metadata

license: mit
language:
  - en
widget:
  - text: >-
      There is little doubt that some players in the climate game not a lot, but
      enough to have severely damaged the reputation of climate scientists in
      general have stepped across the boundary into postmodern science.
    example_title: Ad homienm
  - text: >-
      Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon
      disappear. There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from
      1978, so it's 30 years. And again - absolutely no trend, no rise.
    example_title: Cherry picking
  - text: >-
      So do petitions signed by more than 30,000 scientists that have challenged
      IPCC's 1995 procedures and report representations.
    example_title: Fake experts
  - text: >-
      Fourth, if industrial civilization is dangerously altering global climate,
      can any treaty stop it? The Kyoto accord in itself would do nothing to
      mitigate climate change, since it exempts the developing countries, which
      will be the major emissions source in the next century.
    example_title: Impossible expectations
tags:
  - climate
pipeline_tag: text-classification

Model Card

Model Details

Model Description

This model identifies 12 distinct climate change denial strategies or fallacies to classify and analyse texts that express skepticism or opposition to climate change scientific findings. These 12 distinct labels come from the FLICC taxonomy created by John Cook and his colleagues. The FLICC taxonomy divides denial strategies into five primary categories: fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry-picking, and conspiracy theories.

Developed by: Francisco Zanartu, John Cook, Julian Garcia and Markus Wagner
Model type: DeBERTa (Decoding-enhanced BERT with disentangled attention) is a Transformer-based neural language model
Language(s) (NLP): Finetuned and evaluated on a English dataset.
License: [More Information Needed]
Finetuned from model: microsoft/deberta-v2-xlarge

Fallacy Type	Definition
Ad hominem	Attacking a person/group instead of addressing their arguments
Anecdote	Using personal experience or isolated examples instead of sound arguments or compelling evidence
Cherry Picking	Selecting data that appear to confirm one position while ignoring other data that contradicts that position
Conspiracy theory	Proposing that a secret plan exists to implement a nefarious scheme such as hiding a truth
Fake experts	Presenting an unqualified person or institution as a source of credible information.
False choice	Presenting two options as the only possibilities, when other possibilities exist
False equivalence	Incorrectly claiming that two things are equivalent, despite the fact that there are notable differences between them
Impossible expectations	Demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before acting on the science
Misrepresentation	Misrepresenting a situation or an opponent’s position in such a way as to distort understanding
Oversimplification	Simplifying a situation in such a way as to distort understanding, leading to erroneous conclusions
Single cause	Assuming a single cause or reason when there might be multiple causes or reasons
Slothful induction	Ignoring relevant evidence when coming to a conclusion