Don't know how to use this page?
- the definition will be displayed here. - presenting only evidence that confirms your position, while ignoring or withholding an often more significant portion that contradicts it. - insisting something is true because someone posing as or being framed as an expert says it's true. - insisting something is true because someone posing as or being framed as an expert says it's true. - misrepresenting an opponent's position or argument to make it easier to attack, usually by exaggerating, distorting, or just completely fabricating it. - misrepresenting an opponent's position or argument to make it easier to attack, usually by exaggerating, distorting, or just completely fabricating it. - an explanation for an event or situation that involves a secret cabal of sinister and powerful people, when other less exciting explanations are more probable. - presenting only evidence that confirms your position, while ignoring or withholding an often more significant portion that contradicts it. - an explanation for an event or situation that involves a secret cabal of sinister and powerful people, when other less exciting explanations are more probable.Science is often seen as a beacon of certainty, yet well-established scientific findings are frequently targeted by campaigns designed to sow doubt. These efforts, known collectively as FLICC, rarely aim to disprove the science outright; instead, they focus on creating the illusion of controversy where little or none exists.
On January 21, 2015, Senator James Inhofe took to the Senate floor to cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity is the primary driver of climate change. Senator Inhofe's 14-minute presentation on the Senate floor employed four of the five FLICC tactics.
Cherry Picking: Selective presentation of evidence is one of the most commonly used tactics to cast doubt on science. By highlighting outliers in the field, misrepresenting findings, or focusing on small inconsistencies, detractors can make well-supported conclusions appear less reliable. Inhofe employs this tactic early in his speech at 2:58 and again at 10:43.
Fake Experts: Also known as "false authority", this tactic involves promoting individuals who appear to have expertise but lack relevant qualifications or credibility in the scientific field. Fake experts are often used to challenge consensus by creating the illusion of a legitimate debate, exploiting the public’s difficulty in distinguishing real expertise from superficial credentials. Inhofe employs this tactic numerous times throughout the presentation at 4:32 and again at 4:50.
Logical fallacies undermine science by relying on flawed reasoning. Common examples include false equivalences, such as equating the views of a fringe scientist with those of the overwhelming scientific consensus. In the case of climate change, denialists often conflate weather and climate, making statements like, “The climate is always changing.” Another common logical fallacy involves constructing straw man arguments of the scientific consensus opinion to make it seem more unreasonable or extreme. Inhofe does this at 5:20 an again at 6:03.
Conspiracy Theories portray scientific consensus not as the result of rigorous research but as a coordinated effort to deceive the public. These theories often target institutions or groups, claiming hidden agendas or financial motives. Inhofe alludes to a worldwide conspiracy at 10:29 and again at 11:26.
Inhofe ends his presentation by concluding at 12:45, concluding "The science is not settled."—a common refrain among denialists used to perpetuate doubt despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
See Part 2 to explore Impossible Expectations.
