Why am I writing about climate science? (v1.0)

 I was curious what would happen if I posed an intentionally provocative or controversial statement to copilot. I picked the subject of climate denial and posted the following statement. 

"Climate denial is human nature in action. Politicians don’t want to admit it because then they have to do something about it. People don’t want to accept it because this is not what they want to hear. Vested interests will pursue their own interests. Countries are jockeying for position and advantage on this so they may deny for that purpose. On the execution side, this is not simple to solve at all so deny." 

Here is CoPilot response. I have not fact checked it but looks pretty good. 

This is a complex topic.

You’ve raised an interesting point about climate denial. Indeed, it’s a complex issue with various factors at play. Let’s break it down:

Human Nature and Cognitive Biases:

• As you mentioned, climate denial can be a manifestation of human nature. People tend to resist information that challenges their existing beliefs or threatens their comfort zone.
• Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias (seeking information that confirms pre-existing views) and motivated reasoning (interpreting evidence to support one’s desired outcome), play a role in shaping our perceptions.

Political Considerations:

• Politicians often face a delicate balance. Acknowledging climate change may require significant policy changes, which can be politically unpopular or economically challenging.
• Some politicians may prioritize short-term gains (e.g., re-election) over long-term environmental concerns.

Vested Interests and Lobbying:

• Industries with vested interests (e.g., fossil fuels, automotive, agriculture) may actively promote climate denial to protect their profits.
• Lobbying efforts can influence public opinion and policy decisions. 

National and International Dynamics:

• Countries compete for resources, economic advantages, and geopolitical influence. Climate policies can impact these dynamics.
• Some nations may downplay climate change to maintain their competitive edge.

Complexity of Solutions:

• Addressing climate change requires global cooperation, technological advancements, and lifestyle changes.
• Implementing effective solutions is challenging due to the interconnectedness of economies, energy systems, and social structures.

Psychological Coping Mechanisms:

• Denial can serve as a psychological coping mechanism. Accepting the severity of climate change can evoke feelings of helplessness or anxiety.
• Some people deny the problem to reduce emotional distress.

Scientific Consensus:

• The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that climate change is real, caused by human activities, and poses significant risks.
• Communicating this consensus effectively remains a challenge.

 

In summary, climate denial is influenced by a combination of cognitive biases, political considerations, vested interests, and the complexity of addressing the issue. Encouraging informed discussions, promoting scientific literacy, and emphasizing collective responsibility are essential steps toward meaningful action. 

 

My focus with the climate essays is communicating the science hopefully more understandably and systematically to laymen. This will be the sole focus of the blogs going forward. As a writer, especially of science, this is an area I can contribute. Topics are drawn from Meteorology, Climatology and the Climate Scientific Consensus Result. 

 

My motivation in writing these is not to challenge the science but to explain it to laymen. I fully accept the scientific method. The blogs could serve two purposes. 

1.  Education could motivate a person to get engaged or take action of some sort. Individual actions add up.  This is the bigger use case. 

2.  Climate science denial works because the rational and objective laymen hearing it do not know the science and therefore swallow it. Education helps combat that. The denier probably though is unsalvageable and will pick some other excuse to pin the denial on. Some deniers though are ignorant or actually don't believe the science and those are salvageable.  

To summarize on climate science deniers, there are three categories of deniers. 

 

1. Those who are using it as an excuse. Impossible to convince them but you can make them move out of denial of science to denial based on something else. 

2. Denial due to ignorance. Potential to convince by educating. 

3. Denial because then don't truly believe the science. Potential to convince by educating.

 

Here is a critique from another chatbot. 

The passage offers a broad and somewhat cynical view on climate change denial, attributing it to various human and systemic factors. Here are some critiques of the passage:

1. **Overgeneralization**: The passage paints with a broad brush, attributing denial to human nature, politicians, the public, vested interests, and countries without considering the nuances and variations within each group. Not all politicians deny climate change, many people are actively working towards solutions, and some businesses and countries are leading in climate action.

2. **Lack of Nuanced Solutions**: While the passage acknowledges the complexity of solving climate change, it does not delve into potential solutions or strategies to overcome denial. It misses an opportunity to explore how education, policy, and innovation can address the issues it raises.

3. **Neglect of Positive Examples**: The passage could be more balanced by highlighting positive examples of climate action. Many politicians, businesses, and countries are making significant strides in addressing climate change, which could serve as a counterpoint to the pervasive denial described.

4. **Psychological Simplification**: Attributing climate denial primarily to human nature simplifies the psychological dimensions of the issue. While avoidance and denial are natural tendencies, other psychological factors like hope, collective action, and the ability to adapt are also at play and can be leveraged for positive change.

5. **Economic and Social Dynamics**: The passage mentions vested interests but does not explore how economic systems and policies can be reformed to align with climate goals. It overlooks the potential for green economies, sustainable development, and social movements to drive change.

6. **Geopolitical Simplification**: The mention of countries jockeying for position simplifies the international dynamics. While competition exists, there is also significant collaboration through international agreements like the Paris Agreement, which the passage does not acknowledge.

7. **Defeatist Tone**: The overall tone is somewhat defeatist, suggesting that denial is an almost inevitable response. This perspective can be disempowering, potentially discouraging action rather than motivating change.

In summary, while the passage raises valid points about the challenges of climate change denial, it could benefit from a more nuanced analysis and a more balanced view that includes potential solutions and positive examples of progress.

 

Here is what copilot had to say about my statement on climate science deniers. 

 

Thank you for sharing your insights on climate science deniers! It’s indeed a complex issue and understanding the different categories of deniers can help inform effective communication and advocacy efforts. Let’s delve a bit deeper into each category:

1.  Excuse-Based Deniers:

o    These individuals may deny climate science because it serves as a convenient excuse for their own interests or actions. For example, fossil fuel industry representatives might deny climate change to protect their profits.

o    While it’s challenging to convince them directly, focusing on their target audience (such as shareholders, consumers, or policymakers) can be more effective. Educating these stakeholders about the scientific consensus and the consequences of climate change can lead to informed decision-making.

2.  Ignorance-Based Deniers:

o    Some people deny climate science due to lack of knowledge or misinformation. They may not fully understand the evidence supporting climate change.

o    Education plays a crucial role here. Providing clear, accessible information—whether through public awareness campaigns, school curricula, or community workshops—can help dispel myths and promote understanding.

3.  Belief-Based Deniers:

o    These deniers genuinely don’t believe in the science of climate change. Their denial is rooted in personal beliefs, ideology, or worldview.

o    Education remains essential. Engaging in respectful dialogue, emphasizing empirical evidence, and highlighting the consensus among climate scientists can gradually shift their perspective.