The Science of Science Denial

We often encounter the argument that there is no consensus among scientists that climate change is occurring, much less that it is caused by human activity. We even sometimes encounter the argument that global warming is a hoax. This line of attack follows a familiar pattern that emerged in response to the polio vaccine in the 1950s and continues to be put to service to attack established science. It has been used, among others, to defend hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, to attack the theory of evolution, to argue that the earth is really flat, to deny the efficacy of vaccines such as the flu vaccine, the vaccine against EBOLA, and the COVID-19 vaccine, to deny the severity of the coronavirus pandemic and the measures needed to combat it, and to dispute that nicotine consumption is related to cancer. Each aspect of the attack on the science of climate change and global warming follows the same monotonous pattern:

• Create the appearance of a legitimate scientific debate when in fact there is none. This is done by conducting a public-focused media campaign (which has been made significantly easier by the ease of disseminating misinformation on the Internet) and bypassing the scientific community.
• Ignore established science or argue that the science is “too new.” In the case of climate change, the effect of greenhouse gas emissions on the environment has been known since the work of Joseph Fourier in the 1820s and John Tyndall in the 1860s.
• Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite those with outlying views or minimal qualifications as experts. When finding a valuable climate change denier, either ignore his qualifications or fail to note his or her lack of broader standing within the scientific community.
• Question the motives and integrity of the scientists supporting climate change. Donald Trump, for example, argued that climate change was a hoax promoted by pro-Chinese scientists who wanted to undermine American manufacturing. This line of attack is actually a smokescreen: it creates a diversion so that the sources of financial support of climate change deniers -- typically the fossil fuels lobby and industries opposed to limits on carbon dioxide emissions – go unnoticed.
• Rely on powerful political lobbies to ensure that research on climate change is either under-funded or denied funding altogether. This approach aims at closing the discussion by preventing research that can not only confirm the fact of climate change but identify what more might be done to save our planet. Since the time of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party has been especially responsive to the call of these powerful lobbies.
• Inspire fear and exaggerate the potential harm. Climate change deniers have argued that massive unemployment and extreme economic dislocations will result from any actions taken to curtail climate change. Our conspicuous consumption must continue unabated.
• Emphasize a loss of personal freedom. Libertarian organizations, which are concerned with the unfettered rights of the individual (e.g., I don’t have to wear a face covering because it infringes on my personal liberties, even though I can infect and kill others) and right-wing think tanks play a central role here.
• Point out that the science is contradicted by so-called ”Biblical truths.” Climate change deniers like to argue that:
  • God gave humankind control over his creation in Genesis 1:26,28. As What is the meaning of dominion? and Dominion and Eschatology argue, this is a profound misinterpretation.
  • Climate change advocates confuse the Creator with his creation. But this sharp separation between God and His creation poses philosophical and theological difficulties; in fact, it negates the assertion in Genesis that God made man in his image (Genesis 1:26-27).
  • God promised Noah in Genesis 8:21-22; 9:14-17 that He will not destroy the earth. Note that God did not promise to rescue the earth from humanity’s efforts to destroy it.

Underlying this argument is the belief that, when science and the Bible collide, the Bible must prevail. But as Catholics, we should recognize that this contradicts St. Augustine’s argument (in The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Book 1, Chapters 18-19) that when science contradicts our understanding of Scripture, we are called to reassess our understanding of Scripture. The disparity between science and Scripture arises, he argues, because we aim to conform Scripture to our own limited understanding and our own desires.

Whether we want to admit it or not, our common home, which sustains our own lives as well as the many life forms that God has called into being, is dying. As Christians, we are called, not to engage in idle debate that denies scientific truth, but to take action to defend life and save the glory of God’s creation that He has entrusted to us to preserve.