Abstract
A growing body of evidence has implicated conspiracist ideation in the rejection of scientific propositions. Internet blogs in particular have become the staging ground for conspiracy theories that challenge the link between HIV and AIDS, the benefits of vaccinations, or the reality of climate change. A recent study involving visitors to climate blogs found that conspiracist ideation was associated with the rejection of climate science and other scientific propositions such as the link between lung cancer and smoking, and between HIV and AIDS. That article stimulated considerable discursive activity in the climate blogosphere—i.e., the numerous blogs dedicated to climate “skepticism”—that was critical of the study. The blogosphere discourse was ideally suited for analysis because its focus was clearly circumscribed, it had a well-defined onset, and it largely discontinued after several months. We identify and classify the hypotheses that questioned the validity of the paper’s conclusions using well-established criteria for conspiracist ideation. In two behavioral studies involving naive participants we show that those criteria and classifications were reconstructed in a blind test. Our findings extend a growing body of literature that has examined the important, but not always constructive, role of the blogosphere in public and scientific discourse.
Highlights
A second variable, which we focus on here, is conspiracist ideation; that is, a person’s propensity to explain a significant political or social event as a secret plot by powerful individuals or organizations (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009)
The search employed a lenient criterion for inclusion in order to collect as broad a corpus for further analysis as possible, and a classification scheme based on the existing literature on conspiracist ideation was developed and refined as the search proceeded
Any thematic analysis necessarily contains a subjective element, which opens the door to alternative interpretations. This problem is compounded by the fact that two of the present authors contributed to LOG12, thereby creating a potential conflict of interest. We addressed these problems in a number of ways: First, the data collection for Study 1 was conducted by two of the present authors who were not involved in analysis or report of LOG12
Summary
The vast majority of domain experts agree that the climate is changing due to human CO2 emissions (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, & Schneider, 2010; Cook et al, 2013; Doran & Zimmerman, 2009; Oreskes, 2004). Given this broad agreement on the fundamentals of climate science, what cognitive mechanisms underlie the dissent from the consensus by a vocal minority of people (Leviston, Walker, & Morwinski, 2013)? The tobacco industry referred to research on the health effects of smoking in internal documents as “a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel” (Abt, 1983, p. 127), which in combination with “public monopolies (...) manufactures alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases, and publicity and dissemination and advertising of these so-called findings” (Abt, 1983, p. 126)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
