanics-rejection-of-climate-science">has written elsewhere about</a> a few of the contradictions. </p>
<p><strong>Q: Do we have any insight on what non-climate scientists have to say about climate change being caused by CO2?</strong></p>
<p>In a <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025/meta">paper published last year</a>, Stuart Carlton and colleagues surveyed biophysical scientists across many disciplines at major research universities in the US. </p>
<p>They found that about 92% of the scientists believed in anthropogenic climate change and about 89% of respondents disagreed with the statement: “Climate change is independent of CO2 levels”. In other words, about 89% of respondents felt that climate change is affected by CO2.</p>
<p><strong>Q: It could be argued that climate scientists may be predisposed to seeing climate change as more serious, because they want more funding. What’s your perspective on that?</strong></p>
<p>Any climate scientist who could convincingly argue that climate change is not a threat would:</p>
<ol>
<li>be famous</li>
<li>get a Nobel prize</li>
<li>plus a squintillion dollars in funding</li>
<li>a dinner date with the Queen</li>
<li>lifelong gratitude of billions of people.</li>
</ol>
<p>So if there is any incentive, it’s for a scientist to show that climate change is not a threat.</p>
<p><strong>Q: I was discussing politics with my boss the other day, and when I got to the topic of global warming he got angry, said it’s all bullshit, and that the climate of the planet has been changing for millennia. Where should I go to best understand all of the facts?</strong></p>
<p>Skeptical Science has a <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy">list of common myths</a> and what the science says.</p>
<p>But often facts are not enough, especially when people are angry and emotional. The Skeptical Science team has made a <a href="http://sks.to/denial101x">free online course</a> that addresses both the facts and the psychology of climate denial.</p>
<p>You can also access the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/denial101x-videos-and-references.html">individual Denial101 videos</a>.</p>
<p>Also, remember that you may not convince him, but if you approach him rationally and respectfully you may influence other people who hear your discussion.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59243/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook 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>Research showing that more than 90% of climate scientists agree that we’re causing global warming prompted plenty of questions. And the authors are only too happy to answer.John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/576542016-04-15T03:25:48Z2016-04-15T03:25:48ZConsensus confirmed: over 90% of climate scientists believe we’re causing global warming<p>When we published a paper in 2013 finding <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta">97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming</a>, what surprised me was how surprised everyone was.</p>
<p>Ours wasn’t the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract">first study</a> to find such a scientific consensus. Nor was it <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract">the second</a>. Nor were we <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025">the last</a>.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, no-one I spoke to was aware of the existing research into such a consensus. Rather, the public thought there was a <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=82">50:50 debate</a> among scientists on the basic question of whether human activity was causing global warming.</p>
<p>This lack of awareness is reflected in a recent pronouncement by Senator Ted Cruz (currently competing with Donald Trump in the Republican primaries), who <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_xVWfGjk0o">argued that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The stat about the 97% of scientists is based on one discredited study.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why is a US Senator running for President attacking University of Queensland research on scientific agreement? Cruz’s comments are the latest episode in a <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/06/campaigns-tried-break-climate-science-consensus">decades-long campaign</a> to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.</p>
<p>Back in 2002, a Republican pollster <a href="https://www2.bc.edu/%7Eplater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf">advised conservatives</a> to attack the consensus in order to win the public debate about climate policy. Conservatives complied. In <a href="http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800.abstract">conservative opinion pieces about climate change</a> from 2007 to 2010, their number one argument was “there is no scientific consensus on climate change”.</p>
<p>Recent psychological research has shown that the persistent campaign to confuse the public about scientific agreement has significant societal consequences. Public perception of consensus has been shown to be a “<a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118489">gateway belief</a>”, influencing a range of other climate attitudes and beliefs. </p>
<p>People’s awareness of the scientific consensus affects their acceptance of climate change, and their support for climate action. </p>
<p>The psychological importance of perceived consensus underscores why communicating the 97% consensus is important. Consensus messaging has been <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1295.html">shown empirically</a> to increase acceptance of climate change. </p>
<p>And, crucially, it’s most effective on those who are most likely to reject climate science: <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118489">political conservatives</a>. </p>
<p>In other words, consensus messaging has a neutralising effect, which is especially important given the highly polarised nature of the public debate about climate change.</p>
<h2>Expert agreement</h2>
<p>Consequently, social scientists have urged climate scientists to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000226/full">communicate the scientific consensus</a>, countering the misconception that they are still divided about human-caused global warming. </p>
<p>But how do you counter the myth that the 97% consensus is based on a single study? </p>
<p>One way is to bring together the authors of the leading consensus papers to synthesise all the existing research: a meta-study of meta-studies. We did exactly that, with a new study published in Environmental Research Letters featuring authors from seven of the leading studies into the <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002">scientific consensus on climate change</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pEb49cZYnsE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A video summary of the new paper into climate change consensus. (2016)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A recurring theme throughout the consensus research was that the level of scientific agreement varied depending on climate expertise. The higher the expertise in climate science, the higher the agreement that humans were causing global warming. </p>
<p>To none of our surprise, the highest agreement was found among climate scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research. Interestingly, the group with the lowest agreement was <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract">economic geologists</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118465/original/image-20160413-15868-97lcut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118465/original/image-20160413-15868-97lcut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118465/original/image-20160413-15868-97lcut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118465/original/image-20160413-15868-97lcut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118465/original/image-20160413-15868-97lcut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118465/original/image-20160413-15868-97lcut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118465/original/image-20160413-15868-97lcut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118465/original/image-20160413-15868-97lcut.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">Expertise vs consensus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Seven studies quantified the level of agreement among publishing climate scientists, or among peer-reviewed climate papers. Across these studies, there was between 90% to 100% agreement that humans were causing global warming. </p>
<p>A number of studies converged on the 97% consensus value. This is why the 97% figure is often invoked, having been mentioned by such public figures as <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njj9YV6OXEs">President Barack Obama</a>, <a href="http://unfccc6.meta-fusion.com/cop21/events/2015-11-30-14-45-leaders-event/his-excellency-mr-david-cameron-prime-minister-of-united-kingdom-of-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-the">Prime Minister David Cameron</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpJh1xtg28I">US Senator Bernie Sanders</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118467/original/image-20160413-15861-55sch7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118467/original/image-20160413-15861-55sch7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118467/original/image-20160413-15861-55sch7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118467/original/image-20160413-15861-55sch7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118467/original/image-20160413-15861-55sch7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118467/original/image-20160413-15861-55sch7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118467/original/image-20160413-15861-55sch7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118467/original/image-20160413-15861-55sch7.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">Studies into consensus.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Skeptical Science</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Manufacturing doubt about consensus</h2>
<p>The relationship between scientific agreement and expertise turns out to be crucially important in understanding the consensus issue. Unfortunately, it provides an opportunity for those who reject human-caused global warming to manufacture doubt about the high level of scientific agreement. </p>
<p>They achieve this by using groups of scientists with lower expertise in climate science, to convey the impression that expert agreement on climate change is low. This technique is known as “fake experts”, one of the <a href="https://youtu.be/wXA777yUndQ">five characteristics of science denial</a>.</p>
<p>For example, surveys of climate scientists may be “diluted” by including scientists who don’t possess expertise in climate science, thus obtaining a lower level of agreement compared to the consensus among climate scientists. This is partly what <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cook/rick-santorum-science-denial_b_8074474.html">Senator Rick Santorum did</a> when he argued that the scientific consensus was only 43%.</p>
<p>Another implementation of the “fake expert” strategy is the use of petitions containing many scientists who lack climate science credentials. The most famous example is the <a href="http://www.petitionproject.org">Oregon Petition Project</a>, which lists over 31,000 people with a science degree who signed a statement that humans aren’t disrupting the climate. However, <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm">99.9% of the signatories aren’t climate scientists</a>.</p>
<p>The science of science communication tells us that communicating the science isn’t sufficient. Misinformation has been shown to <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12171/full">cancel out the effect of accurate scientific information</a>. We also need to explain the techniques of misinformation, such as the “fake expert” strategy. </p>
<p>This is why in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEb49cZYnsE">communicating the results</a> of our latest study, we not only communicated the overwhelming scientific agreement. We also explained the technique used to cast doubt on the consensus.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57654/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Cook 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>A new study confirms that 97% of publishing climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/560132016-03-10T02:27:42Z2016-03-10T02:27:42ZHow climate denial gained a foothold in the Liberal Party, and why it still won’t go away<p>It seems the Liberal Party is still having trouble letting go of climate denial, judging by the New South Wales branch’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-liberals-call-for-national-debates-on-climate-change-science-20160307-gnd3zn.html">demand</a> that the Turnbull government arrange a series of public debates on climate science. </p>
<p>Leaving aside the fact that this kind of town hall debate would only entrench opposing viewpoints rather than making scientific headway (a task best left to peer-reviewed journals), it is not the only recent example of Liberal Party members seeking to stoke doubts over the reality of climate change. </p>
<p>Last September, Liberal National Party senator Ian Macdonald <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/16/liberal-senator-ian-macdonald-says-children-brainwashed-on-climate-change?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other">told the federal parliament</a> that Australia’s children have been “brainwashed” about human-induced climate change, which he described as “a fad or a farce or a hoax” and “farcical and fanciful”.</p>
<p>Two months earlier, Macdonald’s fellow LNP MP George
Christensen <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/16/climate-sceptics-to-fly-queensland-mp-to-international-conference">attended the Heartland Institute’s climate sceptic conference</a>. There he described climate concerns as “hysteria” and the stuff of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jul/09/climate-change-hysteria-sci-fi-movie-coalition-mp">science fiction</a>.</p>
<p>And a month before that, rural Liberals called for a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-23/rural-liberals-put-climate-scepticism-on-agenda-at-party-summit/6568082">parliamentary inquiry into climate science</a>, while urging Australia not to sign any binding agreement at December’s Paris climate talks.</p>
<p>This pervasive climate scepticism might make it look like this is a longstanding position within the Liberal Party. But history tells rather a different story.</p>
<h2>The forgotten history of Liberal climate positions</h2>
<p>Journalist Paul Kelly’s 1992 book <a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/academic-professional/politics-government/The-End-of-Certainty-Paul-Kelly-9781741754988">The End of Certainty</a> documents how the then opposition leader, John Howard, called for a firmer pro-environment stance after his party’s 1987 election defeat.</p>
<p>The following year, with climate change making headlines around the world in the wake of NASA scientist James Hansen’s US congressional testimony, Howard’s shadow environment minister Chris Puplick undertook what Kelly describes as an “exhaustive consultation” on the issue. The result was a 1989 policy paper, which paved the way for a 1990 Liberal federal election platform that called for deeper emissions cuts than Labor’s. </p>
<p>In his excellent 2007 book <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/products/9781742284057/high-and-dry">High and Dry</a>, the author and former Liberal speechwriter Guy Pearse reports how in the mid-1990s he offered to work with the Australian Conservation Foundation to canvass Coalition MPs to “find the most promising areas of common ground – initiatives we could work on together when the party finally came to federal office”.</p>
<p>Pearse wrote that the ACF was “enthusiastic, if a little bemused at the novelty of a Liberal wanting to work with them”. Most Liberal MPs – including future environment minister Robert Hill and future prime minister Tony Abbott – were “strongly supportive” of the idea. However, other Liberals (Pearse names Eric Abetz and Peter McGauran) were “paranoid that some kind of trap was being laid”. </p>
<p>In late 1997, just before the Kyoto Protocol was agreed, a delegation of Liberals urged Howard, who by now was prime minister, to accept emissions targets and a global agreement. This group was led by John Carrick, a respected party figure who had in the early 1980s invoked climate change as an argument for nuclear power. Howard was not swayed. </p>
<p>His 11 years in office were characterised by repeated retreats from climate policies such as emissions trading, despite the efforts of cabinet members such as Hill. Howard resisted a cabinet call for emissions trading in 2003. He also ignored repeated similar pleas from business groups such as the <a href="http://www.wwf.org.au/?2390/Business-joins-science-to-rescue-the-climate">Australia Climate Group</a> in 2004 and the <a href="https://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/Business%20Case%20For%20Early%20Action%20report.pdf">Australian Business Climate Roundtable</a> in 2006. </p>
<p>It was only in 2007 – amid a perfect storm of damaging drought, the impact of Al Gore’s <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/">An Inconvenient Truth</a> and the UK <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm">Stern Review</a> (both released in 2006), the <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report</a>, and the political rise of Kevin Rudd – that the Liberals were forced to <a href="https://theconversation.com/tax-or-trade-the-war-on-carbon-pricing-has-been-raging-for-decades-46008">accede to an emissions plan of their own</a>.</p>
<h2>Conservative instincts</h2>
<p>The issue has only grown more controversial for the Liberals in the years since. In 2014, the distinguished journalist Michael Gawenda <a href="http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/6/11/national-affairs/liberals-radical-turn-climate-change">wrote</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Five years ago [in 2009], close to a majority of the parliamentary Liberal Party, including Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and the current Environment Minister Greg Hunt, were emphatic supporters of an [emissions trading scheme] – Liberals who accepted the scientific consensus on climate change.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Contrast that with the party’s 2013 federal election campaign, which largely hinged on Tony Abbott’s pledge to repeal the carbon price.</p>
<p>Climate change has been a major problem for conservative parties around the world. Former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, an early proponent of action on ozone and climate change, later recanted. Her final book, <a href="https://www.harpercollins.co.uk/9780007150649/statecraft">Statecraft</a>, published in 2003, includes a passage headed “<a href="http://www.thegwpf.com/margaret-thatcher-hot-air-global-warming">Hot air and global warming</a>”.</p>
<p>Former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper’s alleged “climate bromance” of inaction with Abbott has been <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/world/united-by-inaction-climate-bromance-links-canada-australia-20141208-122xv8.html">well documented</a>. British Prime Minister David Cameron, despite previously urging voters to “<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4917516.stm">vote blue, go green</a>”, reportedly told ministers in 2013 to “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/21/david-cameron-green-crap-comments-storm">cut the green crap</a>” from energy bills.</p>
<p>But previous generations of conservative leaders have been much more eager to actually conserve things. It was a Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who established US national parks, and Richard Nixon who created the <a href="http://www3.epa.gov/">Environmental Protection Agency</a>. In Australia, Liberal prime minister John Gorton created the Commonwealth Office of the Environment, and Malcolm Fraser (albeit under pressure) established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. </p>
<h2>Too wicked a problem?</h2>
<p>Lest anyone assume that this is an issue only for the Liberals, it should be noted that the Australian Labor Party’s climate policies have hardly been consistent, veering from indifference under Paul Keating, to grave moral challenge under Rudd, and finally the “art of the possible” under Julia Gillard. Meanwhile, the arcane accounting rules around the Kyoto Protocol have allowed both Labor and Liberal governments to <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629810000648">draw a veil over the true progress</a>.</p>
<p>As economist Ross Garnaut <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2266747.htm">warned in 2008</a>, it may be that the problem is simply <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem">too wicked</a> for our democratic system to cope.</p>
<p>But with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris climate agreement</a> signed, we need action not words. As for the value of holding official debates about the veracity of climate science – well that’s debatable at best.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56013/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marc Hudson 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>After fighting the 1990 election on a stronger climate platform than Labor, the following two decades saw an ebb and flow of climate scepticism in the Liberal Party, which still continues today.Marc Hudson, PhD Candidate, Sustainable Consumption Institute, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/485862015-10-06T00:53:55Z2015-10-06T00:53:55ZAcademic freedom isn’t the issue with Lomborg’s consensus centre<p>Controversial campaigner for climate change trivialisation Bjorn Lomborg is getting closer to learning whether an Australian university will host him. A campaign to stop Lomborg finding a home at Flinders University is being played out on <a href="https://twitter.com/StopBjornFU">social media</a> and within the university. </p>
<p>An <a href="http://www.aycc.org.au/bjorn_free">open letter</a> objecting to Lomborg’s proposed Australian Consensus Centre has attracted more than 7000 signatures. I <a href="https://theconversation.com/still-no-consensus-for-bjorn-lomborg-the-climate-change-refugee-45423">reported in July</a> that opposition to Lomborg had been solid among university staff. However, deputy vice-chancellor (DVC) Andrew Parkin is leading a proposal to take in Lomborg. </p>
<p>So far, no school has agreed to host Lomborg. Parkin identified the School of Social and Policy Studies as one of the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/28/bjrn-lomborgs-4m-centre-rejected-by-flinders-university-academics">most suitable</a>. This school is the one to which Parkin is attached, and he will be returning there at the conclusion of his tenure as DVC.</p>
<p>But apart from Parkin, it is very hard to find anyone at Flinders – or any other Australian university – who is open to accepting Lomborg. A document introduced to <a href="http://www.flinders.edu.au/about_flinders_files/Documents/Council_Membership.pdf">Flinders Council</a> at its August meeting, based on research by the National Tertiary Education Union, claims that 14 of 42 universities in Australia have rejected Lomborg’s centre. </p>
<p>These universities are: Australian Catholic University, Australian National University, Central Queensland University, Macquarie University, Monash University, University of Adelaide, University of Melbourne, University of New South Wales, University of Queensland, University of South Australia, University of Sydney, University of Western Australia (UWA) and La Trobe University.</p>
<p>One potential reason for the rejections is the way Lomborg had planned to spend his funding. According to FOI documents <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/04/bjrn-lomborg-consensus-centre-was-to-have-800000-in-public-funds-for-marketing">released to The Guardian</a>, Lomborg wanted to spend up to A$800,000 of a proposed A$4 million budget on promotion and marketing.</p>
<h2>Attempts to distance the centre from climate won’t be believed</h2>
<p>In defence of Lomborg, he had pledged at University of Western Australia that his centre would deal with poverty, health and food security, which are areas he has prioritised in the past. It would be restricted to looking at economic modelling of the most cost-effective way to spend money on the developing world.</p>
<p>The proposed Australian Consensus Centre at UWA was to be modelled on his Copenhagen Consensus Centre in the US. But it is difficult to separate Lomborg’s views on climate with those on development. His standard technique is to use the latter to belittle the former.</p>
<p>Lomborg’s <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/uwa-think-tank-is-not-a-climate-consensus-centre-lomborg/story-e6frg6xf-1227319435405">has claimed</a> that the proposed Australian centre would not be making regular commentary on climate change. Given his track record commenting on climate at the US-based Copenhagen Consensus Centre – much to the delight of the fossil-fuel lobby in the US – this is difficult to believe. </p>
<p>As an occasional columnist for The Australian, Lomborg wrote a piece in 2013 – <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/the-world-is-warming-but-theres-no-need-to-panic/story-fni1hfs5-1226731120767?sv=f5101d1c55bd99c1ce741a5835184b54">“The world is warming but there’s no need to panic”</a> – in which he referred to the “Copenhagen Consensus for Climate”.</p>
<p>Readers should be under no illusion, then, that the Australian Consensus Centre will refrain from promoting inaction on climate change.</p>
<h2>It’s not about academic freedom</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, at Flinders, select members of senior management have been looking for a way to justify the proposed $4 million centre. Many staff are concerned that what Flinders will lose in research prestige will make the dalliance with Lomborg a mistake.</p>
<p>Vice-chancellor Colin Stirling is in a difficult position, wedged between two opposing power blocs. In one corner have been two successive federal education ministers from South Australia, and a DVC. In the other corner are Flinders University graduate, former staff member and Greens senator <a href="https://www.facebook.com/SenatorRobertSimms/videos/1635605883389632/">Rob Simms</a>, the <a href="https://twitter.com/StopBjornFU">Stop Lomborg</a> campaign, a 7000-strong petition, and worldwide condemnation of Lomborg as one of the most dangerous climate contrarians on the planet.</p>
<p>So, it is understandable that Stirling has sought to appeal to academics with an argument that pretty much defines the essence of academic identity – academic freedom.</p>
<p>This argument has been put to staff on the <a href="http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/flinders-news/2015/08/17/vice-chancellor-reflects-on-research-consultation/#sthash.hUx9Pohf.dpuf">university website</a>, but also at council in August. In the midst of the issue raging on ABC local radio Adelaide on Thursday, with Tim Flannery and <a href="https://soundcloud.com/891-abc-adelaide/bjorn-lomborg">Lomborg himself</a> phoning in from New York, the discussion of Lomborg was held over at last week’s Flinders Council meeting.</p>
<p>Stirling demonstrated that he has consulted widely on the Lomborg affair, but will not block any academic wanting to collaborate with Lomborg.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The world, and indeed academia, is replete with outspoken contrarians and controversial figures. We can each form our own views of such individuals but must respect the rights of our colleagues to decide with whom they choose to collaborate. So, while preventing colleagues from collaborating with Bjorn Lomborg might prove popular with some, it would be wrong. Which other controversial thinker would be next to be added to the prohibited list? This is not how the academy works. The role of the academy is not to suppress or evade controversial issues; rather we must tackle them directly through critical analysis, rigorous debate and thought leadership.</p>
<p>These issues cut to the heart of the principle of academic freedom that is fundamental to the very nature of the academy and to what it means to be a university.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Interestingly, Stirling’s argument was <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/bjorn-lomborg-centre-a-matter-ofprinciple/story-e6frgcjx-1227552946446">echoed by</a> new Education Minister Simon Birmingham. Asked whether he wanted Lomborg’s centre in South Australia, Birmingham said he stands for “academic freedom and autonomy of universities”.</p>
<p>The principles advanced by Stirling and Birmingham are compelling, but they’re not really at issue here. No-one is questioning whether academics at Flinders or any Australian university ought to be able to collaborate with Lomborg. Who cares? No-one would have any objection to this. The issue is whether Lomborg should receive $4 million of taxpayers’ money.</p>
<p>A second and related issue is a question of process: why should an individual who is not already an academic at an Australian university be handed $4 million to conduct “research” when every other academic has to submit themselves to a gruelling research funding process?</p>
<p>Finally, the question of academic freedom is not simply about collaboration with one individual but the privilege of setting up a centre that has the backing of a university’s crest and authority.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/reverse-the-closing-of-the-australian-mind/story-e6frg6zo-1227552873739">Some</a> have sought to characterise the rejection of Lomborg as an instance of closed-mindedness, conformism to a majority viewpoint, even as a kind of religious intolerance.</p>
<p>Such commentators fail to recognise the difference between science and political opinion. Climate change has become so politicised in Australia that many have forgotten that it is actually based on science and evidence. Stirling, whose own prize-winning background is microbiology and genetics, should understand this distinction well. </p>
<p>Calls for “balance” and “freedom” are appropriate for politics, where even the most extreme or unorthodox opinions can be put forward. But if this logic is applied to science, when that science is settled, only a <a href="https://theconversation.com/politicised-media-false-balance-and-the-pseudo-climate-debate-18851">false balance</a> will result.</p>
<h2>There are already restrictions on who academics can work with</h2>
<p>The easiest way to show this is to imagine that Lomborg was being offered $4 million to tell us that smoking was mildly concerning but, compared to other social problems, not really something to worry about – and that people may as well keep smoking, even though the science is settled in showing us how smoking causes lung cancer.</p>
<p>To agree with the science isn’t to be “conformist” or intolerant of “alternative views”. It is about having some basic empathy for human suffering today, and the suffering of future generations.</p>
<p>To return to the academic freedom question, Flinders already restricts the freedom of collaboration of its staff. A <a href="http://www.flinders.edu.au/ppmanual/research/tobacco-industry-fund.cfm">standing resolution</a> from 1997 says the university will not accept research or consultancy funding from the tobacco industry. The Lomborg case is not that different.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article has been amended since publication to correct a quote from Bjorn Lomborg’s October 2013 article in The Australian.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48586/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Controversial campaigner for climate change trivialisation Bjorn Lomborg is getting closer to learning his fate in Australia.David Holmes, Senior Lecturer, Communications and Media Studies, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.