166
recent years, and if anything, the climate models have underestimated both the
rapidity of onset and the intensity of the effects. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has reported a near-total consensus among scientists that
global climate change is underway, and that the processes underlying it are humancaused. Therefore, it is hard to fathom why climate skeptics even exist.
There are as many reasons as there are climate contrarians. Some people simply
can’t or won’t try to understand the basic physics and chemistry involved. Others
have a general distrust of science and scientists, and react to everything scientific
with skepticism. Conspiracy theorists lump climate change in with other “conspiracies” like chem trails, fluoride in drinking water, the faked moon landing, and the
flat Earth. A substantial number of wealthy people strive to maintain the status quo,
and deny climate change because their comfortable lifestyles might have to alter to
accommodate it. Some climate deniers are paid “researchers” for certain institutes
and think tanks focused on influencing government policies to minimize all environmental concerns, including those related to the use of fossil fuels. A significant
number of climate contrarians are committed to the continued growth of the fossil
fuel industry, and deny climate change because it might affect their jobs or
investments.
There are different ways of denying climate change. Professor Mark Maslin of
University College London identifies “five pillars” of climate change denial (sourced
from The Conversation UK under creative commons license; http://theconversation.
com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893; accessed 11/30/19).
These are described as follows:
1. Science denial challenges the accuracy of climate science, and claims that the
issue is not “settled.” According to 97% of the world’s scientists, it is settled.
Deniers question the accuracy of atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements.
Some suggest that climate change is just part of a natural cycle. A few might
agree that carbon dioxide levels are indeed rising, and even agree that the rise is
caused by fossil fuel combustion, but then ignore the physics and suggest that
CO 2 is such a small component of the atmosphere that it cannot possibly have a
significant warming affect. A variation on this argument is that CO 2 levels are
indeed rising and will affect the climate, but the increase in atmospheric CO 2 has
nothing to do with fossil fuel use, even though no other sources are identified.
Others attack the climate models as unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide. Climate models predicting global temperature rise have remained consistent
with the addition of new data over the last 30 years, indicating that the underlying science is quite robust.
2. Economic denial asserts that climate change is too expensive to fix. Some
climate contrarians have argued that restricting fossil fuel use and requiring
management of GHG would incur costs that are more disruptive to world
economies than climate change itself (e.g. Adair 2012). When the actual numbers
are put to this supposition, the cost of runaway climate change is much higher
and far more unpredictable (The Economist 2019). Economic models suggest
that the current cost of mitigating climate change would be about 1% of the
9 Fossil Fuels and Climate Change
recent years, and if anything, the climate models have underestimated both the
rapidity of onset and the intensity of the effects. The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has reported a near-total consensus among scientists that
global climate change is underway, and that the processes underlying it are humancaused. Therefore, it is hard to fathom why climate skeptics even exist.
There are as many reasons as there are climate contrarians. Some people simply
can’t or won’t try to understand the basic physics and chemistry involved. Others
have a general distrust of science and scientists, and react to everything scientific
with skepticism. Conspiracy theorists lump climate change in with other “conspiracies” like chem trails, fluoride in drinking water, the faked moon landing, and the
flat Earth. A substantial number of wealthy people strive to maintain the status quo,
and deny climate change because their comfortable lifestyles might have to alter to
accommodate it. Some climate deniers are paid “researchers” for certain institutes
and think tanks focused on influencing government policies to minimize all environmental concerns, including those related to the use of fossil fuels. A significant
number of climate contrarians are committed to the continued growth of the fossil
fuel industry, and deny climate change because it might affect their jobs or
investments.
There are different ways of denying climate change. Professor Mark Maslin of
University College London identifies “five pillars” of climate change denial (sourced
from The Conversation UK under creative commons license; http://theconversation.
com/the-five-corrupt-pillars-of-climate-change-denial-122893; accessed 11/30/19).
These are described as follows:
1. Science denial challenges the accuracy of climate science, and claims that the
issue is not “settled.” According to 97% of the world’s scientists, it is settled.
Deniers question the accuracy of atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements.
Some suggest that climate change is just part of a natural cycle. A few might
agree that carbon dioxide levels are indeed rising, and even agree that the rise is
caused by fossil fuel combustion, but then ignore the physics and suggest that
CO 2 is such a small component of the atmosphere that it cannot possibly have a
significant warming affect. A variation on this argument is that CO 2 levels are
indeed rising and will affect the climate, but the increase in atmospheric CO 2 has
nothing to do with fossil fuel use, even though no other sources are identified.
Others attack the climate models as unreliable and too sensitive to carbon dioxide. Climate models predicting global temperature rise have remained consistent
with the addition of new data over the last 30 years, indicating that the underlying science is quite robust.
2. Economic denial asserts that climate change is too expensive to fix. Some
climate contrarians have argued that restricting fossil fuel use and requiring
management of GHG would incur costs that are more disruptive to world
economies than climate change itself (e.g. Adair 2012). When the actual numbers
are put to this supposition, the cost of runaway climate change is much higher
and far more unpredictable (The Economist 2019). Economic models suggest
that the current cost of mitigating climate change would be about 1% of the
9 Fossil Fuels and Climate Change