The psychology of climate change denial is the study of why people deny climate change, despite the scientific consensus on climate change. A study assessed public perception and action on climate change on grounds of belief systems, and identified seven psychological barriers affecting behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship: cognition, ideological worldviews, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, disbelief in experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes. Other factors include distance in time, space, and influence. Reactions to climate change may include anxiety, depression, despair, dissonance, uncertainty, insecurity, and distress, with one psychologist suggesting that "despair about our changing climate may get in the way of fixing it." The American Psychological Association has urged psychologists and other social scientists to work on psychological barriers to taking action on climate change. The immediacy of a growing number of extreme weather events are thought to motivate people to deal with climate change.
Types of denial
Expanding the meaning of "denial"
The idea of "soft" or implicit climate change denial became prominent in the mid-2010s, but variations of the same concept originated earlier. An article published by National Center for Science Education referred to "implicit" denial:
Climate change denial is most conspicuous when it is explicit, as it is in controversies over climate education. The idea of implicit (or "implicatory") denial, however, is increasingly discussed among those who study the controversies over climate change. Implicit denial occurs when people who accept the scientific community's consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change on the intellectual level fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Such people are in denial, so to speak, about climate change. In May 2015, environmentalist Bill McKibben penned an op-ed criticizing Barack Obama's policies of approving petroleum exploration in the Arctic, expanding coal mining, and remaining indecisive on the Keystone XL pipeline. McKibben wrote:
This is not climate denial of the Republican sort, where people simply pretend the science isn't real. This is climate denial of the status quo sort, where people accept the science, and indeed make long speeches about the immorality of passing on a ruined world to our children. They just deny the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground. McKibben's use of the word "denial" was an early expansion of the term's meaning in environmental discourse to include "denial of the significance or logical consequences of a fact or problem; in this case, what advocates see as the necessary policies that flow from the dangers of global warming."
Analysis of soft climate change denial Michael Hoexter, a scholar and sustainability advocate, analyzed the phenomenon of "soft climate change denial" in a September 2016 article for the blog New Economic Perspectives and expanded on the idea in a follow-up article published the next month. Despite the term's earlier, informal usage, Hoexter has been credited with formally defining the concept. In Hoexter's terms, "soft" climate denial "means that one acknowledges in some parts of one's life that climate change is real, disastrous and happening now but in most other parts of one's life, one ignores that anthropogenic global warming is, in fact, a real existential emergency and catastrophic." According to Hoexter, "soft climate denial and the thin gruel of climate action policies that accompany it may be functioning as a 'face-saving' device to mask fundamental inertia or a deep manifest preference for inaction while continuing fossil-fueled business as usual." He also applied the term to "more 'radical' groups" that pushed for more responsive measures, but "often either miss the mark in terms of the climate challenge facing us or wrap themselves in communication strategies and 'memes' that limit their potential influence on politics and policy." In Hoexter's view, soft denial can only be escaped through collective action, not individual action or realization. Soft climate change denial (also called implicit or implicatory climate change denial) is a state of mind acknowledging the existence of global warming in the abstract while remaining, to some extent, in partial psychological or intellectual denialism about its reality or impact. It is contrasted with conventional "hard" climate change denial, which refers to explicit disavowal of the consensus on global warming's existence, causes, or effects (including its effects on human society).
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.



![Psychology of climate change denial: On the floor of the U.S. Senate, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe displayed a snowball—in winter—as evidence the globe was not warming[22]—in a year that was found to be Earth's warmest on record.[23] The director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies distinguished local weather in a single location in a single week from long-term global climate change.[24]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Inhofe_holding_snowball.jpg/330px-Inhofe_holding_snowball.jpg?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
![Psychology of climate change denial: Belief that human activity is the primary cause of climate change varies widely by religious affiliation, with less than one-third of white evangelical Protestants holding that belief.[48]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/202306_Survey_-_is_climate_change_caused_by_humans%2C_categorized_by_religion.svg/500px-202306_Survey_-_is_climate_change_caused_by_humans%2C_categorized_by_religion.svg.png?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
![Psychology of climate change denial: Research found that 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern among fellow Americans. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to be 37–43%—barely half as much. Researchers have called this misperception a false social reality, a form of pluralistic ignorance.[49][50]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/20220823_Public_underestimation_of_public_support_for_climate_action_-_poll_-_false_social_reality.svg/500px-20220823_Public_underestimation_of_public_support_for_climate_action_-_poll_-_false_social_reality.svg.png?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_campaign=parser&utm_content=thumbnail)
