While climate change is established scientifically, skepticism remains due to economic concerns and intentional efforts to discredit climate scientists. Economic issues are the primary reason for skepticism as transitioning away from fossil fuels could harm industries and livelihoods. Governments and groups intentionally aim to undermine the credibility of climate science and the IPCC to protect economic interests reliant on fossil fuels. As long as fossil fuels remain more economically viable than alternatives, it will be difficult to convince skeptics without a public consensus on the reality and impacts of climate change.

1. Grady Starkey
Professor Harold Blanco
FYS-100-501
20 June 2014
Climate Change: Why Skepticism Exists.
Climate change is a very real issue that has been well established by the scientific community at
large. Despite this, much of the world's population is still skeptical of climate change or most means of
combating it. This is the result of economic concerns, and efforts by government and non government
organizations to discredit climate scientists or blur the reality of what is happening.
Economic concerns are the primary catalyst for climate change skepticism. Despite consensus
from scientists and the availability of the data regarding climate change, “Interest in preparing for
climate change seems to have been superseded by concerns about the economy” (Powledge 8) Even
though there are large consequences for ignoring the effects of climate change, there is legitimate
concern over the effects of implementing anti-climate change actions that could cause near-term
economic woes. Our reliance on fossil fuels is not something that can be easily given up without
affecting the livelihoods of many of the people any climate change legislation would be designed to
assist. Comments from state representative Pricey Harrison on North Carolina's battle with climate
change sum up the issue well, “Industry pressures got in the way of scientific evidence and stifled any
momentum for doing anything about North Carolina's pursuing a lower carbon future” (Powledge 13.)
Australia is an excellent example of how economic concerns are waylaying any progress in countering
climate change. Australia is a nation that is highly resource driven and ranks high on the list of nations
which produce green house gases. (Young and Coutinho 89.) Australia's government has referred to the
Kyoto Protocol as a “national economic disaster,” as its primary reason for not wanting to ratify the
agreement. (Young and Coutinho 97.) Greater insight in to Australia’s views on climate change can be

2. summarized by statements made by their prime minister in 2006, “I am...determined to protect the
industries of this country that give us a natural competitive advantage...” Young and Coutinho 97) It is
clear from these statements that while there should be a consensus on climate change, much skepticism
exists because economic suitability of adapting to climate change is viewed by many to be as
unacceptable as the effects doing nothing at all. So long fossil fuels remain more economically viable
than the alternatives, or more importantly, so long as the cost of changing exceeds the monetary
benefits doing nothing, it will remain hard to convince skeptics. In many cases, the skeptics are the
ones being put in charge of what changes should be made, even as a part of efforts specifically
developed to combat climate change. A perfect example of this is a commission created by the State of
Arizona to create legislation action for climate change. 15 members in total, the commission was
headed solely by members of power and resource companies. (Powledge 10.)
A great deal of the confusion, and consequently, the skepticism surrounding climate change has
been the direct result of intentional efforts to obscure the issue. It is far easier to protect economic issue
if the public in general considers climate change to be a hoax or be non detrimental in nature. As
recently as 2010, only 61 to 50 percent of Americans think that climate change is real ( Marquart-Pryatt
and Sandra T. et al 38). Public acceptance of climate change has been on the decline despite the
consensus on the issue in the scientific community ( Marquart-Pryatt and Sandra T. et al 40). This is not
a coincidence. As a result of the enormous monetary risks that are on the horizon due to proposed cuts
in fossil fuels, governments and private individuals have gotten directly involved in skewing public
perception. Direct efforts have been made to reduce the credibility of climate change scientists
( Marquart-Pryatt and Sandra T. et al). Australia is once again a prime example of the issues
surrounding climate change cynicism. Australia’s government has put great effort into adjusting the
public’s views on human effects on the climate, certainly the result of the deep divisions that exist
inside the nation on how to move forward on the impeding effects of global climate change ( Young
and Countinho 91).

3. Paramount on among the objective of those determined to alter the publics views is undermining the
legitimacy of the IPCC ( Young and Countinho91) To do this, the effects of changes to our climate have
been made too look beneficial, or normal ( Young and Countinho 91). Factual evidence is not as
important as the perception of source of the information. People in general are, “comfortable...with the
institutions we deal with....so long as we trust their actions to be predictable and benign” (Young and
Countinho 92) If the efficacy of climate change arguments can be deteriorated by surrounding the issue
in a fog or making the IPCC look like a gang of liars, then the economic issues would no longer be in
contention with adapting to climate change as climate change would cease to be a issue worth
discussing. Even in nations where government influence is not the main source of disinformation,
private parties can achieve the same end if they effectively make lawmakers suspicious of the scientific
community (Powledge 11).
In spite of extensive research and available information, climate change continues to be a highly
debated topic. This stems from both the very real issue of how to handle the changes without imploding
the world economy, and direct efforts to prevent accurate information from gaining credibility. Without
a public consensus, any scientific opinion is meaningless. It is necessary for the world to come to terms
with the effects humans have on the world climate before any reasonable action can or will be taken.
The first step to solving any problem is admitting that there is one, and so far this has not happened
outside of the expert level community.

4. Works Cited
Young, Nathan, and Aline Coutinho. "Government, Anti-Reflexivity, And The Construction Of Public
Ignorance About Climate Change: Australia And Canada Compared." Global Environmental
Politics 13.2 (2013): 89-108. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 June 2014.
Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra T., et al. "Understanding Public Opinion On Climate Change: A Call For
Research." Environment 53.4 (2011): 38-42. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 June 2014.
POWLEDGE, FRED. "Scientists, Policymakers, And A Climate Of Uncertainty." Bioscience 62.1
(2012): 8-13. Academic Search Premier. Web. 20 June 2014.