There is no point in denying it: we’re losing. Climate change denial is spreading like a contagious disease. It exists in a sphere which cannot be reached by evidence or reasoned argument; any attempt to draw attention to scientific findings is greeted with furious invective. This sphere is expanding with astonishing speed.  …

It certainly doesn’t reflect the state of the science, which has hardened dramatically over the past two years. If you don’t believe me, open any recent edition of Science or Nature or any peer-reviewed journal specialising in atmospheric or environmental science. Go on, try it. The debate about global warming that’s raging on the internet and in the rightwing press does not reflect any such debate in the scientific journals.

Turning to well-known deniers and in particular, Clive James (yes, the other side has its celebs too), George further presses the case for the science.

Had he bothered to take a look at the quality of the evidence on either side of this media debate, and the nature of the opposing armies – climate scientists on one side, rightwing bloggers on the other – he too might have realised that the science is in. In, at any rate, to the extent that science can ever be, which is to say that the evidence for manmade global warming is as strong as the evidence for Darwinian evolution, or for the link between smoking and lung cancer. I am constantly struck by the way in which people like James, who proclaim themselves sceptics, will believe any old claptrap that suits their views.  …

And then gets to the point.

Such beliefs seem to be strongly influenced by age. The Pew report found that people over 65 are much more likely than the rest of the population to deny that there is solid evidence that the earth is warming, that it’s caused by humans or that it’s a serious problem. This chimes with my own experience. Almost all my fiercest arguments over climate change, both in print and in person, have been with people in their 60s or 70s. Why might this be?

George refers to a 1973 idea by cultural anthropologist, Ernest Becker, that the fear of death drives us to protect ourselves with “vital lies” or “the armour of character”, leading us to defend ourselves from the ultimate terror by engaging in immortality projects.

One of the most arresting findings is that immortality projects can bring death closer. In seeking to defend the symbolic, heroic self that we create to suppress thoughts of death, we might expose the physical self to greater danger.

He ends on an equally pessimistic note as that which he began.

And could it be that the rapid growth of climate change denial over the past two years is actually a response to the hardening of scientific evidence? If so, how the hell do we confront it?

Indeed, George.  And it seems to me we’re also not short of challenges dealing with those young enough not to be so concerned with their mortality as well.

My favourites so far:

# Sapient Says:

The skeptics cry.
Their wealth run dry.
The earth overheated and dead.
They bemoan the inferno,
their ignorance hath fed.

# greenfly Says:

Rodney wants to Hide
his head in the blinding sand
It’s a selfish Act

Lovely stuff! Keep it coming!