Global Climate Change Denier Reverses Position
As noted here, another prominent global climate change denier shifted his position.
Again, I wouldn’t know how to hold a belief that runs counter to the almost unanimously accepted scientific position. I could no more convince myself that all these people are wrong than I could believe that my blood flow is controlled by tides, or that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Here is a quotation from the link-to article:
“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause….”
Considering the quotation, it is perhaps unfair to assert that he was a climate change denier. Rather, he had doubts and was skeptical, which is significantly different from being an outright denier. It is important to note that when he diligently studied the matter, he did become convinced that human-caused climate change is real.
There may be a lesson to be learned from this. It may be that many people, when presented with the scientific facts in a manner that they can readily understand, will become convinced that human-caused climate change is real and is a serious threat to civilization as we know it and to life. The problem is in disseminating. Unfortunately, the mass media have not been effective in doing so which is a problem for which there may be no short-term solution.
There seems to be a very big difference between European and North American media presentation of the climate change issue, and the manner in which the subject is tackled.
Here in the UK you seldom hear of climate change deniers being taken seriously. There is some discussion around the edges as to what proportions of climate change are attributable to human and natural causes, and regarding how the historic record is interpreted. This however is in my view totally legitimate as there are still some variables which are poorly understood, and a degree of uncertainty as to the extent of human induced climate change which we are now seeing.
I think the difference is that in Europe, the discussion is largely scientific with little or no large scale lobbying from entrenched positions distorting the debate. In North America the situation is very different with certain powerful figures coming at the issue with an ideological or political prejudice which is religiously or financially motivated to maintain their current influential positions. The science therefore to an extent is being shouted down by entrenched lobbyists determined to sow doubt in the minds of the North American public.
The situation in North America appears however to be improving somewhat in this regard from the days of the Bush administration where government financed climate scientists in the USA at times complained of being gagged and prevented from presenting certain of their findings at international conferences for fear of losing their funding as a result of political pressures to downplay climate change.
Gary,
I like you analysis. You have stated the problem very clearly.
Here in the U.S., the purpose of the mass media is not to inform, but rather, to maximize profits by maximizing audience size so that advertisers will pay more for their advertisements. Audience size can most effectively be maximized by entertaining the audience with lurid, exciting, and shocking articles and stories; items with actual information take a back seat. Articles and stories which provide information that run counter to what the audience wants to believe may cause the audience size to decrease. Many people avoid information which does not support what they already believe.
Political pressure is an important part of the problem, but the way the mass media operate is also important.