Claiming that there is no climate change?
That it is not caused by human activity?
That its consequences do not justify mitigating or preventive policies?
That we should just adapt to it?
Are all these forms of Climate Change denialism equivalent in their underlying motivations? When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
Mind you I'm talking about people in developed societies with free access to information. Ironically enough though, indigenous people with little access to outside information have been very quick to pick up on the reality of climate change. They may not understand the causes or the mechanisms (although they're figuring that out too), but they do know it's happening because they feel its effects so directly.
Denialism, I think, however, is more than just the position you adopt; it's also how and why you adopt it. What denialists have in common (and I'm not speaking just of Climate Change denialists) is that they ignore or deny any evidence that contradicts or threatens their ideology, regardless of how compelling it is to the more objective observer. "My True Religion Is Kindness" -- The Dalai Lama
