The Paradox of Climate Denial Among the Elite
by Neal Fine
August 7, 2024
The Paradox
I recently spoke with a C-suite executive at a renewable energy company that owns and operates wind and solar farms all over the world. Since it was a private conversation, the identity of this individual shall remain anonymous. During that conversation, I encountered a perplexing contradiction; despite his significant professional contributions to advancing clean energy, this highly intelligent, driven, and successful individual expressed skepticism about climate change. Dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, he cited the change in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” as evidence that there was never proof of warming in the first place. In his view, the only thing that could convince him that global warming was happening would be rock-solid data that showed increasing global average temperatures. And, presumably, when the 1990’s era data that he last took in did not look like rock-solid evidence of rising temperatures, he formed his rock-solid opinion that climate scientists were simply wrong. For reasons that completely escape me, that opinion was never updated despite the subsequent avalanche of evidence.
His denial is particularly surprising and irksome, coming as it does from an individual who is actively engaged in an industry that directly addresses the consequences of a changing climate! And it raises broader questions about the motivations and cognitive biases that might lead influential figures to reject well-established science.
Evidence of Global Warming
For the record, the evidence for global warming is both vast and varied, drawing from multiple scientific disciplines and observed phenomena. Since some of that evidence includes severe weather or wildfires happening right outside our windows, it hardly seems worth explaining. But here goes:
1. Rising Global Temperatures: Data from NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations show a consistent rise in global average temperatures over the past century, with the most significant increases occurring in the last few decades. How many times do we have to hear the words “last year was the hottest year on record” before we take global warming seriously? The hard data is freely available to examine yourself. A google search for “global surface temperature data” will lead you to many sources, including the World Meteorological Organization, which includes links to three separate datasets from NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office Hadley center in the UK. I downloaded a representative dataset (in a convenient excel format) from the latter and plotted it here, along with a polynomial trendline. Even if you think that trendline is a crude and overly pessimistic model for future temperature anomalies, it at least should wake you up to a very real and potentially very hot future. And since nearly all predictions made by climate scientists over the years regarding the effects of global warming have come to fruition, the fact that they are raising the alarm over the potential catastrophic effects and civilizational change to be brought on by a 3-deg-Celsius increase in average global temperatures should be a call to action.
Figure 1 Temperature anomalies relative to 1961-1990 [1]. The blue curve is raw data. The dashed curve is a polynomial trendline.
2. Melting Polar Ice Caps: The Arctic Sea ice extent has declined sharply over the past 40 years, with glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica also losing mass at alarming rates [2].
3. Sea Level Rise: As polar ice melts and ocean waters warm, sea levels have been rising. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global sea levels have risen by about 8 inches since 1880, with the rate of increase accelerating in recent decades [3].
4. Increased Frequency of Extreme Weather Events: There has been a notable uptick in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods, which are consistent with the predictions of climate models [4].
5. Ocean Acidification: The oceans have absorbed about 30% of the carbon dioxide produced by human activities, leading to a measurable increase in ocean acidity, which threatens marine life and ecosystems [5].
The Shift from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”
The argument that the term “global warming” was replaced by “climate change” due to a lack of evidence misunderstands the evolution of the language used to describe these phenomena. “Global warming” specifically refers to the long-term trend of increasing average global temperatures (see Fig. 1), a key aspect of the broader phenomenon of climate change. As recently as the 1990’s, it may have been reasonable for the lay-person who is not well-versed in the intricacies of climate modeling to suggest that the temperature data alone was inconclusive at that time. However, even a non-scientist can clearly see the upward trend in the average global temperature data today. Moreover, the term “climate change” was not meant to cover up any inconsistency in global temperature data, but rather was adopted to encompass a wider range of environmental changes, including the increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, changing precipitation patterns, and shifts in ecosystems and wildlife populations.
This broader terminology reflects the scientific understanding that while global temperatures are indeed rising, the consequences of this warming are complex and varied. By using “climate change,” scientists and policymakers aim to capture the full scope of the issue, including impacts that extend beyond temperature increases alone. The fact that a smart, successful executive of a renewable energy company has not updated his outdated biases is both alarming and deeply troubling.
The Path Forward
The anecdote of the renewable energy executive who denies climate change suggests that intelligence, success, and even involvement in climate-related industries do not necessarily inoculate individuals against cognitive biases or ideological commitments that can lead to the rejection of scientific evidence. Understanding and addressing these cognitive barriers is crucial if we are to build a consensus around the urgent need for action on climate change.
However, I also want to acknowledge what truly matters. This executive is doing the hard work necessary to help transition our grid energy sources away from those that are derived from carbon- and pollution-emitting fossil fuels and towards those derived from clean, efficient, and cost-effective wind, solar, and hydro plants. Would it be better if he used his voice to sound the alarm about the dangers of a changing climate? Absolutely. But if I have to choose between talking about a problem and offering real solutions, I will pick real solutions every day of the week.
At Arctura, we are working hard to deliver solutions that we feel will make an impact on climate by helping the world to transition to renewable energy and by reducing the carbon footprint of a sector of the chemical industry. We have leveraged peer-reviewed grants from the US Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the State of Rhode Island to develop the ArcGuide® blade coating to help protect wind turbine blades from damage caused by lightning, reducing maintenance costs and increasing uptime for utility-scale wind farms. And we are in the process of developing a new way to synthesize nitric acid – a ubiquitous chemical whose production is responsible for over 100 million tons of carbon emissions every year – using just air, water, and clean electricity. The path forward for us is to keep innovating to address real problems and spinning those innovations into products that are useful for our customers. And, yes, we will continue to use our voices to call attention to both the problem and the solutions.
References
[1] HadCRUT5 dataset. Met Office Hadley Centre Observations Datasets, www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/. Accessed 7 Aug. 2024.
[2] “ANTARCTICA MASS VARIATION SINCE 2002.” NASA, 30 Jan. 2024, climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/?intent=121. Accessed 7 Aug. 2024.
[3] Oppenheimer, M., et al., 2019: Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities. In: IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 321-445. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157964.006.
[4] Seneviratne, S.I., et al., 2021: Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1513–1766, doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.013.
[5] Bates, N. R. (2016). Update to data originally published in Bates, N. R., Best, M. H. P., Neely, K., Garley, R., Dickson, A. G., & Johnson, R. J. (2012). Detecting anthropogenic carbon dioxide uptake and ocean acidification in the North Atlantic Ocean. Biogeosciences, 9, 2509–2522. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-2509-2012.
