If someone doesn’t want to believe something then what can you do to change their mind? Trust me, it’s more difficult than you think: it isn’t just the simple case of someone not believing something, the key word is “want” – if they don’t want to believe then there is almost nothing you can do about it. Even if all the evidence is against them.

I see this all the time: on the TV news, in the printed media, on blogs and discussion boards, and in the streets; this constant battle between two entrenched positions – be it over religious idealism, abortion, vaccinations or anything else that invokes emotional involvement – is almost unbearable to witness. For the most part, this battle will grind on and on until the various parties give up trying to convince the other side, through lack of energy, lack of time, illness and even death. People have died for their beliefs, in their millions – but there are always others to take their place.

The battle between the two sides over climate change, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), won’t be ending any time soon; and there will be blood, mark my words. This is more than a battle for intellectual superiority – it is battle over an idealistic principle, and that principle is...actually, let’s come back to that. First of all, given the title of this essay, I think we need to consider the words “denial” and “denier”.

Put simply, denial is an unwillingness to accept a position: I deny that white people are racially superior to black people, which to most of us is a reasonable position to take. The opposing position is less common, but nonetheless can be couched in similar terms; the denial that black people are racially equal to white people. Go back less than 100 years, though, and the second position would stand you in pretty good stead as a European or American citizen wanting to get ahead in the civilized world.

A denier is someone who adopts a denial position. For instance, I deny that economic growth is a necessary characteristic of human society, which places me very much in the minority of people in the civilized world. I’ve discussed the reason for this elsewhere, needless to say the opposing position – that economic growth is a necessity – is far more cultural than based on an absolute body of factual evidence. That is important, because it helps understand why denial positions are so difficult to deal with: if someone is deeply inculcated with a particular belief, such as economic growth being a necessity, then no matter how much contrary physical evidence is presented to them, they are highly unlikely to change their position. If that physical evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to their belief system then we say they are “in denial of the facts”.

That, of course, often only serves to inflame things.


The Danger Of Denial

I make no bones about my belief in anthropogenic global warming, for various reasons, and not just the scientific evidence; so if you are reading this and thinking about clicking somewhere else because you don’t agree with me, then click away – this essay is aimed at those people who more or less have the same mindset as myself, and are in the all-too-common situation of feeling they have to defend that position. To you, dear reader, I offer the following words: you are in danger of losing your sanity.

As we have seen, and probably realised from experience, arguing with a Climate Change Denier is like wrestling in a deep, muddy pit: it can be filthy, exhausting and, worst of all, there seems to be no way out. Personal issues aside, the wider danger is that the other side might get their way – and that person, or group, or business, or government, will then be able to spread their own beliefs in the knowledge that there is no-one willing to take the opposing position. The many people who are wavering, or even understand that AGW is fact, can then be easily tipped into denial. This is what happens in totalitarian states: the ruler’s position becomes the de facto belief.

In ecological terms, this would be disastrous should it happen against AGW, for there would not even be enough dissenters to restart the process of change, let alone carry it through. It’s strange in a way – all the time it has seemed like an endless game of factual table tennis, it has in fact been a battle for the future of humanity, played out in a million places across the globe.

It will come as no surprise that climate science is not completely accurate – it is highly complex, heavily dependent on modelling, and relies on a huge amount of real-time data gathering. If ever a branch of science was a ripe denial opportunity, it is this one. So while the scientists do their job building up the case for action, the deniers continue to hack at the inevitable flaws in the science...two steps forward, one step back, and so on until it is too late to do anything about the environmental changes that the main body of scientists and their proponents had been pretty sure would happen soon. The deniers will have “won” their battle because – and this is where it gets pretty scary – it seems that by the time the changes start to be observed, it is almost impossible to reverse them

On the other hand, the deniers also lose, because we all lose if runaway climate change takes hold.

Now here’s a bit of bad news for an awful lot of people: however complete and convincing the evidence presented, no scientific case will have any effect on a deeply entrenched denier. As I said earlier, the entrenched Climate Change Denier isn’t the slightest bit interested in the main body of evidence. To counter this position, and thus provide the people who are in danger of slipping into the muddy pit with a safety rail, something different is needed: a powerful argument based on a combination of incontrovertible facts, and a heavy dose of good old-fashioned logic or, as Bertrand Russell called it, “the great liberator of the imagination.”


The Logic Bomb

There is an inescapable difference between mathematics and science: in essence, a mathematical proof is an absolute proof, which can never be refuted; a scientific “proof” on the other hand, is transient – it exists until a piece of contrary evidence emerges that is sufficiently powerful to undermine, or at least alter, the “proof”. All science is like this; no matter how credible the evidence, there is always the danger that one day it will be scientifically refuted. This happens quite a lot; not so much in the older branches of science such as classical physics and anatomy, as in far newer areas like quantum physics, microbiology and, as we have seen, climate science.

In mathematics this can never happen if the proof is logically sound.
 
Now, I’m not saying that it is possible to create a perfect analogue of mathematical proof within a scientific context; but it is possible to use a logical argument to create something that is very, very difficult to deny; largely because it doesn’t depend on predictive science, but on things we already know have happened, and are still happening. I want to make this clear, there is no argument, whether scientific, logical or even physical, that will change the mind of a deeply entrenched Climate Change Denier. On the other hand, a logical argument is far more likely to silence them* and, more importantly, help prevent an impartial or mildly sceptical person from slipping into full-blown denial.

For that reason, I will no longer engage myself in a scientific argument with an ingrained CCD -- there really is no point -- instead, I will use this: the logical argument against Climate Change Denial.


Part One

The history of Climate Change Denial (CCD) is essentially a history of corporate lobbying since the early 1980s. It was the oil companies, the coal mining companies, the car manufacturers, the road constructors, the loggers and all the other corporations who would obviously not be able to carry on business as usual if they were found to be changing the climate, that did it first, and did it big time. The history of AGW denial is deep, dark and sophisticated and it involved some of the finest creative and persuasive minds that have ever graced the corporate and political stages. Corporations were responsible for and funded some of the most successful denial lobbies: think of the Global Climate Coalition, The Heritage Foundation, The Oregon Institute and The Cato Institute for starters. This is taken from an excellent primer about their work, in relation to the activities of ExxonMobil:



Corporations were, and still are responsible for some of the most successful advertising and PR campaigns ever created, trying to convince the public that everything is fine and they should carry on doing what they do. A classic example is the “…we call it life” campaign created by the corporate-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute; but there are many other, far more subtle examples which – and this is the idealistic principle I alluded to earlier – attempt to convince people that the infinite growth model of Industrial Civilization are fundamentally a “good thing”, and that AGW is just a distraction. You don’t have to explicitly deny something to be a Denier, you can simply sweep it under the carpet; or, as is becoming more common, bury it or pump it into the ground.

If the denier doesn’t agree with you about the history of corporate denial, then they are clearly deluded, and you are within your rights to say so – again and again and again. The historical facts bear this out and no Climate Change Denier can disagree with this part without making themselves look foolish.


Part Two

As the science has become more certain in favour of AGW, it has become ever more difficult for deniers (by this I mean both individual and collective) to use the scientific argument in their favour. It is, as we have seen, still possible to argue over the fallibility of scientific “proof” and just how large the body of evidence actually is; but with a bit of intelligence, deniers can use a far more subtle tool. This, unfortunately for them, is a big mistake.

As documented in a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley, the style of political lobbying moved, especially in the USA, from blatant stonewalling in the 1980s and 1990s, to an “uncertainty” agenda at the beginning of the 21st century:

 
Given the huge success corporations have had in dictating the political agenda through lobbying, funding, advising and – particularly in the Bush era – staffing the corridors of power, it’s not surprising such a tactic remains extremely effective. But corporations, and politicians, know that what really drives the economy is public opinion: if people do not have confidence in something then they will not adhere to it, which is why Consumer Confidence is such a crucial economic measure. The moment the buying public loses confidence, then they stop being a buying public, and instead turn into a saving, or even reacting public – which is bad news for everyone in a position of power.

To counter this, the corporate world has had to cultivate an air of concern, whilst ensuring this does not impact on their bottom line. The key word here is Greenwash. When you see a claim that a vehicle is “cleaner” or that deforestation is “sustainable” or that you can “offset” a polluting activity or that emissions can be buried, what you are seeing is the business world allaying the concerns of a public increasingly aware that climate change may be a “bad thing”. If we can be made to believe that our concerns are being accounted for, then we are far less likely to stop spending money, and most unlikely to ever rebel against the status quo.



To reach a conclusion about denial, therefore, what we have to focus on here is the net effect of any of these things: a “cleaner” vehicle is still producing carbon dioxide gas; deforestation, however many trees are replanted, still has a negative effect on the overall forest ecosystem; flying or using electricity still emits greenhouse gases, which cannot be offset like-for-like in any meaningful way; capturing carbon and pumping it underground will never account for a majority of coal-fired electricity generation.

The denial here is, as I said, subtle; but it is most definitely present. We are being manipulated by a collective body with a vested interest in not letting us know how bad AGW will become. If the reality wasn’t so bad, and the deniers didn’t believe in this reality, then they wouldn’t be working so hard to prevent us from knowing the truth.


Part Three

Now, here’s the final part of your argument; one that is becoming increasingly important to have in your armoury: Who has the most to gain from a popular belief in anthropogenic global warming?

A lot of denial – now that even the most corporate-minded politicians and dirtiest companies at least say humans are causing the climate to change – is now related to the amount of financial benefit it is claimed politicians, scientists, “green” companies and (get this) those campaigning simply to protect nature, will gain from a populace that believes humans are causing the climate to change. I make no bones about my condemnation of the huge amount of money that is being made off the back of people’s concerns to protect the planet; from the small company selling low(er) energy gadgets, to the professional consultancy advising businesses how to be more environmental friendly (or at least appear to be), right up to the aforementioned corporations that need us to keep spending as usual to keep the economy growing. In fact, I write about this all the time on another web site, such is my anger. However, we need to address the increasingly popular accusation that AGW is an invention solely to make money, or hand power to a believing few.

It is worth pointing out the inescapable irony of such an accusation; given the incontrovertible history of lobbying and subsequent financial and power gain that the CCDs have been a party to. I admit that turning such an accusation on its head may seem to be playing into the hands of the deniers, but the accusation itself seems to assume that it is possible to play the same trick on both sides of the fence. Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
To show this, let’s look at some of the main players, and see what would really happen were AGW to be accepted in all of its scientific legitimacy – how would each player gain, or lose:

Politically, there aren’t any real winners: civilized humanity has screwed up the planet and politicians deservedly look terrible across the board because they have helped bring this upon us. In addition, no politician wishing to profit from greenwashing will be able to pull the wool over the electorate’s eyes for long. Admitting AGW is real and potentially catastrophic makes most of them look stupid and, in the eyes of a free-minded electorate, unelectable.
 
Corporations don’t win at all, unless they are able to greenwash sufficiently to make us buy more stuff, or do more polluting; but in the end, even the most effective greenwashers will have to admit that if we truly want to prevent climate change, their businesses are screwed. Admitting AGW is real and dangerous makes corporations scared.

The Global Elites are comprised of corporate heads and leading politicians: all but the most paranoid conspiracy theorist has to admit that there is no secret cabal formed of all-powerful elites that will benefit from a belief in AGW; we know who the elites are, and as I have already shown you, AGW is bad news for them.

Scientists are a mixed bag, but if you separate those who may be influenced by corporate and political funding – based on what I have said above – and those who are decoupled from any such funding (and there plenty of scientists who are) it is clear where the division lies, and why some scientists are more radical in their views than others. A fully decoupled scientist has no more or less to gain from AGW than any other member of humanity.

Humanity in general has everything to lose from a rapidly changing climate. However, if we truly believe that humans are causing the climate to change, and that we have to fundamentally change our behaviour, without the meddling of corporations and politicians, and if we do manage to avert catastrophic climate change then, yes, humanity as a whole will benefit, as will virtually every ecosystem on Earth. It’s just that this benefit is not financial – it is far more important than money.

It follows that Climate Change Denial, not acceptance, is the result of a desire to ensure the existing powers that be maintain dominion over ordinary human beings. The denial position is the position of the elite minority that run Industrial Civilization, and that of anyone who knowingly accepts this as a good thing. The terminally flawed principle of economic growth being a necessary part of human society is holding the entire CCD industry together.

Reject this principle, and the entire monolithic Culture of Maximum Harm, along with the denial that humans are on the path towards irreversibly changing the entire global ecosystem, falls apart. Reject this principle and we stand a far better chance of surviving the future.

---

*Since publishing this article, both here and at The Sietch Blog, I have received a large number of responses from Deniers, both as comments and personal messages. None of these comments address the logical argument presented, merely wishing to reopen the scientific "debate" (a.k.a. sophism). I think this is very telling.

I often wonder if one of the big problem with global warming in people's minds is the fact that it's global, it's too big for little people to get their heads around. It was far simpler to convince people to go green on a local level, telling them that polluting rivers is bad for us, that air pollution is choking us. The phrase 'Global Warming' is so massive and all-encompassing that most people have a brain freeze where they'd rather deny it than face the possibility that it's already too late.

[Good point, Jonathan. That's one reason I prefer to focus on potential effects on the individual, and the moral case for sustainability - but then again, we are just a small bluey-green planet with a thin skin of atmosphere; scares the willies out of people, but what can you do but help them over the fear and engage their humanity. Cheers, K.]

I also prefer to focus on individuals when I talk about these issues. A planet is far too big for most people to worry about, in fact if we hadn't been into space and seen it from the outside for ourselves it would be impossible.

I think it would be more effective for governments to focus their rhetoric on a local based strategy, speak in terms of cleaner air for ourselves and our children - after all car exhaust fumes are toxic, poisonous to us as well as the planet. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was a massive reduction in all kinds of illnesses if we just stopped burning oil altogether. I sometimes wish the oil would just run out right now so we would HAVE to use other forms of energy for transport etc now instead of eeking out the last drops form the next 50 years or whatever.

[Jonathan, why do you think governments want to do anything about climate change - they are run by corporations? We have no one but ourselves to fix this; I make that very clear in the article. Don't be fooled by political rhetoric : they just want to keep the economy growing whatever the cost to our future. K.]

Oh my lord, you call that long air-headed essay logical? Are you kidding me? There was no logical argument anywhere in it. That so called logic would not change my “denialist” opinion in any way. Terrible.

Delivering the knockout blow to the skeptics would work. But there is only one knockout and it is the answer to this simple question; “Does C02 control the climate?” We skeptics are not asking for proof as in mathematics, just convincing evidence that C02 is the driver of climate. That is your knockout blow, that is your logical argument. Not that long winded drivel about the history of denial and some forgotten articles in Newsweek. Climate scientists have been trying to show that C02 controls the climate for about 30 years now and have failed to deliver the knockout. They have shown unequivocally that the climate changes, but they have never shown that C02 is the driver. Actually they do a great job of showing that C02 is not in control. When that happens, they usually need to “recalibrate” their equipment (If I got a dime every time a climate scientist needed to go back and recalibrate- LOL!).

So anyway, just show that C02 controls the climate and the denialists will go away. Failing that, just pull out pictures of melting glaciers and drowning polar bears. Of course, those are just more evidence of climate change, not evidence that C02 is the cause. But it still manages to fool lots of people.

[You think I'm getting into a scientific argument with someone who doesn't want to listen? This article wasn't for you, Klem.

Keith]

Do you deny that while atmospheric CO2 levels continued to rise over the past 30 years, the warming trend according to the most recent UAH satellite temperature data is a modest +0.39 deg C over the same time period. "Modest" is probably too strong a word.

[Another person who didn't read the article. Neill, if you want to argue science then go to www.realclimate.org and they will be delighted to engage you. This article was *not* about the science.

Keith]

Klem, some of your arguments are why I think it's best not to keep banging on about the whole Global thing, melting icecaps and such, because it makes much more sense to talk about local air pollution and our general quality of life based on that. That way we get to breath nicer air, our city buildings are cleaner (not covered in soot) and if the Global Warming stuff ends up being true we might help that too as a bonus.

I mean whether it's true or not most of us would rather have cleaner air and not have to rely on burning oil supplied by a few small countries. It'd be a win for everyone whether you believe it, don't believe it or don't care either way. :)

Notice that the two self-confessed deniers (sceptics, if you like) have not addressed any of the three arguments in the article itself.

Now you see what I mean.

Keith

Hi Keith, your post on climate change denial made interesting reading. Yes, there are so many people in denial of so many things that are so obvious to others. http://climatarians.org guesses one of the things that keep a person firmly anchored to their camp is the fact that not all of their arguments have been satisfactorily refuted by the opposition. Even if there is one small issue in their favor, they would sometimes use that to stick on to their position.

Funny the way people act!
Joost Hoogstrate

[Most definitely, Joost: people will cling onto the most trivial scrap of information if it confirms their worldview in some way - that is the nature of denial. K.]

The tone of this article is totalitarian and deeply unscientific. How can the author dispassionately judge the evidence for a hypothesis when he has clearly made his mind up in advance?

[Because my mind was made up by reviewing the science long ago. On the other hand, an entrenched denier will not take any notice of the body of scientific evidence; so what is the point in presenting even more scientific evidence? Did you read the article, or decide what you were going to say when you read the title?

Keith]

Hi again Keith, i would like to comment on this piece if i may. First of all i dont understand why you lump climate change deniers in with those who know climate change is a fact but are not convinced on the effects of AGW. This is the position im now erring towards. I know its happening but am unconvinced as to the contribution of AGW-im agnostic on this point. I have an inborn suspicion of "facts" that get taken up by states to be used as an excuse for the implementation of draconian legislation (which is coming)whilst also using it to promote "green" industry/energy. I want civilization to end ASAP-im from the Zerzan school of anti civ thought/green anarchism so i desperately desire to see an end to all industry/mass agriculture. Someone i know completed their degree in environmental science recently and as you probably know, catastrophic rapid climate change has occured before(beginning of the last glacial for example-big mammals frozen in situ with fodder in their stomachs. So im with you 100% on the need to end civilization but am unconvinced by the science blaming AGW for the present period of obvious climate change. As i said, i dont like being lumped in with deniers of CC just because im not convinced by AGW. Its happening alright but whatever its cause it must not deflect us from the central aim of ending the present system. Yours, For the Destruction of Civilization.

[Hi Steve, in your case the point about AGW is moot because whether or not you believe it, the path you are envisaging will be sufficient to head off a lot more than just climate change. In response to your main question, believing climate change is a fact but not AGW is exactly the position of the main body of deniers - in that sense, you are no different from the Moncktons and Malloys of this world; in any other sense, though, you are very different.

Best, Keith]

"On the other hand, a logical argument is far more likely to silence them* and, more importantly, help prevent an impartial or mildly sceptical person from slipping into full-blown denial." This is the key point here in my opinion. Most deniers are beyond hope of persuasion, but they must not influence those who are undecided.