If both the Climate Change acceptance camp and denier camp made rational arguments to support their beliefs, how do we choose which to accept?
Someone recently told me “I’m sorry, I need proof.” Someone else asked me “How do I know what to believe?”
We live in an age where anything can be manipulated to appear “true” to whichever side is presenting its case. At the same time, we often have two “sides” who manipulate a case to make it appear believable to their camp.
Let’s take a look at how truth and belief align in reference to Climate Change.
The Climate Change acceptance camp won a huge blow against the Climate Change Deniers last week with the U.S. Governments release of the Global Climate Change Impact Report. Climate Change deniers like the Heritage Foundation, fight back with press releases and conferences where they say things like CO2 is essentially plant food. Plants need it to survive. So more of it is only better for our planet.
Both of these camps arguments make perfect sense to the people who follow and believe them. Worse still, is the fact that both camps believe that they are speaking truths. They both truly “believe” what they are saying. So how do we convince an as yet un-informed or disinterested person that “our” side is the one to “believe” when both sides can produce what would appear to a person of average or even above average intelligence, “truths” to support their claims?
Here lies the conundrum, the fault line that separates the believers from the skeptics.
Before we can answer that question though, I think we need to ask some questions of our own.
What makes a person more likely to support one camp, than another?
We would like to think that the arguments themselves, the “truths” that are offered by either side, and the belief of those truths based on scientific data and common sense, are what drive people to either accept or deny Climate Change. But this is not the case. (Which is sad, because this is how the cases are presented.) The truth, more often than not, is the old saying “people are going to believe what they want to believe.” In other words, people will approach an argument based not acceptance of new ideas based on rationality, but instead, based on who they are and their current lifestyle. In other words, people are vested in the behaviors that make them who they are and they will accept an argument and accept its truths, yes they will believe an argument that supports their lifestyle, interests and personality.
Let’s look at a few examples. (Granted, these may be extreme examples, but they often time are best at conveying a point)
- If you are born into a family or who is known for a certain thing, or has garnered its fortune through the use of or production of a certain thing, you will grow from birth to believe that that thing is not only necessary for people to utilize, but may even be good for the environment. It it’s not good for the environment, then you will not believe that it causes that much harm to the environment. You will make your arguments and tailor your truths to reflect the lifestyle that you are vested in. Take oil and coal companies or chemical companies like DuPont or Monsanto as an example. The same holds true for those who take careers in those companies. It is not very often that a member of one of these families or employee of one of these companies will “change their mind” and leave the family or company based on ethical beliefs contrary to their vested interest.
- The same holds true for people born into families that are known to support and protect the earth. Alexandra and Phillipe Cousteau are perfect examples. These two are just a few of my environmental hero’s, but as sad as it is to say, if they had been born Smith’s instead of Cousteau’s, their lives probably would have turned out much different.
- Slave owners prior to the Civil War (and even today, in many parts of the world) didn’t believe that their slaves had the right to the same freedoms that they enjoyed. These “owners” had a vested lifestyle that was only viable through slave labor. Many of these people honestly believed that their slaves were not of the same constitution of human beings as they were. Many of these people honestly believed that their slaves were better off living the lives that they were living, than being free. They could prove (to other people vested in slavery) that a slave without a master could not survive or flourish because they were uneducated and unskilled. Slave owners saw themselves as genteel parents performing a service to their slave children.
- A motorcycle rider can prove to you that wearing a helmet is actually a hindrance. It blocks free peripheral vision, dampens road and traffic noise, is uncomfortable and during inclement weather, can actually be the cause of an accident. They can (and have) gotten many people to believe that helmets are unsafe. The average automobile driver though, does not like the thought of someone else’s head meeting the the pavement or the side of a car at 65 miles an hour, without a helmet to hold everything in.
So how do we get people to believe what we are saying, when we can provide them volumes of information, charts and statistics to prove our point? (Both sides can do this by the way.) Let’s take a look at some of the things that we believe without the benefit of proof.
As an example, let’s take someone who lives in a world without modern conveniences. Let’s say that I am one of the last members of an un-contacted tribe in Papua New Guinea and you (for whatever reason) have come to my tribe. We learn each others language and we have a conversation.
You: In the 1960’s, humans walked on the moon.
Me: Prove it.
You: Here are some photos, and here is some technical data.
Me: I don’t believe you.
You get the idea. Here is another example. Electricity, real or magic? I know that when I flip a switch in my house, that the room is flooded with light. I know this because I do it every day. But if you asked me to prove to someone that it was the result of an invisible thing called electricity that ran through wires in the air or ground to a big building that generated the electricity, which by the way, is created through the burning of a rock from the ground called coal, I would not be able to do it. How do I know this is electricity at work and not magic? I can show you, but I cant “prove” it to you, because too often in today’s world, showing something is proof of nothing.
So if neither Climate Change side can sway your mind on the issue based on facts, figures, data, appeals for saving an industry or planet, are we at a standstill? Have the lines been drawn?
The acceptors see the deniers as belligerent, dirty, polluting, hurray for me and the hell with the rest of the world, sensualists who will stop at nothing to continue to have every luxury afforded to man through the destruction of the planet at the detriment of themselves and even their own children. Like the Israelites writhing on the ground in front of Ba’al in an orgy of self fulfillment and gluttony, acceptors see deniers as the harbinger of a world in chaos, resulting in the deaths of all human life. Acceptors see them as defenders of a time that has passed.
The deniers, on the other hand, see the acceptors as growing majority of individuals backed by liberal politicians and and corporations trying to make money on a “movement” bent on taking away their way of life, every thing they have worked for and their individual freedoms. Like hippies (albeit dressed in suites) we care more about animals and bugs than we care about ourselves and even our own children. Deniers see them as attackers of a continual way of life.
Let’s take a look at what both sides are offering. Because that’s what it really comes down to, right? In the absence of all other arguments, and you still don’t know who to believe, then it must come down to “which side is going to benefit me?”
The denier camp offers you more of the same. The same McMansion house, the same S.U.V., the same hermetically sealed environment dialed in to 72 degrees 24/7/356, the same convenient paper and Styrofoam plates and plastic silverware, the same reams of paper towel and 3 ply aloe toilet paper, the same 99 cent two liter bottles of Soda, the same diamond engagement rings and gold necklaces, the same inefficient ranges, refrigerators and water heaters, the same consumptive shopping habits with basements and storage units full of stuff you’ll never use again, the same high heating and cooling bills, the same processed foods made in factories or the same fruit grown in foreign countries, the same cheap hamburger raised on corn that kills cows and antibiotics that keep them alive, the same male frogs with eggs growing in their testes… more of the same. Which is great for the denier, as long as the those are all things that the denier either wants or is willing to accept to continue their current lifestyle.
The acceptance camp offers less of the same, and more of something different. It’s not so much that environmentalists are trying to take something away from you as they are offering you something different in it’s place. The acceptance camp offers you cleaner air, water and soil. (Three basic human rights), cleaner and healthier options to utilize with your purchasing dollar, an energy platform based on local renewable resources instead of foreign / polluting ones. Environmentalists ask that you rediscover our intrinsic link with nature and realize that through destroying it, we are really destroying ourselves. Environmentalism isn’t about saving the Polar Bears, the North American Pica or a Spotted Owl. It’s about saving ourselves. Because every time we lose a species, we come one step closer to the brink, ourselves.
Denying climate change offers nothing at all. It brings no good to the world. Through its lack of action, it brings only more destruction of this place that we all call “Home”.
Even if both sides arguments were considered equal, (and I don’t think they are) I would choose the side of possible health and prosperity for our planet and human species.
This, I believe.
Cartoon courtesy of our good friend Seppo
Related posts:
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Well said and I am gad you unravelled this a bit. As a teacher I am horrified when high school kids tell me they believe the earth is 6,000 years old, or global warming was made up by Al Gore, and that their beliefs hold as much weight as “beliefs” of scientists. The fact is we are living in completely different realities. My reality is based on critical thinking, empirical evidence and trust in independent data over 50 years time. Many of my students and adults don’t like science, never did and distrust it. Couple this with climate change being associate with polarizing politicians and you “dug in denial”. Our task is to elevate the discussion to critical thinking, leave aside the polarizing forces and look for the common interests of our children. Otherwise we will just be reduced to a bunch of butting heads as the climate and humanity spins into chaos.
Thank you for this! I agree and I’m glad someone put aside the scientific and got down to the basics.
What I find so surprising is that many deniers (and this is a broad generalization) seem pretty religious. They use the word “Faith” and believe in something they cannot see, but when it comes to matters of climate change, they demand hard evidence. It’s baffling.
If the planet truly is “God’s creation” why is there bitter resistance towards protecting it?
-Alysa
Sorry but the skeptics are a little brighter than you are depicting them here. In Climate discussions, the skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the Acceptance camp (the AGW Believers) who are making all of the claims, so it is up to them to deliver conclusive evidence that C02 controls our climate. The skeptics are not asking for proof, they are only asking for CONCLUSIVE evidence (not a lot to ask really). Climate scientists have working toward this goal for 40 years now and have failed to deliver. Because of this failure, the AGW Believers provide pictures of sad polar bears and melting glaciers as evidence. Melting glaciers are evidence of changing climate; they are not evidence that C02 is the cause.
Understand this; Skeptics and Believers both agree that the earth’s climate changes, but we only disagree on the cause.
And now it has gotten to the point where the public distrusts the Green Movement. And no wonder: Remember the Hockey stick graph, remember the “the debate is over the science is settled” quashing of debate, remember the name change from Global warming to Climate Change, remember the intentional confusing of C02 with pollution, remember the UN IPCC saying that 600 scientists wrote their last report when it was really only 60, remember the faked images of flooded NY city, the list goes on and on. All of this subterfuge is to get skeptics to agree to a new tax to fight a nonexistent threat. The skeptics ask, “why would the Greens want us to pay for C02 emissions when they haven’t shown that C02 controls the climate?” The skeptics feel deep inside that the Green’s have an ulterior motive, and this distrust is making it harder and harder to sell climate legislation.
Scientists require a higher level of evidence than non-scientists. One example is the scientific theory has years of empirical evidence behind it, while your personal theory may be based on one event in your personal life. Independent scientists, by training, tend to have a higher integrity for stating CONCLUSIVE evidence than the general public.
The proof for causation for any phenomenon is nearly impossible, and that is what I hear independent scientists say. However, with the best evidence, after independent data from hundreds of thousands of years, and yes, some sensationalism on both sides, including Congressmen denying that CO2 causes cancer, it comes down to believing in the integrity of data or believing in special interests or personal theories.
Finally, even if you believe there is a possibility of catastrophic climate change as the independent scientists predict, you might consider a risk/benefit analysis position. If climate change comes to pass, as predicted, with half the world’s population starving, without water and displaced, it might might be prudent to make comparatively small investments now to prepare for what they say is a HIGH PROBABILITY of occurring, instead of trying to figure out how you are going to get all the coastal cities in the world out from under of 2 meters of water..
Great article and so true that folks mostly believe what they choose to believe. I have often gotten too caught up in trying to unravel the “truth” of statistics and in the end my position is simple: “Clean up after myself”.
Ken,
Why do you need conclusive evidence?
Why can’t we all drive efficient cars or buy local food? Why can’t we use glass instead of plastic? Why can’t we refill our water bottles?
If environmentalists were wrong…would your life be any worse for doing the little things?
-Alysa
Ken has it absolutely correct. The political views espoused upon us by the Greens have been proven time and time again to be false; based on politicized data that has been refuted time and time again. It has been a bandwagon to get money for nothing and Al Gore hopped onto to get richer. My gosh, there was even a movie about it comprised of science fiction that people believe as fact. Twisted politicized data used for profit; where have we heard and seen that before?
Why do you think it is that the liberals that drive the bandwagon; because the conservatives know better from factual history. The liberals are just out to reeducate so they can pocket more money. It is not all that abstract, the facts are not there for the CO2 argument no matter how they want to camouflage the impetus.
A scam to bleed more of us dry. Scammers and extortionists, the bunch of them. Just trying to create something out of nothing and make all of us pay for it so a few can get rich over nothing and the blind followers can say ‘I’m not doing this for the money’ because they are too stupid to see who they are trying to make rich.
Trying to create an industrial movement when there is no call for it. And don’t say it has nothing to do with Spotted Owls and that ilk either. Minority trying to run the majority, tyranny at its best!
The deniers are right – let’s just continue to pollute the planet, use up the oil, contaminate our drinking water, keep the poor starving for food and medicine, and just treat the earth like our own personal garbage dump. Screw it, right? After all, if climate change isn’t happening, who wants to live on a clean earth anyway?
Even if you don’t believe 90% of scientists on this, why would you think it is a bad thing to clean up after ourselves, invest in alternative energies, and try to make the world a better place for future generations?
Oh yea – you’re selfish and only thinking about your own bottom line.
“The denier camp offers you more of the same…or is willing to accept to continue their current lifestyle.”
Sorry, but this bit is blatantly and egregiously stereotypical. You wouldn’t pay much attention to a blog post that said that all blacks liked watermelon and all Indians were lazy, would you? You’ve done the same, except you picked a different target and used different adjectives.
So-crates – well, that didn’t take long to compare a “belief” about climate change to racism. You are right – you are being put down by “the man” just like minorities were/are. Sorry about that.
David – well, I wasn’t talking about climate change per se, I was talking about how the author’s beliefs about his opponents (as presented in this post) were stereotypical, like racism. I don’t understand why one form of stereotyping should be accepted and not the other. Perhaps you could explain this for me.
Are the denier’s beliefs about believers not stereotypical too? Please stop while you are ahead…comparing your climate change beliefs to racism is just plain ignorant.
This argument is grossly oversimplified.
There are not simply two camps. One can be skeptical of specific claims made by individual organizations or people and still agree that, ceteris paribus, emissions will cause warming. Emissions-caused warming, however, is at this point a truism outside of all but the staunchest “conservative” circles. There are scientifically literate and honest individuals who are critical of specific claims being made– and rightly so. Whether or not the overarching theory that emissions will cause warming is true, the degree to which this is true, as well as the effects locally and globally remain quite difficult to quantify. Look, for example, at the struggle to accurately predict heat accumulation as well as sea level rise within even a decade to get a feel for this. One need not be part of the “denier camp” to admit that there remain several difficult challenges in climate studies yet to be overcome.
Furthermore, the fixation that “environmentalists” (itself a troubled label) have with modern industry as being some sort of boogeyman betrays a troubling degree of naiveté. While it is true that modern industry comes with its share of issues, it also provides plenty of good. Let’s not forget that modern industry will provide us with the oft trumpeted technologies to make the windmills and solar panels that will power the beautiful green future of tomorrow. The steel that goes into a wind-powered turbine is the same steel that goes into an evil fossil fuel turbine.
One need not be a “denialist” to remain skeptical of specific claims. One also need not be a “denialist” to believe that modern industry can be harnessed to improve our quality of life, and provide the billions worldwide with a clean, healthy, happier life. Nothing says that one must necessarily be a hair shirt to want better environmental practices.
The problem with this post is that it tries to shoehorn people into two camps: the pro-industry denialists and the scientific “acceptance” camp. Reality is much more complicated than the caricatures provided, and by trying to boil the groups down, this post does a disservice to the dialogue amongst the various interested parties.
——-
Also, a misperception: motorcycle helmets are not designed to “hold everything in.” They are designed to reduce traumatic brain injury caused by rapid and violent acceleration inside the head. And really, one of the first things someone is taught in a motorcycle riding course is that helmet efficacy is VERY limited at high speeds.
Oh, and before someone here accuses me of anything, I used to ride a motorcycle and wore my helmet every time I got on my bike. I’m not some anti-helmet crusader, but just someone who knew the limitations of a helmet every time he got on his ridiculously overpowered machine and rode on the highway.
David, what So-crates is trying to say is that the blog post has made a falsely dualistic strawman fallacy.
“Deniers” of AGW do not automatically espouse “…the same McMansion house, the same S.U.V., the same hermetically sealed environment dialed in to 72 degrees 24/7/356, the same convenient paper and Styrofoam plates and plastic silverware…etc.”
As an environmental activist (among many causes for which I fight), I find this characterization both ignorant and offensive.
I am a data analyst by trade. I find the data presented by the AGW camp to be conflicting and suspect, especially when driven by those who have made such a large profit from it (Gore in particular), and even more especially when the focus on AGW has taken much needed federal and private funding away from other much more deserving causes, such as coastal clean up, wildlife conservation, pollution mitigation, and others. Pop culture trends in environmentalism come and go, and tend to undermine the real long term work of those who have been environmentalists since Thoreau. Defining whether or not someone is “Green” by whether or not they conform to a specific cause (read: dogma) is not an environmentalist trait…its a theologist trait. Ironic, given the thoughtful musings on the role of faith in interpreting our stances on these issues.
Adam, you started off on the right path in this blog post, but you failed in the end, blinded by your own dogma. Contrary to your strawman supposition, there are many environmentalists like myself, old dogs who have been here since long before Gore’s silly little movie, and who have no need to prove our credentials, who simply don’t find the argument for AGW compelling. It’s not our desire for that horrid lifestyle you’ve described (which couldn’t be farther from own). It’s the serious scientific shortcomings of the argument presented, combined with the sincerely questionable motivations of those doing the presenting. If you were a little more analytical, and a little less emotionally idealistic, or “faith-based” in your beliefs, you might be a little more open minded to that fact.
I don’t understand why deniers always claim that liberals are using climate change to make money when it is quite the opposite. Exxon-mobile, the coal lobby and other mega-corporations (Exxon is the biggest on the planet) fund climate denying scientists in order to spread disinformation so that public opinion won’t get in the way of there massive profits. If you are going to talk about money, look at where the money really is. The coal industry is out spending the green movement 3 to 1 (or more) in lobbying and PR efforts in order to stall real legislation on climate and energy.
And So-crates, the problem with racism is not stereo typing, which is simply a symptom of racism. The problem is 500 years (or more) of white supremacy, slavery, colonialism, imperialism, jim-crow, underdevelopment and racial profiling. Conservatives are usually trying to conserve the statut-quo (like a society based on fossil fuel addiction) and the powers that be (like oil and coal corporations) and can in no way be compared to oppressed minorities. Nor can “believers” but I would certainly argue that Katrina refugees or the asthmatic kid living next to a coal plant could.
The real tragedy being played out, is fact the tragedy of the commons. All the bickering and arguing can’t deny the one fact, we’ve run too much through our limited resources – and they are running out.
At the same time, we are filling our available other space with the by-products of this resource use and it’s causing problems.
Whilst in my view there are the two camps, these perhaps represent just a portion of the overall population, and those in either side, as pointed out are typically polarised beyond movement.
Truthfully, I don’t think a hardened denier could ever be swayed – when entrenched in the comfort of their “lifestyle” and likely to die before the effects of the exhaustion of the commons why care?
The thing that will sway the rest, and arguable the majority of the population is the economic sense – i.e. what hits square in back pocket. The rising cost of basic commodities is going to be the real world impact, how much are you going to pay for an oyster that won’t reproduce any more because our seas have become too acidic (after absorbing CO2) for them to breed?
Or how much will you pay for a litre of water to have a shower or wash with?
The thing I personally find real scary, is that in our history, most wars have been fought over access to water, and it’s possible we’ve seen peak water, and never even noticed.
Sam,
@samotage
It’s unfortunate that we find ways to resist seeing the forest through the trees (even if we’ve planted them), that our personal preference drives our truths, that objectivity is a far-cry from most of the media we ingest.
But of course humans want things to go their way-however straightforward, however convoluted that way may be. Cloaked in it as we are, it’s terribly difficult for a person to remove the self in his reasoning and embrace neutrality. But if you think about it, reaching a neutral state in our own minds is the only way we can honestly progress in our perspectives; otherwise, it’s tainted thought.
Nonchalance seems to be a way of objectivity. It’s not really apathy, but a comfort you develop with whatever may be truly true and rightly right-even if it’s not what you were taught. When we escape the compulsion of our beliefs, upbringings, and lifestyles, when we’re not hoping for a particular result, we see more clearly whether or not it’s important to interject our own mentality into others’ lives and what’s just not worth breaking peace over.
The intention of life is up to the individual. For those manipulated into a camp, well, they’ve neglected their responsibility to educate themselves, thus becoming tools for others.
I choose, as others remarked, to clean up after myself the best I can (and can afford). I can’t deny our ancient connection with our environment, whatever that environment looks like. I like to live in a clean environment, personally, but I can see where others may enjoy the freedom of leaving things where they’d like in this life of choice and options.
It’d sure be nice if I could simply say “respect your environment, and respect others’ environments” but since everyone has a different idea of what that may look like, a lot of very respecting camps would feel disrespected by other camps respecting their respective camps. So, a conundrum it remains, and if we’re wise, we’ll sheath our energies for enjoying life instead of living only to protect our camp’s beliefs.
Let’s create new industries, that is, more money for the already wealthy, based on people’s fear. The insurance industry was surely one of the earliest and most proficient. On this matter, I lean a little towards Richard that climate change is a scam. But Just Another Hacker is also right to say that the argument is not as simple as presented in this discussion.
Adam got it right at the start. People believe what they want to believe. I’m all for looking after the planet but I’m not going to live in fear nor I am at all convinced that climate change is anything but a normal cyclical activity of the earth.
…denial is tyically the first stage in many peoples grieving process. Given this, and the fact many are in different parts of the process it’s no surprise we have such a big denier group.
The crying shame is polluting industry and their fat wallets are the large fish in this bowl.
I’m still confused by the whole thing. Logic abounds on all sides…logic, to the extent I’ve read compelling arguments that make, and seem to break, your case. I, for one, believe we – as in, people – are affecting the earth in a negative manner.
I think you (Adam) need to come on my radio program on AM 970 WDAY in Fargo, 9-Noon Central.
I’ll email you.
Christopher
The insistence on characterizing all people who question the imminent climate-change doomsday scenario as “climate change deniers” (equivalent to Holocaust Deniers or Flat-Earthers) is where the racism analogy comes into play. Most climate-change skeptics do not deny the existence of climate change – they question the evidence upon which the immediate doomsday scenario is based. As to the question “What would be wrong if we all cleaned up after ourselves?” the answer is, “Nothing at all.” We should take responsibility for our own waste, etc. But this is not what the political arm of the climate change mafia wants (yes, I know I’m engaging in an ad hominem attack – it’s for effect…”mafia” ad hominem = “denier” ad hominem). Their “solutions” inevitably involve potentially economy-crippling economic sanctions on the developed world while ignoring the largest and fastest-growing polluters (read: China and India) under the guise of “fairness” while virtually ignoring issues like ocean health and Third World deforestation and human rights (esp. in China and its client states). Addressing these issues – directly and measurably – also would (surprise, surprise!) address the problem of climate change. Unfortunately, with China on the UN Security Council and the Western World falling over itself to “tap this burgeoning new market”, this will never happen.
Jeff, thank you for your comment and you raise quite a few good points. While I would love to address you racism analogy, economics, China, India, the UN Security Council and new world markets, this is only one website.
Yes, there are are many issues that need addressing, and each one of these issues effects Climate Change. However, I find that when talking about Climate Change, many people want to break the subject down into it’s individual components. While understandable, we can not adequately report on all off the individual components, every time we mention Climate Change.
This is why we try very hard to cover a wide array of subject matter throughout the totality of our our articles.
Thanks again for your comment and I look forward to hearing more of your opinions.