Foundations of climate change denial: Anti-environmentalism and anti-science

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334544 November 12, 2025 3 / 23 Deductive content analysis is “directed” by existing understanding, and is used to “validate or extend conceptually a theoretical framework or theory” or, in the present case, findings from “prior research” [28]. We first use a deductive approach to intentionally discover and code denial of basic climate science--clarified early on by climate scientist Ste- fan Rahmstorf [29]--in the books: that the Earth is warming (trend denial), this warming is largely due to human-caused carbon emissions (attribution denial), and this warming is having negative impacts for humans and ecosystems (impact denial). We also code climate policy denial, involving a range of arguments against taking action to reduce carbon emis- sions that produce AGW. While AGW these four broad categories of denial claims and the numerous more specific claims within each one, have provided the foundation for questioning human-caused AGW and climate science for over three decades, and are commonly employed by Trump-era Republicans who often describe human-caused AGW a “hoax” [30]. These narratives have also been employed by CCCM organizations in several other nations as denial has spread interna- tionally [31,32]. Typically, denial claims are embedded within larger narratives – what we term “semantic ecosystems.” A semantic eco- system refers to the body of interconnected discourses of which the denial claim is one part. From a theoretical perspec- tive, a semantic ecosystem is part of a discursive formation:

Whenever one can describe, between a number of statements, such a system of dispersion, whenever, between objects, types of statement, concepts, or thematic choices, one can define a regularity (an order, correlations, posi- tions and functionings, transformations), we will say, for the sake of convenience, that we are dealing with a discursive formation… [33]. Krippendorff [34] describes this as a “semantic network”--binary relationships where “the meanings of nodes are a function of how they are connected with each other” (p. 292). The networks are detectable via <nodei – connectionj – nodek> and contain “answers to questions that are not literally contained in a body of text but are implied by it” (p. 292). This approach is part of a theory of meaning which “originated in cultural-anthropological efforts to represent cognitive structures or mental models” (p. 293). Our nodes are connected by “proximities within a textual unit,” which are chapter sections in this case. We draw the connection between nodes through statements that directly and semantically tie one node to another. One node is always a statement of climate denial. We analyze these ecosystems inductively, but in a more detailed and nuanced way than conventional inductive content analysis [28] which seeks to discover and systematize key claims from scratch, as employed by McCright and Dunlap (7). Deep examination of the semantic ecosystems around AGW denial claims leads to the discovery of two new,

underlying meta-themes of denial on which the more specific denial claims (trend, attribution, impact and policy denial) ultimately rest. These new meta-themes are full-fledged attacks on climate science (and increasingly on science at large) and global environmentalism in general, both of which are portrayed in the books as critical threats to capitalism, freedom, progress, and the American (and Western) “way of life” [see 19]. More studies of denial claims [7,15,16] have added a fifth major theme along with trend, attribution, impact and policy denial which challenges the integrity of climate science and scien- tists. However, we argue that this broad attack on science is in fact a deeper, more fundamental theme along with anti- environmentalism that underlies overall AGW denial. Our analysis shows that AGW denial stems from broader efforts to protect the sociopolitical and economic status quo, especially the power and privilege of those who benefit most from our fossil-fuel dependent economy. Climate science is an “impact science,” a type of science that investigates the negative impacts of industrial production, and environmentalism can act as a reflexive movement critical of the structures of power that cause or facilitate environ- mental deterioration. Together, they represent a powerful challenge to the current market economy promoting endless growth. Opposition to this challenge represents “anti-reflexivity” [35,36].