Psychological denial is a deeply-embedded part of the evolution of humanity. In fact, it appears that self-awareness in humans would never have been adaptive without being linked to denial. Denial is essential for someone to be able to recognize his own mortality and yet continue to live. And to believe in a positive future for the next generation, thereby being interested in helping produce a next generation. Denial is a means of coping with fear, especially the fear of events over which we have no direct control. In my discussions with "climate change deniers" I have discovered that - once I talk them down from a state I have come to recognize as almost hysterical fear - they in fact do not deny that the climate is changing. What they wish to deny is a direct link between human technology and this particular episode of climate change. And the reason for denying that link is fear - fear that if our technology has created this problem, our technology may not be able to solve the problem. And, for committed technocrats, this possibility is horrifying; hence, it must be denied. Those who accept the reality of climate change do not make the situation better if they believe that the only way to gain public acceptance is to make people more afraid. So, I have begun to emphasize the perspective espoused by Al Gore's groups, namely that it does not matter why this is happening, what matter is that we acknowledge that the climate is changing and we need to work together to adapt to those changes. Statements to the effect that we can stop or reverse climate change are as delusional and those to the effect that there is no climate change. However, evolutionary biologists have a very good idea of ways we might successfully adapt to the changes that are underway. My collaborative work (much of it downloadable here) indicates that the intersection of emerging disease, climate change and biodiversity alteration results from a large-scale evolutionary dynamic that has occurred in all previous episodes of climate change. And if we all work together to allow technological humanity to adapt, we as a species might last long enough to have retrospective conferences about what the true causes were.

"Climate denial" is simply a special case of a more general psychological phenomenon that has been on the rise in recent decades, namely the propensity of people to believe in "conspiracy theories" (scare-quotes intentional because these are not theories in any rigorous scientific sense). There have been a number of recent articles published in Scientific American that examine this contemporary phenomenon (e.g., see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/moon-landing-faked-why-people-believe-conspiracy-theories/). Climate-change "deniers" believe that climate-change is a "hoax" perpetuated by a nefarious cabal of politicians, scientists, media, etc., each group "benefiting" from proliferation of the "hoax." The psychological underpinnings are no different from those who "deny" there was a moon-landing.

Psychological denial is a deeply-embedded part of the evolution of humanity. In fact, it appears that self-awareness in humans would never have been adaptive without being linked to denial. Denial is essential for someone to be able to recognize his own mortality and yet continue to live. And to believe in a positive future for the next generation, thereby being interested in helping produce a next generation. Denial is a means of coping with fear, especially the fear of events over which we have no direct control. In my discussions with "climate change deniers" I have discovered that - once I talk them down from a state I have come to recognize as almost hysterical fear - they in fact do not deny that the climate is changing. What they wish to deny is a direct link between human technology and this particular episode of climate change. And the reason for denying that link is fear - fear that if our technology has created this problem, our technology may not be able to solve the problem. And, for committed technocrats, this possibility is horrifying; hence, it must be denied. Those who accept the reality of climate change do not make the situation better if they believe that the only way to gain public acceptance is to make people more afraid. So, I have begun to emphasize the perspective espoused by Al Gore's groups, namely that it does not matter why this is happening, what matter is that we acknowledge that the climate is changing and we need to work together to adapt to those changes. Statements to the effect that we can stop or reverse climate change are as delusional and those to the effect that there is no climate change. However, evolutionary biologists have a very good idea of ways we might successfully adapt to the changes that are underway. My collaborative work (much of it downloadable here) indicates that the intersection of emerging disease, climate change and biodiversity alteration results from a large-scale evolutionary dynamic that has occurred in all previous episodes of climate change. And if we all work together to allow technological humanity to adapt, we as a species might last long enough to have retrospective conferences about what the true causes were.

Thanks to you both! What are we up against actually? Do we have data any data on the extent of denial amongst the general public? It seems to me that any efforts on ameliorating the problem or finding pragmatic solutions to dealing with natural resources in a finite world are wasted effort if we do not have community support. Thoughts?

My suspicion would be that if you delved into the funding pathways of both camps (i.e. climate advocates and climate sceptics) you would uncover a relationship with denial or acceptance of the fact of climate change. Regrettably, in some cases, climate scientists from both camps have proven not to be immune to influence by vested interests and political lobbying and this lack of impartiality engenders distrust among the public for all related scientific statements on the issue.

To be honest, I think the discussion on whether climate change is human-derived or natural is moot. The consequences of climate change under either scenario are equally concerning. Climate sceptics that think that 'natural' climate change is more benign are deluded and so their efforts to impede measures to tackle the fact of climate change are unethical. But nor do I support the scare-mongering among certain elements of the 'doomsday' environmental brigade.

All great points and the core of a way to a solution. My approach has been to suggest that what is truly at risk in the short term is not the biosphere at large, nor Homo sapiens as a whole, but rather technological humanity. I think there is a broad-based use of technology by everyone involved on all sides of this discussion about how to adapt to climate change. Preserving technological humanity could be the shared goal that gets us all to the table. But, as John O'Brien points out - a really key point - this would mean that the core of fund-raising would have to be abandoned. No more scare-mongering on either side. No more demonizing the other side.

The so called 'war on science' goes to the heart of the issue for me. Here is the crux of it:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/november-13/the-subterranean-war-on-science.html

I agree that scare mongering and demonizing has not been effective, hence my belief that psychology (my own discipline) has a very important role to play.

I have been inspired by Joanna Macy and Chris Johnstone's Active Hope, which I am reading at present:

http://www.activehope.info/index.html

One final thought: what do we mean by scare mongering, if scientific models present dire predictions for a business as usual approach, then surely that information needs to be delivered emphatically...

"I'm the scientist and I know what is right. If you don't do what I say, we're all going to die and it will be your fault." vs. "Don't be afraid, we have a plan. Let's talk."

A corollary to this would be "GIve us money and we'll save the polar bears. If you don't give us money, polar bears will all die and it will be your fault."

Ergo, if polar bears go extinct, it was because donors did not give enough money. In principle, I think this is no different than saying that if you have enough faith, God will cure your cancer and if you die of cancer, you did not have enough faith. It's a form of selling indulgences that serve the economic needs of the organization asking for money, in return for which the donor gets a false sense of security.

I know this sounds really harsh, but there are some complex realities about human society and about climate change that must be accepted before we can actually do something rational about adapting to what is coming - what is already here.

I'm not being a nihilist, I think we have the ability to do this, if we want to.

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | LETTER

Title: Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think

Z. Leviston, I. Walker & S. Morwinski

Nature Climate Change 3, 334–337 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1743

Received 06 July 2012 Accepted 11 October 2012 Published online 11 November 2012

"Political and media debate on the existence and causes of climate change has become increasingly factious in several western countries, often resting on claims and counter-claims about what most citizens really think. There are several well-established phenomena in psychology about how people perceive the prevalence of opinions, including the false consensus effect1 (a tendency to overestimate how common one’s ‘own’ opinion is) and pluralistic ignorance2 (where most people privately reject an opinion, but assume incorrectly that most others accept it). We investigated these biases in people’s opinions about the existence and causes of climate change. In two surveys conducted 12 months apart in Australia (n = 5,036; n = 5,030), respondents were asked their own opinion about the nature of climate change, and then asked to estimate levels of opinion among the general population. We demonstrate that opinions about climate change are subject to strong false consensus effects, that people grossly overestimate the numbers of people who reject the existence of climate change in the broader community, and that people with high false consensus bias are less likely to change their opinions."

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1743.html

Also see: https://theconversation.com/climate-change-deniers-are-rarer-than-we-think-10670

I am curious as to whether these results extend to other countries in the world...

Good comments from everyone. A couple additional thoughts on this subject:

1. I concur wholeheartedly about "demonizing" -- not only because it's ad hominem (and lame), but also because it is completely counterproductive. Thus I rather dislike using the term "deniers," although I do understand the frustration of dealing with people who vocally discount what is otherwise very well-established geophysical science.

2. One difficulty with convincing people of the reality of climate change is the long-term, global-average nature of climate change. For example, the USA is still undergoing a colder-than-normal winter, allowing people to think "See! there is no global warming!"

3. Another problem has been the politicization of the science. The science is not (or should not) be linked with any particular political platform, candidate or ideology. It is what it is, independent of politics. Thus I believe that the information ought to be delivered by non-partisan, objective messengers. Nobody questioned the Surgeon General when he first began issuing statements (predictions) about the future health consequences of long-term smoking. But the Surgeon General was seen as an objective expert, not partisan hack.

4. The political question comes into play as to what our response should be to our predictions. I don't have an answer to this question, but it should take due regard of people who are dependent upon things like cars (e.g., in the southwestern US). I believe that disregard for people (as if they are 2nd class citizens next to "the environment") is what ultimately leads to "denial" and conspiracy theories.

"The most recent national Climate Change in the American Mind survey found that 1 in 4 Americans think that global warming is not happening, and half say they are "worried" about it.

Other highlights include:

There has been an increase in the proportion of Americans who believe global warming is not happening (23%, up 7 percentage points since April 2013). But about two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening, a number that has been consistent since spring 2013.

The proportion of Americans who say they “don’t know” whether or not global warming is happening has dropped 6 points – from 20% to 14% – since spring of 2013.

About half of Americans (51%) say they are “somewhat” (38%) or “very worried” (15%) about global warming.

Fewer than half of Americans (38%) believe they personally will be harmed a “moderate amount” or a “great deal” by global warming.

By contrast, majorities believe that global warming will harm future generations of people (65%) and plant and animal species (65%).

About four in 10 say they feel “helpless” (43%), “disgusted” (42%), or “sad” (40%) when thinking about global warming.

By contrast, four in ten (42%), say they feel “hopeful” about the subject.

- See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/Climate-Beliefs-November-2013/#sthash.IsJKvylc.dpuf"

Must read: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/25/australias-most-effective-pseudoscience-climate-change-denial

Hi Andrew,

This is not my field but I know of a few psychology-based references that i think deal directly with your original post:

Whitmarsh, L. E. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 690-700.

Kahan, D., et al. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature. 2, 732–735

Hope that is of some help!

Shocked to learn of scientifically sound article that was retracted from Frontiers in Psychology following threats of frivolous libel and defamation lawsuits:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/21/contrarians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction

Absolutely outrageous!

Here is an email I received from the positive psychology email list on Active Hope (http://www.activehope.info/):

"To see how much of Joanna Macys work is applied in the UK google transition town network which uses eco psychological constructs to underpin the work.

I chair transition town tooting which creates its strategy through the positive envisioning outlined in an email and a plethora of positive psychology interventions to build communities resilient to climate change.

'A case for optimism' project works with active hope to project optimism instead of terror. 'Carbon Conversations' is cleverly designed to empower people to take control of their carbon footprints through creating mini communities, conversations and an optimistic series of topics. Again no terror but soft and positive approaches.

Lots of exciting work in this field!"

I am a solar physicist at an atmospheric research center.  I found this RG page and am struck by its continuing importance, this is a terribly important time for humanity.  So I have highlighted this now "old" (!) discussion (old in terms of social media) in a new facebook group called cli-fi-sci, in which we are beginning to discuss how to use The Arts (in my case a fictional book) to address these psychological issues.  I hope you welcome a rejuvenation of this discussion after a short hiatus,  The link to the page is attached.  Thanks for this fascinating question and answer page!