Climategate: A Case Study in the Intersection of Facticity and Conspiracy Theory
Abstract
In 2009, the Climate Research Unit had over 1,000 private e-mails stolen and made publicly available. Quickly, several of the e-mails were widely reported in the media: supposedly providing proof of conspiracy among scientists supporting the Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis. Despite the inaccuracy of the accusations, the charge of conspiracy stuck. In this essay, I argue that a set of interrelated variables (existing anti-elitism, the consistency of the charge with existing ideology, the perceived accuracy of the narrative, and the poor rhetorical response by the accused) caused the Climategate conspiracy to resonate even after the charge was proven false. This essay adds to contemporary rhetorical theory about conspiracy theory by considering variables beyond paranoid style and accuracy of the charge.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Conspiracy theories can arise quickly after pivotal incidents.
“Bricker (2013) delved into the responses and subsequent surge in accusations of conspiracies directed at climate scientists following the leak of unlawfully obtained emails from a Climate Research Unit, illustrating how quickly conspiracy theories can arise after pivotal incidents.”
From The Seed of Doubt: Examining the Role of Alternative Social and News Media for the Birth of a Conspiracy Theory (2024) · cites this paper as Bricker, 2013
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 44
- Authors
- Bricker, B. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Kansas (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bricker, Brett Jacob
- Venue
- Communication Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 218-239
- ISSN
- 1051-0974 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-1035
- OpenAlex
- W2079614074
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 7.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Rhetoric and Communication Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Keywords
- Climategate, conspiracy theories, facticity, anthropogenic climate change, anti-elitism, ideology, paranoid style, science communication, media coverage of science
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
