108
same lawmakers who pass funding initiatives to build higher seawalls against rising
sea levels, and even agree to fortify natural estuary buffers to address a threat whose
effects they can see, lack the vision or political will to tackle the root causes of the
threat (Nawaguna 2020). They may not fully subscribe to a maximum fossil fuel
extraction agenda powering established production and consumption patterns.
Nevertheless, the economic imperative to maintain and support existing carbonbased energy production systems are often too politically expedient and compelling
to argue against publically. The net effect is that they do not publicly accept climate
change as a dilemma. They remain unconcerned with the consequences of increasing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, so long as the economy in their district
grows enough to get them reelected. This attitude forms one pole of the debate, and
it elicits an equally strong opposite reaction from those who disagree (Tyson and
Kennedy 2020).
Still, most people, irrespective of which opinion they hold, simply do not know
for sure. From time to time, they may tune in to the climate change debate to see
who is prevailing. Ideally, the debate would be rooted in hard science and the consensus findings of the great majority of researchers. The enormous short-term political and economic outcomes at stake, however, often trump rational serious
consideration of scientific facts. Specious arguments and denialism attempt to
obfuscate decades of sound and patient global climate research founded on centuries of fundamental and uncontroversial science.
These two opposing views are not represented equally among people in the scientific community. An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate research scientists (97%) have concluded that the rise in global temperatures and the resultant
change in our climate systems are caused by human activity (Cook et al. 2013; Cook
et al. 2016; NASA 2020). Still, denialist fringe groups persist in formulating messages intended to maximize doubt in debates carried by both conservative and liberal media outlets. Such false skepticism, promoted to create the net perception that
we still do not know for sure what is causing the rise in global temperatures, sidesteps the scientific debate. Climate denialists regularly use pseudoscience to directly
confront genuine climate science (Hannson 2017).
Conservative media backs status-quo industry interests and regularly parades
unqualified “experts” to opine on the debate and cast doubt on the scientific consensus in order to keep advertising funding flowing. Some of their chosen spokespeople
have science credentials (not necessarily climate science), but many are chosen primarily for their considerable rhetorical, debate, and presentation skills. In the name
of fair and balanced coverage, even mainstream media outlets may turn to the same
people when reporting on climate change issues.
Denialists use a set of common rhetorical techniques in the media that leverage
normal human biases to challenge scientific facts. John Cook is a research assistant
professor at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication.
He has developed the mnemonic acronym, FLICC, to help people clearly remember
which ones are being used to frame arguments to refute scientific facts. His FLICC
taxonomy uses a series of subtitled icons to show and reinforce the array of techniques used (see Fig. 6.1)
6 Addressing Resistance to a Fact-Based Approach
same lawmakers who pass funding initiatives to build higher seawalls against rising
sea levels, and even agree to fortify natural estuary buffers to address a threat whose
effects they can see, lack the vision or political will to tackle the root causes of the
threat (Nawaguna 2020). They may not fully subscribe to a maximum fossil fuel
extraction agenda powering established production and consumption patterns.
Nevertheless, the economic imperative to maintain and support existing carbonbased energy production systems are often too politically expedient and compelling
to argue against publically. The net effect is that they do not publicly accept climate
change as a dilemma. They remain unconcerned with the consequences of increasing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, so long as the economy in their district
grows enough to get them reelected. This attitude forms one pole of the debate, and
it elicits an equally strong opposite reaction from those who disagree (Tyson and
Kennedy 2020).
Still, most people, irrespective of which opinion they hold, simply do not know
for sure. From time to time, they may tune in to the climate change debate to see
who is prevailing. Ideally, the debate would be rooted in hard science and the consensus findings of the great majority of researchers. The enormous short-term political and economic outcomes at stake, however, often trump rational serious
consideration of scientific facts. Specious arguments and denialism attempt to
obfuscate decades of sound and patient global climate research founded on centuries of fundamental and uncontroversial science.
These two opposing views are not represented equally among people in the scientific community. An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate research scientists (97%) have concluded that the rise in global temperatures and the resultant
change in our climate systems are caused by human activity (Cook et al. 2013; Cook
et al. 2016; NASA 2020). Still, denialist fringe groups persist in formulating messages intended to maximize doubt in debates carried by both conservative and liberal media outlets. Such false skepticism, promoted to create the net perception that
we still do not know for sure what is causing the rise in global temperatures, sidesteps the scientific debate. Climate denialists regularly use pseudoscience to directly
confront genuine climate science (Hannson 2017).
Conservative media backs status-quo industry interests and regularly parades
unqualified “experts” to opine on the debate and cast doubt on the scientific consensus in order to keep advertising funding flowing. Some of their chosen spokespeople
have science credentials (not necessarily climate science), but many are chosen primarily for their considerable rhetorical, debate, and presentation skills. In the name
of fair and balanced coverage, even mainstream media outlets may turn to the same
people when reporting on climate change issues.
Denialists use a set of common rhetorical techniques in the media that leverage
normal human biases to challenge scientific facts. John Cook is a research assistant
professor at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication.
He has developed the mnemonic acronym, FLICC, to help people clearly remember
which ones are being used to frame arguments to refute scientific facts. His FLICC
taxonomy uses a series of subtitled icons to show and reinforce the array of techniques used (see Fig. 6.1)
6 Addressing Resistance to a Fact-Based Approach