The evolution of climate denial and ways it has changed over time

How climate denial has evolved
Although the scientific consensus about climate change is overwhelming, denial narratives persist and evolve. From the most obstinate denials, negation has also begun to focus on more subtle discourses designed to minimize risks, delay solutions and promote collective inaction.
“Two degrees is not that much.” With this pithy sentence, José María Baldasano condensed one of the most widespread and problematic forms of contemporary climate denial : not head-on negation of climate change , but its minimization. Such subtle denialism disguises itself as reasonable skepticism, but is in reality a dangerous form of inaction. Yet, as climate science and the IPCC reports reminds us, an increase in 2°C in the mean global temperature is not minor, but an inflection point that will multiply the risks of extreme phenomena, food crises, population displacements and irreversible damage to ecosystems and coastal cities.
What will I learn from this article?
What is climate denial and when does it occur?
From classic denial to climate defeatism
Climate conspiracies and disinformation in social media
How to combat climate denial
The alteration of natural systems such as the climate, biodiversity and biogeochemical cycles as a consequence of human activity is undeniable. And this phenomenon has been underscored, time and again, by organizations and institutions from NASA to the IPCC . Despite the evidence, denialism has been spreading and evolving from an obstinate denial of the phenomenon to more sophisticated means such as delay discourses, defeatist narratives and the most recent conspiracy theories.
Denialism is neither the same as anti-science – which includes other postures like Flat Earth theory – nor pseudoscience, which groups disciplines and theories that pretend to be scientific without complying with the criteria of scientific methodology. In this sense, Antonio Diéguez , professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science at Malaga University in Spain, defines denialism as the “rejection of scientific consensus with arguments disconnected to science itself”. Among the most widespread denials found are those related to climate change .
Antonio Diéguez defines denialism as the “rejection of scientific consensus with arguments disconnected to science itself”.
But when did this all begin? According to a study by sociologists Peter J. Jacques and Riley E. Dunlap, published in Plos One review, the 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development  in Rio de Janeiro marked an inflection point. Their work, which analyzed over a hundred denialist books with the aim of understanding the motives behind this trend, indicates that climate science rejection is not only based on scientific disagreements, but in a deeper ideology. Climate denialism , as such, feeds, on one hand, on a fervent anti-environmentalism, and, on the other, on systematic discreditation of science analyzing the impacts of the industrial model.
Such a focus presents environmentalism and climate science as threats to freedom, progress and the Western way of life. Similarly, Harvard Professor Naomi Oreskes affirms that, in spite of the scientific evidence, “there are sectors which continue to feed narratives that are false or minimize the problem” . One of the foremost researchers on climate denialism , Oreskes has documented how doubts don’t emerge spontaneously, but are constructed deliberately.
With the passing of time, it is increasingly difficult to deny climate change , because the impacts are visible. Intense heatwaves, fires , prolonged droughts , more frequent flooding. Now the protagonists don’t try to deny the phenomenon, but to delay action. Many companies and governments are adopting a discourse of delay. Although they don’t deny that climate change exists and is caused by human activity, they obstruct measures against it and multilateral agreements. This narrative seeks to provoke uncertainty, a need for more studies, or distrust in future solutions, in order to justify present inaction.
Alongside delay discourse, another narrative has emerged which is also problematic: climate defeatism . As opposed to “everything will be ok” or “we’ll sort it out later” , defeatist or fatalistic postures maintain that it is too late to act and any efforts to mitigate climate change are useless. Although the posture appears to be the opposite to denial, however, their effect is similar. By transmitting a sensation of inevitability and collapse, this discourse fosters social paralysis and tries to demobilize citizens.
In recent years, climate denialism has also incorporated conspiratorial elements. Climate change, it alleges, exists as a pretext for imposing social controls, limiting freedoms and benefiting supposed elites. Concepts such as Agenda 2030 or the energy transition are reinterpreted as threats, not responses to a global crisis. Social networks are acting as amplifiers of these simplistic messages which play on emotions and exploit social discontent that might exist for other reasons.
The consequences of this evolution of denialism are serious. For example, the Jacques/Dunlap study also reflects on the distortion that exists between public opinion and scientific consensus . Although over 99% of the scientific community agrees that Earth’s temperature is rising due to greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans, and that this warming has serious negative repercussions, a survey  revealed that only just over half (53%) of the US population considers that the majority of the scientific community believes global warming is real, while a quarter (25%) think scientists are at loggerheads over whether this is really happening
Denialism alleges that climate change exists as a pretext for imposing social controls, limiting freedoms and benefiting supposed elites.
This deliberate confusion erodes trust in science and institutions, fragments social consensus and delays crucial political decisions. Every year of inaction increases the economic, social and environmental costs of the transition and reduces the margin for avoiding the gravest scenarios. Identifying the distinct ways through which climate denialism is operating today is essential for neutralizing them.
In a conference organized by La Rioja University  in Spain, José Miguel Viñas, a Spanish scientific communicator and meteorologist, maintained that one of the keys to combating climate denialism lies in improving scientific communication by transmitting messages to the general public in a clearer and more accessible way, since it has to be recognized that those disseminating myths are doing so with great effectiveness.
Viñas also warns that it is not enough to rebut. Debunking myths requires time and nuance, whereas launching them is immediate, a disadvantage aggravated by social media. As such, he thinks it’s risky to conduct a face-to-face debate with a denialist – since it can situate them at the same level before the public – and proposes focusing on explaining clearly and avoiding anything that generates disconnection (such as presenting the problem as something distant). And contributing, everyone according to their responsibility, to ensuring that denialist voices are given less visibility, especially in the digital environment.
Inma Mora Sánchez is a journalist specializing in gender issues, with experience in media and the nonprofit sector . She has worked in rural development, the prevention of gender-based violence, and human rights , and has collaborated with organizations in Spain, Italy, and Uruguay. She currently works as a journalist for publications such as Ethic and as a consultant on communication and gender issues, focusing on sustainability and the social impact of the climate crisis.
I accept the  Information on data protection
Information on data protection
In compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on Data Protection and with other Data Protection regulations in force, you are her…

Text scraped from the landing page for research purposes. © respective owners. This text is sourced from the advertiser's public landing page; for removal, contact dmca@luba.media.