Answer

Notwithstanding the fact that climate science has so far proven that global warming is really happening and that human actions and activities are contributing to the warming in addition to the fact that present and future warming herald negative effects both on social and ecological systems, a substantial amount of people across the world are yet unconcerned or ambivalent and a number of policymakers (particularly in America) deny the need to take steps to minimize carbon emissions. The global warming disagreement has been argued to be hinged upon anthropogenic global warming’s nature which is intricate, the uncertainties of the dangers of global warming on people, and the challenges associated with formulating and implementing possible actions that may be employed to effectively restrain the degree and impact of global warming. To achieve why there is a disagreement between deniers and accepters of the effect of global warming on the earth and the role of man in it, a study was conducted with professionals (had degrees) and non-professionals (never had degrees) were recruited for this study. The study found out that climate change denial follows models of convincing communication that are dependent on an individual’s attitude, perception, influence affecting the individual, and how the message that they ultimately believe on is communicated to them as supported by social phycology theories. 

Climate Change Denial

1.    Introduction

The intricate nature of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) along with uncertainties and the dangers that it poses make it significantly hard for laypeople to comprehend the causes, see its effects, and take necessary actions that may assist in alleviating future global warming (Burton, 2014; Zajchowski et al., 2018). The AGW’s characteristics equally make formulating and implementing actions that may be effective in restraining the extent and effect of continued warming globally extra difficult for policy makers (Rosner, 2016). This has caused great disjunction between the views of the general public regarding AGW and the views of the scientific community (McKinnon, 2016) along with policy stalemate (William, 2012) as supported by the elaboration likelihood model. Using various theories and concepts, this paper explores the views for denying or for accepting global warming. This paper discusses theories and concepts regarding views about global warming, methods employed in gathering information regarding climate change denial, and finally, conclusion on the topic.

Concepts and Theories

The campaign to challenge public confidence and trust in climate science, according to Taylor et al. (2014), has been regarded as a ‘denial machine’ orchestrated by political, ideological, and industrial agencies, and backed by certain conservative media along with skeptical bloggers with the intention of manufacturing uncertainty regarding global warming. Phrases like climate skepticism have often been employed with alike meaning as climate denialism. These labels have, however, been contested: individuals who have actively been challenging climate science have often described themselves as “skeptics”, yet many of them do not adhere with usual standards about scientific skepticism as backed by elaboration likelihood model. Notwithstanding proof, they have unwavering denied the validity of the fact that human beings have contributed to global warming). 

There are several conflicting notions between the two camps. Despite the fact that scientific view regarding climate change is that man’s activities on earth are likely to be climate change’s primary drivers, the politics about climate change have significantly been influenced by the deniers of climate change, thus hampering determinations to avert climate change (Prooijen & Sparks, 2014). Deniers of global warming, according to cognitive dissonance theory, commonly employ rhetorical techniques when giving the appearance of a scientific controversy whereby there is none (Taylor et al., 2014), as suggested by the motivated confirmation bias concept of sociology. According to Burton (2014), both climate change deniers and those that admit climate change employ the concept of motivated confirmation bias when searching for, favourng, interpreting, and recalling information regarding global warming in a manner that only confirms their pre-existing hypothesis or beliefs on climate change.

Using the social proof view, Gilovich et al. (2016) state that some climate change deniers argue that owing to the fact that CO₂ is but a trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere (0.04%), it can but have a considerably minimal impact upon the earth’s climate, necessitating no call for alarm. However, it has been known for several centuries that even this small and insignificant percentage has a substantial impact, and that doubling the percentage leads to a great increase in temperature (Junker, 2011; Stults, M., 2017). The scientific consensus along with other reports is that man’s activity is the main cause of the global climate change. The reports and other studies have shown that fossil fuel burning contributes to about 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide yearly. Another view advanced by climate change deniers is that global warming recently ceased or that global temperatures are indeed reducing, a phenomenon that is cooling the global temperatures (William, 2012). Taking the motivated confirmation bias concept, the climate deniers have founded this argument on short term variations in the earth’s temperatures that have often been observed, while ignoring the long term trends and patterns of global warming as has been exhibited for decades (Rosner, 2016).

Similarly, McKinnon (2016) states that climate change deniers usually point to the earth’s natural variability, like cosmic rays and sunspots, in explaining the earth’s warming trend and pattern. According to the deniers, there exists natural variability that over time will lessen, and man’s act or influences will have insignificant effect upon it (Gilovich et al., 2016). This is supported by the social identity theory. However, these factors have been taken into consideration when climate models were being developed, and the scientific consensus is that climate deniers cannot justify the trend and pattern that has been observed of the earth’s warming (Ley, 2018). Similarly, they have posited global warming conspiracy notions that have allegedly portrayed the scientific consensus as illusionary, or even that climatologists are acting upon their individual monetary interests by raising uncalled for alarms regarding the changing climate (Gilovich et al., 2016). According to Prooijen and Sparks (2014), a constant chorus that is coming from climate change deniers (CCD) camp is that climate science and climate scientists are alarmists who are exaggerating the danger and extent of global warming to better their funding, status, as well as influence with policymakers. This is supported by the self-categorization theory that describes the conditions in which an individual will see collections of individuals as a group, along with the consequences of seeing an individual in terms of a group (Gilovich et al. (2016). Nonetheless, the contribution of McKinnon (2016) gives a meaningful empirical experiment of this allegation and establishes that the allegation lacks support.

Present Study

From the very beginning, there has been a planned “disinformation” crusade that has employed the intricacies surrounding the AGW along with the unavoidable improbabilities that are involved in scientific studies and researches to produce denial and skepticism regarding AGW (McKinnon, 2016; Stults, M., 2017). The main approach that has been employed by the crusade is to manufacture improbability or uncertainty regarding AGW, particularly by attacking climate scientists and climate science (Burton, 2014). This seems an effective approach owing to the fact that confidence and trust in climate science along with trust and confidence in climate scientists are crucial determining factors that influence public’s perceptions regarding AGW (McKinnon, 2016) as supported by the heuristic-systematic model of information processing and self-perception theories. This paper advances that just as the number of studies regarding global warming have suggested that the primary emitters of CO₂ into the earth’s atmosphere are human beings’ activities and that if the amount emitted is not reduced, then the world stands to realize increased global temperatures and warming in the coming years and this would significantly affect nature and human beings.

Methods

Participants

CCD comprises of professionals and non-professionals who are defined as possessing an authenticated degree or not. These two classes of participants were considered for this study. A total of 100 individuals aged between 20 and 45 were identified and selected for this study. Both genders, female and male, were considered and it was ensured that the 100 participants were evenly distributed within the geographical setting of the study. Recruitment was done on the basis of whether one had degree, was climate change denier or accepter, was a male or female, and nationally.

Procedures and Results

Permissions regarding the commencement of the study were first sought. The researchers proceeded to conduct this study, which was aimed at proving that global warming’s primary emitters of CO₂ into the earth’s atmosphere are human beings’ activities and that if the amount emitted is not reduced, then the world stands to realize increased global temperatures and warming in the coming years and this would significantly affect nature and human beings. To achieve this, participants were recruited on the aforementioned bases and involved in interview sessions. After informed consent, the participants were as well given questionnaires that were designed with the aim of gathering information regarding their individual stands as far as global warming and the contribution of man to global warming are concerned. Their views regarding global warming and what influenced their views regarding global warming were explored. Audio recording was done during interview sessions, which were later transcribed for further use. The collected data was then coded and analyzed through different data analysis techniques.

In addition to interviews and questionnaires, the researchers also dug into literature to explore what has been written regarding CCD. Various databases were explored and literature that were written within the last 15 years were considered for study. Only literature that were written in English were considered. Keywords like global warming, climate change, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), climate skepticism, climate denialism, greenhouse gases, and CO₂ emission were used. A total of 25 literatures were considered for the study.

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion

From the study, it was established that CCD follows models of persuasive communication. Borrowing from social judgment theory, some people make judgements (evaluations) regarding global climate based upon their anchors (latitude of acceptance, latitude of rejection, and latitude of non-commitment) on the concept (Gilovich et al., 2016). From the study, it was apparent that the map of the study’s participants’ attitudes regarding global climate denial is a function of the participants’ ego concerning the topic such that those who ego were high regarding the global warming tended to believe that global warming was important and they tended to hold the notion intensely as suggested by Gilovich et al. (2016). Since the topic was important to those whose views were high regarding global warming, the topic appeared to form the crux of the individuals’ sense of self.

Gilovich et al. (2016) argue that according to the elaboration likelihood model, persuasion is elementarily a cognitive event, implying that persuasive messages’ targets employ mental processes of reasoning and motivation (or absence thereof) to reject or accept convincing messages. From the study, it was revealed that the process of injecting information regarding global warming into the minds of the participants exclusively entailed persuading them to either accept or deny the concept.

However, despite having received the message regarding global warming at the same and from the same source, the choice to accept or deny the global warning concept was an intrapersonal occurrence that happened when the participants’ incongruence between their behaviours and attitudes regarding global warming created tensions that was resolved by changing either their individual behaviours or beliefs, thereby influencing their perception about global warming (Gilovich et al., 2016). This is supported by the cognitive dissonance theory. In this regard, individuals will keenly decrypt ambiguous message or information with the aim of perceiving it to be in agreement with their established beliefs before they can accept or deny it (Gilovich et al., 2016).

Conclusion

GWD essentially entails denial, dismissal, or uncalled for doubts that oppose the common scientific view regarding climate change. However, from theory, it has been shown that global warming is real and will continue to influence the earth’s components entirely. While global warming deniers are employing conspiracy theories to justify their view, it can be stated more that global warming is affecting the universe and its primary cause is the CO₂ released through man’s activities to the atmosphere. Generally, CCD follows models of persuasive communication.