Trakar
VIP Member
- Feb 28, 2011
- 1,699
- 73
- 83
American Behavioral Scientist
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800.full.pdf+html
Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science
Shaun W. Elsasser and Riley E. Dunlap
DOI: 10.1177/0002764212469800
Telling that this was written by behavioral science researchers, and published in a behavioral science journal.
http://abs.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/25/0002764212469800.full.pdf+html
Leading Voices in the Denier Choir: Conservative Columnists' Dismissal of Global Warming and Denigration of Climate Science
Shaun W. Elsasser and Riley E. Dunlap
DOI: 10.1177/0002764212469800
(...)
Summary and Conclusion
Our analyses of the op-eds on climate change written by syndicated conservative columnists reveal important aspects of their role in the denial machine. First, their op-eds are often published in reaction to public events that appear either to legitimate or denigrate climate science. The months with the greatest numbers of columns over
the 4 years were those when events either lent credibility to the climate science community (e.g., accolades won by Al Gore and the IPCC and President Obamas attendance in Copenhagen) or provoked criticism of it (e.g., Heartland conferences and Climategate). The conservative columnists used either type of event as an opportunity
to challenge the legitimacy of climate science.
Also, the columnists focused on Al Gore more than any other topic over the 4 years. Gore is a ready-made scapegoat they repeatedly attacked, often in a caricatured fashion; indeed, their op-eds were more likely to link global warming with Al Gore than with the IPCC. This suggests that Al Gore is viewed as easier to discredit than is the IPCC. Climategate also resonated strongly with the columnists, and they frequently used it in efforts to cast doubt on climate science. The columnists were also more likely to discuss and criticize international policy proposals than domestic ones, despite their obvious aversion of both, as the idea that the United States would commit to treaties that might impinge on Americans was loathsome to them. Even considering such a possibility was, in their eyes, a sign of national weakness.
Last, we analyzed the skeptical arguments utilized by the columnists. Their most common arguments were those that either denied the existence of global warming or denied human responsibility for it. The favorite was that there is no consensus among climate scientists regarding anthropogenic climate change, a constant refrain from the
small number of contrarian scientists and skeptical bloggers and an obvious attempt to delegitimize climate science.
Finally, those columnists who did not challenge the reality of anthropogenic global warming tended to argue that its impacts would not be harmful but that both international and domestic efforts to ameliorate it would clearly be damaging. These have long been favored claims used by the denial community (McCright & Dunlap, 2000).
It is apparent that conservative columnists are a key component of the climate change denial machine, as they strongly reinforce and amplify the voices of the rest of the denier choir. Indeed, their vast reach enables them to spread skepticism across a wider audience than even Fox News or right-wing talk radio, which tend to appeal heavily to conservative audiences. For example, George Will reaches a larger audience than any other syndicated columnist, an estimated 42% of newspaper readers in 2007, whereas Cal Thomas reached an estimated 27% that year (Media Matters in America, 2007, p. 7). In addition, as Will and Thomas demonstrate, many of the columnists are also regular fixtures on TV and radio, allowing them to amplify their messages even more.
Their role as political commentatorsentailing insularity from effective fact checking (illustrated by some notoriously fallacious op-eds on global warming by George Will; Powell, 2011, pp. 73-78) and rebuttalsallows the columnists to employ arguments against global warming that have long been debunked in the scientific literature and to repeat allegations against climate scientists that have no basis, and to do so with virtual impunity. They thereby fill an important niche in the denial machine, echoing and strongly amplifying the climate change skepticism and denial promoted by the other key actors.
Telling that this was written by behavioral science researchers, and published in a behavioral science journal.