How we evolved to reject climate science

‘Catastrophe? That’s a bit unsettling – I’ll sit back in my comfy chair of denial thanks.’

Is it any wonder so many people turn their back on climate science, asks Paul Biegler from Monash University?

“Who wants to hear – as the World Bank told us today – we’re heading for a four-degree-warmer world, with more heatwave deaths and life-threatening sea-level rise?

“Climate communication is surely the latter day task of Sisyphus. A 2012 Gallup poll found only 52% of Americans accept the earth is warming. Barely more than half of those think it man-made. Warming science is a boulder, and it keeps rolling back down the mountain. And the gravitational force might just be evolution.

“The new kid on the climate-change block is the psychology of climate science rejection. Why are so many, faced with so much evidence, so unconvinced?

“Confirmation bias is shaping as a strong contender in a wide field. This type of “motivated reasoning” means we favour information that sits well with our values and beliefs, and discount any that contradicts. Cultural leanings, rather than scientific literacy, better predicted climate beliefs in a recent study.

“Believing in a world that fits with our values – be it one of wind farms or nuclear power – feels good. Statements that challenge those beliefs – turbines cause illness, nuclear energy is dangerous – disturb the peace. To preserve the pleasant mental state we downgrade the objection.

“Everyone is vulnerable to confirmation bias, including scientists – although peer review keeps that mostly in check. But those who reject climate science might just be more prone. Why?

“A world of looming environmental catastrophe is, to put it mildly, unpalatable. And so a large hedonic reward is on offer to any who discount it.”

The whole post can be found on  The Conversation.