Ever find yourself in a heated argument about climate change, vaccines, or whether the moon landing was “just Hollywood propaganda”? Suddenly, you’re not debating facts, you’re dodging YouTube links and rants about shadow governments. If you’ve ever wondered how a conversation spiraled into chaos, the FLICC framework might help you make sense of it.

FLICC is a deceptively cute acronym for a seriously helpful tool: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories. First coined by climate communication researcher John Cook in 2013, the FLICC framework helps us identify the rhetorical smoke and mirrors often used to deny scientific consensus.

Let’s break it down.

F is for Fake Experts

Just because someone has “Dr.” in front of their name doesn’t mean they know what they’re talking about, especially if their doctorate is in dentistry and they’re suddenly a vaccine expert. The tobacco industry basically invented this move in the ‘70s, recruiting so-called “Whitecoat” scientists to downplay the dangers of smoking while hiding their industry ties. A fake expert doesn’t just get things wrong, they’re used to create the illusion of debate where none exists.

L is for Logical Fallacies

Some arguments take wild leaps, like claiming that because Hitler supported anti-smoking campaigns, anyone in favor of smoking bans must be a Nazi. That’s a logical fallacy in action. Specifically, guilt by association. These argumentative traps twist logic to distract or mislead. Think strawman arguments (misrepresenting someone’s point to make it easier to attack), red herrings (changing the subject entirely), or false dichotomies (you’re either with us or against us). Once you spot them, you can’t unsee them.

I is for Impossible Expectations

This tactic asks science to do the impossible, like demanding 100% certainty before taking action. Climate skeptics love this one: “If we don’t have precise temperature data from 10,000 years ago, how can we know global warming is real?” *It’s like saying dinosaurs never existed because you’ve never personally dug up a fossil.***Science is always evolving and rarely perfect. That doesn’t make it useless.

C is for Cherry Picking

This one’s the buffet-style approach to data: take the one study that supports your claim and ignore the 99 that don’t. It’s how a now-retracted paper linking vaccines to autism continues to fuel anti-vax rhetoric decades later. Denialists aren’t fazed by being in the extreme minority—they wear it like a badge of honor, casting themselves as mavericks “bravely” opposing the status quo. Galileo would be thrilled.

C is for Conspiracy Theories

When all else fails, blame the shadowy cabal. Conspiracy theories argue that the scientific consensus is a coordinated cover-up, not the result of independent inquiry. Peer review? Just a censorship tool. COVID data? Fabricated by Big Pharma. This isn’t just paranoid, it’s self-sealing logic that immunizes itself from evidence. If you disagree, you’re part of the conspiracy.

So why does any of this matter? Because denialism isn’t just the basis of a frustrating argument, it’s dangerous. HIV denialism in South Africa led to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. Anti-vax rhetoric fuels outbreaks of preventable diseases. And climate change denial? Well, we’re all living the consequences of that one. If you’re interested in a deeper exploration of how these strategies are used to distort public discourse and delay action, I highly recommend the article “Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?”, a that piece served as a key inspiration for this essay and offers invaluable insight into how denialist arguments operate across different issues, from public health to environmental policy.

The beauty of FLICC is that it doesn’t just help you win arguments (though it definitely can). It gives you a way to name what’s happening, to pull back the curtain on misinformation and see the machinery at work. When you understand the playbook, you’re harder to fool—and more able to help others see clearly too.

@‌SophieTsengPellar

Sophie Tseng Pellar recently graduated from McGill University with a Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree in the physiology program. She will be continuing her graduate studies in the surgical and interventional sciences program at McGill. Her research interests include exercise physiology, biomechanics and sports nutrition.

Part of the OSS mandate is to foster science communication and critical thinking in our students and the public. We hope you enjoy these pieces from ourStudent Contributors and welcome any feedback you may have!