PHILSOC DISCUSSION

 

15/10/19

The Crisis Of Belief: Unpacking Climate Denialism

Cake Jar Words: “Greta” – “Trump” – “Post-Truth Era”

Attendance: 22

Calls of order: 1

1. Are people justified in rejecting scientific observations?
   1. Yes – marginalised groups desire group membership – but what about when the rejection can cause serious, deadly consequences? – science is always evolving, so scepticism is justified – does science favour facts or truth? – can there be scales of truth, depending on amount of evidence for a particular position? – ‘facts’ seemingly can always be underwritten by new scientific discoveries
   2. “justified”? – implies proof? – some positions (e.g. flat earth) don’t have proof – what counts as proof? – peer review? – note that peers can have biases, and can potentially tend toward unproven theories
   3. Should people ever be forced to believe anything? – but then there are people who will reject for the sake of it – is the ‘shock doctrine’ relevant?
   4. Is the method of ‘Extinction Rebellion’ justifiable? – ‘effective nihilism’ of ER; earth preservation is their highest value but humans are the problem
2. What is the rationality of climate denialism?
   1. Personal economic gain of certain industries such as middle eastern oil companies; similar case to asbestos companies
   2. Close-mindedness – they don’t feel the consequences of their decision – people are self-oriented and belief in climate change doesn’t meet their self-interest – “if it’s happening anyway there’s no point trying to stop it” – reference to previous coolings and heatings of planet – misconceptions on folk climate science (e.g. more CO2 means more plant growth)
   3. Mistrust of the establishment – e.g. government – a lot of activism forgets how exactly to get through to the working class
      1. How does one ‘get through to the working class’?
         1. Find a lynchpin – i.e. promoting ‘small steps’ to have a massive butterfly effect – a collection of solutions rather than just one or two should be promoted
         2. Actually engage and talk to them – involve them in the conversation
         3. Understanding the short term gains to the working class to be able to promote behaving in a certain way – but then that implies that they don’t know what’s good for themselves – the fact that work is a means to an (alternative) end for some people seems to suggest that they don’t – but we mustn’t forget that people’s differing priorities are valid
            1. Making climate change advice to be relevant to people
            2. E.g. eating veggies isn’t actually more expensive than a more carnivorous diet
   4. How do you change someone’s mind in this case?
      1. Give them the tools to access the complex science and their reports (e.g. vocabulary)
      2. Shaming people? – this idea has a sort of protestant etymology of desiring repentance – but is anger or frustration really the way to go in changing people’s minds? – different strokes for different folks? – do people need blaming, given that it might be too late? – telling people upfront that they’re wrong can offend or make them defensive
      3. Peer pressure, especially when young – family influence, although this depends on the cohesion of the family unit
      4. Greta vs Boyan Slat
3. What has led to this distrust in scientific observations?
   1. Forcefulness of news broadcasters’ messages
   2. Propogation of fake news through social media
   3. Past failed predictions of science leading to a distrust in its authority – but it’s just that theories have changed based on new observations, as they do – are some sciences just too abstract or difficult for productive engagement to be successful?
   4. The problem of meteorological modelling
4. Can we wholly support Greta?
   1. Is it all just doctrine? Is she too young to really understand what she’s saying?
   2. Can you blame the movement for manipulating a young girl trying to affect other people?
   3. Do the positions and actions of her financial backers call her position into question?
5. Is there a political ulterior motive to climate denialism?
   1. Climate change issues can become a partisan issue – right-wing politics have adopted denialism in some sense, to arbitrarily oppose the left-wing view
6. Is there any way we can benefit from climate change?
   1. Changing to healthier diets
   2. Connecting more with our communities collectively to make a positive impact
   3. Consuming less overall (i.e. becoming more minimalist)