When Facts Aren’t Enough: The Paradigm of Climate Change Skepticism and Denial
In 2003, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published an explosive paper claiming to have disproven the existing science of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which displayed the average global temperature over time. Formulated in 1998 by climatologists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes, the graph was the subject of a host of controversy upon its release. McIntyre and McKitrick’s analyses were quickly thrown out due to numerous errors. Still, it was a cornerstone of political argumentation by prominent figures such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton [1]. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is settled, but voices questioning the scientific establishment have played a pivotal role in how the general public interacts with this issue [2]. This creates a significant problem for climate activists bombarded with hostile discourse. As political polarization rises and the American public becomes increasingly partisan, it’s more important than ever to examine how climate activism has been tearing itself apart in an attempt to disprove something that’s already been disproven.
Climate activists have been faced with whether to attempt to engage with climate skeptics and, if so, what exactly that would look like. Helping to bridge such a strong partisan divide might bring people together and increase public attention on the issue of climate change. But opening up the ranks brings with it the challenge of facing hardline oppositional views. Worse, the influence of climate denial on the climate movement can reverse key advancements in science. Some would argue that it’s better to shut them out completely, safeguarding the movement from intrusion. What might a solution look like?
When discussing the implications of climate skepticism on the broader scientific community, it’s helpful to consider the different motivations every actor may have that inform their particular beliefs. While the concept of climate denial is a powerful and ideologically aggressive wave in itself, one cannot deny its tie to the modern-day Republican Party. Over time, the increase in political polarization has created a strong link between the broader base of conservative politics and climate skepticism [3]. The Republican Party does not necessarily always overlap with conservative ideology, but the American two-party system makes for significant ideological overlap. Material interests refer to the motivations people have based on their identification with a particular group, and social material interests tie this concept to the way people interact with those that are like-minded. Ideology is fundamentally social, and the development of a strong group ideology is greatly informed by an individual’s cultural context or the dominant social paradigm.
Paradigms of daily life influence society at every level, but the dominant social paradigm of modern material culture significantly shapes how everyone engages with environmental issues. Culture demands that we all play the hand that benefits us economically, implicitly, or explicitly, at the expense of nearly everything else. Environmental sociologist Riley Dunlap explains that the dominant social paradigm in the United States exists everywhere, even in the most progressive areas, encouraging values of neoliberal capitalism and deregulation [4]. Even a person who supports a climate-positive agenda still needs to afford clothing (which is likely made across the world and responsible for massive emissions) before being sold for a price they can’t pass up. And being surrounded by advertisements encouraging them to ditch last season’s styles certainly doesn’t help. The most inefficient aspects of culture are often baked into our daily lifestyle and difficult to shake.
But beyond the overarching paradigm, identity plays a key role here. In climate denial, skeptics can use conservative identity as a mouthpiece to foster the support of a more extensive network, often connecting climate skepticism into a larger metanarrative of conservative issues [5]. Conservatives may find themselves radicalized on the matter of climate policy due to their motivation to integrate with other voices, and they may agree with those voices on many other issues. For example, supporting the free market and economic growth can alienate many conservatives from the connectedness of human actions and the environment, making climate denial a natural extension of laissez-faire economic views [6]. Bell and Ashwood (2016) refer to the economy as a collective set of human decisions, a social creation with fundamentally political ties. The rhetoric of climate skepticism and denial easily integrates itself into the conservative base, magnified by the power of the conservative identity.
Apart from political beliefs, identity informs social material interests and sets the agenda for what information a person might choose to believe. And it’s been shown that established social norms influence individual perceptions of others’ beliefs about climate change, especially when those cues come from a place with high social capital [7]. The social material interests held by a member of a particular group can warp their perception of how others think in order to square with their worldview. People aligned with a specific identity are hardwired to crave consistency, so they will also unconsciously adapt their beliefs to fit those around them [8]. It’s unconscious, but it’s protective: people want to belong to a group and fit in. They’ll sacrifice their thoughts for it, and they’ll do it all without even noticing. Humans make meaning from social relationships, making identity a public display of association [9]. Social material interests can inform beliefs in ways that facts often can’t. For example, the values linked to the conservative identity and expressed in conservative media often sow distrust in the scientific establishment [10]. And affirmations related to a specific worldview can prime people to actively reject contradictory information, causing many conservatives to view climate change messaging as inherently biased [11]. No matter how much positive information climate supporters distribute, it might be wasted on someone who won’t hear it. In order to assure themselves of their identity as a conservative, they might be more likely to reject scientific information while simultaneously receiving social validation for it.
The climate denial movement began to intersect with conservative ideology by diverting neoliberal economic beliefs and hard ecological limits [12]. People can only emit so much carbon or extract so much natural gas, but they have to do it to keep the economy running. Since the American dominant social paradigm was formed from a strong background of material abundance, the conservative pillars of free trade and economic liberty are often prioritized in the cultural tradition from both sides of the political aisle. Liberal and conservative politicians alike commonly defend the free market, the pinnacle of patriotism. But it’s often more insidious than that: free market-touting organizations and fossil fuel industries have a long history of fueling misinformation campaigns [13]. The political economy often comes under threat from environmentalist rhetoric, which has historically led to conservative voices questioning much of the science surrounding anthropogenic climate change. After the 1997 Kyoto Conference, however, many corporate leaders were forced to reexamine how they approached the issue of global warming, leading to the development of ideological opposition structures — accusing the media of bias, misrepresenting the science, threatening activists, and changing political procedures [14]. Activists can’t undermine the dominant social paradigm without consequence. During the Bush administration, these tactics were put into practice at the federal level to push back against greenhouse gas emission regulations. Faced with this new reality, activists have split in their response to it.
One prominent school of activists chooses to push past climate denial as efficiently as possible, effectively disengaging from dialogues with conservative climate skeptics. This connects to the social material interests of climate activists. With climate change on the horizon, activists wish to spread accurate information to a broad audience without risking dilution from skeptical inputs. They want to expand the social network of people informed on climate change and reduce the power of people that might oppose climate activism. When dealing with an issue as urgent as planetary change, they adopt the attitude that it’s critical to act quickly, sometimes without regard for those that question what is already known to be true. Among some activist groups, the rhetoric of othering has begun to emerge. It’s difficult to see a group of people fighting against progress and sympathize with them, and it’s even more challenging to welcome them into your ranks. The social material interests here are valid: it’s self-preservation, pushing away people who could be dangerous to the cause. Pointing out hypocrisy isn’t exactly difficult, either. It’s certainly suspect that many climate skeptics still put their faith in other scientific branches, such as medicine and chemistry [15]. By pointing out cognitive dissonance, activists can bring their supporters together, drawing the outrage of people that think as they do. It’s in a passionate climate advocate’s best interest to strengthen social ties with the people around them, creating a cohesive force against misinformation. The problem occurs when this type of speech simultaneously pushes away the people the authors are targeting.
One of the largest and most powerful of these energetic groups is the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). As the UCS has noted, scientists working for fossil fuel companies have had their work systematically distorted and erased in the service of supporting an anti-climate change agenda [16]. They regularly publish lists of groups harboring anti-science sentiments, publicizing disinformation campaigns, and shaming skeptical voices. This brand of public outrage has its appeals, namely in driving together a strong base of strong climate advocates. The UCS isn’t necessarily wrong in their shaming, either. Vocal supporters of climate science are routinely subject to harassment and intimidation by those who wish to keep the status quo, up to and including threats on their lives [17]. It can be a genuine danger to interact with people who vehemently deny the objective fact. There is always a risk that platforming climate skeptics’ ideas might destroy the validity of the current research underway. And these fears are not unfounded: Biddle and Leuschner (2015) also noted that several studies have shown IPCC reports tend to underestimate the effects of CO₂ emissions on sea-level rise. The machine of misinformation is already running, and it can be very dangerous to give any credence to it.
It’s critically important to note that climate skeptics have social material interests too. The dominant social paradigm of many conservative towns across America regularly leads to climate denial in the classroom. Suppose a child grows up in an area with strong conservative and neoliberal economic values. In that case, it’s only natural that they might introduce doubt in science class when the teacher discusses climate change — a phenomenon currently occurring in Wellston, Ohio [18]. This is only magnified in rural areas where industries like coal provide livelihoods. An attack on climate denial can seem like an attack on someone’s livelihood. This adds an economic and psychological dimension to the social material interests of climate denial. And as these values get passed on through generations, it makes the prospect of engaging with climate skeptics seem near impossible for some.
One of the fatal flaws of the UCS and other passionate organizations is their alienation of the groups that may need to hear a climate-positive message the most. Operating within a hostile dominant social paradigm presents many challenges. But, some would argue that presenting such a contrarian message plays into the DSP even more, shutting out people with more moderate views and pushing the movement into extremism [19]. When thinking about how other people might interact with an issue, it’s easy to categorize people according to their identity. Regardless of party, respondents tend to underestimate belief in climate change for the general public, but those that agreed with their party’s view on climate change perceived a wider difference of opinion [20]. This presents an opportunity to correct misconceptions about what it means to be a conservative or a liberal. People that are passionate about climate change can often fall victim to a partisan, monolithic view of the movement through confirmation bias. This tendency lends itself to unnecessary polarization, causing people to conflate identity differences and ideological differences. It also erases a large swath of people who don’t necessarily follow their declared party’s climate agenda.
Few organizations are brave enough to attempt to bridge the gap between the most fervent climate deniers and the most loyal climate advocates. One such group is the Alliance for Climate Education. Specially-trained youth leaders can have more success relating to peers and convincing them to evaluate the existing science, especially with techniques like motivational interviewing and digital training modules [21]. One of the critical elements of this initiative is to have children talk to their parents about climate change, reversing the dominant social paradigm, and eliminating a lot of generational attitudes that exist now. Another approach involves framing environmental views in ways that are friendly to the conservative identity. Traditionally conservative values, such as economic liberty, security, religion, and public health, have successfully dissolved many of the aspects of conservative arguments that turn people against climate science [22]. Dr. Raul Lejano suggests combatting this narrative by addressing the ideological elements that bring climate denial to the surface, namely, fears of losing control [23]. Others have been able to moderate climate extremism by exploiting the inconsistency of scientific beliefs and climate denial [24]. That inconsistency can thus be used to both harden people into polarized identity groups and break down identity barriers. But any interaction with people who subscribe to climate denial ideologies runs the risk of diluting a climate-positive message, especially if activists are already reframing the argument to fit with other conservative talking points. Those who favor engagement have had to thread the metaphorical needle between bridging the ideological gap and capitulating anti-scientific views. Reframing environmentalism tends to draw the most criticism from those that disfavor engagement for this reason.
When McIntyre and McKitrick published their paper, they likely sought to impress an audience that needed identity-affirming contradictions to the existing information. There have been plenty of inflammatory releases in the same vein: in 2007, the American Enterprise Institute offered $10,000 to any scientist that could contradict the IPCC on climate change [25]. These talking points often have less to do with the facts and more to do with changing the discourse and stirring the pot of public opinion. And McIntyre and McKitrick did just that, dominating conservative media and fanning the flames of climate denial across America. They laid the groundwork for attempts to justify scientific dissent and uncover a conspiracy of lies. Over time, this trend has only magnified; both print and network news sources show a steep partisan divide in the way they represent the facts of anthropogenic climate change [26]. One common talking point is the juxtaposition between patriotic dissent and climate skepticism, wherein activists are faulted for questioning the status quo in other arena’s but not on the subject of the warming climate. The dominant social paradigm dictates that things proceed as normal: oil rigs keep drilling, people keep consuming, and producers keep emitting — business as usual. An activist can’t discuss systemic inequality without being accused of sedition. But when the discussion turns to the climate, corporations get a pat on the back for doing the best they can. For example, in an article for The Hill, environmental policy contributor Benjamin Zycher cites his commentary at the American Enterprise Institute as a basis for his scientific assertions in his defense of ExxonMobil [27].
There is a rich history surrounding the narrative of climate denial and its effect on climate science. Choosing to ignore skepticism and stay the course of objective research risks alienating people with an attachment to the conservative identity, and engaging in a conversation with skeptics risks compromising the value of the science altogether. Biddle and Leuschner (2015) created an evaluation system for scientific dissent, taking into account the consequences of the objection, adherence to scientific convention, and risk to the public. Science is not an unquestionable force, and it needs to be critically evaluated — that’s why finding a way to do that safely is so necessary. In their discussion of environmental justice, Bell and Ashwood (2016) go a step further: they assert that the burden of prevention falls squarely on those who are in a position to cause harm. In the case of climate change, inaction is the source of harm.
But the broader question of whether climate activists should engage with their detractors is vitally important to understand the right path forward. It’s impossible to look at the debate about engagement without examining American politics’ dominant social paradigm. It’s also impossible to start a dialogue about conveying the facts without mentioning the identity and material interests of those standing in the way. As it stands, repeatedly providing evidence of anthropogenic climate change only serves to embolden critics. Whether the best solution is moving forward efficiently or taking the time to engage with people across the aisle, combatting false narratives is critical to maintaining the integrity of climate science.
Bibliography
Abeles, Adina T., Lauren C. Howe, Jon A. Krosnick, and Bo MacInnis. “Perception of Public Opinion on Global Warming and the Role of Opinion Deviance.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (June 2019): 118–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.001.
Alliance for Climate Education. “The Power of Conversation: Training Youth to Lead Climate Conversations with Parents.” Executive Summary, n.d.
Bell, Michael, and Loka Ashwood. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. 5th ed. SAGE Publications, 2016.
Biddle, Justin B., and Anna Leuschner. “Climate Skepticism and the Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in Science Be Epistemically Detrimental?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5, no. 3 (October 2015): 261–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-014-0101-x.
Carmichael, Jason T., Robert J. Brulle, and Joanna K. Huxster. “The Great Divide: Understanding the Role of Media and Other Drivers of the Partisan Divide in Public Concern over Climate Change in the USA, 2001–2014.” Climatic Change 141, no. 4 (April 1, 2017): 599–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1908-1.
Dunlap, Riley. “Commitment to the Dominant Social Paradigm and Concern for Environmental Quality.” Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) 65, no. 4 (1984). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260419263_Commitment_to_the_Dominant_Social_Paradigm_and_Concern_for_Environmental_Quality#fullTextFileContent.
Frank, Adam. “The Remarkable Inconsistency Of Climate Denial.” 13.7: Cosmos And Culture (blog), 2016. https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/07/26/487457043/the-remarkable-inconsistency-of-climate-denial.
Gehlbach, Hunter, Carly D. Robinson, and Christine Calderon Vriesema. “Leveraging Cognitive Consistency to Nudge Conservative Climate Change Beliefs.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 61 (February 2019): 134–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.004.
Harmon, Amy. “Climate Science Meets a Stubborn Obstacle: Students.” The New York Times, June 4, 2017, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/us/education-climate-change-science-class-students.html.
Lejano, Raul P. “Ideology and the Narrative of Climate Skepticism.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 100, no. 12 (December 2019): ES415–21. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0327.1.
McCright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. “Anti-Reflexivity.” Theory, Culture & Society 27, no. 2–3 (March 1, 2010): 100–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409356001.
O’Sullivan, Terrence M., and Roger Emmelhainz. “Reframing the Climate Change Debate to Better Leverage Policy Change: An Analysis of Public Opinion and Political Psychology.” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management 11, no. 3 (September 2014): 317–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/jhsem-2013-0117.
Solnit, Rebecca. “The Ideology of Isolation.” In Call Them by Their True Names: American Crises (and Essays), 2018.
Union of Concerned Scientists. “Climate Disinformation.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed April 25, 2020. https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/disinformation.
Zycher, Benjamin. “Only Approved Climate Change Views Need Apply.” The Hill. April 10, 2019. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/438093-only-approved-climate-change-views-need-apply.
