Reply to O’Neill and Boykoff: Objective classification of climate experts

Anderegg, William R. L.; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob

doi:10.1073/pnas.1010824107

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recognition of the possibility that industrial CO 2 emissions may alter the planet’s climate dates back more than a century, and during the last two decades the scientific evidence for the fact that humans are interfering with the climate has become overwhelming. The vast majority of domain experts agree that the climate is changing and that human CO 2 emissions are causing this change (Oreskes, 2004; Doran and Zimmerman, 2009; Anderegg et al, 2010). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation

Lewandowsky¹,

Cook²,

Oberauer³

et al. 2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conspiracist ideation has been repeatedly implicated in the rejection of scientific propositions, although empirical evidence to date has been sparse. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and the rejection of other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS (Lewandowsky et al., in press; LOG12 from here on). This article analyses the response of the climate blogosphere to the publication of LOG12. We identify and trace the hypotheses that emerged in response to LOG12 and that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions. Using established criteria to identify conspiracist ideation, we show that many of the hypotheses exhibited conspiratorial content and counterfactual thinking. For example, whereas hypotheses were initially narrowly focused on LOG12, some ultimately grew in scope to include actors beyond the authors of LOG12, such as university executives, a media organization, and the Australian government. The overall pattern of the blogosphere’s response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science, although alternative scholarly interpretations may be advanced in the future.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%