The Strange Spread of Climate Change Denial

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


George Monbiot, the Guardian columnist and global warming author who combines pugilistic defenses of climate science with Monty Pythonesque levity, is struck by a paradox at the heart of the attempt to achieve action here in Copenhagen. For, as he put it to a full room last night at a panel hosted by the Danish science magazine FORSKERForum, “In the past year, there has been a massive upsurge in climate change denial in the United States, even as the science gets stronger.”

Opinion polls certainly support Monbiot’s contention. According to results released in October by the Pew Research Center, considerably fewer Americans now believe the Earth is warming (the decline has been from 71 percent to 57 percent over the space of a year and a half). And as for agreement with scientists about the cause of global warming—human activities, human emissions—that too has sloped downwards, to just 36 percent today.

How is this possible?

In Monbiot’s view, the explanation goes to the heart of the word “denial”—the more dire the science gets, the less willing some are to face it. Moreover, Monbiot observed that the science of climate is so complex—and climate policy is even more so—that some prefer a “charming, simple lie,”—that global warming is bogus—to a hard and discomforting truth.

I was on the FORSKERForum panel with Monbiot, and when my turn came to speak, I gave a few additional explanations for the backslide in public opinion. One key factor has given climate denialists in the US an incredible amount of new momentum this year: a new president. It is much easier for conservatives to drum up anti-Obama outrage—fueled by a sense of political disenfranchisement and visceral rage—than it was to defend a lame duck Bush. When Bush was president, those of us calling for action on climate change (and exposing Bush administration climate scandals) had the strength of righteous outrage behind us. Now, the political dynamic has been entirely reversed.

As Monbiot further pointed out, the disturbing climate denial polls cited above came out before the “ClimateGate” email scandal, which has damaged US public attitudes about climate change even more. In fact, a Rasmussen poll taken after the news broke of the incident found that 59 percent of Americans consider it “at least somewhat likely” that scientists have falsified data to support the case for warming, while another 35 percent consider it “very likely.” Just 26 percent say “not very or not at all likely.” This is a truly appalling set of figures.

Against this backdrop, Monbiot had some fairly scathing words for the scientists whose messages were leaked in ClimateGate. He had already attacted controversy  by calling for climate scientist Phil Jones to step down from the Climate Research Unit, the organization at the center of the scandal. He now opined that although many of the emails are innocuous, “some of it is pretty bad.” He described himself as “very aggrieved with the scientists” involved and the way they have empowered the US-based denial industry.

Whether or not you agree with Monbiot’s take on ClimateGate (I think it is too strong), we can all lament the direction that public opinion is going on climate—the stats are shocking. At this point, the chief hope has to be that US political leaders, bolstered by advisors who understand the science, can hold the line at Copenhagen despite these tremors at home.

But there’s also a lesson here: There is no necessary correlation between stronger scientific evidence on global warming and stronger public recognition of the problem. Not on such a fraught issue; not with so much concerted effort to convince the public of the opposite view.

When the US team returns from Copenhagen, no matter what they have acheived, they may face an even more intense political battle at home.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate