Monmouth University Professor Peter Jacques conducted a 12-year analysis of over 100 books rejecting climate science to understand why many Americans doubt climate change, despite scientific consensus on its reality and human causation. Collaborating with co-author Riley Dunlap and students, Jacques categorized arguments from these books into four denial types:
- Trend Denial (81%): Claims global warming never occurred or is unreliable.
- Attribution Denial (94%): Acknowledges climate change but disputes human responsibility.
- Impact Denial (76%): Argues that increased warming/carbon dioxide is beneficial or not as harmful.
- Policy Denial (94%): Asserts that climate policies are ineffective or harmful.
Jacques found the books often question the integrity of science, suggesting that climate issues are symptomatic of broader societal fears. Many arguments appear reasonable at first but devolve into broad attacks on climate science reliability.
Jacques highlights the “science trap,” where laypersons struggle to differentiate genuine scientific debate from politically motivated controversy, particularly when presented by credible scientists. The study notes that climate science denial gained momentum post-1992, coinciding with significant international climate agreements.
Unlike past environmental battles tied to economic grievances, climate denial targets science directly, making it more engaging for the public. The opposition to climate science is driven by “anti-reflexivity,” a resistance to adapt to new societal challenges, with the well-organized anti-science movement prominently backed by powerful fossil fuel industries, particularly in the U.S. The study, titled “Foundations of climate change denial: Anti-environmentalism and anti-science,” was published in PLOS One.
