Kalle reflects on Kjell Vowles PhD dissertation on Climate Change Deniers in Sweden

Kalle reflects on Kjell Vowles PhD dissertation on Climate Change Deniers in Sweden

Takeaway for leaders at all levels everywhere

Kjell Vowles has taken on a difficult but essential task: exploring the forces that shape a distorted worldview among those who reject the science from climatologists. Rather than debating climate data point by data point, his dissertation looks upstream at the communication ecosystems and cultural narratives that reinforce denial and resistance. This perspective helps explain why reasoned, evidence-based arguments so often fail to persuade. It also invites a more strategic response—one that addresses the social, emotional, and identity-laden dynamics at play among climate change deniers in Sweden. And perhaps elsewhere as well?

Vowles does not dwell on what natural science or physical laws are all about, nor does he unpack in detail how scientific methods are designed to correct for flawed World-views and paradigms in general. He also does not offer a comprehensive taxonomy of pseudoscientific techniques. Still, he flags one of the hallmark patterns that runs throughout denialist discourse: cherry-picking. This selective use of information—highlighting outlier findings that confirm a preexisting view while ignoring the preponderance of evidence to the contrary—creates a self-sealing bubble of certainty. It is not an accident. It is a feature of how certain media platforms cultivate identity and allegiance.

Vowles’s empirical contribution lies in his analysis of those platforms: the Swedish far-right media and its climate-related narratives. From that vantage point, he identifies a unifying theme he calls reactionary petro-nostalgia—a backward-looking longing for the fossil-fueled past, paired with a suspicion of the social and economic changes required to decarbonize. In this worldview, climate action is framed not as prudent risk management or innovation, but as cultural imposition and economic threat.

More in detail:

The rhetorical package often comes wrapped in a specific style of right-wing populism and an outdated ideal of masculinity—connoting toughness, resistance to “elites,” and contempt for perceived weakness or compromise.

Anyone who has tried to argue with climate change deniers in Sweden will recognize the pattern Vowles describes. When we present facts, tensions escalate. Contradictions multiply rather than resolve. The conversation can quickly shift from data to identity, from evidence to tribal affiliation. That is precisely why dismissing denial as stupidity or malice rarely helps. The more productive question is: What motivates otherwise intelligent, functional people to commit to untenable positions and train themselves to defend them? Understanding those drivers is not about “winning” debates. It is about de-escalation and diplomacy—creating conditions where minds can change without humiliation, and where better choices become attractive on their own merits.

Vowles’s dissertation, “Fuelling Denial: The climate change reactionary movement and Swedish far-right media”, aims to answer how things can go so wrong in public discourse. Many within climate and sustainability networks feel horrified by the aggressive rejection of evidence. Yet horror is a poor strategist. A clearer view of the mechanisms—media incentives, identity formation, group dynamics, and the psychic refuge of nostalgia—equips us to respond with precision.

The conversation then naturally shifts from diagnosis to action. From the perspective of the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD), a useful next move is to change the level of analysis. Rather than arguing with science deniers about the content of science, ask whether such arguments are even necessary for progress. Science is indispensable because it reveals systemic, global patterns that our senses alone cannot detect, and because it develops reliable methods to correct flawed designs upstream in cause–symptom chains. But scientific truth does not require every person’s assent to be operative. The better designed systems, technologies, and business models win in real markets and real communities. They outperform the alternatives, often quickly and decisively.

From this angle, the damage inflicted by denial, while not trivial, may be overestimated. The FSSD Global perspective invites organizations to keep doing the right things—align with sustainability principles, invest in innovations that reduce risk and create value, and take advantage of the economic logic that increasingly favors low-carbon solutions. When organizations make smarter, more financially rewarding decisions up front, the results speak for themselves. The “Funnel”—the shrinking space of ecological and social constraints—tightens inexorably. Within that Funnel, unsustainable models struggle while adaptive, science-aligned models prosper. This silent argument, made tangible through performance and profit, outpaces rhetorical battles.

There is also a pragmatic generosity in this approach. Even those who resist climate action ultimately benefit from the fruits of science: telecommunications, aviation, digital infrastructure, medical advances. This has been true throughout previous innovation funnels, where skepticism eventually gives way to adoption because the gains are undeniable. Why would that dynamic suddenly end now? When enough actors focus on delivering better, cheaper, and more resilient solutions, the collective incentives tilt. Denial loses its oxygen because reality becomes more rewarding than nostalgia.

Still, a few practical considerations can improve engagement with climate change deniers in Sweden, even as we prioritize systemic progress:
– Frame solutions in terms that resonate with identity and values—resilience, sovereignty, ingenuity, and prosperity—rather than moralizing or blame.
– Avoid point-scoring. Ask questions that invite reflection: What outcome would change your mind? What risks are you willing to accept? What would make the alternative attractive?
– Highlight local success stories and concrete benefits—lower energy bills, healthier cities, stronger industries—rather than abstract global targets alone.
– Maintain intellectual humility. Acknowledge uncertainty ranges without ceding the core consensus. People respond better to confidence anchored in transparency than to absolutism.

Ultimately, Vowles’s work helps us name the forces we are up against: reactionary petro-nostalgia, identity-driven media ecosystems, and the allure of simple stories in complex times. But it also reminds us that facts alone seldom shift entrenched identities. Systems and incentives do. The most constructive response is to keep building and scaling solutions that make sustainable choices the default—technically superior, financially compelling, and culturally resonant.

Climate change deniers in Sweden will continue to appear in public debates. Some will dig in harder as the energy transition accelerates. Yet the decisive arena is not the comment thread or the televised panel; it is the marketplace of ideas and investments where better designs prevail. If we stay focused on science-guided action, align with FSSD principles, and let the Funnel do its work, outcomes will accumulate faster than arguments. And as those outcomes compound—lower costs, better performance, healthier communities—the very people now resisting will, in time, enjoy the benefits, just as they have with every major scientific breakthrough before. That is the quiet, durable antidote to denial, and perhaps the surest way to move beyond the gravitational pull of reactionary nostalgia.

All hot topic Reflections are direct consequences of our Operative System.

For a deeper dive into the science behind the Operative System that informs all Reflections, see the peer-reviewed Open-Source paper with all its references: doi.org/10.1002/sd.3357. For the full title, see footnote below.

Or, for concluding reflections, practical insights and training, click on “Kalle Reflects” to see all reflections.

If you need any further advice, perhaps getting some further references, please send a question to us from the homepage.

Footnote: Broman, G. I., & Robèrt, K.-H. (2025). Operative System for Strategic Sustainable Development―Coordinating Analysis, Planning, Action, and Use of Supports Such as the Sustainable Development Goals, Planetary Boundaries, Circular Economy, and ScienceBased Targets. Sustainable Development, 1C16.