Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
The Six Stages of Climate Change Denial
A leaked 2002 memo from leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz warned that the party had
nearly “lost the environmental communications battle” and urged its politicians to double down in
their efforts to deny the scientific consensus behind global warming.
13
Luntz sounded an alarm: “The
scientific debate is closing [against those who deny the reality of climate change] but not yet closed.
There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science…. Voters believe that there is no
consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe
that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.”
Luntz suggested a full frontal attack: “you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a
primary issue in the debate.”
Luntz has been heavily criticized for the now-infamous memo, but in his defense, he was simply
the messenger. He was merely communicating the wisdom derived from careful polling and focus
groups. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, he was also likely correct; the best tactic for those
advocating inaction on climate change seemed to be to continue to attack the science supporting a
human influence on climate, as they had for well over a decade.
The climate change denial campaign has always seemed to enjoy the same advantage as the
defense in a criminal trial. Those opposed to limiting carbon emissions recognized long ago they need
only cast “reasonable doubt” to convince members of the public that it is too expensive to take action.
They need not present a logically consistent case. It suffices for them to attempt to simply pick holes
in the scientific evidence, however inconsequential. The greater burden lies with those making the
scientific case. They must present a case so persuasive that even the most skilled artists of sophistry
cannot undermine it. Critics frequently argue that until science is able to offer proof of the reality of
human-caused climate change, it is too early to act. Yet this is a red herring. Science can only ever
offer weights of evidence, degrees of confidence, and estimated risk. “Proof” is reserved for
mathematical theorems and alcoholic beverages.
While there has been little consistency over the years among the various arguments climate
change contrarians have made, there is nonetheless a hierarchy to the denialist canon—what I refer to
as the “six stages of denial.” It goes something like this:
1. CO
2
is not actually increasing.
2. Even if it is, the increase has no impact on the climate since there is no convincing
evidence of warming.
3. Even if there is warming, it is due to natural causes.
4. Even if the warming cannot be explained by natural causes, the human impact is small,
and the impact of continued greenhouse gas emissions will be minor.
5. Even if the current and projected future human effects on Earth's climate are not
negligible, the changes are generally going to be good for us.
6. Whether or not the changes are going to be good for us, humans are very adept at
adapting to changes; besides, it's too late to do anything about it, and/or a technological
fix is bound to come along when we really need it.
