Testing the impact of fallacies and contrarian claims in climate change misinformation

Summary

This experimental study tests how different types of climate misinformation shape perceived credibility, social media engagement intent, and climate beliefs among a representative US sample (N=1311). The authors cross two analytic frameworks — the content-based CARDS taxonomy of contrarian claims and the logic-based FLICC taxonomy of rhetorical fallacies — in a 5×6 design using 30 fabricated Facebook posts. Their central finding is asymmetric: the content of denialist arguments matters substantially while the fallacy structure does not, with attacks on climate solutions emerging as both the most credible-seeming and the most ideologically polarizing category. The paper argues this justifies prioritizing solutions-denial and attacks on scientists for debunking and automated fact-checking efforts.

Key Contributions

• First experiment to cross the CARDS (content) and FLICC (logic) taxonomies, allowing orthogonal comparison of what makes climate misinformation persuasive.
• Empirical identification of solutions-denial (CARDS 4) and attacks on scientists (CARDS 5) as the most polarizing varieties of climate denial.
• Evidence-based triage guidance for human fact-checkers and AI-based detection systems on which myths most warrant intervention.
• An open stimulus set of 30 crossed misinformation posts plus OSF data for replication.
• Further evidence of conservatives’ asymmetric vulnerability to climate misinformation, refined by content category.

Methods

An online experiment recruited ~1311 US adults via Walr into a 5 (CARDS content category) × 6 (FLICC fallacy: misrepresentation, oversimplification, red herring, false equivalence, cherry picking, slothful induction) between-subjects design, plus a control, yielding 31 conditions. Stimuli were 30 fabricated Facebook posts generated with Generatestatus, each instantiating a unique content × fallacy combination drawn from existing misinformation corpora. Outcomes were perceived veracity (5-item scale covering accuracy, trustworthiness, believability, credibility, informativeness), interaction intent (like/comment/share), and three climate beliefs (it’s real, it’s us, it’s bad). Kruskal–Wallis H tests, linear regression with ideology as moderator, and simple-slopes analyses were used.

Findings

• Perceived veracity varied significantly across the 30 individual stimuli (χ²(29)=60.83, p<.001, η²=.026), but no effects on interaction intent or overall climate belief.
• Grouped by FLICC fallacy: no significant differences on any outcome — logical structure alone did not drive perceived credibility.
• Grouped by CARDS category: category 4 (“solutions won’t work”) was rated significantly more trustworthy, accurate, and credible than other categories.
• Highest-rated individual myths: “no consensus on sea level rise,” “polar bears are improving,” “China emits more.” Lowest-rated: “climate change is like religion,” “climate sensitivity is low.”
• Political ideology significantly interacted with CARDS 4 and 5, with steepest ideological slopes indicating these are the most polarizing categories.
• Among conservatives only, exposure to CARDS 4 significantly lowered climate belief relative to control and other categories.

Connections

This paper extends the experimental misinformation-effects tradition into the taxonomy-comparison space; it pairs naturally with Spampatti2026-kx on climate misinformation interventions and with van-der-Linden2026-jt given the latter’s foundational work on inoculation against science denial that explicitly draws on FLICC-style logic-based prebunking. The finding that ideology moderates susceptibility echoes broader exposure asymmetries documented in Gonzalez-Bailon2024-rq and Budak2024-ef. The argument for prioritizing certain misinformation types for automated detection connects to debunking-pipeline concerns raised in Dierickx2026-tw and Cazzamatta2026-lo.

Podcast

A research-radio episode discusses this paper: Listen