Why denial is dangerous
It does harm to no one if you declare the earth is flat, or argue that the universe was created in seven days. It is your own life you affect if you are guided by Tarot cards or tea leaves.
But if you declare that vaccinations are not effective, that there is no link between cancer and smoking or that seat belts don’t save lives, not only are you spouting nonsense but you are potentially causing or promoting harm to others. The same parallel can be drawn for climate change denial. People are dying all over the world every day from famine and drought, from fires and floods, from super storms and conflict driven by crop failures, livestock deaths and human displacement. All of these things are made worse by climate change; and the science (as certain as the science of vaccinations both of which have been studied for over 100 years) tells us that the death tolls will continue to rise the longer we ignore the science of climate change, just as it would if we ignored the science of vaccinations. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of scientific probability/certainty, currently pegged around 95 per cent in the scientific community.
The science also tells us that we, as the human collective have a limited time to act, so it seems reasonable to not give voice to those advocating to increase human suffering and death or to those who would attack groups or individuals who are trying to be leaders in what may be the battle that defines our generation. The fight to prevent runaway climate change and ecosystem collapse is happening now.
So the question is: “Should responsible independent news outlets give equal time and space to those who deny the science in order to block action that is critical to save human lives; and to those who slander groups or individuals who champion the science and the action it calls for?” Or not?
David Slade
Cobble Hill
