Follow this blog:
RSS

Fear of death behind climate change denial

By | February 26, 2010, 9:02 AM PST

A paper by Cornell scientist Janis L. Dickinson is drawing new attention as an explanation for the rise in climate science denial.

(It’s all explained by Zero Mostel in this classic episode of The Muppet Show.)

In The People Paradox, published last year at Ecology and Society, Dickinson follows up on Ernest Becker’s 1973 work The Denial of Death, suggesting that when people are confronted by death they often react by shoring up their worldview, rejecting anyone or anything which threatens it, and focusing on self-esteem.

Paradoxically, this very human behavior actually brings death closer. One study in Israel showed that, among people for whom driving was a big component in their self-esteem, they actually drove faster and took more risks after being reminded of the possible consequences.

What this implies is that, even though Al Gore was right, the way he sold the climate crisis was wrong. Surveys indicate climate denialism is very much on the rise, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence showing scientists who promote global warming theory feel under threat.

You can see it here at SmartPlanet. Just look at the comments on any post I or John Dodge writes about global warming.

While the scientific consensus behind global warming is increasing, and evidence of it is increasingly obvious in glaciers and global temperature rises, vitriolic denial is actually growing, and becoming more personal.

How should we respond?

My belief is that we focus on opportunity. There are enormous profits to be made in solar and wind energy, in smart grids and conservation. There are good national security reasons for wanting to wean ourselves from commodities that, even if we have them, are mainly controlled by our political enemies.

Profit and patriotism are the routes out of the climate crisis. Fear of death, and climate change is death on the grandest possible scale, is only turning conservatives into characters in the musical Cabaret. Willkommen, bienvenue, welcome.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Dana Blankenhorn

About Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet from 2009 to 2010.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Contributing Editor, Technology

Dana Blankenhorn has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement and founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media. He holds degrees from Rice and Northwestern universities. He is based in Atlanta.

Follow him on Twitter.

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a technology reporter since 1982, a business reporter since 1978, and a writer for as long as he can remember. His Schwab IRA has a few tech stocks in it, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials bought over 10 years ago. But the vast majority of his tiny fortune (emphasis on the word tiny) is invested in mutual funds. He presently writes for no one else but ZDNet, SmartPlanet and himself. But if you've got an opportunity let him know. If he takes the gig he"ll first add it to this disclosure page.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
12
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Fear of death behind climate change denial
Interesting post Dana. It makes a lot of sense.

I think a lot of it is rooted in fear of change. Change in the form of the death of our accustomed lifestyle. Many people around the world are becoming aware (in their hearts if not their minds) of the fact that our civilization is facing massive changes in the near future because the current unsustainable path we are on and the uncertainty of what's coming is so horrifying they bury their head in the sand like an ostrich rather than facing the future with curiosity about how it's all going to turn out. The future belongs to those willing to go with the change but it won't be without plenty of turmoil getting there.

Dave
Posted by riverat1
26th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
I think it's deeper
I read the paper and it's the big fear, the one where we're past fear,
that makes the most sense as a motivation.

You're not going to go nuckin futz over losing your RV. But if I tell
you that your children may have very short lives, and that the world
you live in will soon turn upside-down, that's when you go crazy.
Weimar Germany crazy.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
26th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Fear of death behind climate change denial
You're probably right. I guess my biggest fear is that we may be headed for a new dark ages when our civilization starts hitting some hard limits on our exploitation of the available resources. Weimar Germany may look like a picnic in the park compared to what may happen. I'm old enough I may be gone by the time the fecal matter really impinges on the blades of the air movement device but I do have family to be concerned about.

BTW, I noticed a (Go Beavers) in your dinosaur post. Are you a Beaver? I grew up in Corvallis and attended OSU.
Posted by riverat1
26th Feb 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: Fear of death behind climate change denial
Al Gore has proven to be wrong in a dozen or more places. The recent
scandals have shown a culture of corruption at the IPCC that uses
mysterious data that has disappeared.

So while I'm all for a cleaner environment, and my whole family draws
less than $100 of electricity a month, I have serious reservations
about the UN IPCC proposals. Their carbon credit scheme simply means a
transfer of wealth from developed nations to undeveloped nations while
a few middlemen like Al Gore get rich. If we really wanted to penalize
carbon (and I'm not convinced it's the best way), it should a tax where
the revenues stay in the US.
Posted by georgeou
26th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The purpose of a wealth transfer
A wealth transfer makes new technology affordable to foreign markets.
We subsidize all sorts of export industries. We just do those deals
under the table. This is transparent

If you're not to account for the full price of using something,
you're subsidizing it. We are subsidizing coal and oil and gas by
refusing to pay the full costs of burning them. This favors those
industries, which are slow growing, against other industries that are
fast-growing.

Countries that act intelligently and give new industries a fair shake
wind up taking our markets. China and Germany are taking our markets,
and it's going to be increasingly difficult to get them back so long
as we're subsidizing no-growth industries.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
27th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
riverat1
I'm a Rice Owl myself, and sometimes a Northwestern Wildcat, but when a
school comes op with something cool like the OSU dinosaur findings, I
give their mascot a shout out.
Posted by DanaBlankenhorn
27th Feb 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Fear of death behind climate change denial
Surely fear of death is the more likely reason for the gullible and unquestioning acceptance of the global warming "science" by the climate change believers?
Posted by Moselakatse
1st Mar 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
Fear of logic behind climate change promoters
If someone rejects a falsity does not make them a denier rather a supporter of logic! However someone who does not explore both sides of an argument before arriving at a conclusion is ignorant.

Someone who has a responsibility to present both sides of an argument but chooses to negate that professional responsibility is merely a propagandist.

Why not talk about the FACT that climatologists do not know for certain how climate functions on his planet and that they acknowledge there are forces greater than man (if we take military force out of the equation for now) which affect climate on this planet every day. Further it has been proven that those charged with analyzing the data have distorted that data. Therefore why believe something which has been proven to be false or at the very least questionable and given that is questionable why not present the other side of the equation which questions?

Fact of logic, CO2 cannot cause two contradictorily events. If CO2 was a cause of rise in temperature such that is was causing global warming then it cannot at the same time causing global cooling which is what climate change by its very definition incorporates. So which is it global warming or global cooling? At first it was global warming when summer became warmer than seasonal, then we get cool summers, cold snow breaking winters such as this year, and last year and the year before that; so global warming becomes climate change all the while using CO2 as the reason for both. That is illogical. If we take a leap of logic and say it is the contributor of the climate events then what is the problem, the earth is not heating up nor cooling but changing as it always has. Since we have not been keeping records for the last 10,000 plus years or 500 for that matter how do we know that the events occurring today are not nominal to what should occur on this planet? We do know for certain the C02 did exist in greater quaintly in the atmosphere in the past through core samples and yet hear we are today will all life, vegetation, icebergs and dare I say it even polar bears.

It seems to me that those who want to believe that CO2 is the cause of anything bad with the climate is like the Catholic church of the cinquecento/seicento (500?s/600?s). Just like the church wanted to insist the earth was the center of the universe even after Galileo showed(proved) it was not, there are those that insist on believing like SmartPlanet that CO2 in some quantity over normal is the cause of earthly distraction when it has been showed(proven) it is not . The church knew the truth but would not let go in promoting the false believe because doing so would alter their power and dominance to force the populace to do as they said, that is the power to alter the populaces behavior (for their good of course) and just as important the church wanted to maintain their tax schemes.

Supporting logic and rejecting illogic or falsities has nothing to do with death but everything to do with supporting life, creativity and advancement. It seems to me that there are those at SmartPlanet which are deniers of logic and as such supporters of death. Perhaps after many years of false programming they simply cannot let go of the nonsensical superstitious beliefs as those within the Catholic church could not. Or perhaps they wish to promote their own agenda without being honest about it.

SmartPlanet should try employing logic at least once in a while and fine it will then contribute articles in this area of relevance and discourse which will help man and not suggest excuses to enact tax schemes to father enslave him.
Posted by mario@...
1st Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Fear of logic behind climate change promoters
PS, the greatest source of oil consumed in US comes from Canada not from Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked there were no security threat coming form Canada, unless someone at SmartPlanet knows different. Further NAFTA ensures that the majority of Canadian oil must go to the US before Canadian citizens can use it. Plus the garrison of US soldiers stationed near Alberta is the grantee. What more security does the US need for its oil consumption?

Profits in solar and wind technology will like today with oil production be limited to the few while the majority of the population paying higher rates through smart meters. Oh and don?t forget the cost over runs in the form of higher future taxes needed for the building of nuclear power plants need to supply the grid with enough reliable/sustainable energy for all those eclectic cars. Not to mention the cost of nuclear waste containment which is never factored into the equation when governments estimate the cost to build a nuclear planet however will be paid for through the higher utility bills.
Posted by mario@...
1st Mar 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Fear of death behind climate change denial
" Since we have not been keeping records for the last
10,000 plus years or 500 for that matter how do we know
that the events occurring today are not nominal to what
should occur on this planet? "

Easy. Ice cores show the data on winter precipitation AND
atmospheric conditions up to 400,000 years ago.

And one thing we know. Change is not at all unusual, but
very RAPID change is bad.

Ask the dinosaurs about that.

Once, Earth's atmosphere was 30% oxygen. Dinosaurs and
giant spiders hunted in jungles that made the Amazon
rainforest look tepid.

But things changed, suddenly. And if we were to clone one
of those extinct giant arachnids, they couldn't even breathe
our air.

Evidence shows there have been as many as six great
catastrophes that nearly wiped clean the whole planet.

We need to be on watch against any sudden changes that
could rock the boat: we're pretty fragile, you know.
Posted by Jkirk3279
4th Mar 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Climate Change
"Fact of logic, CO2 cannot cause two contradictorily events.
If CO2 was a cause of rise in temperature such that is was
causing global warming then it cannot at the same time
causing global cooling which is what climate change by its
very definition incorporates. So which is it global warming
or global cooling?"

Your logic is impaired.

Climate Change is about unexpected, and difficult to
predict, shifts in local climate.

As the whole world gets warmer, areas that are arid may
become more so; areas that are warm may actually cool
slightly, as the Gulf Stream shifts, bearing away needed
warmth and moisture.

And yes, some areas will become hotter.

Worse, by injecting more heat energy into the equation, we
will likely see MORE weather: more droughts, floods,
hurricanes, tornadoes.

Imagine this. You spin a top, and watch.

If you got a good spin, you'll see a long stable period where
the top seems to stand still.

That's the Planet Earth's climate in a nutshell.

Now try to spin the top again, harder. You'll see it wobble
on it's axis, precess, and jitter.

It has more energy than before: it's not quite stable. It
may even spin out and crash.

Now spin the top again. And touch it, just briefly.

Crash !

That's what we want to avoid, BTW. We want to keep
everything smooth sailing.

Only fools think we can make so much pollution and give
off so much CO2 so quickly without having an effect.
Posted by Jkirk3279
4th Mar 2010
-1 Votes
+ -
So... the dinosaurs could have save themselves?
What a mess!

By the way, neither Arctic ice cores nor ocean floor cores nor Bristle-cone Pine cores can be assumed to have faithfully preserved the atmospheric gases they are 'presumed' to have trapped.

Nobody 'knows' anything on either side except this:

Man is puny, and the earth is huge, but there's just no getting chicken little to stop and think before crying wolf.

But, of course, I'm the superstitious Neanderthal, right?
Posted by Gaius_Maximus
26th Mar 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!