Step 3: The Psychology of Global Warming Denial

For some, skepticism about climate change relieves psychological tension

In Step One Corporations that have a vested interest in promoting denial and skepticism pour money into campaign to push their positions.  In Step Two, a coherent set of “facts” that refute climate change is pushed and repeated often in a way that effectively organizes those attacking the science behind this problem.  But again we faced with the question: Corporate money and some questionable but oft repeated arguments cannot possible tell the whole story, so what is it that motivates so many people to take the bait?

The answer to the above question lies in a certain psychology the underlies the perceptions and emotions of a large group of people who label themselves “conservative”.  For these people, there is a powerful internal motivation to want to think that global warming does not exist.  Studies have shown that some people who identify themselves as “conservative” on a wide range of issues are more likely to want cognitive closure and certainty in their world.  Since we want to differentiate them from the “fiscal conservative” who comes to his or her beliefs from a intelligent understanding of economics, and “social conservatives” who arrive at their positions from an assessment of their own ideals and spiritual beliefs, we will call the group that seems driven by an overall general psychology “deep conservatives” (c).

These deep conservatives strongly desire more order in their world and prefer black and white presentations of facts *.  Before we go on, it is important that we note that we are attaching absolutely no value judgment on what they found.  In fact, these are not positive or negative personality traits in a vacuüm; rather it depends on how they play out in the real world.  However, with regard to global warming and climate change, there is a threat to the desire for certainty and order, and, unfortunately, there are not always black and white presentations of facts.

Note that those who are actively promoting denial and skepticism almost always have many other conservative beliefs.  In fact, most climate change skeptics who are outwardly motivated by their beliefs (as opposed to those whose agendas have more to do with ensuring that big business is not affected) almost always fought for other conservative causes both within and outside of the scientific realm before global warming and climate change become big news.  For them, obviously, there is a psychological bias because if not denial of global warming would not have been quite so automatic and this issue could not possibly have fit so neatly and easily into their pre-existing biases about how the world works.

In many ways this issue is not quite as simple as blaming the psychology of these deep conservatives, because the evidence for climate change is so overwhelming that it is often hard to understand how so many people can deny it, even if their pre-existing psychology pushes them in that direction.  This is where corporate money is interwoven.  There is just enough special interest money involved in stirring up the potential for skepticism and denial to motivate people who have an underlying need to feel in-control and comfortable with the status quo.

One interesting question is whether as climate change worsens and the effects become more obvious and pronounced, is it possible that the need for control and order will motivate this group to switch sides and want to be part of a solution to restore order and certainty?  That is certainly possible, but it looks far off.  For now, the first two steps in the climate change and global warming denial chain, corporate PR and the organization of s specific set of “facts”, plays perfectly with this group of deep conservatives.

Our next step in the cycle is one that as yet either does not exist or is very weak, but either way is still possible: Knowing this cycle, how can we still pursue change including the acceptance of global warming and climate change science?

* It should also be noted that these studies use political preference as the dependent variable – meaning that people self-identified their political orientation and that was used to place them in groups – so the results are about as scientifically iron clad as can be.