By Dave Toderick
I used to be both bewildered and dismayed that there are still people who don’t believe that climate change is happening as a result of human behaviour .
Recently, though, I’ve come across some information that has helped me, at least with the bewildered part. The information has to do with the way people form opinions.
It would be natural to assume that, in order to arrive at a point of view on an important topic, we first look around us for the facts, then weigh the information we have gathered to form our opinion. In fact, researchers have found that what actually happens is that people first form an opinion and then seek out information to back up their new belief.
Knowing this, I can now make some sense of climate change deniers. At some point in time, they started to hear about global warming and climate change. They decided that it wasn’t happening. Then they looked for evidence to back their belief. It wasn’t too hard to find some of what they needed, for a number of reasons.
For one, mainstream media, in an effort to present both sides, had articles and stories both for and against the idea. Sounds reasonable. But what they didn’t do was make it clear that there were far more qualified climate scientists saying there was this big problem that we had to deal with, and within a short period of time, than there were scientists arguing the opposite. In other words, the newspapers and news programs made it seem as though the scientific community was fairly evenly divided on the issue, which wasn’t at all the case. So mainstream media’s attempt at fairness actually resulted in the opposite.
For another, Big Oil used tactics similar to those that Big Tobacco had used many years before, when the public first started learning that smoking caused cancer. You may remember their campaign, designed to make you think that the evidence was unclear, that doctors and health researchers were divided. They didn’t mention that the only studies supporting their position were the ones they had funded.
Let’s listen in on one of the hiring interviews for a researcher:
Applicant: I’m here for the job I saw advertised.
Big Tobacco Guy: There’s all this data coming out that’s linking cancer to smoking. What we need are some independent research studies that show that smoking is good for you!
Applicant: I’m not sure I can do that, but I can probably produce some evidence that will at least confuse people.
Big Tobacco Guy: Create some doubt. Yes, I like it! You’ve got the job.
And here’s something I’m wondering: How many people died because that “Create doubt in the public’s mind” strategy was so effective? Regardless of how you may happen to feel about unnecessary suffering and death, you have to admire great spin!
Those spinning the case for the climate change deniers are equally, if not more, talented. I mean, to take the 3000 page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, filled with a mountain of data indicating anthropogenic climate change is happening, to find a mistake like the incorrect date when the Himalayan glaciers will be gone, and then to get people focused on that 2035 date while ignoring the more important concept that the glaciers are melting at all, that is some kind of brilliant work.
Why the spin works, though, comes ultimately down to this: If you don’t want to give up your lifestyle, you’ll find a way to rationalize the harm you’re doing. Which brings us back to how that belief – that climate change isn’t happening as a result of human behaviour – happened to form in the first place.
(Dave Toderick has moved back to his hometown Welland to walk along the canal with his dog, Koocher, and write songs about things that inspire or annoy him.)
(Visit Niagara At Large at www.niagaraatlarge.com for more news and commentary on matters of interest and concern residents in our greater Niagara region.)
Niagara At Large 
Thanks for this contribution on an important topic. It is important that in this municipal election that people get and and vote for people who believe that we need changes in government policy in response to climate change. Ask people about their views on this when they come to your door in the municipal election. I am currently running in St. Patrick’s Ward in St. Catharines. When I am able to go out and canvass I see in the doors a lot of literature from one of my opponents, Matthew Siscoe. He is opposed to cycling lanes and regulating the cutting of trees on private lands. If people look at the St. Catharines Standard today, you will see that our opinions on one of these issues differ.
LikeLike
1. A/ It’s almost impossible to deny that Climate Change IS occurring, as it has since Earth began. However the question is whether the warming that we now seem to see (evidence goes back & forth from year to year, and our ‘computer models’ still aren’t predicting accurately), is Caused by Man and the burning of Fossil Fuels (“Anthropogenic Global Warming” [AGW]).
B/ On the other hand, my first reaction when I heard of this issue ~2005, was to agree – how can we put burn 1,000,000+ years of oil & coal in 200 years and NOT influence Earth’s climate.
2. Dave Toderick (above) correctly outlines the issue of ‘follow the money’ when studying scientific reports. Who paid for them and what was their goal?
However, he forgot to note the second half of the equation – that some academics will sell their souls to obtain grants. Remember the Climategate e-mail scandal. Follow the money!
3. There are still many independent scientists who have Contrary opinions as to whether our changing climate is caused by CO2 & CH4 (methane) production & clear-cutting of forests, or by volcanic, solar and other natural phenomena that we don’t yet fully understand, given our very short study of Earth’s very long-term climate history.
Here’s a website where one can read arguments on Both sidesof the issue:
http://ClimateDebateDaily.com
Just read a few of the 1-sentence summaries on both sides to get a flavour of the legitimate differences of opinion. There are also some quite excellent, online videos you can watch -Pros & Cons- far down on the left-hand menus.
Don’t forget to consider how well the proposed Carbon Taxes or Credits will work, and for whom. Follow the money!
4. Regardless of whether Man is the cause, our climate IS changing, and let’s hope that our governments are planning for the various natural and human disasters that will befall us. Is the unbelievable flood in Pakistan caused by Climate Change or just 1 year’s heavy monsoon rainy season? What matters is how to help Pakistan re-build after 20% of its population have no homes or food or work. Canada could Never cope if 20% of us (6,000,000+ people) suffered the same disaster.
5. And regardless of the problem of Climate Change, we Should change to using Renewable Energy and STOP POLLUTING our AIR and WATER, which is the likely cause of most of our cancer and other environmental illnesses, and the extinction of so many species!
Almost forgot – 50% of the power running your computer right now come from nuclear reactors. When I was a high school student in 1960, we were told about our wonderful CANDU reactors and how scientists would soon develop methods for safe disposal of their nucelar waste; 50 years later, we Still don’t know what to do!
In Britain, there’s a poster showing a Roman soldier which says, “If the Romans had had nuclear power, they’d stilll be standing guard over the waste dumps 2,000 years later.” What world are we leaving for our descendants?
6. Dave ends his commentary by asking whether we’re “…willing to give up our lifestyle”….
Most of us
a/ shudder at imagining what that might mean
b/ don’t want to pay more for Anything, with constantly rising prices and fewer jobs
c/ can’t imagine giving up driving cars, cheap electricity, cheap food, etc.
and maybe that’s why we’re afraid to admit to seeing Any environmental problems.
We certainly Do live in challenging times!
It all starts with ME.
LikeLike
…
LikeLike
As some one who rarely drives a car, I do meet the personal test. It is also important to vote. If you read today’s Standard, it says that “people of my ilk”, who support cycling lanes “should not be welcomed on city council.” I appeal to readers to support my campaign to be elected to St. Patrick’s Ward in St. Catharines.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Lorne, I know people do affect the environment I lived in Liverpool England and in the 1950s we had the worst smog conditions ever,the fog so thick one could not see anything people abandoned their vehicles, this smog lasted up to two weeks and invaded ones home,fog loaded with sulphuric acid, killed thousands of cattle and people, the newspapers had hundreds of obits, just names no extra information,that use of coal for heating was the impetus for going to nuclear fuel and generators ASAP.this was definately caused by man ,UK does not have those famous killing smogs any more. Does any read about Canadas treeline has moved over twelve miles north during the past twenty years.
LikeLike
Excellent column Dave. Thanks for the information and insight.
I believe it all comes down to greed (for the corporations), as Dave and Lorne point out, but for the general public, I think it’s all about selfishness and laziness. People tend to doubt, deny or argue against certain things because they’ll have to change, to some degree, they way they live their lives. And there are a lot of lazy people out there. If they admit human-influenced climate change is occuring and still do nothing to reduce their contribution towards it, they’ll be perceived by others as not caring about the planet or their fellow human beings. So they deny climate change is happening, cause doubt and confusion for others, and continue with their old, destructive ways.
Lorne wrote that most of us “don’t want to pay more for Anything, with constantly rising prices and fewer jobs” and while I’ve heard this many times before, I don’t buy it. Why is it that we’re not willing to pay higher prices to save our planet, THIS THING THAT KEEPS US ALIVE, but more than willing to pay $200 for a concert ticket, blow a hundred dollars at the casino, buy all the latest hi-tech toys and gizmos: blackberrys, ipads, e-books, flat-screen TVs (when we have 1 or 2 working television sets already), etc. How about designer clothes, tattoos or a night at the movies or the theater? None of these are necessities, yet we don’t bat an eyelash at the cost. And fifty or a hundred dollars for a bottle of wine? Insanity. Dinner for four in a restaurant costs over $100 ( $200 with that bottle of wine) yet people still go out.
Okay, enough ranting. My point is people still spend money like it’s going out of style, so I don’t think rising costs is a factor. People simply like the way they live and aren’t willing to change for nobody or nothing. The only time they will is when they have to. I fear the only way our species will change is in the face of some worldwide financial or ecological catastrophe. But by then it’ll be too late.
Bon appetit consumers!
LikeLike
Read the new book Four Gods from Baylor Uni research. It explains very well differences & correlations in beliefs and worldviews. Also Google “John Mashey” to see his analysis of deniers.
LikeLike