I’ve decided it’s time for me to weigh in on climate change.

I’ve silently sat behind my screen (phone and computer…sometimes both at once), holding onto my opinions, and my fingers. Occasionally I’ll let something sneak out, filling me with dread and anticipation.

Oh great, now “they” will attack me with both barrels.

“They” being the staunch deniers. Typically characterised by a right-wing conservatism and capitalist stereotype.

Honestly, I’ve been a little scared. I’ll admit it. I’ve seen how aggressive and cruel people can be (on both sides). It’s an issue that so many people are passionate about. Including me. And it’s polarizing.

But I’m not about to regurgitate a whole set of so called “facts” to try and convince everyone of my opinion. What I’m really interested in, is the psychology behind why people are so passionate. Including me. Why are people generally so fused with their beliefs and opinions, refusing to tolerate and at times even respect those who sit on the other side of the issue? In doing so, we have taken the “human” element out of something that potentially, could change humanity as we know it, regardless of which side of the fence you sit.

Let’s begin by looking at the language that is often used in the media.

“Scientists claim Climate Change is a fact”

“Humans; The cause of climate change”.

In fact, scientists claim nothing of the sort. This is media hype. Pure and simple. Let me explain;

1.     “Science” does not deal with facts. It deals with probabilities. It’s not black and white, and does not PROVE anything. It finds the most likely theory to explain an observation.

2.     Scientific knowledge about climate change will always be incomplete. Nature is not a static concept. We need to accept the uncertainly and fluidity of nature.

3.     “Climate” by definition refers to patterns, not a single event. As such, climate change research is longitudinal and seeks to understand patterns over time and provide likely interpretations that fit the current evidence, which is always evolving.

4.     Science is adversarial. Scientist love to argue, and test each other’s theories. Scientific consensus is quite rare, and develops over considerable time, after much testing and re-testing.

5.     Scientists are notoriously bad communicators (nothing personal). They are not very good at disseminating their research in a way that is easily digestible. Particularly to non-scientists. For this reason, we tend to rely on what we read in the media. Most of which is either false, or extremely misleading. 

So if we can’t trust media reports about climate change who can we trust?

Well, you really need to go to the source. Ideally, international journal papers. These are peer reviewed, and any conflicts etc. are clearly stated. In other words, if the research has been funded, it will tell you by whom. Hence, in most cases you know whether the research is biased. However, these can be difficult to digest. If you’re game, take a look at Google Scholar and type in “Climate Change”. You can limit your search to the most recent years. Scan the abstracts and you will get a real feel for what’s out there. Systematic Reviews are papers that synthesise several research papers, pulling out themes and summarising key findings. These are often a good place to start.

If that feels a little overwhelming, and you would like a source that sorts out the relevant stuff for you, take a look at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

https://www.ipcc.ch/

The IPCC is the United Nations body for assessing and distributing climate change science. It was established to inform policy makers, and provide up to date information to the general public.

Here is what we know in a nut shell.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

Yes. This means 3% or less do not agree. The term “extremely likely” is also not the same as “caused by”.  This is a statement about the best fit. The most probable explanation based on decades of international research.

There are also a number of climate change researchers who are currently not actively engaged in research, who are retired ex professors and academics who do not agree with their colleagues. Some of these extremely intelligent and impressive researchers admit that they have not read any of the current science which I find a little concerning, although understandable. After all, if you have built a successful 30 + year career claiming the world is flat do you really want to read that it’s actually round?

Like I mentioned, scepticism is healthy and necessary in science and there is a lot we still do not know about climate change. We need scientists to challenge existing claims. However, there is an overwhelming consensus here, and so while scepticism is one thing, denial is another.

So why do some people continue to deny in the face of overwhelming consensus?

The key term here is FEAR.

Ø  FEAR that addressing the issue will limit economic growth.

Ø  FEAR that if we accept government interventions, it will lead to a loss of personal freedom.

Ø  FEAR that our current way of life is not sustainable.

Ø  FEAR of change (anticipated often as a loss)

This fear, leads to misleading information and mis-interpretation.

Avoidance of fear leads to fixed opinions which become fused with identity. You BECOME your opinion leaving little or no room for change. Obviously, this significantly limits the opportunity for learning and growth. Why? Because people motivated by fear avoidance keep any conflicting information, even scientific consensus, at “arm’s length” to avoid what we call cognitive dissonance (being wrong). This feeds further denial.

So where do I sit?

I have an opinion about climate change which is based on current scientific consensus. I have read A LOT of science. Even science which argues against human led climate change. It’s all fascinating and all necessary. However, I will always resist the urge to fuse with my opinion. Leaving it open for more and more information. This means my opinion could change in the future.

My advice? Be careful what you read, and educate yourself on the science. Develop an educated opinion instead of one which is motivated by fear and fed by media hype. Those who elect the latter, are often left behind by a society destined to move forward. Those who elect the former, empower themselves to be leaders and agents of change.

We all have the ability to choose. Sometimes we just need to give room for uncomfortable realities. Fear, insecurity, helplessness, guilt. I feel all of these in relation to our planet. I’m also not doing enough. I drive a petrol car, I use plastic and sometimes waste water and electricity. I’m struggling to get my head around it all. But I’m trying. And I’m listening.

Perhaps if we stopped fixating on facts and numbers, stopped arguing, pointing fingers and blaming others, we could come together, and just acknowledge that perhaps the way we currently live is no longer sustainable. Maybe we just need to really start looking after our planet? Is there any harm in that?