Denying Denialism

I am not denying climate change. I am skeptical that we know how to fix it.

I have a piece in today’s issue of Current on the issue of climate change. In it, I address a problem that has piqued me for a long time: the false dichotomy between accepting its reality and the alternative of “denialism.” But as I try to explain, it’s perfectly possible to recognize and accept scientific consensus on climate change (while also recognizing that the phrase “settled science” is a contradiction in terms) and legitimately question the solutions that are on the table, or even wondering if there are any. I review a series of dilemmas—the tragedy of the commons; the question of political priorities; the reality of compelling tradeoffs—that credibly grappling with the issue requires. Instead, we’re all too often told that deferring to expert climatologist opinion is really the only responsible way to view the matter, part of a larger problem viewing dissent from expert opinion as nothing more than a form of bigotry or ignorance. My hope is that the Greta Thunbergs of the world will show more epistemological modesty and work a little harder to engage skeptics. Perhaps that way a more effective political strategy can emerge.

I’ll be back on Wednesday with another installment in my series of letters to my unborn granddaughter.