Germany: As temperatures rise, so does climate skepticism
By: Julia Vergin (dw. com)
The emphasis of International climate politics has been about spending public money for a promised benefits of climate mitigation. Those mitigation benefits have not been forthcoming as evidenced by heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, and extreme climate conditions. Yet the demand for ever increasing amounts of public money continues based on the same failed promises.
The plight of Indian farmers, as presented in the article, is really about economic development and not climate mitigation. We're supposed to feel guilt over the impact of climate change, and international institutions preying upon that guilt has been lucrative.
Blaming conspiracy theories and skeptic group-think doesn't change the facts that promises were made and have not been kept. Trying to gaslight and guilt-trip people has lost its effectiveness and is now increasing perceived as a money scam.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
August 2, 2026 -- Climate skeptics are no longer a small but noisy minority. They are now "a mass phenomenon," according to researchers at Flensburg University.
In a study published in the scientific journal Global Environmental Change , authors Katharina Gies and Emanuel Deutschmann reported that between 2022 and 2023 there was a big jump in skeptical attitudes to climate change among the majority of the 3,074 people surveyed. Some 59% said they had more doubts about climate change in 2023 than they had had in the previous year.
The researchers wrote that the respondents' individual economic situations could not be considered the primary explanation for the increase in skepticism. Other factors, they said, were much more decisive: A right-leaning political orientation, distrust of state institutions, and dissatisfaction with democracy.
Social psychologist Marlene Altenmuller said the Flensburg publication is important and fascinating, though she has doubts about its alarming tone. Other studies show that "the number of people who have doubts is still very small," she says. Altenmuller, a junior professor at the Leibniz Institute for Psychology in Trier, conducts research into science reception: How people perceive scientific evidence, and what they think about the scientific system and its researchers.
Altenmuller's research indicates that people in Germany do not have fundamental doubts about scientific evidence. Rather, it varies depending on the topic, and the view the group to which people feel they belong has of the topic.
Extreme heat: Can Europe adapt to climate change?
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
If a group has doubts about climate change, so do its members
Her work, and that of many other researchers, also shows that politically right-leaning people express more skepticism about climate change.
"If right-wing parties were suddenly to discover that we should in fact take action against climate change, my assumption is that the followers of these parties would also believe in climate change and would support political measures," Altenmuller said.
Nor does she believe that climate skeptics have a different personality structure. Instead, climate skepticism is more likely to be down to the fact that "people orientate themselves according to their group and its identity." The credo for most people is that content is secondary, or, as Altenmuller calls it, "Party over policy."
Underlying this is something psychologists call motivated reception. People always see the world through the lens of their own desires, ideas, values, and political ideologies, and anything that cannot be squared with their own ideas and values tends to be disparaged. Altenmuller's research demonstrates that all of us are predisposed to seeing the world through our own filters.
From climate skepticism to conspiracy theories
Both Altenmuller and the Flensburg researchers emphasize that climate change skepticism comes in different guises. One form is the rejection of climate policy measures. The basis for this may be the assumption that it won't be all that bad, or doubt that human activity is the cause. Another is the belief that all the talk about climate change is simply a con, a conspiracy.
This is the focus of research of Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of cognitive science at the universities of Bristol and Potsdam. Among other things, he examines the persistence of misinformation and conspiracy theories, and is interested in the parameters that determine whether people reject or accept scientific proofs, especially in connection with vaccines and climate change. "Certain people are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than others," he said.
The COVID-19 pandemic made this very apparent. Lewandowsky argues that for some people, conspiracy theories that apportion blame for a particular situation provide a welcome opportunity to escape from feelings like fear and loss of control. "That offers some brief psychological comfort to people," Lewandowsky says.
However, he goes on to explain that the comfort they derive from assigning blame does not last long. "There's good evidence to suggest that people who do fall into that rabbit hole over time are suffering," he said. "They're less likely to hold their jobs. They lose social contacts. They become mentally challenged."
How climate change forces Indian farmers to stay single
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
Why climate skepticism is hardly an issue in India
Climate skepticism and conspiracy theories are mostly a Western phenomenon. Researchers observe them the most in the US, Europe, and Australia. In India and other countries of the global south, climate change is already a question of daily survival, and has been for some time. "In India, a lot of people still suffer from [not] getting access to clean drinking water," says Jagadish Thaker, senior lecturer at the University of Queensland, Australia, and an expert in climate change communication.
For years now, he says, people in the global south have been experiencing first-hand the ways that climate change is exacerbating problems through rising temperatures and extreme weather events.
Consequently, measures to reduce emissions and adapt to changing living conditions are not seen as a matter of political ideology. According to Thaker, people in India are trying to counteract their own vulnerability to climate change while still trying to develop economically.
Countering climate skepticism with respect
Heatwaves and other extreme weather events are a direct threat to human life in Germany, as has become apparent during this summer's heatwaves, which are reported to have killed as many as 10,000 people already.
This is why the authors of the Flensburg study are urging people to take climate change skepticism seriously if they are to successfully anchor climate protection measures in society.
Thaker believes the media plays a decisive role. He believes there is still a general lack of information and understanding of the effects of climate change. "The media coverage of extreme weather events, while it's a lot, it is dramatic, and unfortunately doesn't mention climate change."
Altenmuller says it's important to keep emphasizing that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is anthropogenic, or, caused by human activity. Sometimes, she says, it does matter who says it. Research shows that some scientific disciplines are perceived as more biased than others. Consequently, economists have a better chance of their message reaching a wide audience than sociologists.
Taking the values of people who express skepticism into account could also help to communicate a different point of view to them, says Altenmuller. Communication must emphasize not only the restrictions that need to be imposed through political measures, but also the opportunities arising from this.
People who have themselves experienced extreme weather events probably find it easier to shift their perspective. This is why Lewandowsky is hopeful that the this year's heatwaves and wildfires will make a difference. "At some point, people's personal experiences matter," he says.
This article has been translated from German .
Be a good human. Grossly derogatory comments, blatantly inflammatory comments, excessive trolling, mean-spirited taunting and insults, scamming, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed in compliance with the site's Terms of Service and the Code of Conduct. The moderators have the final word.
Tags
Who is online
156 visitors
What the article fails to recognize is that all the solutions for climate change revolve around money. Europe has been investing in climate mitigation but conditions are worsening instead of improving. Promises have not been fulfilled.
We've seen the same pattern play out in the United States. Despite institutional scapegoating, the facts are the US does not bear the most blame for climate change. US contributions to greenhouse gases since 1780 amount to ~25% of the global cumulative total. And much of that historical emission was driven by two world wars and building the Arsenal of Democracy. Today the US is contributing ~13% of global greenhouse emissions. Eliminating US greenhouse emissions cannot stop climate change. And the US cannot provide enough money to the rest of the world to stop climate change.
Is the growing skepticism really about climate change? Or about the institutional promises and demands being made? Lack of accountability seems as likely a cause for skepticism as conspiracy theories.
I tend to agree. Scapegoating seems to be the way to steer the cattle. Hype a problem in order to stampede people in the direction you wish them to go. Create a crisis to create a license to do what you please.
it's important to keep emphasizing that there is a scientific consensus that climate change is anthropogenic, or, caused by human activity.
Just watched a video this morning how the next ice age wasn't happening as predicted by Milankovitch and the pattern of the last eight ice ages and therefore it must be man that is the cause.
Now, for some reason, it is assumed that through poverty this problem can be resolved and the evils of prosperity is the cause. Man and CO2 aren't the cause and therefore we cannot stop the natural water cycle of the earth.
It correctly stated that an ice age starts when the snow from the last winter doesn't fully melt in the next summer and every winter accumulation gains on the summer melts. That's fine, except they assume, as Milankovitch did, that the summers needed to be colder for the winters to gain. That isn't what happens, it is actually the warmer winters that dump so much more precipitation that even the warmer summers can't completely melt it all.
Another thing in the video that was missing from the Milankovitch trigger was that the sea levels were all higher than they are now before every ice age.