A New Fracture in the Public Sphere; Climate and Science Denialism

The legislative proposal for a Climate Law, drafted as part of Türkiye’s efforts to combat climate change, has come to represent more than just an environmental policy initiative. It has become a critical test of the country’s knowledge regime, political participation mechanisms, and the integrity of democratic representation. Yet throughout the process, it was not the law’s technical content that shaped public debate, but rather the polarizing narratives and conspiracy theories that gained traction in the public arena. Scientific knowledge was sidelined in favor of emotionally charged and ideologically driven reactions.

This phenomenon is not unique to Türkiye. In contemporary democracies, one of the greatest challenges lies in how complex societal issues are debated, which forms of knowledge are deemed legitimate, and which actors are granted a voice in decision-making processes. The Turkish case presents a stark illustration of how these challenges can intensify—fracturing collective notions of reality and shrinking the shared, knowledge-based ground on which public dialogue depends.

Fractured Relationship with Reality: Emotional Political Reactions and the Decline of Public Knowledge

In Türkiye, political processes have long operated within a deeply polarized environment, largely shaped by the persistence of a single governing political power. This condition has affected not only the language of the ruling party but also that of the opposition, where over time, constructive policy proposals have increasingly given way to reactive politics shaped by personal anger and symbolic gestures. In such a landscape, any policy initiative introduced by the government—regardless of its content—is at constant risk of being dismissed outright, not on its merits, but due to its political origin.

The Climate Law proposal was no exception. While it undoubtedly contained shortcomings and areas in need of improvement, the public debate quickly shifted from evaluating the substance of the bill to focusing on who proposed it. As a result, a universally relevant issue like environmental solidarity was overshadowed by partisan reflexes.

Certain segments of the environmental movement distanced themselves from the proposal, citing its flaws or its inclusion of a market-based mechanism such as the Emissions Trading System (ETS) as grounds for rejection. While this critical stance was valid, public communication around the law—especially statements like “it’s better if this version doesn’t pass at all”—created a vacuum and a sense of uncertainty. That vacuum was swiftly filled not with informed debate, but with fear-driven rhetoric.

This example illustrates not only the consequences of polarization but also how fragile the public knowledge regime has become.

A theoretical explanation of this condition can be found in the work of MIT researcher Prof. Mark Klein, particularly in his model of deliberative democracy. According to Klein, the legitimacy and quality of public decision-making on large-scale societal issues depend on three core conditions:

• Equal and unimpeded access to information,
• An interaction environment free from prejudice and representative of diversity,
• Dialogues that are inclusive and mutually enriching rather than exclusionary.

(Klein, 2012, SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2046475)

It is clear that none of these conditions were fully met during the Climate Law debate in Türkiye. Information sources were tainted by manipulative narratives, the deliberation space was distorted by social media algorithms, and symbolic polarization replaced substantive content. This not only undermined the legislative process but also revealed the erosion of society’s capacity for self-informing deliberation.

Conspiratorial Rhetoric Against Scientific Knowledge: A New Generation of Climate Denialism

At the height of public debate on the Climate Law, a well-known public figure made a statement across social media that starkly illustrated the hallmarks of a new era. This individual claimed that the proposed law would not only harm the environment but also endanger Türkiye’s demographic structure, property regime, and healthcare system. Furthermore, they referred to the Paris Agreement as a “globalist imposition.” One of the most striking parts of the statement was the assertion: “I believe I’ve delivered a clear and understandable explanation about the Climate Law and Chemtrails, in my own way.”

The statement quickly reached thousands, was taken seriously by a considerable portion of the public, and received notable media coverage. The rhetoric employed in this statement reveals not only a rejection of scientific knowledge but also the emergence of an extralegal model of knowledge production, characterized by:

• Fear mobilization: Framing threats to core societal values such as agriculture and livestock—e.g., “They want to destroy farming,” “They aim to dispossess the Turkish people.”
• Symbolic nationalism: Phrases like “Every inch of this land carries the blood of our ancestors” portray opposition to the law as a form of national resistance.
• Heroic individualism: Statements like “I am the first civilian to speak from the press podium in Parliament” aim to legitimize a non-scientific narrative through personal valor.
• Intuition over evidence: Calls such as “We are trying to awaken society” substitute expert analysis with a narrative of instinctive awakening.

This type of rhetoric not only undermines scientific knowledge but also poses a direct threat to the decision-making mechanisms of democratic constitutional governance. In particular, “chemtrail” claims—asserting that airplanes release chemicals to sicken the population—are narratives lacking empirical foundation. The European Court of Human Rights has addressed similar issues, categorizing them as potentially misleading to democratic publics due to their absence of verifiable evidence.

Such narratives erode the foundation of “public reason,” a concept central to modern democracies. In policy areas such as climate governance—where objective, technical, and long-term planning is essential—rhetoric rooted in conspiracy theories harms not only the legislation in question but also the broader public’s right to access accurate information.

The Aesthetics of Conspiracy: The Rise of Emotional Truth and the Reconstruction of Political Reality

In recent years, the aesthetic of conspiracy has gained global prominence and, as demonstrated in the previous example, has become increasingly visible in Türkiye. This phenomenon is not merely the result of a lack of knowledge; rather, it represents the emergence of a new regime of reality that functions as a form of political and cultural gratification.

The term “aesthetic” here is not used in its classical artistic sense, but rather to describe a way of perceiving and making sense of reality. The aesthetic of conspiracy attempts to explain the world not through complex causality or multidimensional analysis, but via simplified narratives that draw sharp lines between good and evil. In this narrative framework:

• Complex issues are attributed to invisible forces (e.g., “globalists”),
• Every new law or policy is seen as a new instrument of these hidden powers,
• Resistance begins with individual heroism and “awakening,” while expert opinions are dismissed as components of the system.

The discourse surrounding the Climate Law carried all the hallmarks of this aesthetic structure. Claims of disease spread through the air, plans for depopulation, dispossession scenarios, and the glorification of personal heroism were not grounded in factual information but rather designed to evoke emotional resonance.

In this context, the aesthetic of conspiracy is not simply a method of producing misinformation—it is a form of emotional governance. In an age of uncertainty, it offers disoriented individuals:

• an enemy (e.g., the UN, EU, Paris Agreement),
• a savior (personal action, the “awakened citizen”),
• and a simplified worldview that explains all systemic complexity.

This aesthetic structure spreads rapidly in democracies experiencing crises of representation. It distances the public from rational debate and severs decision-making processes from the foundations of expertise and pluralism.

From the perspective of deliberative democracy theory—particularly that of Prof. Mark Klein—this condition represents one of the most serious epistemic threats to serving the public good. Deliberative systems can only function when built upon mutually accepted and reality-based grounds. The aesthetics of conspiracy deliberately undermine this ground.

Politics Through the Lens of Martin Mystère: The Aesthetic of Comics vs. the Gravity of Governance

The appeal of conspiracy aesthetics lies not only in the narrative itself, but also in its place within cultural memory. In Türkiye, a prime example of this can be found in the Martin Mystère comic book series, which gained a significant readership during the 1980s and 1990s.

The world of Mystère is rich with secret codes of Atlantis, the mysteries of the Vatican, HAARP projects, and ancient civilizations. In these stories, suspicion is a virtue, and knowledge from outside the mainstream system is a path to enlightenment. As a literary genre, this type of storytelling can be both intellectually stimulating and narratively compelling—as long as it remains within the realm of fiction.

The problem arises when this aesthetic is transposed into the realms of law and public policy.

Modern societies must base public decisions not on “classified files” but on transparent information, evidence, public consultation, and constitutional principles. Believing that the Paris Agreement is part of a global dispossession plan, or that contrails in the sky are part of an intentional illness-spreading scheme, is not merely irrational—it is an attempt to impose the logic of comic books onto real-life governance.

This is why the aesthetic of conspiracy, while seductive in fictional form, multiplies paranoia rather than clarifying truth when it attempts to take the helm of public reason.

Silence and Noise: Two Laws, Two Responses, One Public Paradox

In 2025, two legislative proposals were introduced in Türkiye within nearly the same time frame: the Cybersecurity Law and the Climate Law. These two proposals, however, generated dramatically different levels of public response. While the Cybersecurity Law was passed with barely any public discussion, the Climate Law sparked protests and became the subject of intense social media campaigns.

This stark contrast reveals a structural issue within the country’s economy of public attention—specifically, what captures the public eye and what slips through unnoticed. According to Prof. Mark Klein’s deliberative systems theory, public decision-making is not shaped only by what is loudly discussed, but also by what is silently allowed to pass. Klein argues that:

“In a society, those who determine what cannot be discussed are just as powerful as those who dominate the conversation.” (Klein, 2021)

Viewed from this lens, the silent approval of the Cybersecurity Law may signal a much more entrenched form of political control over information. The deliberative quality of public discourse—based on accessibility, pluralism, and accountability—must be evaluated not only by what is said, but also by what is systematically left unsaid.

The Climate Law debate, noisy and chaotic as it was, at least revealed the frictions of democratic engagement. In contrast, the smooth and silent passage of the Cybersecurity Law raises deeper concerns about the erosion of deliberative capacity and the narrowing of the space for public oversight—particularly in policy areas that are highly technical but crucial to civic freedoms.

What Is to Be Done? Reconstructing the Ground of Shared Reality

The central challenge Türkiye now faces is not merely environmental, economic, or technological—it is an epistemic crisis. Restoring the ground of public reason, which has been eroded by polarization, misinformation, and distrust, requires simultaneous action across legal, media, and societal domains. Without such intervention, the chances of generating effective responses to real, life-threatening issues—such as the long-anticipated “Istanbul Earthquake”—diminish drastically.

The following are three strategic areas where such reconstruction must begin:

⸻

1. Legal and Institutional Reform: Recognizing Public Deliberation as a Constitutional Right

While Türkiye’s Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and the right to access information, it lacks a clearly articulated right to public deliberation. Particularly in complex policy areas such as climate change, digital rights, and surveillance technologies, sustained public engagement must be structurally supported. This entails:

• Institutionalizing participatory rights in legislative processes, similar to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures,
• Establishing independent transparency platforms to inform the public in digital spaces,
• Granting legal recognition to mechanisms that enhance deliberative democracy, such as citizens’ assemblies and online deliberation maps.

⸻

2. Media and Civil Society Engagement: A Collective Defense Against the Aesthetic of Conspiracy

Combating conspiracy aesthetics cannot be limited to fact-checking alone. These narratives produce not only falsehoods but emotive meaning and identity. Therefore:

• Civil society organizations and universities must promote media and information literacy education,
• Media platforms should go beyond correcting misinformation and analyze why certain falsehoods become so attractive,
• Cultural storytelling tools—such as cartoons, comic books, and documentaries—should be deployed to make science not just accurate but also inspiring.

⸻

3. Societal Commitment: A New Social Contract Based on Shared Reality and Collective Future

No law, scientific finding, or institution can function effectively in a society that does not recognize its legitimacy. Thus:

• Politicians must adopt a language that not only mobilizes voters but also calms society and invites collective reflection,
• On core issues like climate, health, and education, we must discuss solutions, not camps,
• The path back to shared reality is paved with a renewed imagination of the future—one that begins with this fundamental question:

“What kind of life do we want to build, with whom, and on the basis of which knowledge?”

⸻

In Closing: From Augmented Reality to Strengthened Deliberation

Today in Türkiye, the narratives surrounding knowledge, reality, and the future resemble an augmented reality filter—not showing what is, but what certain actors want us to see. Real politics, however, cannot be conducted through the aesthetic of comic books. It must be grounded in law, science, and the courage to think together.

Building this courage is not only the responsibility of academics or lawyers; it is a collective task.

Reclaiming reality is the deepest reform.

 

 

📘 Glossary & Explanatory Notes

🔹 Deliberative Democracy

A model of democracy that emphasizes decision-making through inclusive, informed, and reasoned discussion among citizens, rather than solely through voting or elite negotiation. Prof. Mark Klein’s work promotes “crowd-scale deliberation” as a digitally supported expansion of this model.

📚 Source: Klein, M. (2012). Enabling Large-Scale Deliberation

⸻

🔹 Conspiracy Aesthetics

A framework for understanding how conspiracy theories function not just as misinformation, but as emotionally satisfying worldviews. These narratives offer simple dichotomies—good vs. evil, awakened citizens vs. controlling elites—and substitute emotional resonance for empirical reasoning. They often fulfill symbolic and psychological needs during times of uncertainty.

⸻

🔹 Conspiracy Theory

A belief that events or situations are secretly manipulated behind the scenes by powerful actors with malevolent intent. Hallmarks include:

• Oversimplified causality,
• Linking coincidences to grand designs,
• Distrusting institutional sources of knowledge.

📌 Examples:

•Chemtrails: The belief that white trails left behind airplanes are not harmless condensation (contrails) but are instead chemicals sprayed for purposes such as mind control, depopulation, or agricultural collapse.

🔍 Scientific Rebuttal: Chemtrails have been thoroughly debunked by experts in atmospheric science. A 2016 peer-reviewed study found no evidence supporting their existence:

🧪 Frankenberg et al., Environmental Research Letters, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011

•HAARP: The “High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program” in Alaska is a U.S. government-funded ionospheric research facility. Conspiracy theorists claim it can cause natural disasters or even control minds.

🔍 Scientific Rebuttal: HAARP lacks the physical capacity to manipulate weather or tectonic activity. Official statements by the University of Alaska Fairbanks and NOAA affirm its strictly research-focused purpose.

⸻

🔹 Public Reason

A philosophical concept developed by John Rawls, referring to the justification of political decisions in terms that all citizens can reasonably accept. It rejects appeals to private or sectarian beliefs in public policy and instead favors shared reasoning grounded in evidence and common understanding.

⸻

🔹 Crowd-Scale Deliberation

A model proposed by Mark Klein for scaling up participatory decision-making using online platforms and deliberation tools. It facilitates inclusive, non-hierarchical input from large and diverse populations on complex policy questions.

⸻

🔹 The Paris Agreement

A 2015 international treaty under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aiming to limit global warming to below 2°C, with a goal of 1.5°C. Türkiye ratified the agreement in 2021. The agreement emphasizes national climate action plans, emissions reductions, and financial mechanisms for climate adaptation and mitigation.

⸻

🔹 Emissions Trading System (ETS)

A market-based climate policy tool that sets a cap on total carbon emissions and allows companies to buy and sell emission allowances. Though effective in economic terms, ETS mechanisms can raise concerns about fairness and equity if not properly designed and regulated.