What's the psychology behind climate change denial?

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_denying-2Dthe-2Dgrave_201901_climate-2Dchange-2Ddenial&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=he6hlC8eKM57duWYENzA3j63D-9yNrFdgQoVZwNZz2s&s=GmtheLugRnrxRm63uCayAIDYbLsSjCjtM2A4blinmXU&e=

~ Jason Bessey
    On Friday, March 22, 2019, 12:37:40 PM EDT, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  
 
 Gregg and ToK, it just seems to me that no matter what the cause of Climate Change, our contribution to the heating of the planet due to the burning of fossil fuel is undeniable. So why wouldn't we try to curtail such activities for the sake of maintaining the environment as best we can, or suffer the consequences? Seems self-evident to me....
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:52 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


Hi TOK List,

  I am on a mailing list of about 100 people and there was an interesting exchange about the nature and dangers of climate change. In particular, there was sharp disagreement about the status quo and what constitutes “climate change denial” and whether and where there was “honest dispute” versus “outright, motivated denial” (or massive groupthink). I can’t share the dialogue because I don’t have permission, but I will share my reply, so you can see how I approach the issue and use JUST to help frame the discussion.


Best,
Gregg

>>>



Dear List,

 

This has been an interesting discussion. I thought I might offer some reflections from my vantage point as a clinical and theoretical psychologist, who is interested in the broad structure of our scientific knowledge and the nature of my field (human psychology into psychotherapy).

 

First, I would offer the conceptualization of language based belief systems as “justification systems” (see here:https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_the-2Djh-2Djust-2Dwhy-2Dname-2Dchange-2Dis-2Djustified&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=he6hlC8eKM57duWYENzA3j63D-9yNrFdgQoVZwNZz2s&s=ompNs5juXfJadEs6lBt93ATCJviyae_nb1TZLE3y-Eg&e= and am happy to answer any questions about my work). That is, “justification systems” describes the structure and functional organization of human language-based beliefs. Different kinds of justification systems (e.g., science versus theology versus the law) have different assumptions and different rules and goals (this overlaps a lot with what the philosopher Wittgenstein called “language games”).

 

The problem of climate change is enormously complex and for a host of reasons there are massively divergent justification systems operating. One of the reasons that makes things particularly complex is that it fuses “is and ought” together across a huge number of systems. Here is the analogy that I used to explain it to my brother, who is a bit of a climate change skeptic.

 

From where I sit, there is enormous evidence that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. That is the core of the factual consensus. The problem is that there are a huge number of features that make translating this “is” into a clear justification for what we ought to do about it. Think about it this way: “Imagine you found out that Nicholas (his 17 year old son) had started smoking as was now starting to become addicted. What do you do as a parent? To add to the confusion, imagine that you are going through a divorce with your wife. In other words, there is now a lack of a parental center and lots of conflict there (i.e., no shared global government position that coordinates things). And imagine Nicholas is going through a very independent streak and is defiantly reactive to being controlled (i.e., getting the globe to alter its behavior is far from easy). Now, what should you do? In concrete terms, how do you actually assess the risk of his smoking? How much do you try to control it? Is this an “all hands on deck” disaster, such that everything else needs to be stopped to address this? What about the idea that by trying to control his behavior in this context actually makes things worse? Obviously, if you do nothing and he dies at 40, then you will hate yourself. At the same time, you try to control him and he rebels and bad things happen, then you will hate that also.”  

 

The point I wanted to drive home is: Our planet is “smoking.” What should we do about it is a very complicated question. And, like many complicated questions in polarized environments, diametrically opposed systems of justification will emerge. 


Best,
G

 

 
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1

############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
  
############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1