Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors

Abstract

Misinformation can have significant societal consequences. For example, misinformation about climate change has confused the public and stalled support for mitigation policies. When people lack the expertise and skill to evaluate the science behind a claim, they typically rely on heuristics such as substituting judgment about something complex (i.e. climate science) with judgment about something simple (i.e. the character of people who speak about climate science) and are therefore vulnerable to misleading information. Inoculation theory offers one approach to effectively neutralize the influence of misinformation. Typically, inoculations convey resistance by providing people with information that counters misinformation. In contrast, we propose inoculating against misinformation by explaining the fallacious reasoning within misleading denialist claims. We offer a strategy based on critical thinking methods to analyse and detect poor reasoning within denialist claims. This strategy includes detailing argument structure, determining the truth of the premises, and checking for validity, hidden premises, or ambiguous language. Focusing on argument structure also facilitates the identification of reasoning fallacies by locating them in the reasoning process. Because this reason-based form of inoculation is based on general critical thinking methods, it offers the distinct advantage of being accessible to those who lack expertise in climate science. We applied this approach to 42 common denialist claims and find that they all demonstrate fallacious reasoning and fail to refute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. This comprehensive deconstruction and refutation of the most common denialist claims about climate change is designed to act as a resource for communicators and educators who teach climate science and/or critical thinking.

Understanding and Countering Misinformation About Climate Change

“…This confirms other research finding that inoculation provides an "umbrella of protection", conveying resistance to other arguments besides those mentioned in the inoculation message (Parker et al, 2012). Critical thinking analysis offers a methodology for identifying fallacies in misinforming arguments (Cook, Ellerton, & Kinkead, 2018).…”

“…Common logical fallacies are red herrings (distracting arguments that are irrelevant to the conclusion), non sequiturs (arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premise), and false dichotomies (imposing a choice between two options, when other options or both options are viable choices). An analysis of the most common arguments against climate change found that all of the arguments contained fatal logical flaws (Cook, Ellerton, & Kinkead, 2018).…”

“…Cherry picking involves selectively choosing data that leads to a conclusion different from the conclusion arising from all available data (Cook, Ellerton, & Kinkead, 2018). This technique is a form of palteringrhetorical claims that are literally true but lead to false conclusions (Schauer & Zeckhauser, 2009).…”

Presumed Effects of “Fake News” on the Global Warming Discussion in a Cross-Cultural Context

“…The controversy on global warming is enough to raise questions about our capacity of scientific knowledge [1]. Despite most scientists' recognition of man-made climate change, there are some that argue against its importance.…”

The decarbonisation impasse: global tourism leaders’ views on climate change mitigation

“…These refer to systems in which specific views of reality are maintained even against evidence questioning the validity of these beliefs (Rokeach, 1968). Agnogenesis (Proctor & Schiebinger 2008) refers to a situation in which misleading views are spread to introduce doubt (Cook, Ellerton & Kinkead 2018;Oreskes & Conway 2011), for instance with regard to the need to introduce policies for decarbonisation.…”