Transition Sheffield - Discussion Forum

Interesting article from George Monbiot on the massive amount of climate change denial and the disinformation and misinformation that supports the denial, some extracts follow:

George Monbiot wrote:Cyberspace has buried its head in a cesspit of climate change gibberish

...

On the Guardian's forums, you'll find endless claims that the hockeystick graph of global temperatures has been debunked; that sunspots are largely responsible for current temperature changes; that the world's glaciers are advancing; that global warming theory depends entirely on computer models; that most climate scientists in the 1970s were predicting a new ice age. None of this is true, but it doesn't matter. The professional deniers are paid not to win the argument but to cause as much confusion and delay as possible.

...

In his fascinating book Carbon Detox, George Marshall argues that people are not persuaded by information. Our views are formed by the views of the people with whom we mix. Of the narratives that might penetrate these circles, we are more likely to listen to those that offer us some reward. A story that tells us that the world is cooking and that we'll have to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is less likely to be accepted than the more rewarding idea that climate change is a conspiracy hatched by scheming governments and venal scientists, and that strong, independent-minded people should unite to defend their freedoms.

He proposes that instead of arguing for sacrifice, environmentalists should show where the rewards might lie: that understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is the smart thing to do, which will protect your interests more effectively than flinging abuse at scientists. We should emphasise the old-fashioned virtues of uniting in the face of a crisis, of resourcefulness and community action. Projects like the transition towns network and proposals for a green new deal tell a story which people are more willing to hear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... nvironment

Denial is a very interesting topic. The example Monbiot is using is against those who claim climate change doesn't exist. I suspect most people now don't hold that view, although certainly a significant and vociferous minority certainly still do.

But the subtler form of denial is where you accept climate change, but simply refuse to take it as seriously as it deserves. An example from Monbiot's article is:

In the political world - at the climate talks in Poznan, for instance - our governments seem to be responding to something quite different, a minor nuisance that can be addressed in due course.

And I think this is part of the mass delusion/denial that most people suffer from. The other one is of course the unwavering faith in the Government: "When climate change gets really serious the government will sort it out". That kind of thinking, often held with the simultaneous contradictory belief that politicians are corrupt, lying morons, lets one free to do whatever one wants with no responsibility for the problem at all.

The outright denier is easy to spot and you can get your teeth into the debate and present the other side of the story. However these subtler forms are more difficult to spot and easier to overlook. And my impression is that they're much more widely held than the outright climate denial and thus more pernicious.

BTW George Marshall also has a web site called Climate Denial and there's a good YouTube vid of him talking about it (possibly at one of the Climate Camps) that we could show at on of the screenings (about 4 mins I think) plus other stuff by him.

A couple of George Marshall vids

His talk on denial



And "People don't care about polar bears"...

Some interesting stuff on Surviving Peak Oil in an article by Russian author Dmitri Orlov.

One often hears that “We could get this done, if only we wanted to.” Most often one hears this from non-specialists, sometimes from economists, and hardly ever from scientists or engineers. A few back-of-the-envelope calculations are generally enough to suggest otherwise, but here logic runs up against faith in the Goddess of Technology: that she will provide. On her altar are assembled various ritualistic objects used to summon the Can-Do Spirit: a photovoltaic cell, a fuel cell, a vial of ethanol, and a vial of bio-diesel. Off to the side of the altar is a Pandora’s box packed with coal, tar sand, oceanic hydrates, and plutonium: if the Goddess gets angry, it’s curtains for life on Earth.

Well worth reading the whole article, it's very good. Or even his book: Reinventing Collapse, which came out earlier this year.

Denial is not the only form of defence people use to avoid confronting difficult issues. There's a whole page here detailing different pyschological defence mechanisms.

These make a lot of sense when trying to understand society's inaction around climate change, peak oil etc.

Interesting stuff worth getting familiar with these as we take on the role of harbingers of traumatic information.