Are “Climate Deniers” Rational Actors? Applying Weberian Rationalities to Advance Climate Policymaking
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21192544 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Tangney (0000-0003-3878-4034, Flinders University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 8 |
| Pages | 1077-1091 |
| Publication date | 2021-11-17 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Environmental Communication (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1752-4032 • E-ISSN: 1752-4040 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/17524032.2021.1942117 |
| OpenAlex | W3189219212 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 23 |
In recent decades, the label of Climate Denier has become an increasingly popular ad hominem device for climate change communications. Yet, what constitutes climate denial has evolved considerably from its original ascription for those who deny the physical science of anthropogenic global warming. This paper unpacks the multiple contemporary meanings of climate denial to examine whether this moniker can correlate with rational action (i.e. principled action logically derived from reliable knowledge), and how rationality can be deployed when pursuing political priorities that conflict with the orthodox normative positions of experts. Valid modes of rationality are diverse and not the sole preserve of those proponents of transformative and/or unified climate change action. Modes of rationality are also intimately linked to problem framing. Experts' existing problem-frames may actually facilitate Deniers' avoidance of the sorts of rationalisations that experts wish them to make. By better understanding the rationalities pertaining to the climate change debate, the paper concludes, experts and advocates can tailor their communication to more effectively influence the design of effective policies. A better understanding of how Climate Deniers can be rational and how rationalisation relates to problem framing may be necessary to address the most polarised politics of the climate crisis
Climate change · Climate justice · Denial · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Global warming · Normative · Political science · Politics · Rationality · Scientific consensus · Sociology · Climate Change and Geoengineering · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Law · Philosophy · Psychology · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance · Ecology
Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading
Climate and environmental science denial
Title unavailable
Beyond Counting Climate Consensus
Does Public Knowledge of Climate Change Really Matter in Australia
Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment
Why We Disagree about Climate Change
Towards a Reflexive Turn in the Governance of Global Environmental Expertise. The Cases of the IPCC and the Ipbes
Does risk-based decision-making present an ‘epistemic trap’ for climate change policymaking
Lost in Translation
The right stuff? informing adaptation to climate change in British Local Government
The Limits of Rationality
The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science
A form of madness
Communicating Climate Change
Between conflation and denial – the politics of climate expertise in Australia
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Strange Weather, Again
The Unbearable Lightness of Politics
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,25 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2022 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |