The most common objection I’ve heard to a pro-action attitude is that the change may be in the natural order of the universe, that changes have happened before on grand scales. Who’s to say this is not just as natural. The assumption is that natural is good and that natural is outside the governance of we, the unnaturals. Later in the conversation I’m told that the human waste contribution to the mess is negligible, a melted drop in the bucket. But oh those cow emissions!

You left out: it’s the Chinese. Compared to what the Chinese pollute or are going to pollute as their economy grows, nothing we can do matters. The argument is so common that I would separate it from
3. Others are to blame. Behind the argument ad chinum (my latin is rusty: any help with the accusative case would be appreciated), is the assumption that “we” are acting and have always acted in good faith, while the Chinese will never act in good faith.

I think the characterisation of the objections makes lkfe far to easy for Mr Hillman. He would do better to address the strongest arguments of his opponents. One he left out is: ‘any action we take is as likelyuto have negative effects as beneficial ones, because we do not have the power to predict consequences in systems this complex’. This argument seems born out to some degree by the horible consequences of the corn ethanol policies, policies which, as many critics foresaw, are proving vert difficult to change because of vested interest in maintaining them.

A few thoughts on the list as it is though:

1. I don’t believe in climate change.
This seems dim but it is a very fringe belief. More common is ‘I don’t believe in AGW’. That is not a stupoid position, it is held by some people with s deep knowledge of climate and so it is a reasonable basis for inaction.

4. Various ad hominems directed at those calling for action.
There are ad hominemems and ad homionems. Noticving that many calling for green policies stand to gain substantially if they are adopted is not necessarily stupid and is bound to raise a degree of scepticism.

6. There’s nothing I can do about it.
Which is true, of course, and the killer argument.

8. There are more important problems to tackle.
This makes sense if you accept that there is nothing you can do about climate change. You would do better to tackle problems that are within your power to change.

But its not just climate change that people are in denial about. We could apply this same list to any number of moral issues like genocide in other countries, world poverty, animal suffering, and the like.

All of them may require us drastic ways of altering our lives. But we don’t.

Hello rtk. I’ve heard that one too. But obviously saying this happned before is both false (the pace of the change is new, as are the causes) and anyway not a good reason for doing nothing. We take action against natural disasters all the time.

Hello Amos. I think Hillman’s book puts China and India in to number 3. The thought is something like, if other people do harm, we might as well do harm too. Has that thought ever stood up anywhere else? Does bad behaviour on X’s part meant I get to be bad too?

“We live comfy lives at the expense of the poor and those who will come after us. ”

I don’t think this is true, by the way. We lead comfier lives than many, but not at their expense. It isn’t a zero sum game. The poor were not better off when we were poorer. And those that come after us are likely to be immeasurably richer than we are.

“The thought is something like, if other people do harm, we might as well do harm too. ”

No, that misrepresents it. The thought is more like: our changing eithout that India and China change will make us poorer with no benefit (the UK, for example, only produces about 2% of the world’s CO2 and we could probably only redice that to 1.75% in a best case scenario). And since those countries are manifestly unwilling to reduce carbon emissions, that makes the discussiona academic. It is the usual public goods dilemma.

Whoops, Hello John (we cross-posted).

I don’t think it is reasonable to think that climate change is not anthropogenic, but I suspect we’re going to disagree on that one.

I’ve heard the one about those calling for green policies standing to make a bit of cash, and maybe there’s something to it here and there, but I would have thought that coal companies et al stand to make a lot more by trying to talk us out of climate change. If you want to make money out of all of this, you won’t get it by joining Friends of the Earth (or I might add, writing a book on climate change). Anyway, even if someone does go on about green stuff to make money, that doesn’t mean what they’re saying is false.

I think you can get past the thought that there’s nothing you can do about it. But maybe we’ve all discussed this to death: http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=682.

Drat. This is all interesting, but you’re going to have to go on without me. I have to leave the office for a bit.

I have just read the linked article and it is a bit sinister. This paragraph simply assumes, without any supporting evidence, that any dissdent opinion is the expression of some kind of mild psychological disorder:

“Dr Myanna Lahsen, a cultural anthropologist at the University of Colorado, has specialised in understanding how professional scientists, some of them with highly respected careers, turn climate sceptic. She found the largest common factor was a shared sense that they had personally lost prestige and authority as the result of campaigns by liberals and environmentalists. ”

But how did she ‘find’ this? The scientists (these men and women with ‘highly respected careers’) will tell her that their opinions are based on a cold reading of the science. How can she tell otherwise? It doesn’t say. Surely it obvious that this sort of psychologising can easily swing both ways? And it rather makes a mockery of any complaint about ad hominems from the likes of O’Leary and Clarkson.

The green lobby would do better to counter the arguments of the sceptics (and when did that word become dirty in the world of science?) rather than smearing them like this.

“Anyway, even if someone does go on about green stuff to make money, that doesn’t mean what they’re saying is false.”

That’s true, but I wasn’t really referring to the sorts of people who do workshops on sustainable coppicing, but the polticians who want to direct more money into the hands of politicians and their industry friends by mouthing ‘AGW’. The corn ehtaniol debacle is a case in point. Millions wasted, a huge environmental and human disaster and nothing gained. But the policies stagger on.

And it is reasonable, on the data, to question AGW because there is no good way yet to test the hypothesis and we have far too little data (probably by a couple of hundred years) to properly speculate on the the correlation between CO2 emission by humans and temeperature change.

The Guardian article made good use of #4 against skeptical climatologists (who apparently are just jilted attention seekers doubly tainted by their popularity with right wing news outlets). That aside, it is obvious to me that most of the objections on the Hillman list are silly. However, while I’m no climatologist, and my facts come from Wikipedia, some of the objections, if the facts are correct, seem very strong to me.

Numbers 3 and 6 (which combined give us the ad chinum argument) seem like very good reasons for inaction if they are true (I don’t know if they are; 3 is probably false, 6 is a question best left to scientists), but what sort of action are we talking about? The nature of the excuses listed suggests that individual action is the issue at hand. Individual action on climate change (lifestyle choices like refusing to fly, etc) strikes me as ecological masturbation, which is to say that it makes the agent feel good ( kwik-e-martyrdom, as it were) but will do nothing to change a global process that, they say, is mainly driven by industry and coal-fired generating stations (Trusty ol’ Wikipedia says household and transportation uses account for 24%, 35% if we count fuel production). Focusing on individual action also leads to the very confusing objection #9, which I assume is often used as an argument against MORE action (?)

If we ALL saw this is a local, not a global problem, and changed accordingly, then the human-caused side of the problem would go away eventually, but I think it’s safe to say that we won’t all change and most countries in the world can’t afford to (though these are not the biggest contributors to the problem). So I’m not sure what we expect individuals to do to really help.

Moreover, the Ad Chinum argument (at its most sincere) does not assume good faith on anyone’s part, merely that China (and India and, as I can see from my window, Mongolia) produces and will produce so much greenhouse gas that reductions by other countries, while they may achieve moral absolution for the problem, will do little or nothing to mitigate it.

If it is true that developing countries will keep on cranking out greenhouse gases regardless of what the West does, (and here in Mongolia that seems like a very safe bet), then those of us in (or planning to return to) developed countries must decide if we want to actually solve the problem or merely excuse ourselves from it (which may be possible, since there was a time when very few of us knowingly chose to cause it). If we want to solve it we’ll need to do much more than ride bicycles and use canvas grocery bags.

So many ifs . . .

*Correction: Paragraph 2: “…Wikipedia says that household and transportation uses account for 24% of greenhouse gas emissions…”

Hi James,
My 2c . . .
One missing from your list is fatalism. If god meant it to happen then it will happen. I’ve heard this sentiment voiced about other things, such as, nuclear war.

James Garvey: “I don’t think it is reasonable to think that climate change is not anthropogenic, but I suspect we’re going to disagree on that one.”

We are; and we’ve been here before.

The number of scientists who do NOT accept the projections of the IPCC as valid is in, at least, the thousands.

BTW, I never turned “climate skeptic”. I always have been.

And the idea that I have “personally lost prestige and authority as the result of campaigns by liberals and environmentalists” is nonsense.

Hello All. Lots of thoughts to sift through here. Many thanks.

Regarding the existence of anthropogenic climate change and the consensus on that, I fear we’ll just end up in a link fight. I’ll leave it with this wikipedia article, which points to the 2007 IPCC reports and gives a long list of scientific bodies lining up in support of the findings of the IPCC. There are also some surveys of the peer-reviewed literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

John’s point about knowledge: ‘ any action we take is as likely to have negative effects as beneficial ones, because we do not have the power to predict consequences in systems this complex’. There are some things we do know. In as robust a sense of ‘know’ as you are likely to get in scientific circles, we know that temp rises above 2 degrees are, in the cautious language of the IPCC ‘associated with more negative impacts’. Models indicate that reducing GHG quickly results in lower temperatures (and at least a slower rise) and fewer of those negative impacts. Agreed it’s complicated, but it’s not as good-as-flipping-a-coin-so-why-bother complicated.

Our comfly lives at the expense of the poor - I do think there’s a connection between our living high on the cheap energy we get by burning fossil fuels, the heating up of the planet, and the difficult lives of those who end up paying for it in an unpleasant, future world. Lots of people think we can already see this sort of thing, as more and more parts of Africa and Asia become water stressed. Suppose we carry on with our high energy lives and things are bad in the future as a result . Then we really have lived well at the expense of others.

China and India and the rationality of acting without them - Agreed there are all sorts of troubles associated wtih collective as opposed to individual rationality here. But if you accept the view that governments have a moral obligation to reduce emissions (based on justice or present capacities or reflection on sustainability), then that obligation is there no matter what China or India do. If you have an obligation to tell the truth, you still have it even though some of your associates lie.

Hello Pat: For thoughts on 6, see an earlier post linked to above (10 March 10.33). I think there is a lot to the thought that much of what we do in our own lives is little more than ecological masturbation, perhaps you can talk yourself into the thought near to excuse 9 or 10. I do have mates who recycle a lot and then fly several times a year. Really doing something, in your own life, must involve more than token changes. Maybe I agree with John, in a backhanded way, that we haven’t fully worked out what to do.

“There are some things we do know … Models indicate that reducing GHG quickly results in lower temperatures (and at least a slower rise) and fewer of those negative impacts. Agreed it’s complicated, but it’s not as good-as-flipping-a-coin-so-why-bother complicated.”

You are right James, but your phrasing points up the problem: we only really know about the models. But the real problem is that we cannot foresee what the consequences of our attempts to reduce GHGs will be, it is far to complicated. If we had a magic lever, it would be different, but these things have to be done in social, political cvontexts which inevitably involve special interests struggling for power and money. So far the results have not been good: the example of corn ethanol keeps pushing itself forward.

“Suppose we carry on with our high energy lives and things are bad in the future as a result . Then we really have lived well at the expense of others. ”

But suppose we don’t and the results are continuing GW and immeasurably greater poverty? That is a perfectly possible result if the western countries take action while the Asian countries step up their energy consumption.

“But if you accept the view that governments have a moral obligation to reduce emissions (based on justice or present capacities or reflection on sustainability), then that obligation is there no matter what China or India do. ”

Mayber but I think the position is incoherent. The only moral obliogation a government can have is to contribute to the reduction of global emissions. Reducing emiissions, in itself, is neither good not bad, it is only the fact (if it is a fact) that the global aggregate is threatening that matters. It may be wrong to destroy the Amazon rainforest, but it does not, therefore, follow that it is wrong for me to cut down my plum tree.

There may be something to what John Meredith says about the polluting Chinese and Indians. We should be thinking about giving them an incentive to be good without also stopping being good ourselves. Like meat their products could have a sourcing certificate guaranteed Green (house) keeping Sign of Approval. Clean up tariffs could be added to the price of goods from filthy countries. Back this up with regular propaganda about dark satanic mills etc.

It’s all based in the ego. We don’t like to be wrong, and to admit that action needs to be taken requires us to admit an error in our ways and accept responsibility for it. No wonder the issue is facing such an uphill battle.

“moral authority and judge”

“It’s all based in the ego. We don’t like to be wrong, and to admit that action needs to be taken requires us to admit an error in our ways and accept responsibility for it. No wonder the issue is facing such an uphill battle.”

You must see that this cuts both ways? Supporters of the various AGW theories also have an emotional attachment to being right and a concommitant reluctance to revise their views.

‘You must see that this cuts both ways?’

Might be weird in both directions, for Feyerabendy reasons, but I can’t help thinking that I would be very glad to hear that there’s nothing to worry about in a way that maybe others are glad to think there’s nothing to worry about right now. No idea, really.

‘But the real problem is that we cannot foresee what the consequences of our attempts to reduce GHGs will be, it is far to complicated…’

The IPCC and a lot of others agree that reducing GHG emissions will lessen and slow the effects of climate change. The forecasts do associate more emissions with more warming, and more bad stuff with more warming.

The models and the causal chains modeled are complicated, but the results are robust and can be tested. Some models model a lot better than others. Anyway they are not so complicated as to make some choices more reasonable than others. The various emissions scenarios used by the IPCC to predict future temperatures depend very much on the choices we make now — choices having to do with the introduction of efficient technologies, economic growth, co-operation, etc. Certain worlds end up worse off than others.

I’m told by an excellent and very patient person at the Tyndall Centre that you can get a first order estimate about how things will be without a model and just with a few simple equations treating the energy balance of the planet. Despite his excellence, I still don’t quite get it, but I pass it on just in case others will.

Models are just models, and they hardly ever work for complex systems. Just look at how accurate the models for the global economy turned out to be, and an economy is massively less complex than a global climate.

But my main point was that it is meaningless to talk about reducing GHGs as if this can be done in a frictionless world without a real practical politics involved. It can’t, and, as we have already clearly seen, because the reductions have to be made in these infinitely complex and unpredictable political and social contexts we cannot safely predict what the consequences will be. It seems obvious now that government subsidy of ‘green’ corn ethanol would lead to rent seeking, corruption, hunger, even starvation. But it wasn’t obvious when it was being applauded as a brave piece of environmentalism. And I have not seen the supporters of this initiative accepting the blame for the suffering they caused, or even the increase in CO2 emissions.

That was just one case, but what reason do we have to believe that future governmental decisions will avoid those complications?

I probably don’t know enough about climate models (anyway they’re not the only grounds for forecasting), but the experiments conducted in them really do count as evidence for beliefs about the future of our climate. And they do seem to work. You can run them with past data and get them to predict past climate changes you already know about. You can chuck in a volcano and see if the model responds as it should. And I think models really can take account of the friction you mention. Anyway, maybe I’m wandering off the original topic. And Jeremy seems to be picking a fight with humanists, which looks like it might be fun to watch.

“The models and the causal chains modeled are complicated, but the results are robust and can be tested.”

“I probably don’t know enough about climate models…” No, you don’t.

Okay…

From the IPCC (2007) report, with respect to Australia:

“In addition, no detailed assessment of MMD model performance over Australia or New Zealand is available, which hinders efforts to establish the reliability of projections from these models.”

“There are relatively few studies of the quality of the MMD global model simulations in the Australia-New Zealand area.”

“Averaged across northern Australia, the median model error is 20% more precipitation than observed, but the range of biases in individual models is large (–71 to +131%). This is discouraging with regard to confidence in many of the individual models.”

In fact, for much of Australia, about half the models predict an increase in precipitation and the other half a decrease.

A couple of recent papers:

“Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported .” Hydrological Sciences 53(4), August 2008

“Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs.” International Journal of Climatology, December 2007

And note that for the last ten years (since 1998) there has been no appreciable warming, something not predicted by any of the models.

Finally, our (Australian) CSIRO put this at the end of one of their reports on “projections” of what will happen:

“Disclaimer: The projections are based on results from computer models that involve simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO for the accuracy of the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person’s interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this information.” CSIRO (2001) Climate change projections for Australia.

“I probably don’t know enough about climate models…” No, you don’t.

Well all right. I didn’t say the bastard things were crystal balls. There are a lot of people running and fine tuning a lot of models. Probably they disagree with each other sometimes about some things. It would be weird if they didn’t. The stuff in the WG1summary is based on a survey of the peer reviewed climate model studies, and that doesn’t disagree about temperature increases being tied to human activity or about bad stuff happening the warmer it gets.

I’m not sure what the issue is anymore, but if it’s excuse 1 somehow connected with the thought that the human contribution to climate change is in doubt based on doubts about climate modelling, then I’m not sure I can do more than point to the IPCC and others who go along with it.

If the question is whether or not we should act on climate change, and the thought is no, because the climate / politics / human nature is too complex to make our predictions worth acting upon, again I don’t think that’s true, and partly for empirical reasons.

The IPCC and others (like the Tyndall Centre) go on a lot about ‘negative impacts’ associated with business as usual, and fewer negative impacts associated with a leveling off and reduction of GHGs in the atmosphere. They say a lot about mitigation and adaptation, about social and technological changes for example which are likely to make a difference. Again, I can only point at the empirical stuff.

The epistemological / ethical question, ought we act in the face of uncertainty, has lots of interesting philosophical wrinkles, though. I think Nietzsche says, against utilitarianism, that one only sees 5 steps ahead. It’s been said, in response, that acting on the basis of likely outcomes just is rational action. I suppose if we really were as blinkered as Fritz thought — if we are as blinkered as maybe you think when it comes to something as big as the climate — then maybe it’s true that one might as well flip a coin.

In lots of instances, even with regard to large social changes which aim at reducing GHGs or adapting to the changes ahead, it’s not that bad. Maybe it’s true that withdrawing old lightbulbs in UK will result in some presently unknown horror, but if it looks like a good idea based on the evidence I’ve got, you can’t blame me for thinking it’s the right thing to do. The IPCC’s stuff on mitigation and adaptation just is a survey of the relevant literature and conclusions based on the available evidence. There are thoughts there, regional and global suggestions for action which might head off the worst of climate change and help us adapt to the changes we cannot prevent.

It’s possible that this is all wrong, and possible that it will result in some disaster, but those possibilities are not grounds for doing nothing.

“…then I’m not sure I can do more than point to the IPCC and others who go along with it.”

But my Australian examples ARE what the IPCC says: they are from the 2007 report.

“I’m not sure what the issue is anymore, but if it’s excuse 1 somehow…”

Excuse 1 is “I don’t believe in climate change” which is just plain foolish. I do NOT think, based on reviewing the evidence and doing a lot of reading, that our greenhouse gases are likely to be having a major influence on climate change. NOR do I think that climate models currently make reliable predictions.

The issue was that the evidence for climate change (caused by humans) was so overwhelming that anyone questioning it was in psychological “denial”, behaving irrationally, and offering any excuse, no matter how flimsy, that allowed them to keep doing what they wanted to.

In my view, this is actually Excuse 4 being used by climate change “believers”.

I could say that all you “believers” are so wedded to your apocolyptic view of the future that you are in “denial” about the possibility that you might be wrong.

Now I could say that, but I do not see how it actually advances the debate in any meaningful fashion.

I might be misreading you, but you do sound a little angry, Keith. I didn’t mean to come across as annoying. No ad hominems, honest.

I don’t think, anyway, that a person would have to be mentally ill to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change. But I do think there is a part of the debate which might be advanced if we could understand why so many lay people seem to reject out of hand evidence that vast numbers of qualified experts take to be overwhelming. Why do some people form beliefs based on no evidence or just partial evidence, rather than the large and authoritative work of the IPCC and the many serious bodies who line up behind it? Denial is well-understood in other quarters, and I thought it might be worth considering here. Seems to fit.

It sounds like you are an exception, as you have done a lot of reading and thinking and then rejected the evidence for a human hand in the changing climate. I think that’s a little unusual too, as the IPCC call the evidence for AGW ‘unequivocal’. Maybe there’s nothing ‘out of hand’ in your rejection of that evidence. But I’m not sure what to say about it. Probably I was targetting someone else, a person who hasn’t done much thinking but is in a straightforward sort of denial.

There might be good reasons for someone who knows the evidence to reject it anyway, but probably that has to do with perhaps new evidence or different readings of the existing evidence or other kinds of empirical matters. I can maybe only refer such a person to someone who knows the evidence better than I do and can judge the new information or interpretation better than I can.

James,

1) I am not angry, not even a little.

2) You keep referring to the IPCC as if they were the last word on this issue: almost as if the IPCC says it is so, then it must be so. There are scientists who contribute to the IPCC reports who do not agree with the more alarmist conclusions. There are scientists who have resigned from the IPCC because they regard its processes as overly politicised.

3) The IPCC makes statements, such as it is “90% certain that something or other”, which have no sound basis whatsoever. I write as a practising scientist with some 25 years experience in field ecology and numerous publications.

4) There may well be people who are in “denial”. I was merely pointing out that those who believe in the more apocolyptic versions of climate change could be categorised as such just as easily as those who deny climate change completely. (I do not.)

5) There are large numbers of experts who do not accept that human greenhouse gases are having a major, and catastrophic, effect on climate. They just do not get the same airtime as those pushing the catastrophic version.

1) Good!

2) I don’t think things are true because the IPCC says so, but I do think what the IPCC says is the current scientific understanding of what’s happening to the climate, and I think the general scientific consensus is quite emphatically that there is a human hand in climate change.

Even though there might be some dissenting voices, I’m still with all these people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

3) There’s a lot written by the IPCC about what they mean by ‘likely’, ‘almost certain’, etc. Maybe you disagree with their thinking here. I don’t know enough to say much about it.

4) I don’t think those who buy into the horrible stuff and those who deny the existence of climate change are in the same psychological boat. Agreed there are many shades of thinking here.

For example, one might think there is a possibility that Greenland will melt entirely over time and think that this possibility becomes more and more live the more warming there is. If it goes completely, there could be consequences for the sea level — possibly also consequences for the Gulf Stream. You can think all that because of the evidence considered by WG1. You can form your beliefs in the light of evidence. Such a person is not in denial of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as perhaps a complete sceptic might be. Such a person also does not think the big melt is now inevitable, as maybe Lovelock does in his darker moments.

You can think what you think based on empirical findings, rather than leaping to a conclusion based on little or no evidence, just a desire to avoid a hard conclusion.

5. I’m not sure there are large numbers of real live experts who don’t buy into AGW. (That list of people both considered by the IPCC and behind it is large, more or less every relevant scientific body of every nation.) I have seen lots of lists of experts, the dubious one produced by Inhofe, for example. But if anything, I would have thought that people who reject the mainstream have had plenty of air time. There were years and years of ‘balanced’ reporting, with both sides receiving equal coverage.

Anyway, I think I’m wandering into the science of climate change and the fact of AGW, and others might do better at convincing you. The ethics and the psychology of it, both futher down stream from the science, are more interesting to me.

“Anyway, I think I’m wandering into the science of climate change and the fact of AGW, and others might do better at convincing you.”

I agree.

“The ethics and the psychology of it, both futher down stream from the science, are more interesting to me.”

Yes…but I think doubts about the reality of AGW hinder evaluations of the ethics and psychology. This is not such a problem for other issues.

For some dissenting voices, see here (there are other such petitions; this is one of the earliest and largest):
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

On potenital problems with wiki, see here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

(Please note that I don’t believe everything that “deniers” write, any more than I believe everything that “believers” write.)

I think the psychology can be summed as as “people want closure”. Right or wrong.

Climate is a complex problem. A dynamic non-linear chaotic problem. Without an analytic solution, good approximation, or even ability to completely define.

We are bombarded with endless “the sky is falling”. The weather, the middle east, nuclear war, bird flu, tsunamis, earthquakes, Yellowstone supervolcano, meteor strike, the stock market, etc. All vying for our attention.

In this arena, where does global warming rank? A gradual WARMING? Pretty near the bottom.

Total thermonuclear war is a real possibility. The weapons exist. They have been tested. They are deadly. All the global warming stuff is kind of nebulous. Maybe this, maybe that. And a hundred years in the future.

Can I or my children adapt to some nicer weather? Yeah. Easily. How about a nuclear wasteland. Probably not. What should I worry about?

Any questions?

Not sure if anyone is still reading this, but I had a chance to follow the links above, Keith. I didn’t know you meant the Oregon petition, which I thought died the death. There are a lot of reasons to be suspicious of it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

I promise to stop with the links and leave it alone now. I’m sure we could go back and forth like this for ages.

Re nukes, oracle2world, I agree that nuclear weapons should be on our list of worries. But the question is, are such worries grounds for an argument for doing nothing about climate change? I see that maybe what you are up to is something else, perhaps finding some causes of apathy. Probably you are right.

[...] James Garvey created an interesting post today on The Psychology of Climate Change DenialHere’s a short outlineThe Psychology of Climate Change Denial There’s some interesting work going on in Bristol at the weekend, a conference on the psychology of climate change (there’s an article in Guardian.co.uk about it, called ‘Jeremy Clarkson and Michael O’Leary won’t listen to green cliches and complaints about polar bears&… Read the full post from blog.talkingphilosophy.com Tags: In The News, Philosophy, Ethics via Blogdigger blog search for Articles on Facebook. [...]

What you are looking at in people who deny climate change is psychopathy, and it is probably largely genetic. resistance to truth expecially truths of conscience is a major symptom of this illness. I wont put my full name as I don’t want to be sued, but Jeremy Clarkson is a rather ill psychopath. Not a throw away remark, it’s the truth. he lacks conscience, and also he revels in seeing other people being belittled - a psychopathic trait. what we need is a psychology of receptiveness to truth, which is what I am working on, even though the likes of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace were largely too naive to understand what I was getting at. Hence presently I go it alone through my website, as listed here….all the best

acting on climate change means taking inconvenient responsibility, and that is just the thing the psychopath hates the most. So people who deny climate change are simply psychopaths. But it’s genetic too. Being selfish is a good survival trait, so all the climate change deniars, like jeremy clarkson and tery wogan, are doing is following their gentic programming to survive. it’s all in me book! ultimately the solution is we have to be receptive to truth…so we have to have the grail as a symbol of receptiveness…..oh gosh, do go and buy my book! happy questing, alex caldon

It seems to me (admittedly a non-professional in the field of psychology) that the critical driving emotion for climate change denialists is that of fear, which in extreme cases results in a particular defensive behaviour in those who are unable to face facts, which I suggest be called Delusional Denial Syndrome (DDS).

DDS tends to override rational thought, practical risk evaluation and basic common sense in sufferers, and replaces them with a comforting cocoon of quasi-religious “belief” in anything that alleviates their deep anxiety, no matter how unproven, unlikely or outlandish (such as wild conspiracy theories).

I feel that urgent study is needed into this troublesome area of human psychology, because unfortunately it appears that no amount of scientific evidence or rational argument will make a jot of difference in avoiding the wasted time and energy spent trying to deal with such sociopathic denialism, efforts that would be much better spent on positive action towards climate change avoidance and mitigation.