Chapter 3. Addressing Common Misconceptions

Climate change discussions can sometimes feel like walking through a maze of myths and misinformation. As young people in Canada (and especially here in B.C.), you may encounter friends, family, or social media posts that dismiss the climate crisis or repeat debunked claims. This chapter will help you understand why some people deny or downplay climate change – touching on climate psychology and the role of misinformation – and equip you with science-based responses to common misconceptions. We’ll also explore respectful, mentally healthy strategies for engaging in climate conversations, both in person and online. By learning the facts and communication skills, you can confidently address myths like “climate change is natural” or “Canada is too small to matter,” without losing your cool or hope.

Why Do People Deny or Distance Themselves?

It helps to first recognize that climate change isn’t just a scientific issue – it’s also a psychological one. Many people accept the science, yet still feel disconnected from the problem. Psychologists note that climate change often suffers from psychological distance: it can seem far-off, abstract, or not personally relevant (1). For years, climate change was portrayed as something happening to polar bears or future generations, rather than to “people like us” in our own communities. This distance makes it easier to tune out. In reality, the impacts are increasingly close to home – for example, the 2021 heat dome caused more than 600 deaths in B.C. alone (2), a stark reminder that climate change is here and now, not a distant threat. Recognizing this helps shrink the gap between “us” and climate change.

Another barrier is the feeling of doom or helplessness. If the messaging around climate change is all catastrophe with no solutions, some people emotionally shut down. Psychologists call this the “doom” effect – when the problem seems unsolvable, denial can actually be a coping mechanism (1). It’s easier to deny reality than to live in constant fear. This leads to climate change denial, not necessarily as a literal belief that climate change isn’t happening (only a small minority truly believe that (3)), but as a form of emotional self-defense. As Per Espen Stoknes (a psychologist who studied climate attitudes) explains, denial is often rooted in the need to protect oneself from distress, not in lack of intelligence or knowledge (1). In other words, someone might know on some level that the climate is changing, but they push that knowledge away because it makes them uncomfortable or threatens their worldview.

Closely tied to denial is identity. People’s attitudes on climate can get wrapped up in their politics, values, or sense of belonging. Admitting climate change is real might feel like betraying one’s social group or ideology. For instance, if someone’s identity is tied to a certain industry or a political outlook that downplays environmental problems, they may reject climate science because accepting it feels like an attack on “who they are.” Psychologists note that climate change can “threaten one’s sense of self, freedom and values”, so sometimes facts get discarded if they clash with someone’s identity or worldview (1). Understanding this can help you approach conversations with empathy: it’s not just about facts, but about respecting values and finding common ground.

Finally, we can’t ignore the active role of misinformation. For decades, a small but vocal network of climate change deniers (some backed by fossil fuel interests) has worked to seed doubt about the science (3). They exploit psychological biases – like those above – by producing claims that climate change isn’t a big deal or isn’t proven. Misinformation can be persuasive especially when it tells people something they want to hear (“maybe we don’t need to worry after all!”). In the age of social media, climate myths spread quickly through tweets, memes, and YouTube videos, sometimes outpacing the truth. If you constantly see claims that “scientists are divided” or “this is just natural,” it’s easy to get confused. This is why understanding the techniques of denial (e.g. cherry-picking data, fake experts, conspiracy theories) is so important. In fact, research shows that one of the best ways to inoculate people against falsehoods is to explain the rhetorical tricks behind them (3). Once you see how the misinformation game is played, the myths lose much of their power.

Facts Behind Common Climate Misconceptions

Let’s tackle some of the most common climate change misconceptions you might hear, and how to respond with solid, youth-friendly science. Remember, the goal isn’t to “win” an argument but to share understanding. Here are four frequent claims and the facts to address them:

“Climate change is natural.” It’s true that Earth’s climate has changed throughout history – but what’s happening now is very different. Past changes (like ice ages and warm periods) were driven by natural factors (orbital cycles, volcanic eruptions, etc.) over thousands of years (4). In contrast, today we’re seeing rapid warming over mere decades, and scientists can directly link it to human activities. Since the Industrial Revolution, burning of coal, oil, and gas has raised atmospheric CO₂ by over 40%, reaching levels not seen in at least 800,000 years (4). This extra “blanket” of greenhouse gases is trapping heat and pushing global temperatures up at an unprecedented rate. In fact, changes that would normally unfold over millennia are happening within a lifetime (5). Natural factors alone cannot explain the steep warming we observe. For example, scientists run computer models to simulate climate – when they include only natural influences (like solar cycles and volcanoes), the model cannot reproduce the sharp warming we’ve seen in the late 20th and 21st century (4). Add in greenhouse gases from human activity, and the models do show the same warming trend we measure. The conclusion: today’s climate change isn’t just another natural fluctuation; it’s mainly caused by us (4, 6). Knowing this actually gives us power – if humans caused the problem, we can also be part of the solution by changing our behavior and policies.

“There’s no scientific consensus on climate change.” Sometimes people claim scientists are unsure about human-caused climate change. This is plain false. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is warming and that humans are the primary cause. How overwhelming? More than 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-driven climate change is real (4). In recent years, that agreement has become virtually unanimous. A 2021 survey of over 88,000 climate studies found 99.9% of them supported human-caused climate change (7) – that’s about as close to total agreement as you can get in science. One of the study authors said “we are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now… it’s pretty much case closed” on the question of what’s driving climate change (7). Moreover, every major scientific body in the world (from NASA to the Royal Society of Canada) affirms this consensus. The idea that “scientists disagree” was largely manufactured by a few skeptics and websites, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny (3) (3). If someone raises this myth, you can confidently point out that climate scientists are about as united on this issue as doctors are about the link between smoking and lung disease. The debate in the scientific community is not if humans are causing warming – it’s about how fast, how bad, and what can we do about it.

“Canada is too small to make a difference.” You might hear people say that Canada produces only a small fraction of global emissions, so our climate actions don’t matter. It’s true that Canada’s share of global carbon emissions is roughly 1.5%–2% (8). However, dismissing our responsibility based on this is misguided. First, if every country under 2% thought this way, it would account for over 36% of global emissions – more than the world’s top emitter (China) (8). In other words, lots of “small” emitters add up to a big chunk of the problem. Solving climate change requires all hands on deck. Canada is one of only about a dozen countries that together produce the majority of emissions, and we’re one of the wealthiest – which means we have outsized capacity (and ethical responsibility) to lead. In fact, Canada is among the top 10 historical emitters when you look at emissions per person and over time (8). We’ve benefited from over a century of fossil-fuel-driven growth; now we have a duty to help fix the damage. Also, consider that Canadians emit much more carbon per capita than the global average – about three to four times more than someone in India, for example. Saying “we’re too small to matter” is like not voting because one vote is small; if everyone did that, nothing would change. Lastly, climate leadership can be contagious. When countries like Canada implement effective climate solutions (like British Columbia’s early carbon tax, or our investments in clean tech), it inspires and pressures others to follow. And importantly, our emissions reductions do make a tangible difference in limiting global warming – every tonne of CO₂ we prevent helps lower the risk of extreme impacts. We are already seeing severe climate impacts in Canada (fires, heat waves, melting permafrost) because the planet has warmed ~1.2°C. Keeping global warming to safer levels requires efforts from every nation. So yes, Canada’s actions matter – to the world and to ourselves.

“The climate has always changed.” This statement is often used to suggest current changes are nothing new or nothing to worry about. It’s true that Earth’s climate has varied through geologic time, but context is everything. The rate and cause of the current warming are what make it extraordinary. Past climate changes (like the ice ages) were triggered by natural factors and unfolded over very long periods. For instance, when the last ice age ended, global temperatures rose about 4–7°C, but it took roughly 5,000 years (5). In the past century, Earth’s average temperature has already risen about 1.1°C, with most of that increase in the past 40 years. That is dozens of times faster than the natural background rate. If we continue on a high-emission path, we could effectively produce an ancient-scale climate shift in the span of a few human generations – a blink of an eye in geological time. Moreover, natural drivers (like solar cycles or volcanoes) cannot account for the current trend (4). Scientists have checked: the sun’s output has not increased over the last few decades (if anything, it’s had a slight cooling effect), and volcanoes have a short-term cooling influence. The only factor that tracks the warming is the rise in greenhouse gases from human activity (6). Another point: human civilization developed in the last ~10,000 years of unusually stable climate (the Holocene). We’re now pushing beyond that stability. Yes, climate “always changed” before humans – but back then no one owned coastal property, relied on modern agriculture, or built cities for millions of people. The “new normal” we are creating is one to which society will struggle to adapt. So when someone shrugs off climate change as just natural, you can agree that natural changes occurred in the past, and then note that what we see now is a different beast – a rapid, human-driven warming that challenges our society and ecosystems in unprecedented ways (5). Far from being reassuring, the “climate always changes” line actually underscores how disruptive climate shifts can be – many past changes were accompanied by mass extinctions or drastic sea level swings. We really don’t want to kick off another such event, especially one of our own making.