Killing goats to appease the climate gods: Negative framing of climate science as religious faith Myra Gurney Western Sydney University – [email protected] Abstract In an increasingly toxic and fractious Australian political debate, many self-labeled political and media ‘climate sceptics’ repeatedly resort to religious metaphors to rhetorically frame their attacks on climate science and on advocates of carbon reduction policies. While the ideological wellsprings of climate change denialism have been well researched (Campbell & Kay, 2014; Carvalho, 2007; Fielding, Head, Laffan, Western, & Hoegh-Guldberg, 2012; Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Smith, 2010), the common discursive conflation of climate science ‘scepticism’ and the rhetorical pejorative of religious ‘faith’ remains a curious and paradoxical anomaly. This paper examines speeches by key Australian public figures to explore the manner in which politicians and conservative media commentators use language borrowed from religion, theology and morality as a rhetorical vehicle through which to construct doubt about the veracity of scientific evidence and to cast aspersions on the authority of scientists. It then reflects on the broader historical connections between environmental advocacy and the tenets of religious faith and the extent to which current politically-centred sceptical discourse accurately reflects this relationship. Presented at Waterlines: Confluence and Hope through Environmental Communication The Conference on Communication and Environment, Vancouver, Canada, June 17-21, 2019 https://theieca.org/coce2019 Page 2 of 17 Introduction Since July 2007 when soon-to-be prime minister Kevin Rudd flagged climate change as ‘the great moral challenge of our generation’ (Rudd, 2007), climate change policy has been central to the political disruption and ideological discord in Australia which has resulted in the historically unprecedented removal of four sitting prime ministers, including Rudd himself. Rudd’s rhetorical call-to-arms in his speech to the 2007 National Climate Change Summit tapped into the prevailing zeitgeist by invoking the importance of the moral and ethical dimensions of pursuing substantive and unilateral government action to address climate change. That speech, as noted elsewhere (Gurney, 2013), was largely couched in an evangelical style of language that frequently adopted religious metaphors and biblical tropes to remind Australians of their responsibilities as stewards of God’s creation and of their moral obligation for intergenerational equity. Since then, successive Australian government attempts at delivering environmental reforms have been frustrated by a noisy, largely ideologically-driven and politically conservative rearguard action, much of which has pivoted around proponents’ self-labelled ‘scepticism’ of the efficacy of climate science, perceived threats to the economic status quo of moving to low emissions electricity generation, and threats to the freedom of speech of those who contest the implications of what has been labelled the ‘scientific orthodoxy’. Many within this group regularly refer to acceptance of the implications of climate science as a ‘faith’ and accuse environmental advocates of conducting a ‘crusade’, of acting like ‘doomsayers’, ‘zealots’, ‘cultists’ and ‘eco-fundamentalists’ and of treating those who challenge the so- called ‘orthodoxy’ of science as ‘heretics’1. Climate change activists have been accused of fomenting an ‘apocalyptic’ narrative for a range of political and ideological purposes that would undermine economic prosperity, impugn personal freedoms and cast humankind back to the Stone Age (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2012; Moo, 2015). In a study of the use of religious metaphors to denigrate climate science in UK newspapers between 2003-2008, Woods et al. (2012) concluded that while religious metaphors were common in newspaper coverage of climate change, they were significantly more likely to be used to undermine the scientific status of climate science and its implications. While the ideological wellsprings of climate change denialism have been well researched (Campbell & Kay, 2014; Carvalho, 2007; Fielding, Head, Laffan, Western, & Hoegh-Guldberg, 2012; Hornsey, Harris, & Fielding, 2018; Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Smith, 2010), a curious and paradoxical anomaly is the oft-repeated discursive conflation of advocacy of the consensus of climate science and support for scientifically-backed policy and the rhetorical pejorative of religious ‘faith’ where this is negatively framed as akin to religious zealotry. With respect to the US experience, Dr Katharine Hayhoe, the director of Texas Tech University’s Climate Science Centre and an author of the most recent US National Climate Assessment, noted that ‘very cleverly, this issue of climate change has been framed as one of false prophets versus true believers’ (Bruinius & Paulson, 2017). As a rhetorical trope, the two positions seem anomalous – but are they? Extending the discussion of the findings of an Australian case study in media-based climate scepticism (Gurney, 2017), this paper examines speeches made to the UK-based, climate sceptic think tank ‘The Global Warming Policy 1 I have not referenced individual examples, but most were found in my exploration of the blogs and columns of prominent conservative News Limited columnist, and self-labelled ‘sceptic’, Andrew Bolt (Gurney, 2017) whose fixation with climate change was described by one commentator as a form of ‘religious fanaticism’ (Mayne, 2015). Examples are also widely cited in the study by Woods et al. (2012). Presented at Waterlines: Confluence and Hope through Environmental Communication The Conference on Communication and Environment, Vancouver, Canada, June 17-21, 2019 https://theieca.org/coce2019 Page 3 of 17 Foundation’ (GWPF, 2018)2 by two prominent Australian public figures: Cardinal George Pell, former Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne (1996-2001) and Sydney (2001-2014), and former senior representative to the Vatican, and former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott (2013-2015). Both have played a significant role in climate change politics in Australia. My particular interest is how the speakers rhetorically employ the concept of ‘faith’ and other language normally found in religious discourse, to cast aspersions on climate science and climate scientists and to demonise environmental advocates by casting scientific evidence as tainted and advocacy of the implications of unrestrained global warming as ideologically and politically motivated. In the second part of the paper, I will reflect on the broader connections between science, environmental advocacy and the tenets of religious faith and the extent to which current ideologically and politically-centred sceptical discourse accurately reflects this relationship. The role of linguistic frames and metaphors in politically motivated climate ‘scepticism’ I have argued previously that within the climate change ‘debate’ in Australia, the mantle of ‘scepticism’ has been rhetorically appropriated by many who, for ideological rather than genuine epistemological reasons, have sought to create political roadblocks to the introduction of greenhouse gas mitigation policies. In a case study which analysed a large corpus of the newspaper columns of Australian tabloid columnist and well-known climate sceptic Andrew Bolt (Gurney, 2017), ‘faith’ is a recurring and dominant linguistic motif. Close examination of the discursive construction of Bolt’s writing demonstrated the manner in which he adopts particular rhetorical strategies to negatively frame climate science, scientists, politicians and those advocating environmental action. In particular, the analysis identifies the close negative conflation of concepts of ‘faith’ and ‘science’ and the manner in which Bolt repeatedly uses religious metaphors pejoratively as part of his rhetorical arsenal. The role of linguistic frames is important here. Frames work to focus ways of thinking about a subject as well as to hide or deflect other perspectives by guiding the cognition of the reader or listener (Entman, 2003; Fillmore, 1976; Nisbet, 2009). All communication is framed in one way or another, either consciously or unconsciously, and audiences use frames as ‘interpretative shortcuts’ that they integrate: … with preexisting interpretations forged through personal experience partisanship, ideology, social identity or conversations with others (Nisbet, 2009, p. 17). George Lakoff (2010) contends that the constant repetition of particular frames, acts to neurally embed them within the brain’s linguistic circuitry to the point that they become the ‘normalised’ way of thinking and speaking about an issue. When activated, these filter our understanding of an issue and evoke emotions and cognitions that make competing arguments or paradigms hard to move beyond. The impact, he asserts, is that the evidence of climate science and the perils of global warming will often go unheeded or dismissed. For example, the dominant neoliberal ‘let the market decide’ ideology which 2 According to their webpage, the GWPF is ‘in no sense “anti-environmental”’ but their ‘concern is solely with the possible effects of any future global warming and the policy responses that they may evoke’ (GWPF, 2018, ‘About us’). However, the foundation is headed by former UK chancellor, and well-known climate sceptic, Lord Nigel Lawson and many of its prominent members are known for promoting climate change denial