Polar bears have long been a symbol of a warming climate, a visible victim of shrinking sea ice cover and changing weather patterns. The bears’ loss of habitat was among the early signs of climate change, and one that was easily communicated to the public.

But in recent years, a sprawling network of climate change deniers are, strangely, using the symbol of the polar bear in their fight against climate science.

“If you tell a lie big enough, often enough, people will begin to believe it,” says Ian Stirling, a prominent polar bear biologist.

Stirling is a co-author on a new paper in the journal BioScience that describes a tactic used by climate-denial blogs to attack visible symbols of climate change instead of the science backing it.

“Because this evidence is so overwhelming, it would be virtually impossible to debunk; the main strategy of denier blogs is therefore to focus on topics that are showy and in which it is therefore easy to generate public interest,” the authors write.

“Proponents of creationism and intelligent design use the same strategy: Instead of providing scientific evidence in favor of their opinions, they instead focus selectively on certain lines of evidence for evolution and attempt to cast doubt on them.”

One of the darlings of this network of denial blogs is a University of Victoria adjunct professor named Susan Crockford.

Crockford is a zoologist who has never published a peer-reviewed paper on polar bears, or conducted any original research on them, yet who has been referred to by the Heartland Institute as “one of the world’s foremost experts on polar bears.”

Crockford Built up by Denial Organizations, Blogs

Real polar bear researcher Stirling, who spent more than four decades studying polar bears and publishing over 150 papers and five books on the topic, says Crockford has “zero” authority on the subject.

“The denier websites have been using her and building her up as an expert,” says Stirling.

The paper found that 80 per cent of the denier blogs they studied had referred to her blog. Crockford has also been featured as a speaker and panelist at Heartland Institute conferences.

Her popularity in denier circles is no surprise, given Crockford’s comforting, status quo-friendly stance.

A favourite line of reasoning Crockford returns to is that polar bears will be able to adapt to changes in sea ice — if the ice is in fact disappearing at all.

“Quite simply, the fact that a few individuals die during early breakup years in Western Hudson Bay is a good thing for future polar bears, not a catastrophe,” Crockford wrote on her blog, arguing that evolution will happen at a fast enough rate that the population will benefit from years of low sea ice.

That view is not shared by the paper’s authors.

“If you tell a lie big enough, often enough, people will begin to believe it.” https://t.co/g6i09Gv2UN #climatechange

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 30, 2017

Adaptation an Uphill Battle for Polar Bears

“Sea-ice habitat reductions during past interglacial periods occurred over millennia (rather than over the decadal scales that accompany AGW), giving the bears more time to adjust their behavior and distribution,” write the authors, among whom, once again, are actual polar bear researchers who do actual research on polar bears.

“Because current warming cannot be reversed without human action, the prognosis for polar bears and other Arctic biota without GHG mitigation is bleak.”

A study last year by University of Alberta researcher Andrew Derocher found that the predators are not able to get enough energy from alternative food sources, like bird eggs, that they can find on land.

“It’s a nice idea, but the energy density of these foods is low, their abundance is low — and there’s a whole other idea that if it was really a significant potential contribution, the bears would have been using this, and using it all along,” Derocher told me for an article in CBC when the paper was released in September 2016.

“And of course that’s not what we’ve seen.”

Crockford would likely be a lonely voice in the corner if it weren’t for the amplifying impact of larger climate-denial blogs like Junk Science and Climate Depot. But given her convenient narrative of fat, happy polar bears snubbing their noses at climate change, she has become a star. That’s a problem for actual science.

“The considerable influence that blogs exert on public opinion and decision-making should not be underestimated,” write the study’s authors.

“Among users, trust for blogs has been reported to exceed that of other traditional news or information sources.“

The paper calls on scientists to play a more public role in defending their work and to challenge the unscientific claims of climate deniers.

Stirling says it’s a mistake to let the sideshow go on any longer.

“They distract the public at large, particularly in the U.S.… from taking on the biggest threat that the world has ever experienced,” he says.

“Eventually these people will all be disproved but we’re going to pay a terrible price.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

For decades, the urgent need for climate action was stymied by what came to be known as “climate denialism” (or its more mild cousin, “climate skepticism”).

In an effort to create public confusion and stall political progress, the fossil fuel industry poured tens of millions of dollars into the pockets of foundations, think tanks, lobby groups, politicians and academics who relentlessly questioned the overwhelming scientific evidence that human-caused climate change is real and requires urgent action.

Thankfully, the climate deniers have now mostly been exposed and repudiated. Relatively few politicians now express misgivings about the reality or science of climate change (the current Republican nominee for U.S. president being a notable exception, along with some other conservative bright lights like Sarah Palin and Canadian MP Cheryl Gallant).

That’s the good news.

The bad news is we face a new form of climate denialism — more nuanced and insidious, but just as dangerous.

In the new form of denialism, the fossil fuel industry and our political leaders assure us that they understand and accept the scientific warnings about climate change — but they are in denial about what this scientific reality means for policy and/or continue to block progress in less visible ways.

In the lead-up to the Paris climate talks, for example, the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI) issued calls not only for a global climate agreement, but also for a global carbon pricing system. The OGCI includes most of the world’s largest oil companies (Shell, BP and Total among them), so this was a big deal. But as research by the UK-based InfluenceMap uncovered, “behind the scenes, however, [these companies] are systematically obstructing the very laws that would enable a meaningful [carbon] price.”

Here at home, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) — the most influential oil lobby group in the country — proclaims on its website that “climate change is an important global issue, requiring action across industries and around the globe.”

Sounds nice and green. Yet CAPP continues to push hard for expanded oilsands production and new pipelines on behalf of its members, which include the country’s largest oil companies.

Claiming that we can take effective action on climate change and ramp-up fossil fuel production at the same time is what CCPA senior economist Marc Lee refers to as “all the above” policy-making.

It’s what former Prime Minister Harper was doing when he claimed Canada could be a climate leader while at the same time increasing fossil fuel production, so long as industry reduced emissions per unit of oil, gas or coal produced (i.e. reducing so-called “emissions intensity”).

It’s what Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Notley are doing when they say we will have carbon pricing and various regulations, while at the same time supporting expanded oil sands production and new bitumen pipelines.

It’s what Premier Clark is doing when she proclaims B.C. will be a climate “leader” while at the same time pursing a ramp-up in natural gas fracking and the development of an LNG export industry.

And it’s what Canada is doing when we sign the Paris agreement on climate, while failing to adopt the stringent policies that will help keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.

The “all of the above” approach is wishful thinking at best. A recent study by earth scientist David Hughes published by the CCPA and Parkland Institute found that if Alberta and BC go ahead with planned expansion of the oilsands and development of an LNG industry, it will blow our Paris climate commitments right out of the water.

On a related front, the new climate denialism operates hand-in-glove with Indigenous Rights and Title Denialism.

Like its climate counterpart, this form of denialism sees politicians claim to accept recent court rulings and the historic reality of Aboriginal Rights and Title. Indeed, our new federal government has promised to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and ensure that all its policies are consistent with UNDRIP. But again, our governments are unwilling to accept what rights and title mean in practical policy terms.

Indigenous rights denialism finds expression in particular when rights and title are at odds with the power and interests of the corporate fossil fuel sector.

We see both Indigenous rights denialism and climate denialism at play in various fights over pipelines.

In the case of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain project, for example, numerous First Nations along the route have firmly rejected the proposed pipeline expansion. There is clear evidence that the pipeline is also at odds with Canada’s commitment to lower its greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, both federal and provincial governments remain firmly in favour.

Similarly, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers released a discussion paper earlier this year endorsing UNDRIP “as a framework for reconciliation.” The discussion paper explicitly recognizes the right to self-determination by Indigenous Peoples and the related right to free, prior and informed consent. This sounds very promising. Yet it is fundamentally in contradiction with CAPP’s support for new pipeline projects like Enbridge’s Northern Gateway, which is the subject of a legal challenge by eight First Nations.

What part of either Aboriginal Rights and Title or climate change science is confusing here? Why is this clear NO so contentious?

Talking honestly about what climate change and Indigenous rights mean for the policy choices before us is admittedly challenging. The public is nervous, and many are deeply anxious about their economic security and jobs. So the urge to take an “all of the above” approach is understandable.

But real leadership requires leading a different conversation, one where we speak frankly about the scope of transformational change that lies before us in the next thirty years.

When a friend is struggling with an addiction they cannot bring themselves to confront, true friends do not show sympathy by turning a blind eye to the destructive behaviour. Rather, a real friend makes an intervention, and tells the truth. We can acknowledge the steps our political leaders have taken towards becoming climate leaders — but we need to keep pushing them to meaningful action.

It may be difficult to imagine a world that isn’t dependent on fossil fuels, or a future where Indigenous Peoples exercise their full historic rights — and there’s no doubt it will take hard work to get there. But just as children today have never known smoking to be permitted in restaurants or driving without mandatory seatbelt laws (both changes that were fiercely resisted by industry but are now fairly universally accepted as the new normal), those born in the coming decades likely won’t know what a gas station is, except for what they see in old movies.

The reality of climate change means that one way or another, the next generation is going to live through an industrial revolution in high speed. That’s simply a fact. Our political leaders need to move past these current incarnations of denialism and focus instead on making sure the transition can occur in a just manner.

This is a guest article by Seth Klein and Shannon Daub , originally published on PolicyNote.ca as part of the Corporate Mapping Project, a research and public engagement initiative investigating the power of the fossil fuel industry. The project is jointly led by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Parkland Institute, and is supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

By Charles Mandel for the National Observer.

A Canadian climate change denial group has popped up in a U.S. coal giant’s bankruptcy proceedings that have lifted the curtain on the funding of a sophisticated continent-wide marketing campaign designed to fool the public about how human activity is contributing to global warming.

A document, nearly 1,000 pages long, lists the Calgary-based Friends of Science Society as one of the creditors expecting to get money from the once-mighty coal company, Peabody Energy.

Climate scientists and environmentalists have long suspected that the so-called “Friends” group was a front for fossil fuel companies trying to block government action to reduce carbon pollution, but Friends of Science members always declined to reveal their source of funding.

The bankruptcy documents show that the coal giant — known for aggressively lobbying against environmental regulations — had some kind of financial arrangement with their “Friends” from Calgary. But when asked, the Calgary group’s spokeswoman said she wasn’t aware of the connection.

“That would be news to us,” wrote the Friends’ communications manager, Michelle Stirling, in an email response to a query about the funding from National Observer.

The document does not show the amount of funding provided, what it was for, when it was given, but only lists creditors.

Stirling said she would need to review the document, which she believes was filed by a party other than Peabody, and said the filing could be a “spurious attempt” to connect the Friends of Science to the coal company: “Until I review the full document and check the source I can’t say much more.”

Coordinated effort to attack climate science, says Greenpeace

Keith Stewart, head of Greenpeace Canada’s energy campaign, said the documents provide proof of what industry has been trying to do to manipulate public opinion.

“There has been for decades a coordinated effort to attack climate science as a way to delay action on climate change,” Stewart said.

Peer-reviewed scientific evidence has demonstrated that human activity, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels and land-use changes, have largely contributed to warming temperatures on the planet in recent decades. Governments from around the world have also accepted that the science shows humans must move off fossil fuels in the coming decades to avoid irreversible damage to ecosystems and life on Earth.

Friends of Science is made up of a core group of earth, atmospheric, solar scientists and engineers, as well as citizens “who challenge the catastrophic view of climate change.”

The Friends group says it has spent a decade reviewing a broad spectrum of literature on climate change “and have concluded that sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide.” The group was created more than a decade ago, using “research” accounts from the University of Calgary to finance its operations, including trips, wining and dining, for several years. But the university, which was issuing tax receipts to donors, later decided to shut down the accounts following an audit.

They created their organization, kickstarted by a $175,000 donation from Talisman Energy — another fossil fuel company — to lobby against the Canadian government’s decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change in 2002.* Friends of Science also ran a sophisticated public relations campaign, including advertising in the 2006 federal election that challenged the Liberal government’s position.

A Friends of Science advertisement that appeared on public billboards. Image: Friends of Science

The court document also revealed that Peabody Energy owed money to many Americans groups that cast doubt on whether humans are responsible for the recent warming observed on Earth.

The Centre for Media and Democracy reported in mid-June that Peabody gave funds to a “network of individuals, scientists, non-profits and political organizations espousing climate change denial and opposition to efforts to tackle climate change.”

Other recipients included Willie Soon, an aerospace engineer who argues sun spots and not CO2 is causing climate change, and who has previously received funding from ExxonMobil; and The Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), whose recent film, Climate Hustle, contains misleading information about climate change.

“Derail the science and you stop the train”

The centre noted that the filings “demonstrate for the first time that Peabody Energy has financial ties to a very large proportion of the network of groups promoting disinformation around climate change.”

Kert Davies, director of the Climate Investigations Center and one of the researchers who uncovered Peabody’s links to the U.S. climate denial groups, told National Observer: “Peabody’s funding of groups like Friends of Science and others like CFACT shows a clear intent by the company to intervene in the climate public policy debate by casting doubt on the science. They know full well that science is the engine that drives environmental policy; derail the science and you stop the train.”

​The revelation around Peabody’s funding of climate denial groups has sparked outraged reaction among Canadian scientists and environmentalists.

Danny Harvey, a professor of geography at the University of Toronto, said: Peabody’s funding of the Friends of Science confirms that the latter group was in a conflict of interest and could not be believed. “It confirms what we knew all along. It’s not surprising at all.”

Harvey, who is a past Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author, noted that ExxonMobil is currently in hot water for climate change denial after covering up what it knew about the disastrous effects globally of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels.

“I sort of suspect they would be doing something dirty like that,” he said of Peabody.

Stewart, from Greenpeace Canada, added that the Peabody bankruptcy proceedings show that the coal industry is in decline because they failed to embrace the science and plan for the future by developing more renewable forms of energy.

“The coal companies didn’t see this coming in time and they went bankrupt,” he explained. “What we need to do now is make sure that oil companies in Canada see this so that we can begin the orderly transition to a climate-friendly economy rather than lurching in that direction through a series of bankruptcies and rearguard political actions like funding Friends of Science.”

Competition Bureau Proceeding with Friends of Science Probe

At the same time, National Observer has also learned that the Competition Bureau is moving ahead with an inquiry into a complaint against the Friends.

The complaint cited the Friends for propagating false and misleading representations related to several billboards, website representations and a poster made available as a free download on a website. It also included The International Climate Science Coalition and the Heartland Institute.

Ecojustice, on behalf of a group of prominent Canadians (one of whom was Danny Harvey), filed the complaint with the Competition Bureau in December 2015. Charles Hatt, a lawyer with Ecojustice, said the bureau’s decision “validates the thrust of the application,” something he finds particularly gratifying given the “push-back” the application received.

Michael Osborne, a partner in the Toronto-based legal firm of Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, wrote a withering opinion piece in the National Post.

“Ecojustice’s complaint not only is not within the ambit of the Competition Act, it is a blatant abuse of the Act’s six-resident complaint provision and an invidious attempt to deprive people of freedom of speech, which is not just protected by our constitution, but lies at the very core of our democratic system,” Osborne opined.

Hatt noted the Competition Bureau’s inquiry doesn’t come with a specific timeline and that it is conducted in private.

* This article previously stated Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2003 rather than 2002. It has been updated to reflect the correct year.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

It might not have packed quite the same visual punch as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s behaviour in the House of Commons on Wednesday, but the Saskatchewan government’s throne speech —  delivered just the day prior — may be remembered for being equally as bizarre.

Specifically, because of the implicit rejection of climate change science, which was described as “some misguided dogma that has no basis in reality.”

The throne speech, delivered by Lieutenant Governor Vaughn Solomon Schofield, pointed to “oil and gas, coal and uranium, livestock and grains” as allegedly victimized sectors.

“They look at those jobs like they are somehow harming the country and the world,” she read. “To those people, my government has a message. You are wrong. You could not be more wrong.”

Premier Wall Continues to Push Back Against National Climate Action

Such assertions fly in the face of climate change science, which overwhelmingly suggests that fossil fuel extraction, production and usage is at the heart of the ongoing increase in average global temperatures.

Making the throne speech even more peculiar was the fact the provincial government currently states on its website that it “acknowledges the science-based reality of climate change.”  

Premier Brad Wall hasn’t made that government position especially apparent in recent months, consistently opposing calls for provincial and national climate change action. Such hostility has become especially notable given Alberta — a province that has historically been rather resistant to meaningful environmental policies — implemented its own climate change action plan in November.

While Wall attended the Paris Climate Change Conference in November, he was notably absent from the widely circulated photo of the country’s premiers and prime minister. Wall said he attended the international climate gathering to promote clean coal and carbon capture and storage.

In March, Wall said in response to the idea of a national carbon tax: “We just don't think a tax right now when the national economy is facing challenges — a tax that would cost consumers more, cost more at the pumps, potentially cost jobs — is not the right thing, right now.”

Saskatchewan Government Dubs #Climate Change ‘Misguided Dogma’ in Throne Speech https://t.co/OukaVJAlcs pic.twitter.com/JirvqBlBlZ

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 19, 2016

Saskatchewan Has Highest Per-Capita Emissions Record in Canada

Saskatchewan sports the highest per-capita emissions of any province: at last count, the province accounts for 10.3 per cent of the country’s emissions despite only boasting three per cent of its people. Between 1990 and 2013, its total emissions increased by 66 per cent, compared to Alberta (the second highest in the category) which increased by 53 per cent.

The oil, gas and mining sector accounts for 34 per cent of the province’s emissions, with the electricity sector chipping in an additional 21 per cent (close to half of the province’s power is generated by burning coal).

This is all in spite of a 2020 target of cutting emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels as articulated in the unimplemented Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act of 2009.

There are plenty of opportunities for the province: agree to put a price on carbon, invest in renewables and public transit, limit the future growth of resource development. Instead, the government has put all its eggs in the carbon capture and storage (CCS) basket, specifically in the form of the maligned SaskPower Boundary Dam project.

In October 2015, it was reported that Boundary Dam features "serious design issues" and was performing well below expectations. Despite that, Wall has refused to critique the project and has continued to point to it as an example of Saskatchewan’s work on the climate change file.

Former Saskatoon Resident Starts Petition to Demand Wall ‘Stop Denying Climate Change’

Jason Mogus — principal strategist at Communicopia and digital director for the Tar Sands Solutions Network — started a petition on Lead Now in response to the climate change denial featured in the throne speech.

Born in Saskatoon, Mogus says he didn’t expect to hear that kind of rhetoric from the Saskatchewan government and that the divisive nature of it sets up “this great battle that they’re these victims of this global conspiracy to steal their jobs.”

“People from Saskatchewan understand the changes that are happening to the land,” he says. “They’re probably more connected to land than most Canadians are. They don’t all live in big cities. They understand the droughts, they understand the changes in winters, they understand fires and weather disasters. I know they’re better than this.”

Mogus suggests the open-ended nature of Trudeau’s climate change strategy — allowing each province to come up with their own version, whether it be a carbon tax, cap-and-trade or regulations — means that Wall has a lot of power to “hold back the entire nation, which is going to hold back the entire world.”

It appears to be true: Saskatchewan currently serves as the lone province with over one million residents to resist substantial climate change action.

Given the need to implement a national policy, such obstinance could result in watered down federal legislation or frameworks. But Mogus maintains optimism the tide can still turn despite the tone of the throne speech.

“I’m confident that people will rise above their personal issues and fears and concerns and smaller views. Saskatchewan brought us Medicare,” he says. “This is a community and caring issue. And I am confident that once they see beyond the rhetoric, Saskatchewan people will do the right thing, which is join with the rest of the world and to take climate action to save lives.”

Image: Brad Wall/Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

We’re only a minute into watching a brief low-budget video — one that begins by alleging U.S. President Barack Obama is a bully because he suggests that climate change deniers should be “called out” — when Ezra Levant sits down in the chair next to me.

The Rebel Commander himself.

According to organizers, he’s the reason attendance of tonight’s $45-per-head fundraiser in Calgary — casually titled “Climate Leadership Catastrophe: Carbon Taxes, Job Loss, Freedoms Denied” and organized by the so-called “Friends of Science” — spiked from 200 to 445 people after he was announced as its keynote speaker.

And he’s the same intensely controversial pundit who I met in late November at another Calgary event called “Generation Screwed” which I covered for Vice Canada while wearing a “Dreamy Trudeau” sweater.

“Hey James,” he says, reaching out his hand to shake mine.

We briefly chat as the video moves on to clips of testimonies from human-caused climate change denying scientists like Roy Spencer and Willie Soon (the latter took $1.25 million from fossil fuel companies and lobby groups for his research). Levant relays a hilarious and self-deprecating story to me about his flight from Toronto to Calgary during which another person fell asleep on him.

I scribble a few observations in a notepad. He scrolls through his phone, probably Twitter mentions given he sports almost 50,000 followers.

After a few minutes he gets up to leave. I remind him that I tweeted at him a while back about how the Alberta NDP was elected on Karl Marx’s birthday, which seems like crucial information to include in his vehemently anti-NDP and pro-capitalist online show.

We opt to “follow” each other on Twitter. He wanders off.

The whole interaction seemed tense. But also, well, profound; Levant has a disposition that makes one feel strangely a part of something, even if you’re ideologically opposed to him.

It’s awfully disconcerting.

Little has happened in the interim. The slides that greeted each attendee as they walked in and had their tickets scanned by an enthused 15-year-old boy before moving to the buffet tables set the tone for the evening: “Say No To Climate Co2ercion,” “$WINDle,” “Climate — Change Your Mind.”

The video, itself backgrounded with close-up shots of the stars of the American flag, features a bizarre graduation of presumed rights from “freedom of thought,” to “freedom of rational dissent” to “freedom to expose the 97 per cent consensus propaganda.”

Such pun-inspired sayings seem hokey at best. But as the remainder of the night proves, dismissing such sloganeering is as dangerous as ignoring what makes Levant a genuinely enjoyable human to interact with.

For denial of human-caused climate change has very little to do with facts or data (which is why they can argue that CO2 has nothing to do with increased average temperatures and, minutes later, point out that forest fires produce far more emissions than human activity which seems to acknowledge the relevance of CO2 to the discussion).

Many climate change psychologists have observed that one’s views on the issue depend heavily on factors such as in-group biases, pre-existing political leanings and personal connections to carbon-intensive lifestyles.

As a result, it seems deeply naive to chalk the existence of groups like Friends of Science up to a lack of info. Pushing facts like the 97 per cent tidbit will likely only further alienate this kind of audience, fostering a martyr complex.

Take the night’s first presentation. The speaker, John Harper, has worked as a petroleum geologist for the likes of ConocoPhillips and Shell Canada. It’s unclear why he was picked as the person to deliver the technical lecture as opposed to, say, an actual atmospheric or climate scientist.

“What are the rocks telling us?” serves as his mantra for the talk, despite the fact the Geological Society of America agrees that “human activities … are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s.”

The levels of carbon as measured by parts per million are nothing compared to previous eons, he says, “and the earth is still here” (a curious notion given there’s no way humans could exist in such conditions). He suggests global warming is inevitable. The real problems are population growth and human excrement. Blame the sun.

The trap that believers in human-caused climate change fall into is they rely on interpretation instead of actual assessment of the data, Harper says; he doesn’t know what politicians pushing for policy to address climate change even mean by “evidence-based.”

This statement is made entirely unironically.

Most attendees seem fairly disinterested. Ringtones keep going off.

The only truly captivating part of the entire presentation is an illegible graphic that spastically bounces up and down to demonstrate the fluctuations in average temperatures across the millennia.

The science presented is near impossible to follow.

But it doesn’t matter what Harper says. The point isn’t that he says the right things but that he is the right person: someone who the crowd can trust (former director of energy at the Geological Survey of Canada) and presenting in the right place (after a tasty meal and while sitting among people who look and think like you).

Levant — the star of the event — is announced as someone who’s been deemed by various publications as the “most irritating” and “talking head you’d most like to silence.” Each “achievement” is greeted with a raucous applause. The emcee, Michelle Sterling, clarifies that “I didn’t write this, by the way, they gave this to me.”

Of course she didn’t. Levant is a perfectly composed character. It’s very tricky to discern what he actually believes and what he plays up for a profit.

Either way, his intro as a “rebel” perfectly serves his cause: he’s an iconoclast representing the few who refuse to believe in human-caused climate change (just because a vast majority of scientists happen to).

Levant has no specific focus in his sermons. There’s certainly a thematic goal though: building a staggeringly convincing enemy-oriented narrative by pointing out the hypocrisy, insensitivity and alleged anti-Albertan nature of government and environmental organizations.

In the span of half-hour, he hops from slamming Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi for the Uber debacle, to ridiculing hemp rope bags, to noting that forest fires are natural, to linking environmental efforts with energy poverty, degrowth and deindustrialization (which inevitably led to a Unabomber comparison), to charting foreign donations to Canadian environmental non-profits.

Anyone who has seen Levant speak before knows the drill.

A standing ovation serves as a brief punctuation between his speech and Q&A session. Two mid-life-crisis-aged men in the washroom exchange thoughts about how “our governments are crazy,” “they’re a waste of our time and the country’s time” and how “Ralph Klein’s sacrifice” is being forgotten.

Levant’s responses to questions from the audience such as “why can’t Albertans oust the NDP?” and “why won’t governments stand up for Canada” hones in on hyper-specifics. The mainstream environmental movement’s take on GMOs is ridiculed. We’re made of carbon, we eat carbon, we exhale carbon.

He makes a fart joke (“I buy carbon credits for when I toot”). The “dairy cartel” isn’t taxed as the oil industry is even though its product — cattle — emit massive amounts of methane.

Et cetera.

It’s a spellbinding performance. The crowd occasionally responds to Levant with applause and to the targeted enemies with boos (for an ostensibly tax-averse crowd, they take the reduction of the province’s firefighting budget very, very seriously). The energy in the room can be described as nothing less than spiritual in nature.

There’s an unshakable sense of unity and drive, which likely has something to do with the fact everyone’s: a) white; b) rich; and c) feel persecuted by people concerned about climate change.

But it’s a force that must be acknowledged by climate change activists.

It’s not enough to dismiss Levant and the so-called Friends of Science as fringe groups that simply misconstrue data and graphs and decontextualized policy decisions to suit their mandates.

Of course, they do indeed do that. But such entities also tap into very powerful and deep-seated emotions — trust and pride, anxiety and anger, hyper-awareness of environmentalists who also fly around the world in private jets.

Good luck beating those back with facts. 

Image: The Rebel/Facebook

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

No one has a better handle on the effect climate deniers have on the socio-political stage than science historian and author Naomi Oreskes.   Her book Merchants of Doubt charts the path of many of the world’s most notorious deniers, skeptics, shills, PR men and experts-for-hire. Plus, as a trained historian and professor of earth and environmental sciences at Harvard, Oreskes has the ability to take a 10,000-foot view when it comes to climate politics and the turning tide of public opinion.   Oreskes recently visited Vancouver to discuss climate change and climate denial in Canada at a talk organized by the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies.     For Oreskes, understanding how climate denial is active in places like Canada involves acknowledging the expansiveness of climate change as an issue, one that cuts across boundaries between government, society and market power.   We asked Oreskes what she makes of Canada’s current political situation — a situation in which our  prime minister announces impressive climate targets on the world stage but then quietly approves B.C.’s first LNG export terminal on a Friday afternoon.   “Of course there is a long road ahead,” Oreskes said. “[Climate change] is a very big issue that reaches into economics, politics and culture.”

“But that does not mean we should discount the very substantial gains that are now being made, especially here in Canada, with the great breakthrough in Alberta.” 

Although new governments on both the provincial and federal level have reinvigorated the prospect of nationwide climate action, Canada has yet to make substantial headway in limiting carbon pollution, Oreskes admits.   A February report from Environment and Climate Change Canada shows the country is not on track to meet its climate targets. Development of oil and gas in both Alberta and B.C. is expected to prevent Canada from getting back on course.   Oreskes says straight-up climate denial is less visible in Canada than it once was, but that doesn’t mean the interests of the fossil fuel industry have disappeared.   A new form of climate denialism is at work, Oreskes argues, one meant to persuade the public that fossil fuels are necessary and renewables unreliable. Alternatives to fossil fuels, Oreskes recently wrote in The Guardian, “are disparaged by a new generation of myths.”   Those myths include the idea that countries like Canada are dependent on new fossil fuel infrastructure for prosperity.   Canada has been beset by a new collective of industry advocacy groups, like British Columbians for Prosperity, Resource Works, Canada Action and Oil Respect, that advance this kind of thinking.   Asked what Canadians should be on the lookout for, knowing that climate denial groups and pro-industry organizations continue to advance a fossil fuel agenda, Oreske said awareness is the first step.   “A lot of groups now are saying, well, yes, maybe there is a bit of climate change, but we can't afford not to fill in the blank: develop tar sands, frack for gas, build new pipelines, etc.”   “This is not a new argument,” Oreskes added. “We've heard it since the early 1990s. I wrote about it back in the 2000s. But we can expect it to be made more strongly post Paris.”   The myths don’t stop there, Oreskes said.   “We are also seeing a line of argument that goes like this: yes renewables are nice, but they are too intermittent and unreliable to be our primary source of power.”   “There are several important recent studies that show this is not true, especially in North America where we have so much solar, wind and hydro.”   One such study, recently published by The Solutions Project research team at Stanford University, outlines how Canada could achieve 100 per cent renewable energy by the year 2050 with a mixture of solar, wind, existing hydro, wave and geothermal energy.   The idea that renewables aren’t reliable has gained a lot of traction, Oreskes said. She added a particularly “egregious and sexist version” of that argument was on full display in Shell’s highly criticized video campaign that compared renewable energy to a fickle woman.   According to a new report by the UK-based Influence Map, Shell spent USD$22 million in 2015 lobbying against climate legislation.   Despite industry-sponsored attacks on clean energy, renewables have taken off in recent years. Nearly $500 billion was invested in clean energy in 2015.   But that figure is overshadowed by global fossil fuel subsidies. The International Monetary Fund estimates government subsidized the fossil fuel sector to the tune of USD$5.3 trillion in 2015 by failing to charge for the climate, environmental and human health impacts of oil, gas and coal combustion.   Oreskes cautions that “because energy is not a free market” we cannot simply rely on market mechanisms to solve the climate conundrum.   “Fossil fuels are still gigantically subsidized,” she said. “So we need to eliminate those subsidies.”   Oreskes added these combined social and political influences driving fossil fuel interests make it dangerous to think the era of climate denial has come to an end.   “It ain't over till its over.”     Image: Naomi Oreskes/TED

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Lord Lawson has taken the extraordinary decision to stand by a “distinguished” academic advisor to his charity who has become embroiled in a new scandal about climate denier groups being secretly funded by oil companies.

The former chancellor and chairman-for-life of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has dug in his heels after a member of his Academic Advisory Council agreed to secretly channel oil money to another anti-science front group.

Professor William Happer, of Princeton University, was contacted by an undercover Greenpeace UK investigator posing as a representative of a fictional Middle East oil company.

He discussed writing a report extolling the benefits of carbon dioxide and passing it through the GWPF’s self-styled peer reviewed process. He asked that the faux oil company donate $8,000 to the US-based CO2 Coalition.

The Charity Commission has confirmed that it would be reviewing the evidence from the Greenpeace campaign as part of an ongoing inquiry into the GWPF’s activities. DeSmog UK broke this story on Tuesday. 

Son-of-a-Bitch

Lawson told the Independent newspaper that he stood by his advisor. “We have a large number of people on our advisory council,” he said. “They’re not part of the staff of the GWPF. They’re distinguished academics. Happer is a distinguished academic.” 

He also claimed the GWPF had a “very thorough peer review process … in many ways better than the standard peer review system in most academic magazines.”

Happer, the American academic at the centre of the scandal, called a Greenpeace researcher “a son of a bitch” when approached immediately before a Senate hearing this week. The video of the altercation has been posted to YouTube.

He confirmed he had taken “not a dime” for his carbon dioxide advocacy but appeared to confirm that the CO2 Coalition had “taken nothing directly” from coal giant Peabody Energy but they had “taken some of my fee.”

Happer did not deny sending the emails when approached by the Independent. He said: “I considered this an opportunity to try to educate more people on what I think is the truth about CO2.”

Dr Benny Peiser, the director of the GWPF, originally told DeSmog UK that “Greenpeace has got it wrong.”

However, as events developed he performed an apparent u-turn and conceded when pressed by reporters from the national press his trustees should “review” the Greenpeace evidence and “decide how to handle advisers.”

Corporate Donors

The former senior lecturer in sports science repeated the oft-stated claim that the GWPF does not accept any funding from anyone with a “significant” interest in energy. 

He told the Independent that the GWPF had “never taken a commission from outside” and had “no corporate donors or any donors to do with energy interests whatsoever”.

Moreover, he confirmed that the GWPF was “discussing with [the Charity Commission] how to handle complaints” made against the climate denying think tank.

The Charity Commission confirmed to DeSmog UK that a file had been opened into the GWPF and the Greenpeace evidence would now also be examined.

A spokesperson added in a further statement: “I should make clear that this is not a formal investigation (statutory inquiry). We are assessing potential concerns that have been identified. We have not drawn conclusions as to what, if any, regulatory role there might be for us.”

Serious Questions

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace said Lawson’s charity has “serious questions to answer”. He added: “Does it condone a member of its academic council agreeing to be secretly sponsored to write a report by a group purporting to be from a Middle Eastern oil company?”

Lawson has been mired in controversy about the funding of his climate denial think tank from the moment it was launched in November 2009 hours after the Climategate scandal broke and ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. 

The former Tory chancellor told a powerful Parliamentary committee of MPs that he would not accept donations for gifts from anyone with a “significant” interest in energy companies.

The charity has refused ever since to reveal the identity of any of its donors. However, DeSmog UK has now named several of his benefactors, at least one of whom has held shares in the oil giant BP. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

BY BRENDAN MONTAGUE AND KYLA MANDEL IN PARIS

Coral Bleach, from the Billionaire United Mining Services, arrived this morning at the Heartland Institute's much vaunted Day of Examining Data repleat with an emerald-studed hard hat, high-viz jacket, and furs. But her excitement soon turned to dissapointment.

The fearless champions of freedom of speech at the Chicago-based free market think tank were quick to call the security at the California Hotel in Paris – and two undercover police officers touting walky-talkies were not far behind.

For Ms Bleach was a fraud, a prankster, a troublemaker – of the most curteous and humourous kind. Deborah Hart, 45, from Australia is co-founder of the ClimActs protest group and author of the popular children's book on climate, Guarding Eden.

She was protesting the Heartland Institute press event with activists from the Climate Games because of concerns that the oil and tobacco funded think tank was successfully spreading disinformation about climate science.

"We use satire because that is the most effective form of straight talking," she told DeSmog UK. "They are misleading and deceptive and well funded. They are extremely effective. They have industry behind them, and the Australian media behind them."

Extremely Disingenuous

She added: "This small group of people are extremely disingenuous and evil."

Jonathan Adams, 25, from Minneapolis in Minnesota, is an activist from Rising Tide North America. He attended the Heartland event briefly before being ushered out by security.

He asked the Heartland staffers whether they really believed that 97 percent of the world's scientists were lying about their research, and challenged whether white, older, wealthy Americans should be telling people in Africa how to run their countries.

"We were asked to behave. People were telling us we were being childish, that we were behaving like five-year-olds. And then we were pushed out."

Sam Castro, 45, a full time activist and mother of three from Australia was performing Greg Hunt – the "minister for killing everything."

She said: "The Heartland Institute in the US work closely with the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia. There is no way they can meet in Paris without being challenged. This is our children's future.

"These people are producing anti-science propaganda and this is used by the Australian government to justify inaction."

The Heartland press conference was advertised as open to the public but DeSmog UK reporters were told to leave before the event had even begun.

Jim Lakely, the hapless press officer, explained the ban was in place because the reporters had distributed printed materials at an earlier event in Rome.

After the banned press and public left there were just two women in attendance prior to the event starting. 

The formerly open to the public Heartland climate denial conference just cut number of women present by a third pic.twitter.com/8uUZzRDcyu

— Kyla Mandel (@kylamandel) December 7, 2015

Will Morano be arrested for being 'Climate Criminal' in Paris?! Movie premiere set for tonight! pic.twitter.com/LSKyaqfpzJ

— Marc Morano (@ClimateDepot) December 7, 2015

Wanted posters with the faces of Heartland attendees Myron Ebell and Chris Horner had been pasted outside the hotel. 

Among those due to give presentations at the Paris event were Dr Willie Soon, who has been funded by ExxonMobil for decades; Dr S Fred Singer, the grandfather of climate denial who shilled for the tobacco industry, and Ebell from the ExxonMobil-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Lord Christopher Monckton was also in attendance. Last week he explained his theory to DeSmog UK that Barack Obama was among a group of "totalitarians" who were trying to use the UNFCCC climate talks as a mechanism to install a Communist-Fascist State. 

@brendanmontague

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Thanks to a recent poll from ABC News and the Washington Post, we know that nearly two-thirds of American adults think global warming is “a serious problem facing the country.”

And now, thanks to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change (full study available at this link), we know exactly how many people are out there taking money from dirty energy interests to try and confuse Americans about climate changeto derail overdue action and protect the fossil fuel industries' profits.

Justin Farrell, a professor of sociology at Yale’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies and the author of the report, studied both the institutional and social network structure of the climate denier movement and found that there are some 4,556 individuals with ties to 164 organizations that are involved in pushing anti-climate science views on the public.

“The individuals in this bipartite network include interlocking board members, as well as many more informal and overlapping social, political, economic and scientific ties,” Farrell wrote in the report. “The organizations include a complex network of think tanks, foundations, public relations firms, trade associations, and ad hoc groups.”

Farrell notes that while funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch family foundations have notoriously played a part in building the climate denial movement, there was very little empirical evidence demonstrating exactly how much influence these corporate benefactors had on the actual output of climate deniers and, in turn, how much they affected what politicians and other decisionmakers were saying about climate change.

So Farrell studied all of the written and verbal texts relating to climate change produced between 1993 and 2013 by climate denial organizations (40,785 documents comprising nearly 40 million words), as well as any mention of global warming and climate science by three major news channels (14,943 documents), every US president (1,930 documents) and the US Congress (7,786 documents).

He focused on Exxon and the Koch Brothers’ family foundations because, he writes, they are “reliable indicators of a much larger effort of corporate lobbying in the climate change counter-movement."

What Farrell found was that organizations taking funds from “elite” corporate funders of climate denial like Exxon and the Koch Brothers — groups like the CATO Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Heartland Institute — “have greater influence over flows of resources, communication, and the production of contrarian information” than other denial groups.

After performing a sophisticated semantic analysis, Farrell was able to show that climate denial organizations with ties to those two major funders were more successful at getting their viewpoint echoed in national news media. Presidential speeches and debate on the floor of Congress showed less of an impact.

According to Bloomberg, Robert Brulle, a sociology professor at Drexel University who has conducted similar research but was not involved in the Nature Climate Change study, said that Farrell’s findings beg a very obvious question:

"Why is the media picking up and promulgating the central themes of climate misinformation?”  

That is very similar to the questions posed by DeSmog's executive director Brendan DeMelle in his coverage of Justin Farrell's other recent study on this issue: Research Confirms ExxonMobil, Koch-funded Climate Denial Echo Chamber Polluted Mainstream Media. DeMelle listed three questions for media outlets to ponder: 

Will this study, published in a highly authoritative journal, finally compel the newsrooms and boardrooms of the traditional media to take responsibility to undo some of the damage done by their complicity in spreading fossil fuel industry-funded misinformation?

Will false balance — quoting a distinguished climate scientist and then speed-dialing Pat Michaels at the Cato Institute for an opposing quote — finally stop?

Will editors commit to serving as referees to ensure the same industry PR pollution isn’t published any longer?

Image credit: P.WOLMUTH/REPORT DIGITAL-REA/Redux

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Marc Morano is never short of a superlative or two, but when it has come to promoting his long-gestating documentary Climate Hustle, the climate science denialist extraordinaire has been outdoing himself.

"We are putting together what I think is the most comprehensive, unique, entertaining and humorous climate documentary that has ever been done or attempted,” Morano has said.

His documentary Climate Hustle will get its “big red carpet premiere,” as Morano has described it, on 7 December in the Cinéma du Panthéon in Paris at the beginning of the second week of major United Nations climate talks taking place in the French capital. 

"The reason that this is a unique film,” Morano has said, “is that we are going for a pop culture-friendly… sarcastic approach and we actually give both sides in this movie.”

Morano is the head of communications at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and runs the Climate Depot blog. 

CFACT, credited as the film's producer, has accepted cash from fossil fuel interests including ExxonMobil and Chevron, as well as more than $7million from Donors Trust – a slush fund of rich conservatives which acts to conceal the identities of donors to projects.

As DeSmog explains, Morano has no expertise in climate science. He has been called “the Matt Drudge of climate denial,” the “King of the skeptics,” and a “central cell of the climate-denial machine.”

He was also listed as one of 17 top “climate killers” by Rolling Stone Magazine. Before joining CFACT, Morano was a communications adviser to Republican Senator James Inhofe, who called climate change science “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

That Morano is not a climate scientist or that actual experts regularly debunk his talking points seems not to matter to the numerous conservative news outlets that regularly seek his views.

Same old myths

But while Morano is promising viewers of Climate Hustle something new, pre-publicity material and statements elsewhere suggest the movie will be a rehash of old climate science denialist myths from the usual suspects. 

One high-profile scientist attacked in Climate Hustle has told DeSmog that the documentary should be seen as “propaganda” and that Morano was “digging around in the trash to look for old news.”

Morano seems to have been promising the imminent release of his documentary for almost as long as climate science deniers have been promising global cooling.

CFACT executive director Craig Rucker first announced the plan for the film in July last year at the Heartland Institute’s Las Vegas conference for climate science deniers. Then, Morano said the movie would be out “in the fall” but it never appeared.

Morano, who ran a crowdfunding campaign to help finance the film, has been promising in interviews that he will be bringing new voices to the documentary. In an interview with Canadian conservative TV host Ezra Levant, who thinks climate change is a “multi-billion dollar scam,” Morano said:

I am not interviewing a lot of the main climate sceptical scientists because I feel like they have been interviewed by many other people and their stories have been told. I am trying to find another layer of scientist whose stories have not been out there yet. You will see a lot of new names in this.

But if Morano really was looking for new faces for his documentary, he does not seem to have tried very hard. During Morano’s Heartland presentation, he told the audience he would carrying out interviews during the conference. 

The Heartland Institute conferences have been a mainstay of climate science denial for years, where presenters, most of which have no genuine expertise in climate science, will claim that either global warming is not happening, that its not caused by fossil fuel emissions, or that impacts will be minor or beneficial.

Who's featured in Climate Hustle?

Pre-publicity material and blogposts suggest that among the climate sceptics and contrarians featured in the film will be Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology, Professor Richard Tol of the University of Sussex, Ivar Giaever a retired physicist, the statistician William Briggs, geologist Dr Robert Giegengack and Canadian climate science denier Patrick Moore.

Moore has said that human-caused climate change is largely a hoax and that “we should celebrate CO2 as the giver of life that it is.”

Tol claims the economic impacts of climate change will be minor and has attacked studies showing the vast majority of climate scientists agree that humans are the main cause of climate change.

Briggs recently co-wrote a paper with Lord Christopher Monckton, who believes that climate change is a United Nations plot to install world government. Briggs’ paper argued that global warming would be much less than other studies had predicted, but a response in the same journal pointed to fundamental errors in the work of Monckton and Briggs, which was “riddled with errors.”

Earlier this month Curry wrote a column for Fox News questioning if government scientists may have been part of a political conspiracy to deliberately adjust temperature data upwards – a long-running theme from climate science denialists.

Blunt attack on Michael Oppenheimer

In several interviews about the movie, Morano has bragged of a section of the movie where he confronts scientist and climate change expert Professor Michael Oppenheimer.

In a speech to a Heartland Institute conference, Morano said he “had a quote” from Oppenheimer where the Princeton University scientist had said that “sceptics were quite literally motivated financially to be sceptics.”

Morano was referring to a quote from a 2006 Tom Brokaw documentary, where Oppenheimer said that “there are some people who have a financial interest in not believing” in climate change. Oppenheimer did not actually refer to sceptics.

Morano accused Oppenheimer of having a conflict of interest because he had accepted a grant from a foundation led by actress Barbara Streisand. He also challenged Oppenheimer over an award from the Heinz Foundation.

Oppenheimer told DeSmog the Streisand grant was received in 1989 while he worked at the Environmental Defence Fund. The Heinz Award was from 2010. 

He said he was “proud” and “honoured” to have received both awards which had always been fully disclosed. He said it was “ludicrous” for Morano to suggest he had been influenced by the grants, especially because his work on climate change and his advocacy for cuts to human emissions pre-dated both the awards. He told DeSmog:

I imagine the only reason [Morano] is doing it is because he can’t find a better example and I happen to be salient in the press and I’m a good whipping boy. But that’s fine. I don’t mind. 

I think it’s all fair to demand disclosure from people in the public arena and to ask where their support is coming from.

But I have met that criteria and now it’s up to people themselves to judge whether they think that the relationships that Morano has presented means that I can’t be objective about climate change. I think it’s a ridiculous notion but for people who don’t know me I think it’s perfectly fair to ask.

When asked about his 2006 quote, Oppenheimer said:

That was some years ago now. [Morano] is sort of digging around in the trash to look for old news because he has nothing currently available to talk about.

Marc is a propagandist and let him do more of his propaganda. If the strongest thing he has to say about me is that sentence then… bring it on… who cares?

Global cooling myth

So what else should people expect from Morano’s movie, besides non-scandals over a grant made to a scientist 25 years ago and the same old climate contrarian spokespeople?

In August, Morano told former Alaska Governor Sara Palin, who also rejects climate change science, that he would uncover the true agenda, saying: “Centrally planning economies. They want to go after the energy sector.”

Morano has also said the film will include clips of newsreaders in the 1970s warning of “global cooling” as if to suggest that scientists had changed their mind. But despite some news outlets warning of global cooling in the 70s, a review of the scientific literature has found that even then most scientific studies were actually saying the world would warm because of greenhouse gas emissions.

In an interview with Alex Epstein, author of the book Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, Morano claimed his movie would “present essentially both sides and let the viewer make up their mind” and how "this film is set to rock the climate debate."

Rather than “rock the debate,” Climate Hustle is just another attempt to spread doubt and confusion about climate change science.

Morano’s well-worn myths are almost as old as the 1907 Paris theatre where Climate Hustle will get its premiere. 

Watch the trailer for Morano's film: 

Continue to Part 2: The Evangelical Christian Climate Deniers Behind Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Documentary

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Two professors of cognitive psychology – Stephan Lewandowsky, from the University of Bristol, and Klaus Oberauer, from the University of Zurich – did a Reddit AMA (ask me anything) this week.

The topic up for discussion was: “The conflict between our brains and our globe: How will we meet the challenges of the 21st century despite our cognitive limitations?”

Climate change was (unsurprisingly) brought up repeatedly. Here are 10 things we learnt about understanding climate change:

1. Climate change is a BIG problem

Let’s face it: even the most optimistic among us can be overwhelmed by the sheer scale of what it means to tackle climate change. How can we push past this barrier?

“I think [this is] a core problem about climate change: Even people who are willing to accept the scientific evidence are paralysed by the enormity of the task,” Lewandowsky said.

“If you scare people without offering a solution then they manage their fear by denying the problem. So, the most important thing is to reinforce that there are solutions and that little steps do add up to something in the end. The situation is serious, yes, but in my view it is not hopeless.”

But what about the notion that yes, climate change exists, but we don’t need to worry because we’ll find ways to 'live with it'?

Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. There are certain aspects of climate change that will affect us all and “transcend boundaries,” Lewandowsky answered. This includes sea-level rise, extreme weather events such as flooding and drought, along with the spread of vector-borne diseases and mass migration.

But, as Lewandowsky explained: “There is evidence that if people construe climate change as something that affects them personally, they are more likely to take it seriously and act on the consequences.”

2. Trust the scientific consensus

Given many people may not have the time or scientific background to distinguish between misinformation and fact, one Reddit user asked: what’s the best way to have “a relatively logical opinion of things?”

Oberauer acknowledged that it can often be difficult to distinguish reliable information from propaganda, “given that the propagandists… are often very skilled at pretending to have all the features that characterise reliable information.”

So, what should we do? “On factual questions, I think by and large it is a good idea to trust scientists more than non-scientists,” Oberauer said, “and among the scientists, to trust the predominant consensus (if there is one) more than the maverick position.”

Why is this the best course of action? “That is because a broad consensus among scientists is most likely the result of converging opinions of very clever people who come from very different backgrounds (different personal interests, different biases and prejudices, different knowledge),” Oberauer explained. “It is extremely unlikely that the majority of scientists in a field could be biased or corrupted in the same direction.”

3. Talk about solutions and values

Many of us have been in the situation where a family member insists climate change isn’t real; that it’s just a silly hoax. What’s the best way to respond?

“It is an extremely difficult situation and there is no ‘one size fits all’ answer,” said Lewandowsky. “Chances are, though, that [they] have made up their mind and are committed to their motivated cognition–that is, taking on their beliefs head-on is unlikely to be successful and may just result in anguish and frustration all around.”

Christine Westerback via Creative Commons

So instead, Lewandowsky recommends talking about solutions and values. For example, clean energy helps reduce pollution and thus respiratory diseases, which improves health and the chance to live longer. “So talking about a clean-energy future is often possible without mention of climate change – and indeed I have met people who love their solar panels and are dreaming of electric cars but think climate change is a hoax.”

He adds that there is some evidence pointing to how “Conservatives (who are most likely to oppose the findings from climate science) have strong values relating to ‘purity’, which entails a responsibility to look after the environment.”

4. Cognitive limitations do exist

As Oberauer explained: “The limited capacity of our cognition becomes manifest in many ways. One is that we can remember only a limited amount of new information (for instance, try to remember the names of 10 people newly introduced to you), and that there is a limit on the amount of information that we can juggle with in solving a problem (e.g., solving a complicated algebra problem without external aid such as paper and pencil).”

He continued: “Our research points to interference between mental representations as one major cause: Trying to keep many ideas in mind at the same time we risk that they interfere with each other.”

5. But these limitations can be overcome

While probabilities, and weighing risks, can be difficult to understand, Lewandowsky argues that “it is going too far to say that the brain isn’t capable of understanding probabilities.”

“It is certainly true that people (sometimes) underestimate the probabilities of rare events,” he explained. “However, that does not need to prevent us from acting rationally: One of the great things about being human is that we can self-reflect and identify our own weaknesses and then take corrective action.”

(Recommended reading: Gigerenzer, G.; Gaissmaier, W.; Kurz-Milcke, E.; Schwartz, L. M. & Woloshin, S. Helping Doctors and Patients Make Sense of Health Statistics Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2008, 8, 53–96.)

6. Politics is a barrier

One Reddit participant raised the issue that when it comes to climate science, many of us aren’t skilled at understanding statistical probabilities, risks and margins of error, and subsequently, climate deniers can then use this to their advantage to sow seeds of confusion.

Lewandowsky agreed this can be a problem: “the very nature of climate data makes them susceptible to misleading interpretation by bad-faith actors.”

But he argued the broader issue is one of politics rather than statistical knowledge.

As he put it: “People also don’t understand lung cancer statistics and yet we were able to legislate tobacco control measures. In the same way, there is no reason why we couldn't also deal with climate change without everybody understanding the statistics.”

Lewandowsky also added that when it comes to politics and climate change, a person’s world view (ideology) can be a “powerful predictor of attitudes towards science.”

“I can ask people 4–5 questions about the free market, and that tells me 66 per cent of the variance in their attitudes towards climate change. Nothing else that I know of comes even close.”

7. Understand personal bias

Are humans inherently biased towards personal gain? Well, sure. “If you want to motivate people, offering them a reward is usually a good idea!” Lewandowsky said. “However, that is far from the whole story.”

“There is a plethora of research that shows that people are far more altruistic than classic economic theory expects.” (Recommended reading: Fehr, E. & Fischbacher, U. The nature of human altruism, Nature, 2003, 425, 785-791)

But let’s take this one step farther. Let’s look at those who receive funding from fossil fuel companies to undermine action on climate change, or those whose profits rely on fossil fuel extraction: how does cognitive bias play into their understanding/acceptance of climate science?

And, how does the mind reconcile  the two opposing things (fossil fuel extraction must continue in order to earn money, but it can't continue if action on climate change is taken)?

Pete Markham via Flickr

“I think often those people appeal to ‘future wealth’ and ‘helping poor people in Africa’ to justify their actions,” Lewandowsky answered.

But politics aside, he argues this attitude is not a priori absurd or immoral. “It is indeed possible to construct economic scenarios that favour continued business as usual. In my view, those scenarios are flawed but they are not inherently absurd – they are, however, Trojan horses for moral travesties.

“Specifically, the issue is whether the benefits of not cutting emissions now (i.e. lower petrol prices) are directed to the same people who later on pay the cost (e.g., from sea level rise). Now, it's quite clear to me that this will not happen: Western countries currently benefit disproportionately from Business as Usual, but the future cost of climate change will be borne by other countries. Thus, even seemingly ‘rational’ economic considerations can become highly unethical if they do not consider this fact.”

(Recommended reading: Singer, P. Climate Change: A Commentary on MacCracken, Toman and Gardiner Environmental Values, 2006, 15, 415–422; Posner, E. A. & Sunstein, C. R. Climate change justice The Georgetown Law Journal, 2008, 96, 1565–1612.)

8. Technology can help debunk misinformation

The internet is a source of endless information – and, with that, comes an infinite source of myths and misinformation. Countering it may seem impossible; this is where technology might be able to help.

For example, Google’s idea to rank websites based on facts when you search is one option Lewandowsky supports “in principle”.

Technology can also be used, in combination with social science, to identify “sock puppets” (a fake internet persona created by an unknown person) and “people who seek to scam online fora via multiple identities." It can also be used to help keep trolls out of comment streams, Lewandowsky suggests.

As he explains: “There is evidence to suggest that comment streams are important and can unduly shape people's perception of an issue (i.e. not by the facts or arguments but by the emotive quality), and so this is a real challenge to deal with that’ll require both technology and clever social architectures.”

9. Nudge and inoculate

There have been many advances in understanding flaws in human rationality – one user asked: how do we prevent this from being exploited by propagandists?

“Psychological knowledge can be exploited for good and for bad goals, just like any other scientific knowledge,” acknowledged Lewandowsky.

“Concerning resistance to propaganda, we know from work on inoculation theory that warning people ahead of time can help them not be unduly swayed by propaganda”. (Recommended reading: Banas, J. A. & Rains, S. A. A Meta-Analysis of Research on Inoculation Theory Communication Monographs, 2010, 77, 281–311.)

He continued: “Another way in which we can ensure that psychological knowledge is used appropriately is by following the ‘nudge’ approach, which entails the design of choice architectures to nudge people's behaviour without removing their freedom of choice. Those architectures can be designed by free democratic debate (e.g., whether to opt in or opt out of organ donations).”

10. Dictatorships are not the answer

Do we need a more ‘totalitarian’ style government to enforce the policies needed to address climate change? Short answer: no.

Lewandowsky’s longer answer, however, turns the question on its head: “Concerning the future, I would be far more concerned about the totalitarianism that may threaten us if we do nothing about climate change.

“Imagine the current number of refugees in the Mediterranean multiplied by a factor of 10 or 100: How much stress would that put on our democracies? Indeed, there is evidence that climate change and violent conflict are strongly associated… and violent conflict and democracy don’t exactly go together well.” (Recommended reading: Hsiang, S. M. & Burke, M. Climate, conflict, and social stability: What does the evidence say? Climatic Change, 2014, 123, 39–55.)

He continued: “By contrast, pricing externalities (by putting a price on carbon) is a trivial stressor for a functioning democracy.

“So if we act before the problem becomes unmanageable then I see no conflict between climate mitigation and democracy – it is only if we leave it too late that we will have created a serious threat of totalitarianism by our inaction. Bottom line: to avoid totalitarianism, act on climate change now.”

“I personally believe that to master future challenges we need a lot more democracy than less of it,” Lewandowsky added. “Whether we will achieve that is an open question but it’s ours to address and answer by our actions.”

Photo: Peter via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.