The Politics of Communicating Climate Change

Even though an emerging consensus of scientists agree that climate change is a manmade phenomena and not some natural occurrence caused by something beyond anyone's control like the tilt of the sun. However, if you are a fossil fuel company, especially one that stands to lose from any new laws enacted to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, for example, it is in that company's best interest to spread miss-information and perhaps to manipulate the public with contrary information even if it has no factual basis.  It appears that as the evidence for manmade climate change mounts, the evidence presented by opponents is one characterized by increasing doubts about science itself.

In particular, the skepticism on the issue of climate change is not so much inquiring about how we know, for example, that 50 years from now more droughts will persist, but rather it is characterized by "a visceral mistrust of science, scientific institutions and scientific governance." Therefore, those who doubt how climate change happens or what kinds of impacts and their degrees will be, would certainly believe in the phenomena itself, but have questions for who it arises.  If a company puts out misinformation and says, for example, that climate change is not happening, that is not being skeptical. Rather, that is an example of simply denying "science, scientific institutions," which form the basis for the overwhelming evidence for the climate change phenomena.

In essence, therefore, it appears that there is a difference between denying climate change and being somewhat skeptical, although sometimes those terms get confused. In particular, science as a discipline is built upon inquiry, investigation, and skepticism itself.  After all, in science, the questions are often:  How do we know this phenomena truly exists? Can we replicate those results?  Denial, however, simply involves not saying, without any sort of justification, that climate change is a "hoax" or "lie" whereas skepticism may come in the form of saying, "well, how do we know sea level well rise by two feet?" After all, that appears to be a large number and individuals simply are inquiring as to how scientists and others arrive at that number.

Consequently, the politics of communicating climate change often seems to be that if one doubts the science of it, they may communicate miss-information in the form of denial.  In other words, "climate change does not exist and is simply a big hoax." Skeptics which often get lumped in with the deniers may, in fact, believe in the phenomena of climate change, but they often engage in inquiry and questioning, the very basis and essence for science as a discipline.

Photo Credit: Flickr