Pirate's Cove

What about the stance of people who tell us this is a crisis but never act like it’s a crisis in their own lives, never modifying their own lifestyles?

Climate denial: Donald Trump mimics criminal behaviour when justifying his stance

While much of the world now recognises the need for immediate action, there are still those who question the scientific consensus on climate change and deter efforts to tackle it. As might be expected, they have the attention of US President Donald Trump and his Republican administration.

The Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change was held at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC on July 25 2019. The Heartland Institute considers itself one of “the world’s leading free market think-tanks”, which “promotes free market solutions to social and economic problems”. It’s perhaps best known for its climate scepticism.

Discussions at the annual event include disputing scientific observations on climate change, criticising “climate alarmists” and promoting fossil fuels. As the choice of venue might suggest, the arguments made here seem to overlap with what the president and the ruling Republican Party has previously said on climate change.

Does it need mentioning that consensus is not science? That belief is not science? Of course, this isn’t science

From my background studying criminal behaviour, I found something striking about the way Trump justifies inaction on climate change. Through his own words, the president’s arguments mimic patterns in criminal behaviour that criminologists call “techniques of neutralisation”.

Criminologists contend that criminals use techniques of neutralisation to help deny or justify a crime they have committed. These five techniques were first defined in 1964 from the types of arguments given by young people in the criminal justice system when justifying their actions.

1. Denial of responsibility – it is not the offender’s fault.
2. Denial of injury of harm – the crime does not cause significant harm or may have positive results.
3. Denial of victim – there is no clear victim.
4. Condemnation of the condemner – the offender criticises the criminal justice system to avoid criticism of the offender.
5. Appeal to higher loyalties – deviant behaviour was in aid of a greater good or to benefit someone else.

And how does this specifically apply to Trump and Warmists?

1. Denial of responsibility – climate change is happening, but humans aren’t the cause.
2. Denial of injury or harm – there’s no significant harm caused by human action and there may even be some benefits.
3. Denial of victim – there’s no climate change and so no victims, but if such victims of climate change victims existed, they’d deserve to be victimised.
4. Condemnation of the condemner – climate change research is misrepresented by scientists, and manipulated by the media, politicians and environmentalists.
5. Appeal to higher loyalties – economic progress and development are more important than preventing climate change. This will help protect us from energy poverty and allow developing nations to prosper.

This is all meant to do things: make it easier to make Wrongthink an actual criminal offense, and, second, deflect from the reality that everything they’re whining about as stated by Skeptics is true. Humans aren’t the primary or sole cause. There is no significant harm in a warm period, Mankind tends to do better in them during the Holocene than during the cool periods. The research is manipulated, scaremongered, and ginned up for political purposes. You can’t actually make progress on preventing something that Mankind really isn’t causing that much.

Given the grave consequences of the US doing nothing on climate change, should deflecting blame, sowing uncertainty and condemning experts on such a scale be labelled criminal? I believe that these perceived similarities – between how offenders justify their behaviour to the criminal justice system and how Trump justifies his position on climate change to the world – are no coincidence. We shouldn’t always read ignorance in what Trump says – it might suit him and climate deniers more than we think.

See? This is the road to criminalizing thought.