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

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334544 November 12, 2025 8 / 23 inexpensive hydrocarbons and which reorients, “those with relative privilege as ‘victims’” [69]. Anti-reflexivity’s effective- ness is enhanced because it is employed by powerful institutions to combat challenges to the status quo [35]. III. Materials and methods In this study, we use QCA, which Krippendorff [34] describes as, “one of the most important research techniques in the social sciences,” although it does have some inherent limitations—e.g., theory built from the material analyzed cannot be generalized. However, QCA reveals “the symbolic richness and uniqueness of the data at hand” (Ibid, p. 407) which we can use to develop a theory about the “genetic narrative” for climate denial. Berelson [71] notes that qualitative work is normally done on small, often incomplete, samples to understand the “’reflection’ of ‘deeper phenomena’” (p. 123, emphasis in original). The focus is on, “simple reading plus interpretation in the traditional sense—i.e., reading plus a judgment as to what the content ‘means.’” [71, p. 128]. Naturally, QCA requires a deep familiarity with the content, as such, we have devoted an enormous amount of time immersing ourselves in close readings of the large number of denial books in our data set. Schreier [72] notes that qualitative content analysis has three main elements: it reduces data, it is systematic, and it is flexible. In reducing data, the research focuses on select material. In being systematic, coding is done through the same

steps, such as processing coding frames. The flexibility of QCA means that as the text is understood, the coding frames (can) change to match the material in a data-driven fashion. The coding frame, or the way coding is organized, is a critical element of QCA. Each part of the frame should cover one area and be mutually exclusive to other major frames. Following Schreier [72], our coding frame is constructed through two questions: (1) “what denial claim” and (2) “why.” Thus, the coding frame covers the assertion and the rationale. A. QCA stage one: identifying denial Systematically understanding the content of over 100 books presents a challenge. Our approach to reducing data relied on theory that followed first deductive then inductive logic, akin to the thinking of George E.P. Box’s [73] explanation that scientific learning follows an progressive and iterative dynamic between deductive and inductive advances. These English-language books were identified through bibliographies of known climate denial writers in both their books and articles, online blogs that promote climate denial, academic publications about climate denial, and online searches. A “book” is defined as a publication with an International Standardized Book Number (ISBN) and books were chosen for rejecting climate science to create a comprehensive database in the time period. The database is signifi- cant because it represents a robust sample of the climate denial literature, although some books are more important/

influential than others. Some are written by people with advanced degrees, e.g., Patrick Micheals who has a Ph.D. in climate science and whose books are promoted by think tanks like the Cato Institute. Others are self-published books by authors with little expertise connected to AGW. Importantly, as noted above, the study is limited to books published by 2010. Also as noted, studies show that the rationale for denying AGW has evolved since 2010, yet the core elements (trend, attribution, impact and policy denial) have remained but are updated in response to new scientific evidence and relevant societal events. For example, analyzing Heartland Institute documents from April 2014 to June 2015, Cann and Raymond [51] find that science frames continue to dominate these texts, but with a “greater reliance on ad homi- nem attacks on climate scientists and their supporters” (p. 444), a good example of the “scientific integrity” theme that has become more prominent over time [24,25]. Nonetheless, attacks on the integrity of climate scientists can be found in some of our books, the earliest being Daly (1989) who called “qualified scientists” “charlatans” and “armageddenists” who used fear mongering to cower the public (p. 172–173). Note that references to books like Daly’s that are part of our dataset are listed in the SI, not in the references, and are not numbered but identified parenthetically by author and date in the text to distinguish them.