正如这里的大多数读者所知道的那样，科学家们压倒性地同意，人类造成的气候变化正在发生。Human activities, like burning coal and cattle farming, cause emission of greenhouse gases, like CO₂and methane. Those gases make the atmosphere more absorbent of infrared rays, which makes it get hotter. And the evidence-based predictions are dire. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) “forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.”

那么，为什么很多人否认气候变化呢?一个普遍的观点是，这些人只是拒绝科学。But in most cases, it’s notall科学他们拒绝。毕竟，大多数否认气候变化的人仍然相信有电这种东西存在，而且地球绕着太阳转。And ifDan Kahan’s research is accurate, greater general scientific knowledge among conservatives is associated withhigherlevels of climate change denial(the relation is in the opposite direction for liberals). So general rejection of science isn’t an adequate explanation of denial. So what is going on?

In my next blog, I’m going to take a deeper dive into the psychological and sociological literatures on climate change denial.But in this one, I want to do some conceptual framing that will enable us to better understand those literatures once we get to them.

As I see it, there are at least five types of climate change denier. The word “denier” needs to be taken broadly here, because not all of these types are people who loudly proclaim that there is no anthropogenic climate change. But all five types do contribute to the wider phenomenon of denial. The types are these:The Deceiver,The Deceived,The Self-Deceived,The Skeptic, and theTruly Ignorant. These types overlap in interesting way, and it may be hard to tell in practice which type you’re talking to on any occasion. But listing them distinctly provides an intellectual tool for thinking about how to deal with deniers both theoretically and practically. So let’s spell them out.

Type 1: The Deceiver

This is type knowingly spreads misinformation about climate change. That could be denial that there is climate change, denial that humans are causing it, denial that the effects are as bad as scientists say, etc. But what is distinctive is that they are aware of what they are doing. They are willfully mendaciousmerchants of doubt——通常拥有相关科学领域的高级学位。他们从石油和煤炭等方面获利颇丰。The thing to know about the Deceivers is that they’re clever: they’ll know enough of the evidencefor人为的气候变化，他们可以从中挑选，以便向那些容易受骗的人呈现扭曲的画面。我认为有两种方法可以中和骗子:(1)通过追逐金钱揭露他们的真面目(这是我推荐的方法);(2) pay them more than what they’re getting from oil and coal (you have to havea lotof money for this one).

Type 2: The Deceived

如果骗子在做生意，那是因为他们的欺骗至少对一些人起作用。因此，《被欺骗的人》是一个悲惨的受害者——他看着保守派的“新闻”节目，得出结论说没有气候变化，或者气候变化不是由人类(或其他原因)引起的。被欺骗的人通常比骗子聪明得多，因为被欺骗的人无法嗅出宣传“新闻”节目和新闻来源之间的区别。But there is a grain of hope for this one, because someone in who fits the Deceived type maysimply be in error与意识形态上的错误或其他动机相反。That means there may be better prospects for correcting their erroneous views with clear and good information, e.g., aboutmechanisms of climate change.

Type 3: The Self-Deceived

But I suspect that most deniers who aren’t craven Deceivers themselves are also notmerelyDeceived either. Rather, they take active mental steps to resist drawing the conclusion that human-caused climate change is occurring, and thusthey deceive themselves. This may include fixating on alternate explanations for the measured rise in temperatures (Sunspots! Solar winds!), seizing upon the rare lapses of professional ethics on the part of a few climate scientists, or “reasoning” from cold winter days in their hometowns to the conclusion that global warming is a hoax.

The Self-Deceived encompasses many sub-types. But they all have three things in common. First, The Self-Deceived has someawareness支持气候变化的证据;这可能是一个暗示，也可能是实质性的。这种意识是他们的眼中钉，当话题出现时，他们会变得易怒和任性。Second, they have somemotivationin favor of denying anthropogenic climate change, which makes them resist the evidence. As Helen De Cruz has recentlyargued(与Kahan的文化认知假说一致)，动机往往是属于某个社会群体，这使得拥有某些观点成为一种身份标记。因此，第三，自欺者必须采取定期的步骤来维持他们的否认，如上所述。

The Self-Deceiver is frustrating, because she can’t be won over with simple solid evidence (that differentiates her from The Deceived) or with financial incentive (which might work on a pure version of The Deceiver). The Self-Deceiver, especially the identity-based one, is possibly the most tenacious obstacle when it comes to fighting climate change denial. Note also that The Self-Deceived may wind up in the same social role as The Deceiver: that of being a public mouthpiece of denial; in that case, The Deceiver will find the Self-Deceived to be an easily manipulated and useful ally.

Type 4: The Skeptic

This type technically doesn’t deny anthropogenic climate change in the sense of positively saying that it doesn’t exist. The Skeptic just argues thatwe don’t know one way or another. Effectively, however, The Skeptic plays into The Deceiver’s hand, because The Skeptic’s position leaves people uncertain and hence (in point of psychological fact) immobilized, which is exactly what The Deceiver is paid to produce anyway. The Skeptic can be more or less sophisticated. The unsophisticated Skeptic is unaware of large fragments of the evidence, but they think they know more of it than they do. As a result, the evidence appears inconclusive. The sophisticated Skeptic is someone likeRichard Lindzen他煞费苦心地强调，过去的科学共识是错误的，并不是所有关于变暖的解释都被完全排除了。

The Skeptic, especially the sophisticated one, is also a frustrating figure. That’s because for anything that is not logic, mathematics, or straightforward perceptual fact, it’s very easy to argue that we don’t actuallyknowsomething. For example, I could argue:you don’t actuallyknowthat Mongolia exists, because you’ve never been there… you’ve only heard about it, and you don’t know if your sources were telling the truth!但这是便宜。你确实知道蒙古是通过多个相互融合的独立渠道存在的，但这种基于社会基础的知识很难解释。“怀疑论者”立场的问题在于，它是有偏见的:它对气候变化的共识表现出一定程度的怀疑，如果普遍应用，将削弱许多我们都认为理所当然的知识。For the record, I think the best way to deal with The Skeptic is to point out that some level of uncertainty is no excuse for inaction, and action should rest on the best science we have, even if it’sin principle可能是出错了。重要的是，“可能出错”并不意味着“可能出错”，而且气候科学出错的可能性随着全球气温的上升而逐年下降。

Type 5: The Truly Ignorant

This type really just doesn’t know anything one way or another. Their saving grace is that they know they don’t know. But like The Deceived, The Truly Ignorant is a victim of The Deceiver’s (and probably Self-Deceiver’s) propaganda. This type is aware of conflicting information channels, but they are unsuccessful at discriminating which one is the good one. So The Truly Ignorant just feels stuck, not knowing whom to believe or how to escape their predicament. Alternately, another way to be truly ignorant is just to beunmotivatedto find out more information. So we can distinguish two sub-types of The Truly Ignorant: The Bewildered and The Lazy. The former would like to know more but is just overwhelmed by apparently conflicting information and so doesn’t achieve knowledge about climate change. The latter just doesn’t care.

The Truly Ignorant differs from The Skeptic in the following way: The Skeptic claims that the evidence doesn’t demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, which is actually a strong claim. The Truly Ignorant really just doesn’t know what the evidence demonstrates, and they don’t trust themselves to figure it out or care to. To me, The Truly Ignorant is the saddest type of all: a victim of those merchants of doubt who feels helpless or unmotivated to escape their epistemic hole.

Those are the five Types. So that’s all for now. Next month I’ll apply the Types in untangling some thorny data in the empirical literatures on climate change denial. But in the meanwhile, try asking yourself—next time you confront a climate change denier—which Type (or mix of Types) you’re addressing. Doing so might help you develop more nuanced tactics.

Image byGerd AltmannfromPixabay