✖
Climate denial: literal, interpretive and implicatory
It is vital to consider the various types of climate denial when assessing and acting on the climate emergency.
The sociologist Stanley Cohen described three forms of denial:
It seems that most people are suffering from at least one of these forms of climate denial.
An extraordinary feature of climate inaction and delay is that most UK climate campaigning groups are engaging in implicatory climate denial, i.e. they are understating the gravity of the situation and advocating inadequate policies, and continue to do so even when alerted that their messaging is inadequate.
Examples are
- literal
- interpretative
- implicatory
Examples are
- Friends of the Earth
- Zero Hour
- UK Health Alliance on Climate Change
- Climate Emergency UK
Terminology
According to the Collins English Dictionary [1], the word denial covers several meanings:"1. a refusal to agree or comply with a statement; contradiction
2. the rejection of the truth of a proposition, doctrine, etc a denial of God's existence
3. a negative reply; rejection of a request
4. a refusal to acknowledge; renunciation; disavowal a denial of one's leader
5. a psychological process by which painful truths are not admitted into an individual's consciousness
6. abstinence; self-denial"
The term denial will be used here in the general sense, i.e. to include all forms of denial e.g. due to
- lack of knowledge
- being misled by others
- deliberate and malicious
- deliberate and well-intentioned (self-censoring)
- an unconscious process
Types of denial
Stanley Cohen described three forms of denial [2]. His framework was developed from a study of genocide and other atrocities, but it can also be applied to individual and collective inaction on climate change. The three forms are- literal denial: denial of the facts
- interpretative denial: people do not contest the facts, but interpret them in ways that distort their meaning or importance
- implicatory denial: people do not contest the facts, or how they are interpreted - what is denied or minimized are the psychological, political, and moral implications of the facts.
Psychological denial is complex. Cohen wrote [2]:
"The psychology of 'turning a blind eye' or 'looking the other way' is a tricky matter. These phrases imply that we have access to reality, but choose to ignore it because it is convenient to do so. This might be a simple fraud: the information is available and registered, but leads to a conclusion that is knowingly evaded. 'Knowing', though, can be far more ambiguous. We are vaguely aware of choosing not to look at the facts, but not quite conscious of just what it is we are evading. We know, but at the same time we don't know. " [my emphasis]
Literal climate denial
In the context of climate change, an example of literal denial is to say- the climate is not changing [3].
Literal climate denial misinformation is countered well by the Skeptical Science website [4].
Interpretive climate denial
In interpretive denial, people do not contest the facts, but interpret them in ways that distort their meaning or importance. For example, it might be said- climate change is just a natural fluctuation [3]
- greenhouse gas accumulation is a consequence, not a cause, of rising temperatures [3]
- climate change is not serious [5].
Interpretive climate denial misinformation is countered well by the Skeptical Science website [4].
Implicatory climate denial
In implicatory denial, the facts of climate change are not denied, nor are they interpreted to be something else. What is denied or minimized are the psychological, political, and moral implications of the facts for us. People fail to accept responsibility for responding; they fail to act when the information says they should [3]. Features of implicatory climate denial include [5]:- avoidance
- denial of guilt
- rationalisation of own involvement.
Implicatory climate denial has also been termed mitigation denial [6].
It seems that literal and interpretive climate denial have declined, but implicatory climate denial is widespread in all sections of society.
Implicatory denial in climate campaigners
An extraordinary feature of the inaction on climate change is is that most UK climate campaigning groups are engaging in implicatory climate denial, i.e. they are understating the gravity of the situation and advocating inadequate policies, and continue to do so even when alerted to the messaging being inadequate. This is holding up the urgent radical change that is needed.Some UK examples are
- Friends of the Earth - see document 139 and document 164 - Friends of the Earth is campaigning for the UK Government to keep to its Net Zero 2050 timescale of emission cuts despite knowing that the timescale is grossly inadequate, and that the Paris Agreement on 1.5°C requires UK fossil fuel use to be close to zero by 2030 - Friends of the Earth have responded to criticism by saying that "if they told the truth, they would not be believed" [7]
- the Zero Hour group (promoting the CAN Bills) - see document 174
- UKHACC (the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change) - see document 175
- the Climate Emergency UK group - see document 145.
Some arguments put forward in climate discussion groups for deliberately understating the gravity of the situation and the changes needed are:
- [telling the truth would mean] "the right-wing press would have a field day"
- [telling the truth] "would be an own goal".
Read more at document 127.
Example of implicatory denial in climate campaigners: aviation
Aviation campaigning is an example of implicatory denial in climate campaigners.The urgency of climate action has been given by the IPCC as
- "deep emissions reductions in all sectors" (2018) [8]
- "immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions" (2021) [9].
The mathematics of the urgency of emission cuts is given by the imminent exhaustion of the UK's carbon budget for 1.5°C in 2027 [10].
There is a clear implication that most aviation will need to end by 2030.
But while this is the scientific consensus [6], advocates of climate action avoid communicating this extreme urgency and instead advocate:
- switching journeys from planes to trains
- no airport expansion
- taxing of private jets
- a frequent flyer tax.
Discussion on Twitter (2021)
"It takes time to turn the ship around; there would be little/no success if the campaign was 'close all the airports'."
The media similarly understate the urgency of action.
The situation regarding the need for a rapid reduction in vehicle mileage is similar.
Is denial a normal human response?
It seems that denial of uncomfortable truths is to some extent a normal human response; it is a kind of misthinking like being misled by optical illusions or overconfidence bias. So it might be argued that people should not be censured for it or challenged about it, especially if there is a feeling that those responsible 'are on the same side'.But climate denial is holding up radical change, and this is adding to the immense harm being done by climate change, and so people have a responsibility to try to ensure that they avoid denial.
Kevin Anderson has argued that implicatory climate denial should be challenged whenever it occurs [6]:
"We can hasten the demise of the high-carbon status quo by repeatedly and coherently countering the 'mitigation deniers' wherever they may reside."
References
| [1] | Collins English Dictionary, 14th edition (2023), and https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/denial (accessed 16 May 2025) |
| [2] | Stanley Cohen (2001) States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering ISBN: 978-0-745-62392-4 |
| [3] | Iain Walker and Zoe Leviston (2019) There are three types of climate change denier - and most of us are at least one The Conversation https://theconversation.com/there-are-three-types-of-climate-change-denier-and-most-of-us-are-at-least-one-124574 |
| [4] | Skeptical Science website: Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation https://skepticalscience.com/ (accessed 18 Mar 2026) |
| [5] | Wullenkord (2022) From denial of facts to rationalization and avoidance: Ideology, needs, and gender predict the spectrum of climate denial Personality and Individual Differences https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886922001209 |
| [6] | Kevin Anderson (2023) Getting real: what would serious climate action look like? https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/getting-real-what-would-serious-climate-action-look |
| [7] | Personal communication |
| [8] | IPCC (2018) SR15 report headline statements https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Headline-statements.pdf |
| [9] | IPCC (Aug 2021) press release https://un-spbf.org/event/ipcc-press-release-climate-action-cannot-wait/ |
| [10] | UK carbon budget calculations 2026 https://www.carbonindependent.org/195.html |
First published: 21 Jan 2023