A rant about Climate Deniers

Usually I wouldn't venture on to a subject such as climate change denialists, not because it's a hotly debated subject, because the fact is, it isn't. Everybody who needs to be in the know, is. Such as politicians and scientists, they understand fully that the climate is changing, we have caused it and the repercussions on the natural environment that can be expected. The only ones left now are arrogant, clueless trouble makers, who frankly, I'm bored of arguing with.

No this post is a bit different, as I explore the reactions to the label of  'climate denier' they have brought upon themselves. It seems as if every time you mention 'climate denial' the accused draw up their pettycoats and shout 'lies, slander, don't liken me to a holocaust denier!'. I consider it unfortunate, that certain journalists who advocate the realisation of current climate change felt it necessary to compare, let alone liken climate change denialists to holocaust denialists. Perhaps it was reactionary, a statement drawing power from such a recognisable and provocative phrase as Holocaust denial. The fact is, they are completely unrelated, sharing but one word, denial. It's like saying a social-scientist is the same as a natural-scientist, of course they share similarities in the processes and actions just as both forms of denialists do. This is why the word denial is so appropriate, because of the significance of its meaning.

Denial, first postulated by Sigmund Freud as a defence mechanism- 'when a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept so rejects it instead, despite the overwhelming body of evidence.' Now, when I read that statement I feel like the word was just made for climate denialists. The evidence is freely available to view and understand, yet still denialist continue to reject such insights. Of course I'm not only referring to the 'hockey stick' graph that illustrates a significant increase in global surface temperatures after the industrial revolution. But also a unprecedented rate of warming not seen historically, the reactions of species such as early bud burst and emergence as well as northward shifting range boundaries. The evidence really is overwhelming if you care to look for it. Of course some denialist choose not to argue the evidence and instead spout conspiracy nonsense. 97% of all researchers in the scientific community accept the warming of the earth through anthropogenic means. That is a huge consensus, most likely because the evidence is irrefutable, I'm left advising said climate deniers to crawl back into their caves because, really, you just look a bit silly now...

What I really despise is the hijacking of the work skeptic. They are not sceptical, because clearly they have not understood the evidence. Scepticism is essential to science ipso facto science is skeptic, evidence and theory is questioned and questioned again to come to the best possible answer based on our observations. Just as hundreds of climate scientists have hypothesised, preformed experiments and critiqued each others work have come to the same answer. The distinction comes from the evidence based thinking of a skeptic to the rejection of evidence by a denialist.

The trouble is, climate change is global and thus political. The mis-communication between scientist and politician and politician and lay man may have lead to the confusion of what we can accept as the truth and what we can reject. However, isn't it funny that those so apposed to the idea of an anthroprogenic change in climate are the ones often stood to loose out from such a revelation? Weird, huh. Finally, if you're wondering what a climate denialist looks like, have a gander at these crayzies in this handy article from the guardian.