between 1840 and 1850. Thus, the eradication of this alien species was discussed in
the framework of nature protection measures on Tuscany Islands. The eradication of
invasive species is a general goal of diverse conservation activities worldwide. Later
on, genetic analyses showed that the Pianosa hare population and the populations in
mainland Italy are distinct. The Pianosa hares belong to the critically endangered
subspecies Lepus europaeus meridiei and may have lived on the island since the late
Pleistocene when Pianosa was part of the mainland. Therefore, eradication of hares
on Pianosa Island is no longer a topic of conservation debate (Cabin et al. 2000;
Carion et al. 2011; Gaertner et al. 2012).
The recent discussion about climate change is a good example of how controversial scientific positions can be. One reason may be that effects of prognoses are
not fully realized yet. Furthermore, different environmental and social disasters can
be linked to climate change or can be interpreted as independent events.
According to the media and scientists from diverse disciplines, climate change is
the biggest global catastrophe or disaster for life, affecting human lives, health and
cultures, and flora and fauna in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, climate change
may have far-reaching physical effects in space and time. Interestingly, perceptions
and emotions range from denial to strong fear of death. Sussman and Gifford (2014,
p. 436) distinguish different types of climate-change deniers and skeptics who
maintain their beliefs:
“Fake experts are cited by climate-change deniers to show that no scientific consensus about
climate change exists.” (. . .) “Trend skeptics deny the trend of increasing earth temperatures.
Attribution skeptics accept the trend but attribute it to natural causes. Impact skeptics accept
that humans cause climate change but believe the impacts will be neutral or even beneficial
. . . The “non-denier denier” or “greenhouse-lite” denier does not deny global warming
outright, but denies the necessity to act. The non-denier denier is a construction of various
special interest groups (such as oil and automotive companies) to discourage support for
climate action.”
Because of the negative connotation of the terms defined by Sussman and Gifford
(2014), it can be assumed that the authors took a position when identifying groupings (Table 1, left column). However, climate change deniers and trend skeptics
might also be called continuity advocates. Likewise, impact skeptics and greenhouse
lite deniers should not be denigrated since all models of climate change are characterized by varying probability of occurrence (confidence levels). It is questionable
whether members of social sciences s.l. including environmental psychology, who
adopt the view of meteorologists and journalists, should create such one-sided terms
for characterizing different positions. Thus, the second column of Table 1 shows the
attempt to label members of a certain opinion with a more neutral title.
Not all global catastrophe deniers are members of oil or automotive companies.
This type is represented by many scientists particularly in ecology, biogeography
and life sciences. They are also dispersed across all other scientific disciplines. These
people would never deny climate change because the nature of climate is change.
There is no doubt from scientific facts that the lower atmosphere currently is getting
warmer and sea level in average is rising worldwide even if the relative values differ
considerably from region to region (e.g. Tapley et al. 2019). Clearly, members of this
28
C. Hobohm
the framework of nature protection measures on Tuscany Islands. The eradication of
invasive species is a general goal of diverse conservation activities worldwide. Later
on, genetic analyses showed that the Pianosa hare population and the populations in
mainland Italy are distinct. The Pianosa hares belong to the critically endangered
subspecies Lepus europaeus meridiei and may have lived on the island since the late
Pleistocene when Pianosa was part of the mainland. Therefore, eradication of hares
on Pianosa Island is no longer a topic of conservation debate (Cabin et al. 2000;
Carion et al. 2011; Gaertner et al. 2012).
The recent discussion about climate change is a good example of how controversial scientific positions can be. One reason may be that effects of prognoses are
not fully realized yet. Furthermore, different environmental and social disasters can
be linked to climate change or can be interpreted as independent events.
According to the media and scientists from diverse disciplines, climate change is
the biggest global catastrophe or disaster for life, affecting human lives, health and
cultures, and flora and fauna in the twenty-first century. Furthermore, climate change
may have far-reaching physical effects in space and time. Interestingly, perceptions
and emotions range from denial to strong fear of death. Sussman and Gifford (2014,
p. 436) distinguish different types of climate-change deniers and skeptics who
maintain their beliefs:
“Fake experts are cited by climate-change deniers to show that no scientific consensus about
climate change exists.” (. . .) “Trend skeptics deny the trend of increasing earth temperatures.
Attribution skeptics accept the trend but attribute it to natural causes. Impact skeptics accept
that humans cause climate change but believe the impacts will be neutral or even beneficial
. . . The “non-denier denier” or “greenhouse-lite” denier does not deny global warming
outright, but denies the necessity to act. The non-denier denier is a construction of various
special interest groups (such as oil and automotive companies) to discourage support for
climate action.”
Because of the negative connotation of the terms defined by Sussman and Gifford
(2014), it can be assumed that the authors took a position when identifying groupings (Table 1, left column). However, climate change deniers and trend skeptics
might also be called continuity advocates. Likewise, impact skeptics and greenhouse
lite deniers should not be denigrated since all models of climate change are characterized by varying probability of occurrence (confidence levels). It is questionable
whether members of social sciences s.l. including environmental psychology, who
adopt the view of meteorologists and journalists, should create such one-sided terms
for characterizing different positions. Thus, the second column of Table 1 shows the
attempt to label members of a certain opinion with a more neutral title.
Not all global catastrophe deniers are members of oil or automotive companies.
This type is represented by many scientists particularly in ecology, biogeography
and life sciences. They are also dispersed across all other scientific disciplines. These
people would never deny climate change because the nature of climate is change.
There is no doubt from scientific facts that the lower atmosphere currently is getting
warmer and sea level in average is rising worldwide even if the relative values differ
considerably from region to region (e.g. Tapley et al. 2019). Clearly, members of this
28
C. Hobohm