After 30 years of the so-called climate “debate”, the climate denial movement has split and evolved into a number of specific strands. While most countries in the developed world have moved on, Australia has proved a fertile ground for deniers of all stripes.
In 2014 I wrote a play entitled Kill Climate Deniers. I’d already had some run-ins with skeptics, but after Andrew Bolt and Breitbart heard about the project and took aim at me (and its deliberately hyperbolic name), I started hearing from deniers across the whole spectrum.
So to help you distinguish your Ian Plimers from your David Archibalds, this spotter’s guide provides a quick run-down of the different species of denier.
1. The Shill
The first (and most predictable) category of deniers are the simple apologists for the mining or fossil fuel industry. Some are professional industry flacks, some are simply careful to keep the industry on-side. Many politicians belong in this category.
These deniers may understand the science, they may be aware that they’re completely in the wrong, but they’ll willingly lie through their teeth in order to maintain the status quo.
Their main tactic of this group is distraction — talk about anything but the science. “Baseload”, “energy security”, “struggling farmers” — anything except the elephant in the room.
Example: Malcolm Turnbull
2. The Opportunist
There’s always a platform for commentators critiquing efforts to address climate change, especially if they portray an air of calm “rationality”. The committed chancer can find an eager audience by insisting that they are “striking a middle ground” or “seeking balance”.
Exemplified by the likes of Bjørn Lomborg and Bret Stephens, these skeptics are flexible in their use of science. They’ll always acknowledge some degree of scientific reality, but it will, conveniently, never be enough to justify action.
Example: Our very own Andrew Bolt
3. The Heretic
By far the most interesting deniers are the qualified scientists who have chosen to oppose the scientific consensus on climate change.
Long before it reached the general public’s consciousness, climate change was hotly debated among atmospheric scientists. In the early 1980s, it was perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of global warming. Early climate models were clumsy and imprecise, and the evidence for rising CO2 levels was scarce.
As evidence mounted and the models were rigorously tested and improved, a scientific consensus emerged. Most climate scientists came to agree that climate change was happening, and the debate shifted to questions of, “How much warming?” and “What will the effects be?”
Rather than changing their minds, a few of these early doubters instead dug their heels in and doubled-down on their skepticism. They began to receive an eager audience from right-wing outlets as authorative “insiders”.
Playing to that audience, the useful critiques of atmospheric scientists like Richard Lindzen have long since given way to dogma and grandstanding.
Examples: University of Alabama in Huntsville scientists Roy Spencer and John Christy, and Australia’s Bill Kininmonth.
4. The True Believer
Though opposition to climate action is funded by fossil fuel companies and coordinated by thinktanks and lobbyists, it’s not a completely astroturfed movement. Climate denial has struck a strong chord in certain groups, who have tirelessly dedicated themselves to combating the “Anarcho-Green Con”.
These “true believers” have a very specific understanding of what is meant by climate change. They see it as a confected excuse for a massive program of state regulation. Climate scientists, in their view, are the leading edge of a new socialist movement intended to restructure society under a Communist One World Government.
As a commentator on Breitbart astutely put it, “Manmade Globull Warming is a HOAX… a wealth redistribution scheme ginned up by radical extreme leftists who hate free markets and democracy.”
In this community, climate activists are referred to as “watermelons”: green on the outside, red on the inside.
True believers can be found in the comment threads on Andrew Bolt’s blog, on denier forums like Watts Up With That (and its Australian counterpart, Jo Nova), and on countless WordPress or Blogspot blogs packed with lo-res jpgs of hand-drawn graphs.
There’s a healthy dose of conspiracy thinking in these circles (apparently it’s no coincidence that Earth Day happens to fall on Lenin’s birthday), but in some ways, they’re completely right. Addressing climate change will demand massive social change, to a degree that many of us haven’t really comprehended.
These deniers understand the consequences if the science is true — so they can’t allow the science to be true. In some ways, they grasp what’s at stake in this debate more clearly than the rest of us.
Example: Malcolm Roberts
*David Finnigan is a playwright, science-artist and author of Kill Climate Deniers, on at the Griffin Theatre in Sydney.
Personally, I divide global warming denial into five (i prefer ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ because it’s more precise. Increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will increase global temperatures):
1. Global warming isn’t happening. As shown by the global warming ‘pause’.
2. Global warming is happening, but it’s not due to humans. It’s due to natural cycles, or due to the Earth coming out of the Little Ice Age. Or it’s the Sun.
3. Global warming is happening, and it’s due to humans, but it’s trivial or it’s going to be beneficial. More people die of cold than heat. The extra CO2 is ‘plant food.’ Pat Michaels is in this group. He thinks climate sensitivity is towards the lower end of the IPCC’s range of 1.5 to 2.5 Kelvin.
4. Global warming is happening, it’s due to humans, and it’s going to be dire, but there’s nothing that humans can do to avoid it. There’s nothing that can replace fossil fuels. Attempting to reduce the fossil fuels will damage the economy. The best thing to do is to continue what we’re doing and hope to have enough resources to repair the damage.
5. We know nothing, so we should do nothing until we know with certainty.
The sign of a fervent AGW denier is one who manages to slide from (1) all the way through to (5) over a very short period, before returning to (1) again. Some of the contributors to Crikey fall into this group. We might see them reappear.
Personally I find Wayne’s 5 levels to be much closer to my own experiences with those I talk to about GW. David Finnigan runs the risk of just sounding like a counterpoint to Andrew Dolt.
There is 6 Wayne, you forgot religion, the Christians the Muslims, God doesn’t believe it. So there.
Wayne is clear and concise indeed. To be fair the present Pope is a firm supporter of cutting emissions and wanting to protect God’s creation, as he sees it. I find that many believers do manage to accept climate science, as the Pope does . Many believers are flexible. Popular in the 1950s to 1970s, the Catholic Teilhard de Chardin thought God had planned scientific progress such as the invention of the nuclear bomb. He was excommunicated, but not for that.
5 The Reductionists
The Reductionists believe that the greenhouse can tolerate a certain amount of carbon emissions. The climate scientists are clearly exaggerating on the scale and urgency of the problem. They believe that they can keep the wrath of nature at bay by making token “reductions” and erecting windmills as symbols of their good faith. As long as they don’t overdo the reductions, there will always be some emissions for them to promise to reduce.
Mysteriously, they are incoherently hostile to all the enemies of natural gas. Coal, oil and nuclear are all serious threats to the greenhouse and must not be allowed to compete with the expansion of the gas industry. Most of them believe that methane is not really a greenhouse gas, that it quickly decomposes, it can be dealt with later, and that it can conveniently provide backup to the windmills until batteries become big enough and world population declines.
Now an article and a play about – climate Zealots [evangelists , sounds more religious]
You mean those who are zealously committed to facts, truth, rationality and science? I think they’re called scientists.
Or do you mean those who are zealously committed to the health of the planet, its ecosystems, flora and fauna, and its environment?
Or maybe zealously committed to the future well-being of the human race?
I think you need to be a little more specific.
Roger,
I was expecting an AGW denier to soon appear, and surprise, surprise you appear.
Climate scientists don’t promise to reduce CO2 emissions. They just point out what is likely to happen if CO2 emissions aren’t reduced to zero rapidly.
Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. It is oxidised rapidly to CO2 so it’s still a greenhouse gas. It’s not a stopgap on the way to a zero CO2 emissions future. It’s a roadblock.
Some interesting categories with a good (last paragraph) summary from Wayne Robinson. The “easy” answer is to read authoritative work (journals and texts).
Many of the PR companies that are engaged in denial had a previous market with (denying) the effects of tobacco or, at last, arguing that the envisaged effects were “unproven”.
There are individuals that will do anything for money; e.g “cash for comment” in talk-back radio in Oz. On this account, “scientists” are not exempt; ditto for the history of tobacco or probation if one cares to read the history.
For a one-sentence synnopsis on the matter the signifcant aspect is the RATE of change (the derivative if one prefers) from the Industural Revolution and particularly over the 20th century that defineds the matter along with the chemical (atmospheric) properites of the gasses in the atmosphre that comprise, roughtly, 1%.
Kyle Hargraves speaks of the rate of change of greenhouse gases. Yes, it is serious. Currently we already have 45% more CO2 in the greenhouse than preindustrial. The rate of change in 1957 was less than 0.2%pa compared to preindustrial, now risen to 1.0%pa (based on NOAA data). In other terms, it is an extra mole of CO2 per square metre every year. An observer might feel that close ahead, a disaster is unavoidable. However the momentum is in the actions of man rather than the actions of nature. It can be turned around by revolutionary response.
Labelling each other as “deniers” may have truth in it, but it is hardly persuasive. Politically, world opinion has a ways to go before we become capable of a revolutionary response.
This is a pretty sloppy argument. The use of the term “denier” to describe anyone sceptical or unconvinced by climate change/global warming theology is indicative of the increasing intolerance espoused by the true believers. Just to pick up on a couple of points: the “models “may have been improved (about time, judging by how hugely inaccurate they seem to have been so far) but they are still simulations, not reality. Bjorn Lomborg does not claim there is no need for action, just that that action should involve dealing with more immediate issues such as poverty, and at improving renewable energy research, rather than the ridiculous proposition that fossil fuels be abandoned forthwith. Finally, is any true believer able to provide a credible answer to this layman’s question: if we are not able accurately to predict weather conditions a month in advance, how on earth are we able to judge what the climate will be like in a hundred years’ time?
“This is a pretty sloppy argument. The use of the term “denier” to describe anyone sceptical or unconvinced by climate change/global warming theology is indicative of the increasing intolerance espoused by the true believers.”
I haven’t a clue as to what might constitute a “true believer” but I’ll make an attempt at edifying a “layman”.
There may be people who are unconvinced (a respectable but tardy position) but there are also those who deny as they might deny the Copernicus System.
“Just to pick up on a couple of points: the “models “may have been improved (about time, judging by how hugely inaccurate they seem to have been so far) but they are still simulations, not reality.”
I could become rather “strong” at this juncture (by typing a common compound noun that conveys disbelief in English) but I’ll take the softly-softly approach. ANYTHING of moderate sophistication requires a model. EVERYTHING from medicines to a good deal of engineering to rocket science are based upon models. The models concerning climate change can “model” – that word – ice core samples for the last half a-million years to within experimental error; typically around 3% and a good deal better than any annual forecast a business might receive from an accountant.
“Bjorn Lomborg does not claim there is no need for action, just that that action should involve dealing with more immediate issues such as poverty, and at improving renewable energy research, rather than the ridiculous proposition that fossil fuels be abandoned forthwith.”
James Lovelock (re: the Gia Hypothesis) took the view that it was too late 20 years ago. He ameliorated this position as his death became imminent but I suspect that he adhered to it nevertheless. The “problem” with “renewable energy research” is that every voter has a view; informed or otherwise. The media is of no help. Firstly, the media is utterly ignorant and secondly the media makes money not from objective reporting (seen an example lately?) but from “peddling” 26 views for and 26 against over a 12 month period. Perhaps such is the “new” objectivity!
“Finally, is any true believer able to provide a credible answer to this layman’s question: if we are not able accurately to predict weather conditions a month in advance, how on earth are we able to judge what the climate will be like in a hundred years’ time?”
Do google “chaotic statistical conditions or chaos theory”. The example serves as a first class illustration as to the perils of universal suffrage. In a nutshell there is a distinction between weather and climate. The weather patters are chaotic – a formal word with a strict mathematical meaning. In “layman” terms it means that NO amount of prior data can be appealed to in forecasting a future condition with complete accuracy. In other words prior frequencies (of a random variable) are not correlated to the likelihood of an observation. In a county such as New Zealand, with many micro climates, the best one can forecast is about a week (and that forecast is in doubt). In central Australia the period of forecast “improves”; i.e. increases.
As to climate : …mmm. when you’re next in a queue or on a bus or train ask a stranger for their opinion on xyz (Barnaby for example). The answer may be predictable (more or less – depending upon the question) but not “guaranteed”; there is some possibility that the answer might be extreme (in a particular direction). NOW put the same question to 500 people or 1,000 people (as randomly as possible). The “results” (answers) will become much more uniform. This “uniformity” is analogous to climate. The climate is ABLE to be forecast to within experimental error (c. 3% – 5%) in a century hence. As to the weather in xyz city 90 days from now (rain, cloud cover, sunshine, wind etc) no one can provide a completely accurate forecast unless we’re considering Alice Springs or Darwin; and even there some doubt exists (of necessity) on account of the nature of chaotic systems.
Your comment on my request: “The example serves as a first class illustration as to the perils of universal suffrage” illustrates that you are a) very much in the “true believer” mould; and b) a pompous, dictatorial tool. Such a shame the masses got the vote, eh? How much better the world would be if were run by enlightened ubermensch like you…
Be that as it may but do YOU now have a clearer command of the issue?
As to your remarks, I do advocate that Nietzsche be taught in Australian schools with the basics of the following texts (in about this order) taught at primary school : All Too Human, On the Genealogy of Morality and Beyond Good and Evil.
Secondly, and much more seriously, there is a latent conflict between those who understand STEM and those who haven’t a clue; the latter, streaking towards post-modernist theory – which does have an association with Cultural Relativism – clam that, very roughly, (1) we can know nothing and even if we make a claim to knowledge (2) it is relative with the implication that (3) another view is EQUALLY valid. This perspective presents itself all over the place and, frankly, seems to have been adopted by the Green Movement world-wide.
Three major texts (three will do for now) are – in no particular order
A. J. Ayer Language, Truth, and Logic (1936)
Thomas S Kuhn The Structure of – Scientific Revolutions (1962)
R.G. Meyers Understanding Empiricism (1991)
trash the post-modernist – coherence theory drivel.
A good post Kyle if a tad narrow, but your comment that Greens are all post modernist subjective sophists is total rubbish, as they are well known to plead for reducing fossil fuel use and find alternatives. Wherever did you get your non existent evidence from, please.
A contributor wrote : “I think you need to be a little more specific”
ok – why not ?
“You mean those who are zealously committed to facts, truth, rationality and science? I think they’re called scientists.”
.mmmm : facts change as knowledge increases or becomes more refined in science for the very good reason that “science” is known as science. As an aside the opposite occurs with “religion”. Rationality ? .mmm – the truth does win but it may require a number of decades. THEN the matter appears “rational” (ergo the Royal Navy and vitamin C, vaccination, relativity and [for the sake
of a last example] evolution)!
“Or do you mean those who are zealously committed to the health of the planet, its ecosystems, flora and fauna, and its environment?”
Historically, over tens of millennium, there hasn’t been any such creed of humanoids with any such intentions. Everywhere where humanoids have tramped the effects on fauna (in particular) have been disastrous. Having written that all animals susceptible to domestication were domesticated at the survey peg of (circa) 4,000 years ago. Similarly, more or less, for domesticated plants and then Mr Kellogg appeared towards the end of the 19 century. Lastly, the (laudable) objectives of the enquiry can ONLY be ensured by due application of science.
“Or maybe zealously committed to the future well-being of the human race?”
There was a time when five sets of humanoids were tramping about, more or less, as hunter-gatherers; so much for the first chapter of Genesis! Then from about 120,000 years ago to about
30 thousand years ago there were two sets of cohabiters [in the strict sense]; then one : sapiens! Our former co-existors prevailed for about 300,000 years. I, for one, would be somewhat amazed
if sapiens are prevailing in another 150 years! Either way – given a global roll of 7.x billion – ONLY science can satisfy the objective.
By way of a summary : empiricism prevails over any other form of philosophy; just take a look at your cell phone; yep the one that can display a film when you are taking a soak in the tub. Without the expression exp[i(pi)] + 1 = 0 the damned thing would not work; i = sqrt(-1).