Pr's Dark Art: Fueling Climate Change Skepticism

Climate change skepticism is a form of science denial that rejects, refuses to acknowledge, disputes, or fights the scientific consensus on climate change. Climate change deniers commonly use rhetorical tactics to create the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none. Climate change denial includes unreasonable doubts about the extent to which climate change is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, and the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.

Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, conservative think tanks, and the media. Climate change denial has been fueled by public relations efforts, including a well-coordinated and well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks, and industry groups. These groups have created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change, with contrarian scientists arguing first that the world is not warming, then that any warming is natural, and now that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.

In addition to explicit denial, people have also shown implicit denial by accepting the scientific consensus but failing to translate their acceptance into action, a form of denial known as soft climate change denial. Climate change denial is commonly rooted in conspiracy theories, and people with certain cognitive tendencies are more drawn to these theories than others.

AI and social media may also be fueling the climate crisis by taking attention away from pressing global issues, fostering feelings of hopelessness, and reducing capacities for creative thinking and problem-solving.

Climate change denial is a form of science denial, with deniers rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change

Deniers may also implicitly deny climate change by accepting the science but failing to act on it. This is known as soft climate change denial.

Deniers use a range of tactics to create doubt about the reality of climate change. These include:

• Alleging that scientific consensus involves a conspiracy to fake data or suppress the truth
• Using fake experts to cast doubt on the science
• Cherry-picking outdated or flawed studies to support their arguments
• Demanding unworkable levels of research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the field
• Discussing specific aspects of climate change science, such as the role of CO2 as a trace gas

Deniers also promote conspiracy theories, for example, that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by governments or environmentalists to gain power or money.

Climate change denial is often rooted in conspiracy theories, which are more common among certain personality types, including narcissists and believers in paranormal activity.

Deniers may also be motivated by concerns about the economic impact of addressing climate change, particularly the effect on economic growth.

Deniers use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none

Deniers of climate change use rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of a scientific controversy where there is none. This is a form of science denial, and it involves the following tactics:

• Allegations that scientific consensus involves conspiring to fake data or suppress the truth: a climate change conspiracy theory.
• Fake experts, or individuals with views at odds with established knowledge, at the same time marginalizing or denigrating published topic experts.
• Selectivity, such as cherry-picking atypical or even obsolete papers, in the same way that the MMR vaccine controversy was based on one paper: examples include discredited ideas of the medieval warm period.
• Unworkable demands of research, claiming that any uncertainty invalidates the field or exaggerating uncertainty while rejecting probabilities and mathematical models.

These tactics are used to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change, which is well-established.

Deniers include those who accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their beliefs or actions

Deniers who accept the science but fail to reconcile it with their beliefs or actions are often referred to as "luke-warmists" or "soft climate change deniers". They tend to downplay the urgency of the climate crisis and emphasize the need for a "slow and cautious response".

Luke-warmists often emphasize uncertainty, play down dangers, and advocate for a gradual approach to tackling climate change. They may acknowledge the existence of global warming but minimize the influence of human emissions. They may also argue that global warming is beneficial or that humans are very adept at adapting to changes.

Some luke-warmists are politically conservative and anxious about the threat that climate action poses to the social structure. They may also be concerned about the economic impacts of strong measures to combat climate change.

Some examples of luke-warmists include:

• Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute
• Roger A. Pielke Jr.
• Daniel Sarewitz
• Steve Rayner
• Mike Hulme
• Bjørn Lomborg

Deniers have been linked to the fossil fuels lobby, right-wing think tanks, and conservative media

Deniers of climate change have been linked to the fossil fuels lobby, right-wing think tanks, and conservative media.

The fossil fuels lobby has been identified as overtly or covertly supporting efforts to undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on climate change. In the 1970s, oil companies published research that concurred with the scientific community's view on climate change. Since then, for several decades, oil companies have been organizing a widespread and systematic climate change denial campaign to seed public disinformation. This strategy has been compared to the tobacco industry's organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking.

Conservative and libertarian think tanks in the U.S., such as The Heritage Foundation, Marshall Institute, Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute, were significant participants in lobbying attempts seeking to halt or eliminate environmental regulations. Between 2002 and 2010, the combined annual income of 91 climate change counter-movement organizations—think tanks, advocacy groups, and industry associations—was roughly $900 million. During the same period, billionaires secretly donated nearly $120 million to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.

Climate change denial has also been linked to right-wing media. In 2021, a study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate identified "ten fringe publishers" that together were responsible for nearly 70% of Facebook user interactions with content that denied climate change. These included Breitbart News, The Western Journal, Newsmax, Townhall, and The Daily Wire.

Deniers use tactics such as cherry-picking, fake experts, and conspiracy theories to manufacture doubt and discredit the scientific consensus

Deniers of climate change use a variety of tactics to manufacture doubt and discredit the scientific consensus. These tactics include cherry-picking, fake experts, and conspiracy theories.

Cherry-picking involves selectively choosing data or evidence that supports their claims while ignoring or downplaying contradictory information. This can create the false impression that the scientific community is divided on the issue of climate change. For example, deniers may focus on short-term fluctuations in temperature data to argue that global warming has stopped or is not caused by human activity, while ignoring the long-term warming trend.

Deniers also employ fake experts, who are individuals with views contrary to established scientific knowledge. These fake experts may have credentials in unrelated fields or may be affiliated with organizations that promote climate change skepticism. By presenting these individuals as experts, deniers attempt to create the illusion of a scientific debate where none exists.

Conspiracy theories are another tactic used by deniers to spread doubt and discredit climate science. They allege that scientists are involved in a global conspiracy to manipulate data or suppress dissenting voices. These theories often involve claims of financial motivations or political agendas driving the consensus on climate change.

In addition to these tactics, deniers may also use logical fallacies, impossible expectations, and misleading personal attacks to undermine the credibility of climate science and scientists. They may demand unrealistic levels of certainty or perfection in scientific findings or make exaggerated claims about the costs and negative impacts of climate change mitigation policies. Personal attacks on the character or motives of individual scientists are also common, aiming to discredit their research and create doubt.

By employing these tactics, deniers seek to manufacture doubt, confuse the public, and delay or prevent action on climate change. They exploit the media's tendency to present opposing viewpoints as a way to create the appearance of a legitimate debate, even when the scientific consensus is strong. This has contributed to low levels of public concern and government inaction on climate change, particularly in the United States.

Frequently asked questions