Recently, I found myself in a deep conversation with an old friend, a person I’ve always considered quite intelligent. As we discussed the British government’s recent steps back from its commitments to reduce greenhouse emissions, he casually remarked, ‘The UK contributes less than 1% to global emissions. Besides, the climate has always changed—sometimes it gets colder, sometimes warmer. What role do humans really play in this?’ This moment stuck with me, not just for its stark dismissal of human impact on climate change but for the insight it provided into how otherwise informed individuals can view a global crisis. Let’s understand the origins of climate scepticism.
Scepticism is not isolated
The highest levels of scepticism are found in the US, China, and Saudi Arabia, with countries like the UK and Ireland showing comparatively lower levels at around 9%. These statistics underscore the varied levels of acceptance and denial across different cultures and political landscapes.
According to the latest ‘l’Obs COP’ report published by Ipsos and EDF in its fourth edition, about 31% of people worldwide express doubts about the impact of human activity on climate change.
This encounter raises essential questions: How can we understand and explain climate change scepticism among intelligent, well-meaning people? And importantly, how can we effectively address these sceptical views to foster a more informed dialogue on environmental responsibility?”
Climate Change scepticism: definition
Climate Change scepticism (CSS) encompasses a range of beliefs that diverge from the consensus of mainstream climate science.
Specifically, CSS involves:
- Questioning whether there is any significant change in the climate at all.
- Doubting the anthropogenic (human-caused) origins of climate change.
- Denying the potential severe negative impacts of climate change.
- Scepticism about the effectiveness of human actions aimed at mitigating climate change and curbing global temperature rises
Does this remind you of discussions you’ve had recently?
Psychological underpinnings of Climate change skepticism
When we talk about climate change, it’s good to clear up something first: there’s a big difference between being a ‘sceptic’ and being in ‘denial.’ Think of scepticism as keeping one eyebrow raised, questioning but still open to evidence. Denial, on the other hand, is like having both hands over your ears.
Let’s be real—facing climate change can be pretty daunting, and it’s not always a case of just the facts. Our reactions are tangled up with emotions, deep-seated beliefs, or just plain old habits. This often leads to what can be thought of as psychological “dragons of inaction”’, expression used by a Psychologist called Robert Gifford. These dragons are barriers that keep us from taking action, even when we know we probably should.
Here are those 6 barriers Robert Gifford pointed out:
- Self-interest that prevails over rationale
- Distance in Time, Space, and rough size
- cognitive limitations on understanding the complexity of climate change,
- ideological beliefs that reject environmentalist views,
- comparative judgments and perceived risks
- Personal Actions and Token Efforts
Each of these ‘dragons’ represents a distinct challenge in communicating effectively about climate change and motivating meaningful action. Let’s go deeper into each one of them:
Self-Interest Over Rationale:
Personal and corporate gains often overshadow rational decision-making, leading to denial or minimal engagement in climate change mitigation. Example: A company continues to use cheap but highly polluting processes to maximize profits, ignoring sustainable alternatives.
Distance in Time, Space, and Scale:
Climate change effects perceived as distant or abstract lessen urgency and personal responsibility, making the issue seem too remote to warrant immediate action. Example: People in temperate climates may feel less compelled to act against global warming because they experience milder weather changes.
Cognitive Limitations:
The complexity of climate science can be overwhelming, making it difficult for individuals to grasp the immediacy and severity of the issue. Example: The vast and technical nature of climate data might lead someone to underestimate the human role in climate change due to difficulty in understanding scientific reports.
Ideological Beliefs:
Strong pre-existing beliefs can cloud judgment, leading individuals to reject environmental realities in favor of maintaining their worldview. Example: A person might dismiss climate change data because it conflicts with their economic ideology that prioritizes unregulated market growth.
Comparative Judgments and Perceived Risks:
Social comparisons and fears of various risks (social, financial, psychological) deter personal changes in behavior. Example: Homeowners may resist installing solar panels thinking they will look unsightly or decrease property values, despite energy savings and environmental benefits.
Personal Actions and Token Efforts:
Small, symbolic actions often give a false sense of contribution, overshadowing the need for more significant, impactful measures. Example: Someone might recycle diligently but take frequent long-haul flights for vacations, significantly offsetting their smaller conservation efforts.
How to deal with Climate skeptics ?
Like many of you, I often find myself in discussions with climate change sceptics almost every week. It’s easy to feel like we’re not always equipped with the right words, and sometimes we might even let them think they’re right. To help you stand your ground in these conversations, we’ve prepared some quick tips and responses to the common misconceptions we often hear.
Objection 1: “The IPCC is not neutral and they are even not always aligned with each internal members”
Answer: The IPCC, established in 1988, is built on neutrality, approved by the UN General Assembly to avoid bias. It doesn’t create new research but summarizes thousands of scientific studies, all rigorously peer-reviewed. Each report is a consensus among international scientists, ensuring that despite individual differences, the findings are based on solid scientific agreement.
Objection 2: Climate is like a cycle, it has always changed and will always change.
Answer: While natural factors have historically influenced climate, the current change is exceptionally rapid and clearly driven by human activities. For instance, while volcanic eruptions can cool the Earth, excess greenhouse gases warm it significantly. The latest IPCC report confirms that human actions have unequivocally warmed the planet, oceans, and land, with temperatures and ocean warming accelerating at unprecedented rates since the 20th century.
For example, the rate of global temperature increase has more than doubled in the last 50 years compared to the previous century
Objection 3: Climate change is good for us!
Answer: That is an interesting one as if you think about the capacity for Russia to navigate what used to be frozen water, you may think it will be good to reduce emissions. Just like in some parts of the US it will help with warmer winters, which again would save energy to warm up buildings.
The reality is a little more complex. This is a very short sighted analysis. There will be tremendously more damaging consequences that there will be so called ‘benefits’. It is about having a holistic view of the issue.
Objection 4: Maybe Climate change is real, but what can I do anyway about it?
Answer: There are a lot of people that would think that their little effort would not make a difference. However, the individual actions we do – flying, eating meat, using AC/heater, over-consumption – all add up and lead us to the current situation.
So if humans collectively are the problem, they can change course and work at becoming the solution.
Surely , everyone can do something, and the best advice is to start by learning in more detail what is happening, why, and identify the potential action that can be carried out and for this workshops like Climate Fresk, Biodiversity Collage, Digital Collage etc are remarkable.
Conclusion
On June 23, 1988, James Hansen, a NASA scientist, gave a significant testimony before the United States Senate, making clear assertions about climate change. One of his most quoted and important statements from that day was:
“The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”
James hansen june 23 1988
For the first time, an expert declared that the signal of human-caused global warming could be distinguished from natural climate variability. Leaders from around the world, from George H.W. Bush to Margaret Thatcher, recognized the urgent need to act. What has happened since then? The current situation is partly due to a well-organized effort by climate change skeptics who use data and influence communications to undermine positive actions.
More than 40 years after James Hansen’s speech, we cannot just accept these speeches; we need the right tools to expose their schemes and commit to a long-term transition.
One thought on “Decoding Climate change Scepticism: Causes & Myths”
Comments are closed.