Why do we deny?
Scientists tell us humans are causing global climate change, yet many of us deny that is true. Scientists also tell us other things we are happy to accept as true… How to make transistors that give us computers and smart phones… How to shape the wings of an airplane so that it will fly… What medicines to take to cure our ailments. Most of us don’t have the knowledge and expertise to verify the accuracy of the things the scientists tell us, yet we accept some things they tell us and deny others… What’s the difference?
Climate change deniers point to a few scientists who offer contradicting information. Or they point out the planet’s climate has undergone many climate changes, most of which took place long before humans existed. Well… that’s good. In fact, challenging one another’s ideas is a fundamental part of “The Scientific Method.” Peer review, testing, retesting, and more testing is how the scientific community arrives at a consensus. That doesn’t mean every last scientist will necessarily agree, but at least a majority, usually a strong majority will reach the same conclusion. In the case of global climate change the consensus is overwhelming… human activity is the cause.
Almost everybody accepts that scientists got it right when they invented transistors, airplanes, and discovered penicillin. A great many people reject the notion that mankind is changing the climate. What is the basis of our decisions to accept or reject?
It is amazingly simple. Al Gore, much maligned by climate change deniers, said it very simply in the title of his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” We, and I do mean pretty much everybody, resort to denial of truths that tell us we must do things we don’t want to do.
Mankind has been using coal for centuries, but large-scale use of coal began in the 19th century with the industrial revolution. Around the end of the 19th century we started using petroleum. The “oil age” really took off at the beginning of the 20th century with the discovery of oil in Texas and the use of internal combustion engines in automobiles. Fossil fuels have brought us many things that make our lives easier, more comfortable, and better in a multitude of ways. We don’t have to be scientists to intuitively know that if there is a serious problem with the use of fossil fuels, that poses a threat to the many comforts and advantages those fuels bring us. If, suddenly, we could no longer use fossil fuels, or even if the use of those fuels was significantly constrained, many thousands of technological comforts and conveniences would disappear. Thus, the very appropriate title, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
I was born in the middle of the 20th century. I have never known a world, without refrigerators, automobiles, airplanes, telephones, and thousands of other technological wonders brought to us directly or indirectly by fossil fuels. If fossil fuels are a problem, the notion that I might have to give up many of these things is an intuitively obvious conclusion… and from my perspective, it surely would be a very great inconvenience. So, what can I do about this? Well… If I am unwilling to change, I can simply deny the truth of that very inconvenient idea. I don’t have to be a scientist… All I have to do is say, “I don’t believe it!”
“Mankind rarely makes a change that it doesn’t want to make until the pain of NOT changing is greater than the pain of changing.”
Reversing global climate change will not be easy or quick. So, if we wait until the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing, we will ultimately have to endure a great deal of pain indeed! In fact, that pain will surely be much greater than it will be if we accept the “Inconvenient Truth” and begin changing now.
