Mobilizing Doubt: The Legal Mobilization of Climate Denialist Groups

Abstract

The climate change countermovement (CCCM) deploys a broad repertoire of tactics in its effort to cast doubt on the science of climate change. One important yet understudied tactic is the effort by CCCM groups to use open records laws in scientifically uncertain areas to cast doubt on the accuracy of scientific information. This article explores the use of this tactic by CCCM groups and adds to the legal mobilization literature in three ways. First, it traces the origin of CCCM groups to the broader conservative legal movement of the 1970s that challenged the dominance of the liberal legal network. Second, it shows how CCCM groups waged an open records campaign against climate scientists in Virginia and Arizona, causing scientists to countermobilize by organizing their own legal campaigns. Finally, this article provides the first empirical evidence of the effect of CCCM Freedom of Information Act suits on the activities of university researchers. I find, through in‐depth personal interviews with twelve university researchers, that the experience of researchers who have been exposed to open records campaigns has been overwhelmingly negative, has caused them to change their methods of communication, and has imposed a new work burden that draws them away from other work responsibilities. I argue that the costs of these tactics are narrowly borne by a concentrated group of scientists whose production of knowledge is a public good that allows us to address the crosscutting and relentless problem of climate change.

Climate Change Disinformation and How to Combat It

“…Direct empirical evidence for the assertion that the scientific community has been unduly cautious in response to denial is difficult to assemble. However, interviews with researchers have revealed that some forms of contrarian activities, such as the use of freedom-of-information requests, have led to changes in how scientists communicate and have imposed an additional work burden that draws time away from research (114). At a theoretical level, agent-based simulations have shown how readily knowledge accumulation by a scientific community can be delayed or disrupted by bad-faith actors (110,173).…”

Influence and seepage: An evidence-resistant minority can affect public opinion and scientific belief formation

“…There is evidence that personal emails between scientists can be exploited in this manner with a discernible impact on public opinion (Stoutenborough, Liu, & Vedlitz, 2014). Ley (2018) analyzed the impact of FOIA requests on scientists through in-depth interviews. He found that all respondents had altered their means of communication in response to an FOIA requests, with many scientists engaging in self-censorship and others resorting to phone calls.…”

Climate change litigation: A review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance

“…While legal scholars naturally put law and the judgments of courts at the center of their analyses, sociolegal scholars have long pointed out that there is much to be learned from de-centering the analysis of law (Haines & Reichman, 2008). Yet climate change litigation has, until relatively recently, been largely overlooked by socio-legal scholars and by law and courts researchers in political science, sociology, and anthropology (for important exceptions see work that takes a socio-legal approach by legal scholars such as, Duyck, Jodoin, & Johl, 2018;Fisher, 2013;Fisher, Scotford, & Barritt, 2017;Hilson, , 2012Peel & Osofsky, 2015 and research by social scientists, e.g., Haines & Reichman, 2008;Hayes, 2013;Ley, 2018;Vanhala, 2013). These approaches have a great deal to bring to research on climate change litigation.…”

“…Scholars later began to pay attention to how industry actors and government officials have also used litigation to fight tighter regulatory controls Markell & Ruhl, 2012;Setzer & Bangalore, 2017). Socio-legal scholarship and social movement research has contributed to a growing awareness of the range of litigants and other actors associated with climate change litigation: from climate activists in criminal trials (Hayes, 2013), to the fossil fuel divestment movement (Franta, 2017), subnational governments (Osofsky, 2005a(Osofsky, , 2005b(Osofsky, , 2007a(Osofsky, , 2007b, climate change denial groups (Ley, 2018), judges (Carnwath, 2016;Preston, 2016a;Weaver & Kysar, 2017), and legal scholars (Fisher, 2013).…”

“…Recent studies also suggest that a small number of "Meat Majors" are responsible for more annual GHG emissions than Exxon, Shell, or BP (Grain, 2018;Ritchie, Reay, & Higgins, 2018). Other players that have received less explicit scholarly attention include scientists involved in climate litigation (but see Ley, 2018 and the discussion below) and the funders of climate change litigation.…”