Content area
Full Text
1. I CANNOT ACCEPT AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH
The public discussion about global warming-its science, its effects, the human-based causes and the predicted consequences-suffers from a failure to employ the process of reasoning to change one's mind and subsequent determined behaviour, a process known as argumentation. We make good decisions based on a process that involves unbiased rational deliberation of the situation as it is and as it could predictably become. Instead, there is often a different approach. This involves an allegiance relationship to ideology, which does not address the challenge of argument. It is ineffective at bringing about reason-based change to beliefs, attitudes, and subsequent behaviour about the environment and serves only to entrench existing conflicting views. The issue of global warming has serious consequences for humankind and the natural world. This world is the basis of our life. Perhaps people are rendered inactive by the sheer speed and magnitude of the changes to the earth or rendered inactive by paralyzing inertia brought about by believing that "it just cannot be true" or "it cannot be accepted," making it unbelievable in all of its ramifications for current and future generations.
Al Gore claims this inaction is due to our pathological fear of the destructive consequences of global warming producing a "profound sense of powerlessness" (Gore 2006, 224) and fuelling a "collision and addictive unhealthy relationship to the earth" (Gore 2006, 223). But such addictive behaviours turn people who could solve problems into passive spectators and sometimes blind enablers. This is both unhelpful for discussions designed to bring about changes to our understanding and appreciation of the need to rationally change our beliefs and attitudes about the environment in order to determine a better approach and behaviour towards dealing with the global warming problems. There are few long-term solutions to problems when the motivation is fear, which holds temporary sway over our behaviour at best.
Environmentalists are often worried about the negative effects of sounding the alarm, which may turn out to be counter-productive for any possible solution. Instead of producing reaction it creates inaction. This inaction, however, is further exacerbated by the reactions to global warming arguments by non-argumentative global warming deniers. These deniers provide a seeming rationalization (not reason) for why the psychological inertia...