top of page

Let's Build a Climate Wall of Shame

Here is a proposal for the environmental movement: Pool philanthropic funds for a day, buy a small plot of land in Washington, D.C., and put up a tall marble wall to serve as a climate memorial.

Nate Loewentheil

New York Times

February 23, 2024

Viewpoint Detected:


Fallacies Detected:

Appeal to Emotion, Straw Man, Biased Language, Slippery Slope

credAIble Evaluation:

The proposal for a climate memorial in Washington, D.C., to permanently etch the names of public figures denying climate change is strongly articulated with a mix of emotional appeal, straw man arguments, biased language, and slippery slope reasoning. The appeal to emotion is evident in the vivid imagery of grandchildren viewing the memorial, designed to evoke a sense of urgency and moral responsibility towards future generations. This emotional weight aims to galvanize support for climate action by illustrating the long-term consequences of denialism. A straw man argument is constructed by simplifying and attacking the positions of climate change deniers, portraying them as wholly ignorant or maliciously obstructive, without engaging with the complexity of their arguments or the potential for legitimate scientific debate. This framing dismisses any nuanced positions and instead categorizes opposition under a broad banner of denial. Biased language is used throughout to describe those skeptical of climate change as "antiheroes" and their skepticism as "ignorance," further polarizing the issue and detracting from a balanced discussion. Such language serves to demonize dissenting voices and undermines the potential for constructive dialogue on climate policy. The slippery slope argument is implicit in the suggestion that memorializing climate change deniers will lead to a reconsideration of their positions and ultimately to saner policies. This assumes a direct causal link between public shaming and policy change, overlooking the complexities of political decision-making and the diversity of factors influencing environmental policy. Overall, the narrative employs these rhetorical strategies to create a compelling case for the climate memorial as both a corrective to historical amnesia and a catalyst for future action. However, the strong use of logical fallacies and biased language may alienate those with differing views, limiting the proposal's potential to foster a more inclusive and nuanced conversation about climate change and its mitigation.

bottom of page