A survey for the American National Science Foundation conducted in 2001 found that 60% of respondents agree that “some people possess psychic powers or extrasensory perception”. 30% agreed that “some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilisations”.

I’ve heard these stats and felt a rush of pride, knowing that we’re spared such grandiose nonsense in Australia – but it’s misplaced. The power of systematic denial of science in Australia has been badly underestimated.

The world of pseudoscience has blurred edges, ranging from homeopathy to intelligent design. It’s characterised by the presentation of non-scientific claims as scientific. A classic example of pseudoscience I’ve encountered in my time in the clean energy industry is a phenomenon known as “wind turbine syndrome” – a collection of non-scientific claims reliant on anecdotal evidence and discredited, non-peer-reviewed research (the latest study finding no evidence that turbines can make people sick was just published).

Climate denial is different, in that it relies more on cherry-picked data than anecdotal evidence. Additionally, many pseudosciences exist solely as a marketing tool for improbable claims, whereas climate denial exists to negate a probable claim. In recent years, climate denial has become the most effective pseudoscience in Australia.

To preserve the belief that humans have no influence on climate, you need to do more than manipulate data. There is an already well-established scientific consensus on the influence of human activity on climate change, and this need to be explicitly rejected to maintain climate denial. In addition, to reject climate science, you need to assert that major scientific institutions are inept and badly misinformed, including the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the Australian Academy of Science, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, and a wealth of American and international scientific bodies.

When it comes to the alignment between public and scientific views on climate science, we’re badly behind the curve. The most recent survey of public views on anthropogenic global warming, the CSIRO’s fourth annual survey of Australian attitudes to climate change, show 39% of Australians reject a human role in global warming, a further 8% think the climate isn’t changing at all, and 6% can’t say either way.

When asked to rank 16 social issues in terms of importance, climate change came third last. You’d be hard pressed to find any other form of scientific denialism with such a significant impact on the priorities of Australians. A recent poll by Essential Vision confirms the findings of the CSIRO, and delineates how our views have changed over the past four years.

In addition to our own views on the causes of climate change, there is a big gap between what climate scientists agree on, and what we think they agree on. Preliminary data gathered by climate science communication expert John Cook shows this pattern at play in the US:

Cook terms this the “consensus gap”. It’s precisely the outcome we’d expect from a systematic effort to distance public opinion from the outcomes of science. It’s likely this gap has been forced open by the efforts of conservative media commentators producing a relentless output of doubt. By amplifying the voices of a small number of dissenting scientists, the public is faced with a manufactured controversy, far removed from reality.

Climate change denial is a pseudoscience like no other, and it’s Australia’s most effective and pervasive pseudoscience because it has support from powerful figures. Faced with the option of accepting scientific views on climate change, or aligning with Australians who reject human influence in the climate system, it’s unsurprising to see many politicians side with the latter.

Senator John Madigan stated in a radio interview, that “the degree to which man can influence the change of climate, well I don’t believe the jury is in on that yet. For all the people of the world, scientists who say it is, there’s probably an equal body who says it isn’t”. Senator Cory Bernardi openly rejects climate science. Abbott’s business advisor Maurice Newman described climate change as a “scientific delusion”. Guardian climate blogger Graham Readfearn writes that at least six members of Abbott’s 18-member cabinet have been sceptical of the role of fossil fuels in climate change. Abbott himself rejects the possibility that it will have any influence on the frequency of bushfires or drought.

The motivated rejection of science permeates the most powerful office in our country. No other pseudoscientific venture can lay claim to a gleaming trophy like that.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this brand of scientific denialism weighs heavily on the clean energy industry, in which I’m currently employed. Self described “climate sceptic” Dick Warburton has been chosen to head the review of the Renewable Energy Target. Research demonstrates the rejection of climate science is strongly linked to opposition to climate policies.

There’s no escaping the fact that the mechanics of climate change denial will be a deciding factor in the future of my industry. It’s something I now keep in mind when wallowing in the prevalence of pseudoscience in other countries.