The Strange Comfort of a 135-Year-Old “Cult” of Denial
The existence of a 135-year-old “cult” would usually sound intriguing, the kind of story that invites conspiracy, mystery, and curiosity. But when that cult is not a secret society hidden in the woods, but a persistent culture of climate denial and complacency, the phenomenon is far more concerning than intriguing. For well over a century, the world has known about the dangers of altering our atmosphere. Yet even today, despite the dangers around us, we cling to old narratives that downplay or dismiss the reality of climate change.
This long-standing pattern of minimising risk, vilifying science, and glorifying endless consumption behaves like a belief system—rigid, defensive, and resistant to evidence. It is a “cult” not in the literal sense, but in its psychological grip: a worldview that feels safer than the truth, even as it steers us toward greater danger.
Climate Science Is Not New: A Century-Long Warning
Many people think climate change appeared suddenly as a modern political issue, but the scientific foundations stretch back more than 135 years. In the late 19th century, scientists were already exploring how certain gases could trap heat in Earth’s atmosphere. By the early 20th century, the idea that human activity might influence climate was taking scientific shape.
Through the mid-20th century, research accelerated. Measurements, models, and observations converged on the same conclusion: increasing greenhouse gas emissions would warm the planet, alter weather patterns, and destabilise systems humans depend on. From the 1950s onward, internal reports within industries and governments acknowledged the risks. By the late 1980s, climate change was a global headline—too visible to ignore.
And yet, as the evidence grew stronger, so did the organised resistance.
The “Cult” of Climate Denial: Belief Against Evidence
Calling climate denial a “cult” is a metaphor, but a revealing one. It highlights how some responses to science are not rooted in information, but in identity. When a worldview is tied to economic interests, political loyalty, or a sense of cultural belonging, it becomes insulated from facts. Confronting the data feels like an attack on the self.
This “cult” has key features:
- Dogma over data: Evidence is dismissed if it threatens preferred beliefs or short-term profits.
- Charismatic narrative-makers: Influential figures and platforms repeat simple stories—“the climate has always changed,” “it’s a natural cycle”—that sound reassuring but ignore context and scale.
- Us-versus-them framing: Scientists, activists, and even concerned citizens are portrayed as alarmists or enemies of economic freedom.
- Selective skepticism: Extreme doubt is applied to climate science, while weak or debunked claims that support denial are accepted uncritically.
Over 135 years, this mentality has evolved alongside the science itself, adapting, rebranding, and shifting arguments. What began as outright rejection of warming has softened in some circles into a new phase: acknowledging climate change, but insisting it is distant, manageable, or someone else’s problem.
Why Our Calm Is More Concerning Than the Crisis Itself
The most unsettling aspect of today’s climate crisis is not only the scale of the threat, but the eerie normality with which we coexist beside it. Heatwaves grow harsher, storms more destructive, droughts and floods more frequent, yet vast portions of everyday life proceed as though nothing fundamental is changing. This emotional disconnect is more concerning than intriguing—it reveals a society skilled at compartmentalising danger.
Psychologically, humans struggle with gradual, global threats. Climate change rarely behaves like a single dramatic event; it unfolds in waves and probabilities, amplifying existing vulnerabilities. This makes it easy to rationalise: last summer’s fire was an anomaly, this year’s flood a freak accident, next decade’s heat just an inconvenience.
But each new record, each new disaster, is part of a larger pattern. Our calm is not a sign that things are under control; it is a sign that the 135-year-old culture of minimisation still has us in its grip.
The Existence of Risk Is No Longer Debatable
The existence of climate change is now beyond serious scientific debate. What remains uncertain is the scale of damage we will tolerate before acting with the urgency the data demands. The dangers are already visible:
- Rising temperatures: Global average temperatures have climbed, with recent years repeatedly breaking heat records.
- More extreme weather: Intensified storms, prolonged droughts, and severe floods are striking more frequently and with greater intensity.
- Melting ice and rising seas: Glaciers and polar ice are retreating, contributing to sea-level rise that threatens coastal communities.
- Ecological disruption: Species migration, coral bleaching, and shifting seasons are reshaping ecosystems.
- Human health impacts: Heat stress, air pollution, expanding disease ranges, and food and water insecurity are already impacting millions.
Despite this, the cultural remnants of the denial “cult” linger. They do not always appear as outright rejection; sometimes they emerge as endless delay, distraction, or a fixation on tiny lifestyle gestures while larger systemic changes stall.
The New Shape of Denial: Delay, Distraction, and False Balance
As the evidence has become undeniable, the tactics of resistance have changed. Today’s climate denial is rarely a blunt statement that warming is a hoax. Instead, it manifests in subtler forms:
- Delay disguised as prudence: Calls for “more study” or “careful consideration” after decades of research serve mainly to postpone difficult decisions.
- Whataboutism: Emphasising the emissions of other countries to justify inaction at home.
- Technological wishful thinking: Assuming future innovations will solve everything, so there is no need for serious change now.
- False equivalence: Giving fringe views and peer-reviewed science the same weight in public discourse, as though they are equally valid.
These patterns maintain the comfort of the status quo while appearing more reasonable than old-style denial. They are, in effect, a modernised chapter in the same 135-year-old storyline.
From Cult to Culture Shift: Rewriting the Story
If the problem has been cultivated for over a century, the solution must also be cultural as much as technological. This requires reframing climate change not as a distant environmental concern but as a present-tense question about how we live, work, travel, build, and govern.
Key elements of this cultural shift include:
- Normalising climate literacy: Treating basic understanding of climate systems and risks as a standard part of education and public conversation.
- Rewarding responsibility: Valuing businesses, institutions, and leaders that act on climate evidence, not just those that deliver short-term profit.
- Connecting local and global: Helping communities recognise how local floods, fires, or heatwaves fit into the global picture.
- Celebrating realistic hope: Moving away from paralyzing doom or empty optimism, and toward honest, action-oriented hope grounded in the real possibilities of change.
The goal is not perfection, but momentum: replacing the cult of complacency with a culture of conscious, collective response.
Everyday Spaces, Extraordinary Choices: Travel, Hotels, and a Warming World
One of the most overlooked arenas for this culture shift is the world of travel, and especially hotels. At first glance, hotels seem far removed from climate policy debates, but they sit at the intersection of energy, water, land use, and human behaviour. As climate change reshapes coastlines, ski seasons, and urban heat islands, the hospitality industry is already navigating a new reality: destinations become too hot in summer, storm-prone regions face rising insurance costs, and infrastructure must withstand more frequent extremes.
Forward-thinking hotels are beginning to respond in ways that go beyond marketing buzzwords. They are investing in energy-efficient design, low-carbon materials, renewable power, smarter cooling systems, and meaningful waste reduction. Some are reimagining luxury itself, aligning comfort with conscience—prioritising local sourcing, supporting nearby ecosystems, and communicating openly with guests about water and energy use. For travellers, choosing such places becomes a quiet but powerful vote for the kind of world they want to visit in the future. In this way, even a single night’s stay can either reinforce the old 135-year-old pattern of ignoring limits or contribute to a new story where hospitality and habitability go hand in hand.
Choosing to Leave the “Cult” Behind
The most concerning thing about climate change is not that it is complex; it is that our response has been so slow, despite how long we have known the risks. For 135 years, we have had pieces of the puzzle. For decades, we have had a nearly complete picture. Today, we have both the knowledge and a growing set of tools to act.
Leaving the old climate “cult” behind does not mean embracing guilt or fear as permanent companions. It means recognising that indifference is no longer a neutral stance, but an active choice that shapes the world future generations inherit. The question is no longer whether climate change exists, but whether we are willing to redefine normal life—from energy systems to holidays, from city planning to the way we think about growth—so that survival and stability become part of our shared story.
What we do now will determine whether the next 135 years are remembered as an age of irreversible loss or as the moment when humanity finally stepped out of denial and chose to live within the limits of the only home we have.