New Scientist : Age of Denial

De Nile, not just a place in Egypt,sorry that is one of my favourite jokes, along with Dubai, no I was just window shopping. I can hear the groaning from here. Normal service resumes in 3...2...1...

This is commentary on a New Scientist Special Report, State of Denial, Volume 206 No 2760 15 May 2010 pp 35 - 45 by various writers including Michael Shermer, Michael Fitzpatrick, Jim Giles, Richard Littlemore, Debora MacKenzie.

Are you a denialist or a sceptic?

A sceptic should review all the available information and reserve judgement until they have reviewed the information. At that point they follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

A denialist will make the judgement first and then bend the evidence to fit their case or even discard contradictory evidence to support an argument.

Of course not everything is so black and white there are many shades of grey, in all healthy debate people will choose evidence that supports their case but will generally not ignore evidence that is overwhelming against their argument.

This definition is very important to any discussion about the world being in a state of denial. Take any modern issue facing humanity like climate change / global warming. The information is so vast we cannot review and interpret it ourselves, scientists themselves are not public relations people so we have to rely on scientific commentators or journalists to interpret us for us. This relies on them to present the correct interpretation to us and even if they are presenting the correct interpretation they are often overshadowed by the opposing view who have a bigger marketing budget. In climate change oil companies have a bigger budget to present a view that supports their future business. This does not meed they are necessarily the evil empire but they have a lot to say and we are more likely to hear it first.

If I as an average man in the blogosphere wanted to completely investigate global warming then it would probably take at least a full year full time and about £50,000 and at the end of the year I would have just another book of the truth about global warming. Actually how much could I add to the debate? Only Science truly adds to the debate not commentary.

Of course being presented with all this commentary on global issues is it any wonder that some people are happy to deny the truth. I believe that denialists latch on to the most coherent or in your face argument and then accept supporting information denying any contradictory information. In a way we like to have a definitive opinion on an issue such as global warming. Having a view of "I just don't know" is uncomfortable if you are unable to do a complete review of the evidence or progress towards a definitive opinion.

The media although a force for good in reporting everything also confuses us because it constantly contradicts itself. Look at the basic media interview, whatever the person says the interviewer will ask the opposing question. This leads us to question everything and in a sense not to believe what is in front of us but look for the conspiracy or the hidden agenda. We are actually in a state of mistrust even to the point where we no longer trust ourselves.

To quote a song "All of these problems are in your head... you took something perfect and painted it red."