Foundations of climate change denial: Anti-environmentalism and anti-science

Despite a longstanding scientific consensus about the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a climate change countermovement (CCCM) has worked to undermine and cast doubt on climate science for over three decades. The CCCM is a coalition led by fossil fuel corporations and their advocacy organizations, far-right conservative think tanks (CTTs), conservative foundations and a few dissenting scientists that has successfully thwarted domestic mitigation policies and international agreements aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Social science investigations into the CCCM have become increasingly sophisticated and have provided key insights into the content and influence of AGW denial narratives. Denial narratives reject the basic findings of climate science: the earth is warming (trend denial), largely due to human actions (attribution denial), producing harmful impacts (impact denial), and mitigation policies are ineffective or harmful (policy denial). These narratives cast the integrity of climate science and scientists in doubt; yet a fine-grained analysis of denial narratives has not been conducted. To fill this gap, we analyze the content of 108 books that reject climate science using a two-stage content analysis approach: first, a deductive approach to identify denial claims in the books, and second an inductive approach to analyze the larger semantic ecosystems surrounding the claims. We confirm the major narratives that have been identified in prior research, but discover a consistent, underlying anti-environmentalism along with a rejection of "impact science" that highlights the negative effects of industrial production. These two meta-themes challenge reflexive modernization, which relies on scientific knowledge and global environmentalism to solve environmental problems. This reflects a deep "anti-reflexivity" employed to combat forces promoting the need for major reductions in GHGs and a shift to renewable energy. This anti-reflexive DNA of climate denial serves to protect power and privilege systems formed since industrialization, which has been powered by fossil fuels.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2025-11-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334544
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Climate Change Communication and Perception
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.40
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Foundations of climate change denial: Anti-environmentalism and anti-science

Riley E. Dunlap, Peter Jacques
2 citations
PLoS ONE
Climate Change Communication and Perception
8.40
article

Foundations of climate change denial: Anti-environmentalism and anti-science

Riley E. Dunlap, Peter Jacques
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Despite a longstanding scientific consensus about the reality of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a climate change countermovement (CCCM) has worked to undermine and cast doubt on climate science for over three decades. The CCCM is a coalition led by fossil fuel corporations and their advocacy organizations, far-right conservative think tanks (CTTs), conservative foundations and a few dissenting scientists that has successfully thwarted domestic mitigation policies and international agreements aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Social science investigations into the CCCM have become increasingly sophisticated and have provided key insights into the content and influence of AGW denial narratives. Denial narratives reject the basic findings of climate science: the earth is warming (trend denial), largely due to human actions (attribution denial), producing harmful impacts (impact denial), and mitigation policies are ineffective or harmful (policy denial). These narratives cast the integrity of climate science and scientists in doubt; yet a fine-grained analysis of denial narratives has not been conducted. To fill this gap, we analyze the content of 108 books that reject climate science using a two-stage content analysis approach: first, a deductive approach to identify denial claims in the books, and second an inductive approach to analyze the larger semantic ecosystems surrounding the claims. We confirm the major narratives that have been identified in prior research, but discover a consistent, underlying anti-environmentalism along with a rejection of "impact science" that highlights the negative effects of industrial production. These two meta-themes challenge reflexive modernization, which relies on scientific knowledge and global environmentalism to solve environmental problems. This reflects a deep "anti-reflexivity" employed to combat forces promoting the need for major reductions in GHGs and a shift to renewable energy. This anti-reflexive DNA of climate denial serves to protect power and privilege systems formed since industrialization, which has been powered by fossil fuels.

PLoS ONEVol. 20(11)
Oklahoma State University (US), Monmouth University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Climate Change Communication and Perception
8.40
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.