Climate Change Denialism as an Enduring Belief System

It's complicated, but the cluster of symptoms seems pretty clear

Guardian story comes out noting that one-quarter of the US Congress can be classified as climate change deniers. That’s interesting because it’s significantly more than the most scientific estimates of deniers in the U.S. (15%, per U Michigan). So, we seem to have an over-representation of an intransigent minority, although maybe not, since the highest estimates of denialism do reach up to one-quarter of the population.

From my upcoming (and follow-on) Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on edX via U. Maryland (where I am Lecturer)

Why this matters: democracies can be improved or ruined by such intransigent minorities (think of Israel’s right-wing turn as of late as Netanyahu was forced into a coalition of the ultra-ortho there). So, think more broadly about the perceived crisis in democracy today and realize that these wedge issues and the intransigent minorities they spawn are driving our dysfunctional politics.

Not surprisingly, countries with high rates of climate denialism seem quite similar: high-latitude states with dominant European populations (with Norway, Australia, and the UK most like us).

So, what seems to drive denialism in the U.S.?

• You’re a lot more likely to deny if you’re a Republican. Democrats of all ages find climate change real and serious to the tune of roughly 2/3rd-to-3/4th, while only 1/5th-to-1/3rd of Republicans feel the same. That’s a debilitating gap for a world-reshaping phenomenon that, by any reasonable calculations, deserves a grand strategic approach on our part. Because of that intransigent minority’s political sway, we are far too much restricted to the sidelines of the global response. China, meanwhile, looks to dominate the global Renewable Energy industries that arise in response to climate change.

---

---

• Climate skepticism skews old and male, like so many endangered or just poorly aging “species” in America today (NFL, Nascar, NRA … lots of things that begin with “n” basically).

• Being White tends to be a strong indicator, as non-Whites consistently score higher on climate awareness and how changes there impact non-White populations more harshly. Moreover, put White, male, and older together and you get the highest self-reported sense of understanding about climate change AND the strongest degree of skepticism! Meaning, in effect, you can’t tell those guys ANYTHING! [I know, I deeply resemble that remark!]

  

• The media you consume determines much, but that’s increasingly a self-selection issue associated with political beliefs. Conservative outlets push the line that scientists are being unduly alarmist.

• Then there’s the money spent by the fossil fuel industry to misinform and/or put the “right” types in political offices. From the Guardian story’s ultimate source:

---

---

• Carbon-intensive lifestyles (often associated with carbon-intensive sources income) speak for themselves and fit the larger pattern.

• Key influencers like Donald Trump.

---

Influencers detected in climate change co-retweeted networks. (A) Co-retweeted networks formed by the 1200 most retweeted users in the U.S. The nodes represent unique accounts; the edges represent co-retweeted relationships. The size of nodes and the shade of the node color are proportional to their influence, as measured by eigenvector centrality scores. The high density of edges within the communities makes many individual edges not displayable. The top influencers in the community of climate change deniers (B) and believers (C) are labeled with the usernames. In panels (B) and (C), edges-to-users in the other community are not displayed.

---

• The geographic clustering of all of the above can get you areas within states (e.g., TX, CA) where denialism is the majority opinion.

So, who are the “running dogs” of climate denialism?