Climate Denialism

ABSTRACT Climate change imposes severe impacts on society and the economy. Solving this problem may require a major redesign of how available resources on our planet are exploited, and those changes induce resistance. Therefore, the general public and politicians welcome claims that climate change is not as bad as scientists conclude. An article in this issue by May and Crok casting doubt on the conclusions of climate science was submitted to this journal and apparently passed peer review. On that basis, the authors claim authority and a high status for their article in posts on social media. However, there are serious problems with this article. It applies a number of logical fallacies frequently used by climate denialists. Rather than debunking all of these fallacies, the present article uses the one by May and Crok to showcase several of these fallacies. These include examples of rhetorical tricks denialists frequently use to cast doubt on the major findings of climate science such as use of fake experts, cherry picking, creating false expectations, and misrepresentations of available understanding.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Published
2024-12-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12611
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Geoengineering
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Climate Denialism

Tinus Pulles
American Journal of Economics and Sociology
Climate Change and Geoengineering
article

Climate Denialism

Tinus Pulles
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Climate change imposes severe impacts on society and the economy. Solving this problem may require a major redesign of how available resources on our planet are exploited, and those changes induce resistance. Therefore, the general public and politicians welcome claims that climate change is not as bad as scientists conclude. An article in this issue by May and Crok casting doubt on the conclusions of climate science was submitted to this journal and apparently passed peer review. On that basis, the authors claim authority and a high status for their article in posts on social media. However, there are serious problems with this article. It applies a number of logical fallacies frequently used by climate denialists. Rather than debunking all of these fallacies, the present article uses the one by May and Crok to showcase several of these fallacies. These include examples of rhetorical tricks denialists frequently use to cast doubt on the major findings of climate science such as use of fake experts, cherry picking, creating false expectations, and misrepresentations of available understanding.

American Journal of Economics and SociologyVol. 84(1)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Climate Change and Geoengineering
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Climate Denialism — Tinus Pulles · American Journal of Economics and Sociology (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS