The Organized Effort to Cast Doubt on Climate Change
If you have not yet seen “Smoke and CO2: How to Spin Global Warming.” then it is time you did, and read the excellent article Global Warming: Heated Denials from The Center for Public Integrity.
For the most part Climate Denial is not about legitimate doubt and skeptical enquiry. It is deliberate and malicious misinformation and disinformation that originates with people who know exactly what they are doing, and is then propagated by an army of dupes who are being manipulated.
Watch the Video, read the article, then share it with your friends. Be sure not to miss the Gallery of Skeptics as well
Greenfyre's 
Good work illuminating strategies of disinformation and the economic interests at play, but I think we really need to unpack the concept of ‘denial’.
When we talk about society and climate change, we are talking about the need to ‘rescue’ society from a fatal encounter with nature. This is unsettling, to say the least. Many people are neither psychologically nor politically prepared for the adjustment. As such, they are resisting the science, to the point of denial.
Unfortunately, science has been driven by technical questions over its history (leading to instrumental interests rather than moral ones). It’s fairly recent that science is increasingly more interested in raising questions about what should be done, rather than just questions about how something can be done. A critical perspective on science is appropriate — as is a critical perspective on all knowledge. It helps to acknowledge this.
It also helps to recognize that science itself is the main contributor to our predicament. Modern science manufactured the understanding of nature that western society was raised on: the ethos of endless resources and economic advancements is what has been at the heart of the attitudes and beliefs we have manufactured. Internationalism and the increased bargaining power of poorer regions is also increasingly deciding this.
As a result of the climate crisis, individuals are required to re-think the scientific and moral foundations of society. We can perhaps cut people some slack if that involves some ordinary resistance. Resistance, including its most fragmented form i.e., denial, is largely a psychological process. Quite apart from industry hacks, many climate change ‘deniers’ are engaged in a process of adjusting their perceptions and understanding. Responses that are dehumanizing, dismissive or combative, are pretty much guaranteed to delay this coming-to-terms. I fully recognize that ignoring or dismissing, calling people ‘idiots’, ‘duh’, etc., can be a strategy that is useful for neutralizing the opposition and/or mobilizing solidarity. (Of course, it can also be other things.) But I would agree with you on this: if people who do not have either the communication skills or the humanity to engage with individuals, you should in fact ignore them because you otherwise make things worse.
There is no question that we are entering a period of declining physical output per capita and limited resources. There is no question about climate change or the nature of the crisis. A realistic economic understanding, from any political perspective, does in fact recognize this. If for no other reason than their motivation to try to retain a market share, corporations already understand this.
Moving from the psychological to the political, we must also recognize that the ‘denier’ issue includes elements of resistance that are largely class-based. The upper one-quarter or so of society i.e., the middle and upper middle class such as professional and technical workers, enjoy a significant piece of a western country’s total income. The reductions implied by climate change will result in the sort of pressure that would largely eliminates this class advantage. Their incomes and lifestyle are at stake. The demands of the lower classes for higher living standards have previously been met by moving everyone up via expanding the output of the economy. As such, some resistance is merely a defense of class. But some people are also afraid of facing this change in how things work. As such, the transition itself has to be led without the drama of our movement’s tendency to polemics and self-aggrandizement.
As a result, you are getting some of the backlash (another form of resistance) that is usually reserved for socialists, even though climate change is a nonpartisan issue and you present it as such. This is probably because there is no question that a managed economy is necessary to decelerate climate change. A more managed economy will also intervene on the aggression of corporations by limiting market shares and will re-distribute income and fewer resources.
Good work identifying strategies of disinformation and the economic interests at play, but I think we need to unpack the concept of ‘denial’ so that people more fully understand it.
When we talk about society and climate change, we are talking about the need to ‘rescue’ society from a fatal encounter with nature. This is unsettling, to say the least. Many people are neither psychologically nor politically prepared for the adjustment. As such, they are resisting the science, to the point of denial.
Unfortunately, science has been driven by technical questions over its history (leading to instrumental interests rather than moral ones). It’s fairly recent that science is increasingly more interested in raising questions about what should be done, rather than just questions about how something can be done. A critical perspective on science is appropriate — as is a critical perspective on all knowledge. It helps to acknowledge this.
It also helps to recognize that science itself is the main contributor to our predicament. Modern science manufactured the understanding of nature that western society was raised on: the ethos of endless resources and economic advancements is what has been at the heart of the attitudes and beliefs we have manufactured. Internationalism and the increased bargaining power of poorer regions is also increasingly deciding this.
As a result of the climate crisis (rather than, say, politics) individuals are required to re-think the scientific and moral foundations of society. We can perhaps cut people some slack if that involves some ordinary resistance. Resistance, including its most fragmented form i.e., denial, is largely a psychological process. Quite apart from industry hacks, many climate change ‘deniers’ are engaged in a process of adjusting their perceptions and understanding. Responses that are dehumanizing, dismissive or combative, are pretty much guaranteed to delay this coming-to-terms. I fully recognize that ignoring or dismissing, calling people ‘idiots’, ‘duh’, etc., can be a strategy that is useful for neutralizing the opposition and/or mobilizing solidarity. (Of course, it can also be other things.) But I would agree with you on this: if people who do not have either the communication skills or the humanity to engage with individuals, you should in fact ignore them because you otherwise make things worse.
There is no question that we are entering a period of declining physical output per capita and limited resources. There is no question about climate change or the nature of the crisis. A realistic economic understanding, from any political perspective, does in fact recognize this. If for no other reason than their motivation to try to retain a market share, corporations already understand this.
Moving from the psychological to the political, we must also recognize that the ‘denier’ issue includes elements of resistance that are largely class-based. The upper one-quarter or so of society i.e., the middle and upper middle class such as professional and technical workers, enjoy a significant piece of a western country’s total income. The reductions implied by climate change will result in the sort of pressure that would largely eliminates this class advantage. Their incomes and lifestyle are at stake. The demands of the lower classes for higher living standards have previously been met by moving everyone up via expanding the output of the economy. As such, some resistance is merely a defense of class. But some people are also afraid of facing this change in how things work. As such, the transition itself has to be led without the drama of our movement’s tendency to polemics and self-aggrandizement.
As a result, you are getting some of the backlash (also a form of resistance) that is usually reserved for socialists, even though climate change is a nonpartisan issue and you present it as such. This is probably because there is no question that a managed economy is necessary to decelerate climate change. A more managed economy will also intervene on the aggression of corporations by limiting market shares and will re-distribute income and fewer resources.