{"title":"Climate Denialism","authors":"Tinus Pulles","doi":"10.1111/ajes.12611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Climate change imposes severe impacts on society and the economy. Solving this problem may require a major redesign of how available resources on our planet are exploited, and those changes induce resistance. Therefore, the general public and politicians welcome claims that climate change is not as bad as scientists conclude. An article in this issue by May and Crok casting doubt on the conclusions of climate science was submitted to this journal and apparently passed peer review. On that basis, the authors claim authority and a high status for their article in posts on social media. However, there are serious problems with this article. It applies a number of logical fallacies frequently used by climate denialists. Rather than debunking all of these fallacies, the present article uses the one by May and Crok to showcase several of these fallacies. These include examples of rhetorical tricks denialists frequently use to cast doubt on the major findings of climate science such as use of fake experts, cherry picking, creating false expectations, and misrepresentations of available understanding.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47133,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","volume":"84 1","pages":"7-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Economics and Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12611","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Climate change imposes severe impacts on society and the economy. Solving this problem may require a major redesign of how available resources on our planet are exploited, and those changes induce resistance. Therefore, the general public and politicians welcome claims that climate change is not as bad as scientists conclude. An article in this issue by May and Crok casting doubt on the conclusions of climate science was submitted to this journal and apparently passed peer review. On that basis, the authors claim authority and a high status for their article in posts on social media. However, there are serious problems with this article. It applies a number of logical fallacies frequently used by climate denialists. Rather than debunking all of these fallacies, the present article uses the one by May and Crok to showcase several of these fallacies. These include examples of rhetorical tricks denialists frequently use to cast doubt on the major findings of climate science such as use of fake experts, cherry picking, creating false expectations, and misrepresentations of available understanding.
期刊介绍：
The American Journal of Economics and Sociology (AJES) was founded in 1941, with support from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, to encourage the development of transdisciplinary solutions to social problems. In the introduction to the first issue, John Dewey observed that “the hostile state of the world and the intellectual division that has been built up in so-called ‘social science,’ are … reflections and expressions of the same fundamental causes.” Dewey commended this journal for its intention to promote “synthesis in the social field.” Dewey wrote those words almost six decades after the social science associations split off from the American Historical Association in pursuit of value-free knowledge derived from specialized disciplines. Since he wrote them, academic or disciplinary specialization has become even more pronounced. Multi-disciplinary work is superficially extolled in major universities, but practices and incentives still favor highly specialized work. The result is that academia has become a bastion of analytic excellence, breaking phenomena into components for intensive investigation, but it contributes little synthetic or holistic understanding that can aid society in finding solutions to contemporary problems. Analytic work remains important, but in response to the current lop-sided emphasis on specialization, the board of AJES has decided to return to its roots by emphasizing a more integrated and practical approach to knowledge.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
