Understanding Climate Change Denial

  • G. Thomas Farmer
  • John Cook


At its heart, climate denial is the rejection of the scientific consensus that humans are disrupting the climate. Denial of a consensus can be identified by five telltale characteristics: fake experts, cherry picking, logical fallacies, impossible expectations and conspiracy theories. These techniques are observed in the tactics and strategies of the climate denial movement, disseminated by ideological think-tanks, some conservative governments and vested interests through a range of media streams. The key to responding to climate misinformation is to provide alternative narratives that are more compelling than the myths they replace.


Climate denial Denier Consensus Peer-review Uncertainty Fake experts Cherry picking Logical fallacies Impossible expectations Conspiracy theories “Climategate” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Conservative ideology Media balance-as-bias Conservative think tanks Government Corporate vested interests Internet Misinformation Refutation Backfire effect 

Additional Readings

  1. Anderegg, W. R. L., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107, 12107–12109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avery, D. (2007). 500 scientists whose research contradicts man-made global warming scares, Heartland Institute website. Captured on 1 June 2012 from
  3. Bedford, D. (2010). Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation. Journal of Geography, 109(4), 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bray, D. (2010). The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(5), 340–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2011). The debunking handbook. St. Lucia: University of Queensland. Nov 5. ISBN 978-0-646-56812-6.
  7. Correia, V. (2011). Biases and fallacies: The role of motivated irrationality in fallacious reasoning. Cogency, 3(1), 107–126.Google Scholar
  8. Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public Health, 19, 2–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ding, D., Maibach, E., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1, 462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS, 90(3), 21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freudenburg, W. R., Gramling, R., & Davidson, D. J. (2008). Scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt. Sociological Inquiry, 78(2), 5.Google Scholar
  12. Greenpeace (2011). Koch industries secretly funding the climate denial machine. Captured on 5 June from
  13. Hamilton, L. (2009). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. doi  10.1007/s10584-010-9957-8.
  14. Hansen, J. (2009). Storms of my grandchildren. New York: Bloomsbury. p. 304.Google Scholar
  15. Heath, Y., & Gifford, R. (2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment and Behavior, 38, 48–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoggan, J. (2009). Climate cover-up. Vancouver: Greystone Books.Google Scholar
  17. Hoofnagle, C., & Hoofnagle, M. (2007). What is denialism?. Captured on 16 Apr 2012 from
  18. Inhofe, J. (2012). The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future(WND Books, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
  19. Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jensen, C. (1998). How many climate researchers support the “Leipzig Declaration”?. Captured on 4 June from
  21. Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or “cyberghettos?”: A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahan, D., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male e_ect in risk perceptions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 465–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahan, D., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurtz, P., et al. (2009). The credibility project. Captured on 1 June 2012 from
  25. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., & Smith, N. (2010). Climate change in the American Mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in June 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Available at:
  26. Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, C. E. (in press). NASA faked the moon landing-therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science.Google Scholar
  27. Lindzen, R. S., & Choi, Y. S. (2009). On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L16705. doi: 10.1029/2009GL039628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malka, A., et al. (2009). Featuring skeptics in news media stories about global warming reduces public beliefs in the seriousness of global warming. Palo Alto: Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  29. Mann, M. (2012). The hockey stick and the climate wars: Dispatches from the front lines. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  30. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity: The American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Culture & Society, 27, 100–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Morano, M. (2008). More than 650 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. Captured on 1 June 2012 from
  33. Nisbet, M. C., & Myers, T. (2007). The polls – trends – twenty years of public opinion about global warming. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 444–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. OISM (1999). Captured on 1 June 2012 from
  35. Oreskes, N. (2004). Beyond the ivory tower. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306:1686.Google Scholar
  36. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  37. Prasad, M., Perrin, A. J., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S. G., Kindleberger, K., Manturuk, K., et al. (2009). “There must be a reason”: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification. Sociological Inquiry, 79, 142–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reisman, J. P. (2011). Exposing the climate hoax: It’s all about the economy. Lyra Books (
  39. Seitz, F. (1996). Major deception on global warming. Wall Street Journal, 12 June.Google Scholar
  40. Talisse, R., & Aikin, S. (2006). Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation, 20(3), 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Thomas Farmer
    • 1
  • John Cook
    • 2
  1. 1.Farmer EnterprisesLas CrucesUSA
  2. 2.School of PsychologyThe University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations