Arguments
How climate science deniers can accept so many 'impossible things' all at once
Posted on 23 September 2016 by Guest Author
Sometimes, climate science deniers will tell you that we can’t predict global temperatures in the future. Sometimes, they’ll say we’re heading for an ice age.
Occasionally, contrarians will say that no single weather event can prove human-caused global warming. But then they’ll point to somewhere that’s cold, claiming this disproves climate change.
Often, deniers will tell you that temperature records show that global warming stopped at some point around 1998. But also they’ll insist that those same temperature records can’t be relied on because Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are all communist corruption monkeys. Or something.
Black is also white. Round is also flat. Wrong is also right?
A new research paper published in the journal Synthese has looked at several of these contradictory arguments that get thrown around the blogosphere, the Australian Senate and the opinion pages of the (mostly) conservative media.
The paper comes with the fun and enticing title: “The Alice in Wonderland mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism.”
Why Alice? Because, as the White Queen admitted: “Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
The three authors, including Dr John Cook, of the University of Queensland, look at both rhetorical and scientific arguments put by deniers.
One example is the popular theme that casts “sceptics” as “dissenting heroes” who bravely oppose “political persecution and fraud”. You know, like modern-day Galileos.
But the authors write that deniers will also try and convince the public that there is no consensus among scientists about the causes of climate change (there is and it’s us). They write:
Either there is a pervasive scientific consensus in which case contrarians are indeed dissenters, or there is no consensus in which case contrarian opinions should have broad support within the scientific community and no fearless opposition to an establishment is necessary.
The authors unleash similar jujitsu-style logic on other contradictory arguments and give examples of where the same individuals have apparently argued against themselves.
One of the authors’ examples of incoherent logic comes from the Australian geologist and mining industry figure Prof Ian Plimer and his 2009 book, Heaven and Earth – a book favourably cited by the likes of the former prime minister Tony Abbott and Cardinal George Pell.
On page 278, Plimer writes that “temperature and CO2 are not connected” but, on page 411, writes that “CO2 keeps our planet warm”.
According to the authors, their examples of “incoherence” only hold together in the minds of the deniers if you apply types of glue known as “conspiracist ideation” and “identity-protective cognition”.
So what’s that all about?
Conspiracist ideation, or conspiratorial thinking, is the tendency to entertain suggestions: for example that Nasa and the Bureau of Meteorology are conspiring to deliberately manipulate temperature data just to make global warming seem worse than it really is, rather than to correct for known issues.
An example of “identity-protective cognition” in this case, the authors explain, is where people who advocate for small governments and “free markets” face a dilemma.
Accepting the scientific consensus would likely see increased levels of regulation, which challenges their identity as free-market advocates. So instead, the authors argue, the only options open are to either deny the consensus or try and discredit it.
Because cutting GHG emissions requires interventions – such as regulation or increased taxation – that interfere with laissez-faire free-market economics, people whose identity and worldview centres around free markets are particularly challenged by the findings from climate science.
Lead author Prof Stephan Lewandowsky, an expert in cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, has written several research papers finding links between the rejection of science, “conspiracist ideation” and the belief in free market economic principles.
One argument that deniers may try with this Synthese paper is that climate scientists also contradict each other and have offered several explanations for the supposed global warming “pause” or “slowdown” (this was never really a thing).
Lewandowsky told me:
Click here to read the rest from Graham Readfearn in the Guardian
Good points. I have seen climate change sceptics make these contradictory arguments in books and articles, and they are dumbfounding.They either dont have the wit to see they are being contradictory, or they just don’t care. It’s war by throwing as much mud as possible hoping enough will stick.
The basic climate scepticism may have various origins. As the article says, some people promote small government and are anti government regulation almost by instinct, and this possibly colours their views against emissions taxes etc, and so they try to discredit the science. I think their unconscious world view is colouring their immediate reactions to the science.
However anti government regulation agendas have a political, business and ideological basis only. Economists mostly accept markets dont adequately self regulate, to protect the environment and that laws are needed. Even Nixon sensibly introduced environmental laws.
Oh really? Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $493 billion in 2014, with subsidies to oil products representing over half of the total. Those subsidies were over four-times the value of subsidies to renewable energy. That proves 2 things. 1 is that the whole "free market" thing is already a complete myth. 2 There is not necessarily any need for increased taxation. Just take the EXACT same subsidies already being spent and put them on renewables instead. Theorectically if you were a die hard "free market" guy you could even just lower taxation by eliminating Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies. Lower taxes to promote renewable energy seems quite an easy sell to Conservatives IMHO. It's way better than subsidizing fossil fuels, so should go over pretty well with Liberals too.
The mistake of course being the premise is wrong. It's got nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It only happens because corrupt politicians need to repay the campaign contributions they received. quid pro quo.
It is true that conservatives SELL this as their attempts to keep taxes and regulations down. The liberals SELL this as a needed increase in taxation and regulation. The truth is it is EXACTLY the opposite. The ONLY difference is which side of the aisle the spin doctors who write this kind of propaganda are working with. Liberals like to hear liberal slanted spins, and conservatives like to hear conservative slanted spins. Nothing more than confirmation bias from both sides.
Red Baron @2
I think the article is basically right. Small government free market ideologists are often climate change sceptics in my experience. Conservatives and Republicans do tend to be small government and against regulation. Remember Ronald Reagon?
Of course they can also be hypocrites, and happy to subsidise things or support certain types of regulations when it suits. Your post has only really proven they are hypocrites.
However I agree about oil subsidies. This is totally unjustified policy, as the oil industry does not need subsidies! And both Democrats and Republicans appear guilty of supporting these. As you say it’s too do with campaign financing and repaying favours and this is all most unfortunate.
The first point to question is whether climate denial is really a global conspiracy. Unbless this is provable then the study is itself indulging in conspiratorial thinking.
[JH] Your comment is on the cusp of being nonsensical sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy.
A revenue-neutral carbon fee,such as the one being proposed by Citizens' Climate Lobby, will allow the free market to decide how to cut emissions without increasing the size of government.
One of the "best" examples of the incoherence found in climate science denial - and Graham Readfearn mentions it briefly - is Ian Plimer at odds with himself even within the same book and often just a few pages apart. We have a page at Skeptical Science just for that and it's too good not be shared here. So, check out "Plimer vs. Plimer"!
Art Vandelay - No conspiracy required for a group with common outlooks to engage in similar arguments, including similar disconnects between contradictory claims due to the result being more important than the reasoning...
Pity most deniers don't have a little more science in their quiver. It is good to have someone to keep us on our toes. For the most part, their arguments are too easily shot down. Mind you, look at how many people believe in a kindly old gentleman sitting on a cloud and knowing our (all 7b of us)every thought. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Climate change denial hardly even rates against that level of self dillusion.
Art Vandelay @4
Art says "The first point to question is whether climate denial is really a global conspiracy. Unbless this is provable then the study is itself indulging in conspiratorial thinking"
Where did the article suggest a global conspiracy? It didn't and only referred to conspiratorial modes of thinking. Your comment is a classic strawman argument. This is interesting as climate change sceptics constantly use strawman arguments. For example "the warmists said the world would be underwater by now, and it isn't so clearly AGW is a hoax". Of course they never said the world would be underwater by now, but seeds of confusion have been sown.
Climate sceptics have no interest in the truth, only in muddying the waters and spreading doubt. We need honest scepticism that keeps everyone on their toes, not misleading sludge.
Nijelj @9 "Where did the article suggest a global conspiracy?"
Nigel, no it doesn't state that directly but it does appear to imply that Deniers are a collective that present an incoherent message.
Obviously, a structured and organised denier 'collective' doesn't exists, but I also think it's a bit dangerous to refer to "deniers" as a homogenous collective. Within the denier camp, to use the popular label. there exists a diversity of opinion, reflective of the large number of individuals and their personal views.
Of course I comletely agree that it's valid to single out prominent individuals whose messgae is inconsistent, such as Plimer.
Art@10,
Which part of the article talks about climate science deniers as "homogenous collective"? I think your opinion does not apply to this study. To quote the OP, this study only tries to find the reason for climate science denial by claiming that:
i.e. this is the study about the cognition machanisms behind the examples of denial and not the classification of the types of denial. Your suggestion about deniers being treated as "homogenous collective" is obviously groundless IMO, therefore there is no "danger" here.
Art Vandelay @10
Fair enough in general. However there is simply no homogenous collective implied and Chriskoz has summed it up. It is just a tendency for some sceptics to engage in conspiratorial thinking like "climate change is a socialist scam" and Trumps absurd claims that climate change all originated with the Chinese as a way to destroy American industry.
However I agree there are many reasons for climate scepticism including vested business interests, ignorance about science, a contrarian nature, genuine doubts about the science, a desire to be different and get noticed, loving your car, and political ideologies. Its a complex interplay of things, that probably varies from individual to individual.
We are of course looking for one core underlying reason for climate change scepticism, because thats what humans do. We look for reasons and we try to simplify and usually a chain of actions has some important core driving function, with other factors superimposed.
Political ideologies may be the core underlying reason for climate scepticism, but Im not 100% sure. I mean conservatism and small government, versus liberalism and an acceptance that economies need to be regulated, especially relating to environmental issues.
I have read Plimers book "Heaven and Hell". It is indeed contradictory, and also has several graphs that form the core feature of his argument. It's intereting that the graphs have no sources noted, and seem to show temperature trends and other trends quite different from the mainstream material I have seen.
We have this particular radio talkback host / radio broadcaster in my country who is an extreme climate change sceptic. He holds all the following contradictory arguments and new ones are added quite regularly: Climate change is a socialist scam, climate change is political correctness (whatever this means), climate change is all due to solar activity, we are probably altering the climate but only slightly, we could be altering the climate quite a bit, but theres nothing we can do about it.
There are many more but I have forgotten. I'ts just amazing and yet this guy is basically reasonably intelligent, although he does admit he is weak on science.
The only conclusion I can draw is that this person has determined he simply doesn't believe we are altering the climate on "gut reaction" and trusts his "gut" above all else.
He also has deep political suspicions of the green movement, and sees the whole climate issue as an ideological war. And in ideological wars rationality and consistency is the first victim.
Art Vandelay @10, the issues you raise are discussed in the paper explicitly under section 1.4. In that section the authors point out that they have documented instances of incoherence in the positions of several individuals in Table 2, including Plimer (3 examples), Christy (1 example), Watts (2 examples) and Monckton (3 examples). Their table 2 is certainly not exhaustive in the cases of Plimer, Watts and Monckton, and is from my experience not exhaustive as to individuals demonstrating this sort of incoherence.
Further, they argue that even if the incoherence were within the group, but not within particular individuals, "...there are several reasons why this would not be reflective of “healthy debate” or “scientific diversity”". They go on:
Obviously you should read the full text in the original rather than my quote alone, as I have ellided much of the text for brevity.
For myself, I have often noted within the "skeptical" community a tendency by individuals to comment appreciatively on any claim purported to refute AGW, even when such claims contradict the favoured theory of the individual. That indicates fairly clearly to me that the purpose of the theories advanced is not to vindicate those theories, but to "refute" AGW. If in fact the proponents of the diverse theories of AGW denial were primarilly motivated by the science, those who thought warming was caused by the rise in GHG, but that climate sensitivity was low would have as much of a problem with those who thought the warming was primarilly due to the Sun as do proponents of AGW, and similarly with those who thought the recent temperature increase was due to the PDO or AMO. Instead, there behaviour clearly indicates that they reject AGW, and will give a favourable reception to almost any theory that similarly rejects AGW, even when that theory is as incoherent with, or more inchorent with their own theory than it is with AGW. (This might be considered an aspect of the authors second point quoted above, but I think it is different.)
All that said, there are two fuzzy divides within the AGW denial community. First, there is that between those who reject the possibility of an enhanced greenhouse effect altogether, and those who do not. This is illustrated by another of Anthony Watts incoherences, for while he rejects the label "denier" as applied to himself as being a deliberate, and odious moral comparison with holocaust deniers (rather than an indication that his doubt is based on pseudoscience), he is happy to call the "dragon slayers", ie, those deniers who reject an enhanced greenhouse effect entirely deniers). The weaker barrier is between deniers who reject any possibility of AGW being either significant or harmful, and those who merely insist it will be moderate (ie, that the mean Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity lies between 1 and 3 C, and that increased damage with increased GMST is low). These categories are fuzzy because not all deniers accept that one or either category represents a significant division in the community, and because a number of those in the second category deliberately misrepresent their position by labelling it as belonging to the third category. It should be noted in passing that not all members of the third category, the "luke warmers" are in fact deniers, ie, those whose rejection of AGW shows the hallmarks of pseudoscience.
I think the article makes a very good point. If the root of denial is a strong distaste for any measure that might mitigate climate change, then it doesnt matter to the denier really what the argument is, so long as it prevents any action. Many deniers are happy to take "its not happening; its not us; its not bad and its too hard to fix" positions simultaneously.
There are other dimensions to denial, falling under the umbrella term 'implicatory denial'. The one that gets most attention is rejection of the responses to AGW - regulation, government roles, shutdown of the FF industries that have obvious consequenses that can disturb people.Call this world-view implications of the responses
But there is another dimension that gets less attention. The impact for various peoples world-views that AGW is possible at all. This is often seen in ideas like 'It is arrogant to think that humanity can impact something as big as the climate', or 'God wouldn't make a world where that is possible' etc. etc...
It is easy to think that this second type of denial is actually a cover, a rationalisation for the first type. When quite possibly this second dimension may actually be the stronger world-view driver for denial. How does the old saying go, 'Man does not live by bread alone'? Surely there could be many people who have deep-seated world-views, such as religious ones, that are profoundly challenged by the implications of AGW even being possible.
This is just the latest in a long history of discoveries in science that deeply challenge traditional, millenia old, perhaps even genetically based world-views.
We often don't grasp just how science has disconnected us from our historical roots. In not much more than 1 century, 2 at most, we have become aliens on our own planet compared to all the 1000's of generations of our ancestors before then. A Neanderthal, a early Australian Aborigine, the builders of the Great Wall of China, an ancient Sumerian, a jew from the time of Christ, a Mayan farmer, a medieval blacksmith, an 18th century miller, still much of the world today. All of them would utterly understand each other and their shared sense of the world vastly more than they could ever understand Homo Scientensis.
Not surprising really that some people don't react very well or rationally. Science keeps pulling the entire carpet of meaning out from under them.
Why do some people deny climate science? There are clearly several possibilities including religion, but I do think the main one is as follows:
Some people are driven by strong personal greed, worries about costs being imposed on them, so they deny the science and gravitate to small government / conservative leaning parties. (Which creates a strong political dimension to the whole issue that can't be avoided. Polls show a preponderance of climate denialism in conservative leaning parties)
Proof: If climate change could be fixed at no cost, there would be almost no denialists.
Glen Tamblyn @16
Very true. For centuries people believed certain thngs were fixed and absolute, particularly moral beliefs. Science has shown nothing is fixed except the laws of physics and speed of light. It sure pulls the rug out, and leaves us making decisions on the basis of what seems best for most.
From th econtradictions refernece in the paper to SKs website.
The following table lists skeptic arguments that contradict each other. Please feel free to submit a new pair of contradicting arguments.
CO2 is just a trace gas - CO2 is plant food -John Cook
How do those 2 statements contradict each other?
This statement is one of the highlighted examples used in the paper.
Both these statements are "true". (essential for photosynthesis and ~0.04% of the atmosphere) perhaps John can explain why he thinks sceptics saying - CO2 is plant food - contradicts - CO2 is a trace gas. even if the same individual is saying it?
@Barry,
I can't answer for John, but I can submit my take on it. Those two are not contradictory on the surface, but climate deniers often use both in a contradictory context. ie CO2 is a plant food so more is better, and since CO2 is a trace gas more doesn't change the system to make it warm. It is too small a trace to effect anything.
In this case, climate deniers try to claim both that CO2 is increasing enough to effect plant growth positively, and at the same time claim CO2 is at such low levels, and we emit such a small % of that small %, it cant effect anything. It is self contradictory.
Context is everything. It is true that there is such a thing as the CO2 fertilization effect. It is one of many feedbacks. Unfortunately this feedback is not large enough to prevent CO2 from rising to levels that are causing global warming.
That interpretation seems to be focusing of the use of more, ie more trace gas may benefit plants, but more co2 won't give a huge rise in temps.. these are 2 different topics... both could be true (even if not) not contradictory statements.. It is not contradictory use of more..
If we have to guess what John means, perhaps he could add, what he means in the comment part of contradictions page..
Additionally nobody it seems to be immune from contradictions, from the paper itself..
Lewandowsky, John Cook, Lloyd-Springer Philosphy. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6
A contradictory statement relates to the use of denialist, within a single paper: 3 statement are:
The fourth use in a footnote, which states that:
They seem a little confused about who are the people who are incoherent and contradictory, by both simultaneously labelling/categorising a whole group of people as denialist or deniers, but simultaneously stating that they do no such thing. Perhaps John Cook can comment.
[JH] Your privilege of posting comments on this website has been rescinded.
Barry Woods, the "skeptical" use of the claim that CO2 is a trace gas as an argument goes from that premise directly to the conclusion that, either, CO2 cannot generate a greenhouse effect, or that changes in CO2 are too small in level to result in any change in the climate. There are not intermediate steps, or additional premises. "Skeptics" using that argument are therefore commited to the validity of the argument form:
"X is a trace quantity" ⇒ "X can have not impact on Y" for arbitrary Y.
However, if we take this argument form and substitute "Atmospheric CO2" for X, and "the growth of plants" for Y, we have an immediate counter example to the argument. As some "skeptics", including the provider of the sample quote in the "CO2 is a Trace Gas" rebutal, both assert the implicit argument and that CO2 is necessary for plants to stay alive; they both endorse the argument by use, and contradict it in another context.
[JH] Please know that all of Barry Wood's future posts will be summarily deleted.
Tom Curtis @14 says, "For myself, I have often noted within the "skeptical" community a tendency by individuals to comment appreciatively on any claim purported to refute AGW, even when such claims contradict the favoured theory of the individual."
Perhaps this can also be explained by the "rolling the dice" analogy, where individuals may see 'dangerous global warming' as just one of a number of possible outcomes with near equally probability, as well as the only outcome that necessitates a global coordinated response. Bear in mind too that the average person on the street possesses a limited understanding of the physics behing the theory of AGW, and if the denialist movement (assumed movement) is a collective of persons of average (high school level) science knowledge, the incoherence is more explainable at the collective level.
Which brings us to the issue of 'world view'. If the global coordinated response presents a threat to the comfortable existence of an individual then it's a natural human response for that individual to (attempt to) reject that response and the very basis on which it's constructed.
For myself, a libertarian, I see the AGW response as a threat only if it demands a fully government controlled and regulated response ahead of a (partly regulated) free market response. IOW, global socialism.
Actually, my world view supports AGW action because I regard free market economics as best able to deliver timely energy solutions, and if necessary, engineering solutions to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere, and I'm confident that a free market approach will ultimately prevail anyway.
Other free marketeers see it differently of course.
Obviously, in the future there needs to be a pathway to sustainability, independent of GHG emissions.
Art Vandelay @23, while I cannot exclude the "rolling the dice" model for all "skeptics", I see little evidence that "skeptics" in general consider AGW one from amongst many (nearly) equally probable alternatives. Some, it is true, may consider many alternatives to AGW equally probable, while being very firm that AGW can only be believed as the result of a conspiracy theory to fraudulently alter data. Most common, from my observation, however, is the firmly expressed belief that:
X ⇒ ¬AGW, for the given anti AGW theory X, currently being presented; and that therefore ¬AGW.
That is, they are happy to apply modus ponens with equal enthusiasm for each and every anti-AGW argument presented, even though that commits them logically to the truth of each of those anti-AGW arguments, which are in turn form mutually contradictory set.
Further, I have seen a number happy to reason in that flawed manner while also boasting of their scientific credentials (including many engineers, doctors, not a few BScs).
As to the theory of motivated reasoning, I am certain it is a factor, but it is never justified. Further, as an explanation it fits nicely with Lewandowski, Cook and Lloyd (2016).
If you can see an effective solution to mitigation of CO2 that the libertarians can live with, then please share in detail on this thread. Fresh ideas are extremely welcome.
" a fully government controlled and regulated response ahead of a (partly regulated) free market response. IOW, global socialism."
Frankly this sounds like over-ripe rhetoric. Did the Montreal Protocol usher in global socialism? Does a global agreement on a Pigovian tax signal the end of free-market economies?
I hear Sanders (who seems centre-left politico to me) described as "socialist" which to me suggests Americans have a very different definition of socialism to that in politcal theory textbooks and used by wider world. It is being invoked as a bogeyman by people who are mindlessly binding to an ideology and demanding reality conform to that rather than ideology to reality. Can you get pills for that do you think?
Also implicite in this, is idea that say a carbon tax is "a threat to the comfortable existence of an individual" but rapid climate change isnt. Libertarians are big on rights - how do you feel about the negative consequences of one persons comfortable existance being born by someone else entirely? I nurse the strong suspicion that many "Liberaterians" are actually just extremely selfish people concerned with nobodies rights but their own, but I am well aware of thoughtful rights-repecting individuals too that do worry about things like one person's smoke harming another.
IMO, you dont even need a global agreement. If big consumer economies, (US, western europe) implemented pigovian carbon tax and taxed carbon at the border (on embodied energy of goods created with FF), then that would have the same effect.