The latest instalment from the Earth Blog is an attack on Climate Change Denial with a big difference: it doesn’t take up a scientific argument or even a moral argument, for neither of those have been shown to have any impact on a person who is deeply entrenched in their beliefs. Instead, it uses a logical argument to show that, regardless of any debate that may still be raging in the minds of those who seek to discredit the reality of anthropogenic global warming, denial is logically absurd.

But why is it so important to do this? Surely if you ignore someone in denial, then they will eventually leave you alone. Well, yes, but they are still very dangerous people in general:

As we have seen, and probably realised from experience, arguing with a Climate Change Denier is like wrestling in a deep, muddy pit: it can be filthy, exhausting and, worst of all, there seems to be no way out. Personal issues aside, the wider danger is that the other side might get their way – and that person, or group, or business, or government, will then be able to spread their own beliefs in the knowledge that there is no-one willing to take the opposing position. The many people who are wavering, or even understand that AGW is fact, can then be easily tipped into denial. This is what happens in totalitarian states: the ruler’s position becomes the de facto belief.

In ecological terms, this would be disastrous should it happen against AGW, for there would not even be enough dissenters to restart the process of change, let alone carry it through. It’s strange in a way – all the time it has seemed like an endless game of factual table tennis, it has in fact been a battle for the future of humanity, played out in a million places across the globe.

It will come as no surprise that climate science is not completely accurate – it is highly complex, heavily dependent on modelling, and relies on a huge amount of real-time data gathering. If ever a branch of science was a ripe denial opportunity, it is this one. So while the scientists do their job building up the case for action, the deniers continue to hack at the inevitable flaws in the science…two steps forward, one step back, and so on until it is too late to do anything about the environmental changes that the main body of scientists and their proponents had been pretty sure would happen soon. The deniers will have “won” their battle because – and this is where it gets pretty scary – it seems that by the time the changes start to be observed, it is almost impossible to reverse them.

This means that it is imperative to deal a knockout blow to those people and especially organisations with a vested interest in ensuring that civilization continues producing as many goods, travelling as much as possible, consuming everything within reach, generating as much electricity as possible and, ultimately, making a few people very, very rich. The aim of the corporate and political Climate Change Denier is to keep us on the same path…the one that leads to catastrophe. The aim of “The Logical Absurdity Of Climate Change Denial” is to give humanity a future.

There is an inescapable difference between mathematics and science: in essence, a mathematical proof is an absolute proof, which can never be refuted; a scientific “proof” on the other hand, is transient – it exists until a piece of contrary evidence emerges that is sufficiently powerful to undermine, or at least alter, the “proof”. All science is like this; no matter how credible the evidence, there is always the danger that one day it will be scientifically refuted. This happens quite a lot; not so much in the older branches of science such as classical physics and anatomy, as in far newer areas like quantum physics, microbiology and, as we have seen, climate science.

In mathematics this can never happen if the proof is logically sound.

Now, I’m not saying that it is possible to create a perfect analogue of mathematical proof within a scientific context; but it is possible to use a logical argument to create something that is very, very difficult to deny; largely because it doesn’t depend on predictive science, but on things we already know have happened, and are still happening. So, without further ado, if someone really is looking like a threat, banging on about how “the science is uncertain” and “we’ve seen this all before” and “it’s a big hoax”, be they a corporation, a politician, or any other individual or group that could influence someone else, then here is the logical argument against Climate Change Denial.

To read the article, click here.