Climate Change Denialism

STATES OF DENIAL:

1. Global warming is not really happening.
   
2. Global warming is happening, but it's not a result of human actions.
   
3. Global warming is happening, and it is a result of human actions, but it won't be catastrophic.
   
4. Global warming is happening, and it is a result of human actions, and it will be catastrophic, but that's okay.

Perceptions have changed a great deal in recent years, especially since the release of Al Gore's movie and book, An Inconvenient Truth. Whereas a decade ago perhaps 90% of Americans could have fit into one of the groups above, I'd estimate the total now has dropped well below 50%, with most of those in groups 2 or 3. And as the effects of climate change become more obvious and more damaging in the years ahead, the number of denialists will keep sinking and probably settle at around 20-25%.

At each level of denial, the argument against responding to climate change gradually shifts from evidence-based to attitude-based. With the evidence continually piling up, rebuttals are moving from "the data doesn't say that" to "it doesn't really matter."

Group 4 is quite interesting. Although it represents only a small fraction of denialists, it contains a strange mix of radical environmentalists (those few who'd just as soon see the Earth wiped clean of defiling humans), anarcho-capitalists (who believe that if market forces led to global warming, then market forces will fix it, if indeed it needs fixing), and techno-rapturists (who figure we can just sit back and wait for some combination of Super AI, Super MM, or the Singularity to fix everything).

Meanwhile, glaciers recede, temperatures rise, storms strengthen, droughts worsen, crops fail, disease spreads, and people suffer.

Yes, CRN does place significant hope in the potential for molecular manufacturing to make a big difference. But it's clearly impossible to say how much of a difference or how soon.

So, it is irresponsible, in our view, to support a cavalier attitude toward climate change. The problem is real, it's happening now, and we've got to take action with whatever means are at our disposal -- and not wait around for some future Super Techno Fix.

UPDATE: I just saw this article at BBC News, which includes a graph that looks to be pretty much in line with the numbers I suggested.

If 59% of Americans say major steps are needed very soon, that leaves 41% who could be classified in one of the four groups I described above.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Jamais Cascio]

Nice model; my usual "group four" is

"4. Global warming is happening, and it is a result of human actions, and it will be catastrophic, but it's too late to do anything about it other than adapt."

[Dan S]

Let’s imagine there are two projects. One is aimed to develop MM , and other to stop global warming. Assuming you only can get funds for one, which one you choose?

[Jerry Mitchell]

While I myself straddle your group 3/4 designation, your view sounds a bit condescending. Its entirely possible that one of these views may actually be correct, so calling it "denial" could be in the same category as calling one in a state of Santa denial if they don't believe in ole St Nick. Assuming your categories are incorrect views of reality is actually its own state of denial even, along with standard dogmatic politically correct "rose colored glasses" to boot. Obviously the answer must lie in squashing the capitalist dogs eh commerade?

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Jerry, you're not really saying that there is no more evidence for global warming than there is for Santa Claus, are you?

Dan, if MM could be developed quickly, then presumably it could used as one tool to stop global warming. But simply getting that or any new technology is not sufficient. We already have all the technologies we need to begin responding to climate change and any number of other severe problems. What we don't have is the political will to make effective use of them.

Jamais, I worry sometimes that even with powerful new technologies like molecular manufacturing, it already is too late because the complex systems we've unleashed will prove to be overwhelming and intractable. Oops, am I now in group 4?

[Dan S]

>>We already have all the technologies we need to begin responding to climate change… I worry sometimes that even with powerful new technologies like molecular manufacturing, it already is too late… <<

Either we have “all the technologies” or we don’t. In later case no amount of political will could help. In former case it may be better to concentrate on MM first and then use it to solve climate problem or MM development have to be postponed until more urgent problems like global warming are dealt with.

This question is technical and has nothing to with political will.

I think it is necessary to formulate coherent strategy that place MM development in context of global problems. There are several options.
1. Develop MM first then deal with other global problems with this powerful tool?
2. Start major project to deal with climate change with current technology?
3. Split resources between 1 and 2 (in what percentage)?

Then, returning to problem of political will the question here is:

May MM development catalyze changes in society and politics that:
1. Make dealing with global problems easier
2. Make dealing with global problems harder
3. Make no change at all

[Jerry Mitchell]

Mike - nice straw man, especially since I conceded in my first sentence I did in fact think that man induced global warming was taking place. Your attempt to paint me as having view that global warming wasn't taking place may say more about your blind spots then my position. It allows you to completely dodge the possibility that maybe one of your denial positions (besides the outright denial of global warming) might actually be true.

[Michael Anissimov]

Instead of waiting around for some techno-fix, I encourage working towards a techno-fix. No need for "Super MM" to combat global warming: basic MM would be quite enough.

In the meantime, everyone should stop eating meat, start using energy saver bulbs, and drive as little as possible. This can cut down on your carbon footprint big-time.

[Jerry Mitchell]

Mike, another straw man? Whos said anything about "waiting around" for techno-fix? I personally am attending college trying to acquire a nanotech degree. Also, one should hope its understood how dangerous it would be to support government policy to force people to "eat meat, use energy saver bulbs, and drive little as possible". A government with that type of power would be capable of vast amounts of oppression...something that most "single issue" types seem to miss. Everyone has their pet causes where they are more then happy to hand over liberty, and to force others to do their will -- then they have the gall to be totally shocked when the government runs amok with that power. The law of unintended consequences ensures things never turns out exactly like you hope.

[jim moore]

Jerry,
First I just want to encourage you keep plugging away at that degree, school can be a pain at times but its worth it.

Now, on to the point of your last comment. A government that forced people to stop eating meat, I agree that would be too intrusive but I have no problem with a government that encouraged people to eat less meat and more veggies. Also I don't have a problem with the government mandating more human treatment of food animals or banning the use of antibiotics and growth hormones in animal feed.

A government that forced people to use energy saver light bulbs, this could be done by banning incandescent bulbs, and I don't see how that would be a danger to liberty.

Third a government that discouraged people from driving, that can be done with minimal impact on peoples liberty, make sure that the cost of gas covers the cost of environmental destruction, negative health impacts, the full cost of the road system, and the cost of maintaining a significant portion of the military. In other words quit subsidizing a gas based transportation system make people pay the real cost of gasoline.

My general point is governmental action to solve some types of problems does not have to reduce our liberties.

[Tom Craver]

"Denier" is a cheap rhetorical device - a form of emotional blackmail, aimed at drumming up political support among those who would never form a GW opinion based on examination of evidence. Implicitly: "You aren't one of those *deniers* are you? You wouldn't want to be one of *those*."

Ironically, given it's association with "Holocaust denier", it falls in the same category (ad hominem arguments) as "Jew-lover".

It's a shameful method, that casts doubt on the conviction of GW adherents - why descend to that level, if the evidence for GW is so strong and if that was what convinced them?

Climate is far too complex a subject for most laymen to ever honestly claim to have been convinced by "the evidence". At best they can claim to have examined high level summaries of evidence and conclusions of experts, and to have picked between contending experts. Most don't even bother with that - they simply go with the side that appears to be in the majority, or that lets them be socially acceptable to their peers (whether those peers are GW advocates or opponents).

And the wonderful thing about having labelled GW skeptics as "deniers" is that GW adherents need no longer consider any contradictory evidence - obviously any evidence counter to GW must be coming from a "denier" and is therefore bogus, probably financed by the oil companies.

And as a final bonus - anyone who criticizes their use of "denier" must themself be a denier, so there's no need to pay any attention to that criticism.

[Jerry Mitchell]

Jim, this goes exactly to this problem of incrementalism. While you may see your pet project of forcing everyone into your energy saving mode, theres a million other people with other agendas chipping away at the same structure as you...giving more power to the government. Id be willing to guess you don't care for government sapping your social freedoms, but could care less if a few economic freedoms are curtailed. I personally get tired of hearing political hacks from either right or left discuss how to carve up my freedoms.

[jim moore]

Jerry,
I am not sure I follow, how is paying the real cost of gasoline a threat to liberty?

I share you concern about eroding freedoms and liberty, but the current administrations power grabs are a much bigger and more immediate threat to liberty than any environmental legislation that has been proposed. We need to have priorities.

[Jerry Mitchell]

Jim,
Why would you pretend that anyone said the current administration isn't committing power grabs? I certainly don't see where I am defending them, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

Also, what is hiding the "real cost" of gas? Is it the war? Is it environmentalists preventing production of new refineries? Is it the government injection into a company's union business that might alter prices? Is it the power companies paying off congress to prevent competition of alternative technologies? I challenge you to come up with a REAL price for gas encompassing all variables -- not just your politically driven favorite issues.

My point is, these little interventions that you see as reasonable are just one of a myriad of issues that get shoved through the system, that collectively results in a larger and larger loss of freedom to people. I cant put it any more clear then that, and if you cant grasp that, then it must be a self-induced blindness you suffer. If your really interested in helping people, preserve your actions to the voluntary realm, of producing better products and services and stop trying to force ideas and behaviors on others. Build a better mousetrap, don't force one on people at the point of a gun.

[jim moore]

“Why would you pretend that anyone said the current administration isn't committing power grabs? I certainly don't see where I am defending them, so I'm not sure what your point is there.”

I did not say you were defending them, I said that the Bush administration’s power grabs are a much bigger threat to our freedoms and liberties than any environmental legislation. And I think that one should prioritize the threats and deal with the biggest ones first.

As far as the real cost of gasoline, I am advocating what economist call internalizing the externalities. The use of gasoline has negative health, environmental, and security costs that are not captured in the price of gasoline. How much more should gasoline cost is something that can be rationally debated, but the process of internalizing the externalities does not threaten our liberties or freedoms. I would argue that the process would increase our freedom because it makes it easier to determine the real cost of our actions.

“If your really interested in helping people, preserve your actions to the voluntary realm, of producing better products and services and stop trying to force ideas and behaviors on others. Build a better mousetrap, don't force one on people at the point of a gun.”
At last, something we completely agree on. As a matter of fact it is something I do on an almost daily basis (when paperwork doesn’t get in the way).

[Brian Wang]

I review the status and specifics of climate change bills

The leading bill is the Lieberman/Warner bill. America’s Climate Security Act.

Currently it seems unlikely to be passed in 2007. Some chance but not much. 2009 seems more likely. The main provisions do not kick in until 2012.

EIA analysis of similar Lieberman/McCain bill indicated it would triple nuclear and renewable power. could reduce coal usage to 11-38% from current 50% or business as usual 2030 with 58%. Getting down to 11% would mean no international offsets but the Lieberman/Warner bill allows 15% offsets. So I would guess 25-35% coal power still in 2030. Depends on the horsetrading details that it takes to get a bill passed.

If more democrats elected in 2008 and a democratic president, then the 2009 bill would probably skew stronger on climate change action.

Contact your congressman and senator to support the climate change bills.

[Hal]

It's ironic that an organization which has generally opposed the scientific consensus on the plausibility of Drexlerian nanotech is so quick to accept the consensus on climate change. That somewhat explains what you are seeing here in the comments: people who get in the habit of thinking for themselves are more likely to adopt a variety of fringe positions, whether acceptance of molecular nanotechnology, non-anthropogenic climate change, anarcho-capitalism, etc. You have a self-selected group here which is accustomed to denying the scientific consensus on one issue, hence it is no surprise that you find a lot of mavericks on other issues.

My advice is to stop thinking for yourself and accept the consensus. The majority is more likely to be correct than the minority, especially when the relevant experts are aligned with popular belief. Many studies have found that people are vastly overconfident in estimating their ability and correctness on issues; hence no matter how right you think you are, when you disagree with society you are probably wrong.

[Brian Wang]

I am glad that the populist movement against climate change is causing a shift away from fossil fuels. This observation is not based on science but on the tracking of political policy (which I showed in my prior posting).

I personally think there is a reasonable scientific case in support of human caused global warming. However, I recognize that many aspects of it have not been proven with absolutely certainty. I do think that dumping 6 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year and other fossil fuel materials is an unnecessary risk. So the science needs to prove that behavior is safe to continue rather than the other way around.

However, my main reason for wanting to get rid of fossil fuel usage (coal in particular) is from the more clear deaths and damage from air pollution and mining and wars. Scientists and science are only involved in firming up the connection between particulates and other pollution and sickness and death.

Absolute rock solid:
Deaths from mining. If you die in coal mine when it collapses or blows up, there can be no question that you died as result of our usage of coal. Same for oil mining.

These numbers are far higher than for Uranium because it mostly uses a leaching method where no one goes underground.

This includes indirect mining of steel and cement materials. Wind power uses ten times as much steel and cement per unit of power.

Deaths from transportation:
when we move 1 billion tons of coal in the USA or 6 billion tons of coal worldwide and someone gets hit by a train carrying coal or truck. Then clearly that would not have happened. 40% of the freight on freight trains in the US is to move coal.

7% of the appalachian mountain forests are blown up to remove mountain tops to allow coal to be scooped out. All the trees and animals get destroyed when you use a few thousand tons of explosives per day. Shoving some of the dirt back into the rough shape of what was their before is only a very partial remediation.

when the billions of gallons of sludge from the coal mining process kills rivers, no scientist is needed. When the sludge dam breaks and kills 129 people, those deaths would not have occured if there was no coal energy usage to lead to that event.

Globally ten of thousands of deaths per year from those sources. In the USA several hundred per year.

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/search/label/coal

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/07/la-times-editotial-supports-deadly-coal.html

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/01/particulates-from-coal-and-oil.html

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/01/environmental-causes-of-avoidable-forms.html

http://advancednano.blogspot.com/2007/01/more-against-coal.html

The pollution disease linkage is stronger in cities in China and India. If you are coughing up black and can have greatly reduced visibility, a scientist is not needed to tell you that is bad for your health. Do you need a scientist to tell you not to suck on a tailpipe of a car ?

Similarly and now to a lesser extent, the visible smog in certain American cities like LA and on the east coast. Do you need a scientist to tell you exactly how bad this is for your health?

Acid rain (sulfur oxide) and Nitrous oxide. Is there any science around the fact that cities with more acid rain have cars with less resale value and reduced operating lives.

Mercury, arsenic. Do we need scientists to tell how many tons of those materials is bad ? A mercury loaded fish, do you need science to tell you something about that ? Are you feeding that to your kids or pregnant woman?

A scientist is not needed to indicate that wars have been fought over oil. Japan largely went to war in WW2 over lack of access to oil. Iraq wars 1 and 2. Iran/Iraq war. People died in those wars. If there was not oil dependence then the motivation for those wars would not be there.

Very solid:
the linkage between increased cancer, heart disease, allegies and asthma from fossil fuel air pollution. Particulates (2.5 micron) and disease linkage is strong.

This is a strong linkage to 3 million excess deaths per year from outside air pollution. 60,000 deaths/year in the USA. 30,000 from coal usage in the USA.