 If you want to be resilient against misinformation, you need to be aware of the different techniques that are used to mislead. A good starting point to understanding the techniques of denial is FLIC. FLIC stands for Faker Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking, and Conspiracies. These are the five techniques of science denial, and they're seen in every movement that denies a scientific consensus, whether it be human-caused global warming, vaccine safety, or the link between smoking and cancer. However, FLIC only scratches the surface. There are a wide range of fallacies and rhetorical tricks used to distort the science. And while this looks complicated, this isn't even comprehensive, but it does cover the most common denial techniques you're likely to encounter in climate misinformation. So understanding these techniques will help you defend against misinformation. And not just misinformation about climate change, you'll see these fallacies in misinformation across all topics. Before we start exploring FLIC, I should point out that Faker Experts is actually a logical fallacy. Cherry picking is a logical fallacy. Technically, all of FLIC are logical fallacies. So how does it make sense having logical fallacies as a category? The reason that FLIC is so useful in understanding science denial is it highlights and organizes the most important techniques used to distort science. I've looked for better frameworks. I even tried to develop one myself, but haven't found anything that beats FLIC. But if anyone out there thinks there is something better, I'd love to hear from you. The first technique of denial is Faker Experts, also known as the Appeal to False Authority. These are people who convey the appearance of expertise, but don't actually possess any relevant expertise. Having a degree in one field of science doesn't automatically convey understanding of complicated science in another discipline. We understand that principle in real life. When it comes to complicated issues, we want the person working on the problem to have relevant expertise, especially when it's an important problem that matters to us. But a scientist or someone from an official sounding organization can often be convincing to the general public. And while a single fake expert can be misleading, multiple fake experts are even worse. One of the most damaging climate myths cites multiple fake experts, a technique called bulk fake experts. This particular myth comes from the Global Warming Petition Project. This is a website listing over 31,000 Americans with a science degree who have signed a statement claiming that humans aren't disrupting climate. The problem is the only qualification to be on this list is a science degree. That means the list is populated with computer scientists, veterinary scientists, mechanical engineers, but very few climate scientists. In fact, 99.9% of the 31,000 are not climate experts. The Global Warming Petition Project is a brazen example of fake experts in bulk. But it's also a powerfully effective rhetorical argument. The Global Warming Petition Project is one of the most effective climate myths in reducing acceptance of global warming and support for climate action. The Petition Project also uses another misleading technique to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on global warming, magnified minority. This involves amplifying the significance of contrarian scientists in order to make it look like there is more scientific disagreement than in reality. While 31,000 science graduates sounds like a lot, there are millions of Americans with a science degree. The Petition Project amounts to less than 1% of American science graduates. Another way that people can get confused about a scientific consensus is when the science and pseudoscience are presented together as a debate between two opposing sides. This is how the media often cover the climate change issue, pitting a climate scientist against someone disputing the science. While balanced media coverage is appropriate for political issues or matters of opinion, it's a misleading way to present issues where there's scientific consensus. The very format that the media use to cover climate change can have a misinforming effect, giving people the impression of an ongoing scientific debate. Next, let's look at logical fallacies. Generally speaking, logical fallacies appear in arguments where the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises. This is known as a non sequitur Latin for does not follow. We also call this jumping to conclusions. Let's look at some types of logical fallacies. Ad hominem is Latin for to the person and involves attacking a person's character instead of addressing their arguments or science. One of the most common forms of climate misinformation are ad hominem attacks on scientists. This often takes the form of exaggerated stereotypes. Attacking a scientist's character is an easy and effective way to avoid dealing with their scientific research. Another logical fallacy is misrepresentation, which involves misrepresenting a situation in order to mislead people. Sometimes this can be misrepresenting a situation or the science, but the most common form of misrepresentation is the straw man argument. This is where an opponent's position is misrepresented in order to make it easier to refute. For example, arguing that environmentalists think all we have to do to solve climate change is drive electric cars. This oversimplifies the environmentalist position to make it easier to refute. This oversimplifies the environmentalist position to make it easier to refute. The fallacy of ambiguity involves using ambiguous language in order to lead to a misleading conclusion. The most common form of ambiguity is the fallacy of equivocation, using words that have multiple meanings as if they mean the same thing. For example, a common example of ambiguity in science denial is exploiting confusion about the word theory. To a scientist, a theory is an explanation of the world that has been confirmed by many experiments and empirical evidence. For non-scientists, a theory is just a hunch or someone's idea. This difference in meaning can be used to cast doubt on established science. In climate misinformation, ambiguity around the word uncertainty is often exploited. When scientists talk about uncertainty, they mean a measurement is accurate within a well-defined range of values. For non-scientists, uncertainty means you're not sure if the measurement is right at all. This ambiguity can be exploited by arguing that when scientists express uncertainty, they don't know what's going on. That ends part one of our series on the techniques of science denial. In part two, we'll continue to look at more logical fallacies such as oversimplification, false analogy and red herring.