{"id":1472,"date":"2022-12-01T20:35:36","date_gmt":"2022-12-01T20:35:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatenation.ca\/?p=1472"},"modified":"2022-12-01T20:41:01","modified_gmt":"2022-12-01T20:41:01","slug":"the-problem-with-climate-change-denial-in-canada","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatenation.ca\/?p=1472","title":{"rendered":"The Problem with Climate Change Denial in Canada"},"content":{"rendered":"

Climate Change denial, although held by a minority of Canadians, is a significant risk to addressing climate change because it discredits information, slows progress on urgent policy changes and distracts people from taking action.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We\u2019ve all heard this song before! Paid spokespeople, posing as science professionals, are brought into the debate (sometimes with funding) to dispute or confuse public health science.<\/p>\n

In fact, the tactics of using misinformation and denying evidence that were used years ago by tobacco companies during the 1950s and 60s are the very same tactics we see used today on the topic of climate change.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, we saw these strategies used ALSO during the discussions about acid rain, ozone depletion, and DDT and other pesticides since the 1960s.<\/p>\n

And nowadays, as the IPCC says, \u201cRhetoric and misinformation on climate change and the deliberate undermining of science have contributed to misperceptions of the scientific consensus,\u201d<\/p>\n

What are these deniers; these merchants of menace; these peddlers of doubt doing?<\/p>\n

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL IS\u2026<\/p>\n

If you are reading this and you live in the early 21 century then you know that climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns and there is unprecedented international scientific consensus on its causes and impacts.<\/p>\n

Climate change denial<\/strong> is \u201cthe dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change; that it is caused by humans; \u00a0that it will impact nature and human society; or dismissing that there are potential ways for adaptation and mitigation by human actions.\u201d (wiki)<\/p>\n

Some people who deny climate change are sitting around our own dinner tables or are even in the corridors of power.<\/p>\n

There is high profile commentary, in America and here in Canada) that it as a controversy or something to take sides and debate about.<\/p>\n

A less gentle definition comes from Riley Dunlap, that those who cast doubt on the scientific consensus of climate change are funded and organized by what he calls a \u201cdenial machine of industrial, political and other interest groups \u2026to create uncertainty about science in general and global warming in particular.\u201d \u2026this is to promote an agenda supporting certain products or industries.<\/p>\n

A good capping off of this definition comes from Jordi Xifra\u2019s 2015 study that gives us a peak into possible motives for this denial machine. For instance, 9 out of 10 papers that were skeptical on global warming are initiated by right-wing think tanks.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

WHAT IS IT \u2013 THE TOBACCO ROOTS<\/p>\n

Denialism has a recent and dark history. We can start with tobacco roots.<\/p>\n

From the time when scientists were fist linking tobacco to lung disease, back in the 1950s, there\u2019s been the phenomenon of well-funded communicators that were less focussed on robust debate, or even spirited lively discourse\u2026 and more pointed to drawing legitimacy away from the science to protect the profits of industry.<\/p>\n

That might seem a little bit much. So let\u2019s look at some of the details.<\/p>\n

The studies by Michael Mann, John Cook and Oreskes and Conway (the links are below) do a very detailed job of chronicling these communications actions. They name the key players and organizations active in these campaigns over the last few decades.<\/p>\n

They document how Industrial interests launched \u201cinformation\u201d campaigns. wrote misleading summaries to the media, misrepresenting data to politicians, advocated for an equal voice in the media, set up quasi-scientific think tanks.<\/p>\n

These researches used extensive detail and mass amounts of source material to outline the funding mechanisms, links to politicians and public officials, the debates in journals and news media that were used to distort the story about climate.\u00a0 They looked at the development of denialism in American politics and this how it has had devastating consequences all over the World and here in Canada<\/p>\n

THE CHRONOLOGY<\/p>\n

The chronology of the story is nested in the KEY high profile public health discussions of the last few decades.<\/p>\n

TOBACCO, — There was extensive scientific evidence that smoking caused lung cancer. Immediately when the studies were published, there was huge pushback from the industry and many manipulations in the media to discredit the science. \u00a0The science won that debacle and there are warnings on cigarettes and even some active lawsuits by government against the tobacco for the health cost consequences.<\/p>\n

ACID RAIN, — There was emerging evidence that certain types of pollutants \u2013 SO2 – \u00a0had destructuve impacts for lakes in the NorthEast of United States and Canada and Sweden. When this science was published, there was a replay of massive pushback from people with vested interests. They manipulated media, influenced officials. \u00a0The science won (or partially won) this one also. Regulations to address acid rain were eventually passed in the 1990s and the amount of SO2 has decreased sharply \u2013 but more work remains.<\/p>\n

OZONE DEPLETION\u2026. There was evidence that certain chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) caused depletion of the Ozone layer by way of complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere.. Finally, after a long struggle with deniers and their funded fake research, science prevailed with the Montreal protocol, 1988, and the dangerous CFCs were reduced\u2026 saving millions of lives.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe protocol is the result of an extraordinary process of scientific study, negotiations among representatives of the business and environmental communities, and international diplomacy.\u201d Ronald Regan<\/p>\n

SECOND HAND SMOKE \u2013 Second hand smoke was found by scientists to cause cancer. In response, the tobacco industry coordinated a scientific controversy with the purpose of stopping regulation of their products. There was a very unnecessarily long struggle against science deniers. By the early 2000s there are smoke free laws and regulations in many countries. These also are popular \u2013 80% in support \u2013 and they result in less hospital admissions saving lives and billions of dollars.<\/p>\n

INSECTICIDES \u2013 The pattern of discovery and industry pushback and burying the truth prevailed even in the story of pesticides and DDT.\u00a0 The work brilliant author Rachel Carson (she wrote Silent Spring) was later maligned by industry as a part of the strategy to malign science and science-based regulation \u2013 even long long after the facts \u2013 and still free of the facts.<\/p>\n

THE VESTED INTERESTS<\/p>\n

At each one of these episodes, there is an intense struggle for science against vested, well-funded interests that actively dispute science and lobby governments.<\/p>\n

The research on this is robust and engaging because there are many references to actual news stories, government reports and records of congressional hearings. \u00a0Interestingly, the researchers spend time on noting how the machinery for all this resistance to science in America emerged during the 1960s, 70s and 80, and 90s and even the early 2000s.\u00a0 Names are used! Some of the names are the same from episode to episode<\/p>\n

Imagine, some of the very same individuals were involved in the numerous campaigns against tobacco regulations and then quickly turned to fight against regulations for SO2 by denying acid rain and then turned to fight science again by advocating for further sales for DDT and encouraging regulators to ignore environmental science.<\/p>\n

During this era, industry was successful at hiring their own spokespeople, hired fake research, submitted stories to national news outlets pretending to represent science, actively discredited scientists and journals. They funded misinformation campaigns. Harassed and discredited individual researchers. Purchased advertising to convey falsehoods about disagreement among scientists.<\/p>\n

Sounds too far fetched??<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t the stuff of conjecture or guesswork. This is well-documented and listed out for everyone to see including the actual correspondences, the ads, excerpts from the congressional hearings.<\/p>\n

The anti-science lobbyists established think tanks that had a clear agenda of \u201cprotecting\u201d American industry from science \u2013 I will NOT name the think tanks here \u2013 but they are named in the books. These think tanks still exist today and have copy-cats organizations in Canada.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL CAMPAIGNS<\/p>\n

What is the impact of all this? Why is it a big deal if there are a few nay-sayers out there; some contrarians.<\/p>\n

Even if there are vested interests and shifty campaigns. \u00a0Can regular good thinking people actually be dissuaded by a couple of op eds or advertisements?<\/p>\n

It turns out, these campaigns can be very successful; especially when it comes to delays and perceptions<\/p>\n

MEET THE CONSENSUS PROJECT<\/p>\n

The team at Sceptical Science worked on a project to identify the consensus on climate science and researched how this interacted with public perceptions of the consensus.<\/p>\n

They identify something they call the consensus gap. There is significantly MORE consensus among scientists that the public actually perceives<\/p>\n

In addition.. there are specific well-funded disinformation campaigns that are designed to discredit the science and widen the consensus gap. \u00a0In these sorts of communications, there was intention to convey a sense that there was a debate and that the conclusions were not settled yet. \u00a0As one of the spokespeople from the tobacco industry once said \u201cconfusion is our product\u201d \u2013 this particular intention was the focus later for fake controversies around acid rain, ozone layer depletion and the increased need for regulations for pesticides<\/p>\n

Misinformation affects people in several ways. Misinformation succeeds in causing people to believe false information. Tests on the effect of misleading climate statistics, for example, found that providing just a handful of misleading numbers was effective in lowering acceptance of climate change<\/p>\n

TACTICS<\/p>\n

To understand how does this manufacturing of doubt works, let\u2019s take a look at the tactics.<\/p>\n

The listing of the denial communications tactics can all be managed by words that start with \u201cD\u201d so we can have a handy way to remember them.\u00a0 First, DENY the facts. If there is a finding through science, say, for example, that the icesheet is melting. The tactic here is to say \u201cno it is not\u201d. Or, I \u201cheard some scientists saythat it\u2019s not true\u201d This is designed, if you fall for it, to places the onus of proof on the person pointing to the fact. Actually, as we know, if you make a claim, especially a bold claim, then the onus is on you to explain your basis for the claim.<\/p>\n

DEFLECT the argument: This is where another topic is spuriously introduced. If someone says, \u201cthe ice sheet is melting\u201d, you can deflect that by saying \u201chey, there is a lot of advantage for Canada with an open seaway through the northwest passage. This is deflection because we weren\u2019t talking about make-believe advantages about an open seaway.<\/p>\n

DISTRUST the messenger: You can convey a distrust of the individual scientist\u00a0 on any point by saying something like, \u201coh that scientist is just trying to get more funding for more research\u201d or \u201cthat particular study was flawed\u201d. Let\u2019s keep an eye on the merits of the findings.<\/p>\n

DISCREDIT the science: There\u2019s a set of claims that work in this category. Just state the claim \u00a0\u201cthe scientists do not agree\u201d [yes they do] or.. \u201cthe science on this stuff is always changing\u201d [no it isn\u2019t]. We see a lot of this approach makse it all the way to media stories when they imply that something is controversial when its not; or giving fair time to opposing views\u2026 when that is like giving fair airtime to arguments for flat earther or astronomy.<\/p>\n

DISCREDIT the intention: It is pretty easy to quickly mention that the scientists are always looking for way to influence the political agenda and bring in socialism. You could also make a claim that they are there make a buck with these dramatic stories about rising sea levels. This is way past murky intentions and political agendas.<\/p>\n

DOOMISM<\/p>\n

For this last point on Tactics, credit goes to Michael Mann. DOOMISM is a really wicked part of the denial arsenal because it pushes people to inaction. The communicator throws-up arms and says \u201cwell, there\u2019s not much we can do about this then!\u201d \u201call is lost..\u201d, \u201csociety is truly over\u201d. There\u2019s an emergency, there\u2019s no time for this.<\/p>\n

MADE IN CANADA CAMPAIGNS<\/p>\n

For a point of view on the Canadian context for denial\u2026 impacts of denial in Canada, we can look at a couple of campaigns. Remember these reflect the vested interests are at work in Canada\u2026 that\u2019s what they do for a living\u2026 These guys lobby and invest in campaigns to ensure a livelihood and continuation of the industry. That\u2019s their job.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Canadian author Seth Klein says, “the new climate denialism is when our leaders say that they get the climate crisis, but then they don’t practise politics that aligns with what the science says we have to do”.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

There are a few examples of recent denial-based communications campaigns by Canadian Governments.<\/p>\n

Albert exPremier Jason Kenney’s $30 million “war room” officially launched\u00a0in 2019 \u2014 an effort to combat what his United Conservative Party government calls misinformation about Alberta’s energy industry. He is so mad about what the science says about CO2 emissions, that he\u2019s spending $30M of taxpayer money to get his own more convenient answers. The \u201cwar\u201d rhetoric is a bit much.<\/p>\n

It doesn\u2019t end there. Emily Eaton and Simon Enoch conducted a study<\/a> analyzing how the oil industry\u2019s \u201cextractive populism\u201d strategy impacts Saskatchewan politics. The Saskatchewan Party government, from former premier Brad Wall to current premier Scott Moe, often promoted oil industry talking points and used them to direct policy.<\/p>\n

Shane Gunster and colleagues conducted a study<\/a>, \u201cOur Oil: Extractive Populism in Canadian Social Media\u201d, that reviewed of hundreds of media stories, thousands of social media postings\u2026 (face book, twitter). They identified that there was significant effort to attract social media support for framings of oil extraction as part of public will and democratic expression and that there\u2019s a need to defend the industry (against \u201celites\u201d) and fight for the \u201ccommon good\u201d.<\/p>\n

They named this \u201cextractive populism\u201d<\/p>\n

They looked at how oil lobby groups like the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers built social media campaigns to inspire industry employees and passive supporters to become, as one CAPP spokesperson called it, \u201cvisible and vocal champions of the industry.\u201d<\/p>\n

The study analyzed social media campaigns from Cenovus, Enbridge, Oil Respect, the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, Oil Sands Strong, Resource Works, as well as the CAPP affiliated \u201cCanada\u2019s Energy Citizens\u201d campaign.<\/p>\n

These campaigns used the familiar denial tactics and push doubts about climate change, bolster claims about Canada\u2019s \u201cethical oil\u201d, making it sound like there\u2019s grassroots support in conservative media and plenty of controversy in the science (where there wasn\u2019t).<\/p>\n

These framings then get likes and are replayed and rattle through the social media echo chambers<\/p>\n

DENIAL DISRUPTS TRANSITION<\/p>\n

Climate change denial and the associated misinformation and professional discrediting is alive and well in Canada.\u00a0 Does this have the potential to slow policy change progress, distort public opinion, distract from important urgent matter of Canada\u2019s inevitable transition from fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

YES IT DOES\u2026 We just have to look to the lessons of past lessons from tobacco, acid rain, second hand smoke. Denialism causes huge delays, exacerbates regionalism, creates more friction and more work and confuses government direction on the important and inevitable policy shifts.<\/p>\n

This, ultimately leads us to think about how the story is told. Matto Mildenberger, University of California worked with researchers at the University of Montreal, Erik Lachapelle \u00a0is one of the observers that note the important role for media “You would have a climate scientist on a cable news show or a panel debating climate policy, and the media would find someone who disbelieved [it] or was from an industry group that was rejecting the climate consensus,” said Mildenberger. “It gives [the public] a false sense that there was real substantial scientific debate about this.”<\/p>\n

On a more optimistic note\u2026 the same researchers, shows that Canadians everywhere, from the most Conservative to the most Liberal ridings, are united in understanding that climate change poses a major threat to the people and places they cherish.<\/p>\n

The experts tell us that successful science communication campaigns typically feature \u201csimple clear messages, repeated often, by a variety of trusted voices,\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sources<\/p>\n