Developing a Critical Response to Ad Hominem Attacks Against Climate Science

Abstract

Ad hominem attacks against climate scientists—including personal attacks questioning an individual’s character, competence, or motives—remain the most common type of contrarian strategy found in contemporary climate debates. Despite their pervasiveness, climate-related ad hominem argumentation remains understudied by scholars in both the humanities and social sciences. This study adapts Douglas Walton’s critical framework for identifying ad hominem attacks against the climate community and evaluating them for rhetorical errors by analyzing developing critical responses. This article offers guidance for future inoculation interventions, including media literacy campaigns that raise awareness and understanding of ad hominem attacks used by contrarian organizations in misinformation campaigns targeting climate science.

Keywords

character assassination climate science climate misinformation critical questions critical thinking inoculation theory media literacy Walton Douglas

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barnes

R. M.

Johnston

H. M.

MacKenzie

Tobin

S. J.

Taglang

C. M.

(2018). The effect of ad hominem attacks on the evaluation of claims promoted by scientists. PLoS ONE, 13(1), e0192025.

Benoit

W. L.

(2020). Character assassination and persuasive attack on CBS’s Face the Nation. In Samoilenko

S. A.

Icks

Keohane

Shiraev

(Eds.), Routledge handbook of character assassination (pp. 295–307). Routledge.

Benoit

W. L.

Brazeal

L. M.

Airne

(2007). A functional analysis of televised US Senate and gubernatorial campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 44(2), 75–89.

Blair

J. A.

(1995). The place of teaching fallacies in teaching reasoning skills or critical thinking. In Hansen

H. V.

Pinto

R. C.

(Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 329–338). Penn State Press.

Bliuc

A. M.

McGarty

Thomas

E. F.

Lala

Berndsen

Misajon

(2015). Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 226–229.

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

(2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 745–769.

Boman

C. D.

Schneider

E. J.

(2021). Finding an antidote: Testing the use of proactive crisis strategies to protect organizations from astroturf attacks. Public Relations Review, 47(1), 102004.

Coan

T.G.

Boussalis

Cook

Nanko

M.O.

(2021). Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 22320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01714-4

Compton

(2013). Inoculation theory. In Dillard

J. P.

Shen

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 220–236). Sage.

10.

Compton

(2019). Inoculation theory and metaliterate learning. In Mackey

T. P.

Jacobson

(Eds.), Metaliterate learning in the post-truth world. ALA Publishing.

11.

Compton

(2020). Inoculation against/as character assassination. In Samoilenko

S. A.

Icks

Keohane

Shiraev

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of character assassination (pp. 25–35). Routledge.

12.

Compton

Wigley

Samoilenko

S. A.

(2021). Inoculation theory and public relations. Public Relations Review 47(5), 102116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.10211

13.

Cook

(2019). Understanding and countering misinformation about climate change. In Chiluwa

I. E.

Samoilenko

S. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on deception, fake news, and misinformation online (pp. 281–306). IGI Global.

14.

Cook

Ellerton

Kinkead

(2018). Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors. Environmental Research Letters, 13(2), 024018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa49f

15.

Cook

Lewandowsky

Ecker

(2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One, 12(5), e0175799.

16.

Cook

Oreskes

Doran

P. T.

Anderegg

W. R. L.

Verheggen

Maibach

E. W.

Carlton

J.S.

Lewandowsky

Green

S. A.

Skuce

A. G.

Nuccitelli

Jacobs

Richardson

Winkler

Painting

Rice

(2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002.

17.

Copi

I. M.

Cohen

(2005). Introduction to logic. Pearson.

18.

Critchley

C. R.

(2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327.

19.

Dunlap

R. E.

McCright

A. M.

(2008). A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 50(5), 26–35.

20.

Ecker

U. K.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Schmid

Fazio

L. K.

Brashier

Kendeou

Vraga

E. K.

Amazeen

M. A.

(2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29.

21.

Einwiller

S. A.

Johar

G. V.

(2013). Countering accusations with inoculation: The moderating role of consumer-company identification. Public Relations Review, 39, 198–206.

22.

Falkenberg

Galeazzi

Torricelli

Di Marco

Larosa

Sas

Mekacher

Pearce

Zollo

Quattrociocchi

Baronchelli

(2022). Growing polarization around climate change on social media. Nature Climate Change, 12, 1114–1121.

23.

Farrell

(2016). Network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement. Nature Climate Change, 6(4), 370–374.

24.

Friedberg

Saffran

Stinson

T. J.

Nelson

Bennett

C. L.

(1999). Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA, 282(15), 1453–1457.

25.

Funk

(2021, May 26). Key findings: How Americans’ attitudes about climate change differ by generation, party and other factors. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/3LOcAjv

26.

Funk

Hefferon

Kennedy

Johnson

(2019, August 2). Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts/

27.

Gierth

Bromme

(2020). Attacking science on social media: How user comments affect perceived trustworthiness and credibility. Public Understanding of Science, 29(2), 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519889275

28.

Goldman

A. I.

(2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.

29.

Haigh

M. M.

Wigley

(2015). Examining the impact of negative, user-generated content on stakeholders. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(1), 63–75.

30.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723.

31.

Heppner

(2018). Concerning the politicization of climate science: Epistemic dependency, trust in expert testimony, and determining what we ought to believe [Doctoral dissertation]. Laurentian University of Sudbury.

32.

Hmielowski

J. D.

Feldman

Myers

T. A.

Leiserowitz

Maibach

(2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866–883.

33.

Ivanov

Miller

C. H.

Compton

Averbeck

J. M.

Harrison

K. J.

Sims

J. D.

Parker

K. A.

Parker

J. L.

(2012). Effects of post-inoculation talk on resistance to influence. Journal of Communication, 62, 701–718.

34.

IPCC (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.

35.

Jacques

P. J.

Dunlap

R. E.

Freeman

(2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 349–385.

36.

Jacques

P. J.

Knox

C. C.

(2016). Hurricanes and hegemony: A qualitative analysis of micro-level climate change denial discourses. Environmental Politics, 25(5), 831–852.

37.

Jeong

S. -H.

Cho

Hwang

(2012). Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 454–472.

38.

Johnson

R. H.

Blair

(2006). Logical self-defense. International Debate Education Association.

39.

Kahan

D. M.

Peters

Wittlin

Slovic

Ouellette

L. L.

Braman

Mandel

(2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735.

40.

Kennedy

Hefferon

(2019). What Americans know about science. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/03/28/what-americans-know-about-science/

41.

Knight

Greenberg

(2011). Talk of the enemy: Adversarial framing and climate change discourse. Social Movement Studies, 10, 323–340.

42.

Leiserowitz

Maibach

Rosenthal

Kotcher

Bergquist

Ballew

Goldberg

Gustafson

(2019). Climate change in the American mind: April 2019. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

43.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

Cook

van der Linden

Roozenbeek

Oreskes

(2023). Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy. Current Opinion in Psychology, 54, 101711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101711.

44.

Lewandowsky

Pilditch

T. D.

Madsen

J. K.

Oreskes

Risbey

J. S.

(2019). Influence and seepage: An evidence-resistant minority can affect public opinion and scientific belief formation. Cognition, 188, 124–139.

45.

Lin

W.-K.

Pfau

(2007). Can inoculation work against the spiral of silence? A study of public opinion on the future of Taiwan. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(2), 155–172.

46.

Macagno

(2013). Strategies of character attack. Argumentation, 27(4), 369–401.

47.

Macagno

Walton

(2012). Character attacks as complex strategies of legal argumentation. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, 2(3), 59–117.

48.

Markowitz

E. M.

Shariff

A. F.

(2012). Climate change and moral judgement. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 243–247.

49.

McCright

A. M.

Dunlap

R. E.

(2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194.

50.

McCright

A. M.

Dentzman

Charters

Dietz

(2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 044029–044037.

51.

McCuin

J. L.

Hayhoe

(2014). Comparing the effects of traditional vs. misconceptions-based instruction on student understanding of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 445–459.

52.

McGuire

W. J.

(1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). Academic Press.

53.

Miller

J. D.

(1983) Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review, Daedalus, 112 (Spring), 29–48.

54.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter to public engagement. Environment, 51(2), 514–518.

55.

Nisbet

E. C.

Cooper

K. E.

Garrett

R. K.

(2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66.

56.

Oppenheimer

Oreskes

Jamieson

Brysse

O’Reilly

Shindell

Wazeck

(2019). Discerning experts: The practices of scientific assessment for environmental policy. University of Chicago Press.

57.

Papageorgis

McGuire

W. J.

(1961). The generality of immunity to persuasion produced by pre-exposure to weakened counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 475–481.

58.

Pasquini

Spencer

Tyson

Funk

(2023, August 9). Why some Americans do not see urgency on climate change. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/45ix6js

59.

Pew Research Center (2016, October 4). The politics of climate. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

60.

Pfau

Haigh

M. M.

Sims

Wigley

(2007). The influence of corporate front-group stealth campaigns. Communication Research, 34(1), 73–99.

61.

Samoilenko

S. A.

(2020). Deconstructing ad hominem attacks to counter contrarian campaigns on climate scientists. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. George Mason University.

62.

Samoilenko

S. A.

Cook

(2023). Developing an ad hominem typology for classifying climate misinformation. Climate Policy, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2245792

63.

Schmid

Betsch

(2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 931–939.

64.

Schmid-Petri

(2017). Politicization of science: how climate change skeptics use experts and scientific evidence in their online communication. Climatic Change, 145, 523–537.

65.

Shrader-Frechette

(2011). What will work: Fighting climate change with renewable energy, not nuclear power. OUP USA.

66.

Souder

Qureshi

(2012). Ad hominem arguments in the service of boundary work among climate scientists. Journal of Science Communication, 11(1), 1–11.

67.

Swire

Ecker

U. K. H.

(2018). Misinformation and its correction: Cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. In. Southwell

Thorson

E. A.

Sheble

(Eds.), Misinformation and Mass Audiences. University of Texas Press.

68.

Tedesco

J. C.

Dunn

S. W.

(2019). Political advertising in the 2016 U.S. presidential election: Ad hominem ad nauseam. American Behavioral Scientist, 63(7), 935–947.

69.

Trémolière

Djeriouat

(2021). Exploring the roles of analytic cognitive style, climate science literacy, illusion of knowledge, and political orientation in climate change skepticism. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, 101561.

70.

Tyson

Funk

Kennedy

(2023, August 9). What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/3RNmx4G

71.

van der Linden

Leiserowitz

Rosenthal

Maibach

(2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008

72.

van Eemeren

F. H.

Grootendorst

(1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Foris Publications.

73.

Verheij

(2003). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 167–195.

74.

Vraga

E. K.

Kim

S. C.

Cook

Bode

(2020). Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(4), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220919082

75.

Walton

D. N.

(1987). The ad hominem argument as an informal fallacy. Argumentation, 1, 317–331.

76.

Walton

D. N.

(1989). Question-reply argumentation. Greenwood Press.

77.

Walton

D. N.

(1999). Ethotic arguments and fallacies: The credibility function in multi-agent dialogue systems. Pragmatics and Cognition, 7, 177–203.

78.

Walton

D. N.

(1998). Ad hominem arguments. University of Alabama Press.

79.

Walton

D. N.

(2002). Informal logic. A pragmatic approach. Cambridge University Press.

80.

Walton

D. N.

(2005). Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer.

81.

Walton

D. N.

(2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. John Benjamins.

82.

Walton

D. N.

(2010). Formalization of the ad hominem argumentation scheme. Journal of Applied Logic, 8(1), 1–21.

83.

Walton

D. N.

(2017). The slippery slope argument in the ethical debate on genetic engineering of humans. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), 1507–1528.

84.

Walton

D. N.

Macagno

(2015). The importance and trickiness of definitional strategies in legal and political argumentation. Journal of Politics and Law, 8(1), 137–148.

85.

Ziemke

M. H.

Brodsky

S. L.

(2015). Unloading the hired gun: Inoculation effects in expert witness testimony. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42–43, 91–97.