A Rhetorical Investigation of Public Disbelief in Climate Science

Global warming and climate change pose a significant threat to the livelihoods of future generations. Although there is a consensus of qualified climate scientists who believe that scientific evidence supports Anthropogenic Climate Change [ACC] theories, public belief in ACC theories has been much more limited. In this dissertation, I argue that this disjunction between climate scientists and public opinion is a fundamentally rhetorical problem, requiring rhetorical solutions. In four case studies, I analyze the Climategate scandal, discursive strategies of the Heartland Institute, President Obama's environmental arguments and the ozone debates of the 1970s and 1980s to develop a set of persuasive strategies that may help environmental advocates overcome public disbelief in climate science