Is Climate denial is immoral?

                          That's an interesting question. First there is the issue of what, really, is a denier in this context? The line between skepticism and denial has been blurred, partly by the careless use of the term denier, applied too often when individuals are skeptical of what science is telling us may eventually occur should humanity continue on its current course and accelerate the pace of climate change by our activities. Just as often, though, anti-science rhetoric prevails, rooted frequently in political or religious ideology...or in blatant self-interest with little or no concern for the future. While the latter can be based in a lack of scientific knowledge, sometimes the personal agendas result in individuals-and organizations-deliberately propagating outright falsehoods. That, in my own opinion, is when the individual or group sinks to the level of denial. Some may disagree with that opinion, I am simply establishing the threshold I apply in the interests of answering your question.

The second interesting part is immorality; I've had a number of conversations with a variety of people from our pastor to a university professor of business about morality and ethics, and tried to get a better handle on how society reconciles moral issues. Ethics is the vehicle we use to resolve such conflicts, and not always to everyone's satisfaction. Think of abortion for the best example of a moral issue for which the ethical resolution failed to resolve the confrontation. Another less apparent example is civil disobedience.

So...what I think it this. I think denial as I am defining it is unethical. I think rapacious waste of the planet's resources is immoral. On the other hand, I believe that scientific skepticism is both ethical and moral. There are those who would disagree with me and I understand that-they would claim that all lying is immoral. But, I would ask, is lying for the common good immoral, and, if someone believes in their heart that our future depends on a particular course of action, is lying justified? That would fit within confines similar to civil disobedience, if you are following my rationale here...what one person considers immoral, another does not-or doesn't under different circumstances, so we define the limits of behavior ethically to resolve the moral issue.

You also have to consider the more sinister rationale for denial-and what some call alarmism. Rather than being intended to contribute to the common good, sometimes people lie for personal gain. That's pretty much universally accepted as both unethical AND immoral.

So...if you accept my rationale, which I hope I have put forth directly, I will expand a little on scientific skepticism to say that it is a good thing because we need to search for the truth as objectively as possible and one of the best ways to do that is put the information out there and have people ask questions about the science. We need to examine many issues in that respect, including economic and political issues...but we shouldn't mix them all up and argue science with a political vocabulary or use that to muddy the issue itself. That would be unethical. Haw. Given the power of skepticism, denial is generally not only unethical but pointless. Some people though, don't really understand how to do things better whether it is denial or alarm. Lying or misrepresenting things for personal gain though, is always, by most interpretations, always unethical and immoral.