In the long tradition of Lewandowsky (who warrants an entire category listing on this site), Cook, Oreskes, and more, we have a new entry into the well-worn genre of trying to understand the uneducated knuckle dragging savages known colloquially as “Climate Deniers.”, and how to “communicate” with them.
You have to love the Abstract, emphasis mine:
Scientists have developed a strong consensus that Earth’s climate is changing and that human activities play an important role in these changes. However, current research shows that in the United States, there is significant partisan polarization on climate change and its causes, leading to climate denialism. In this paper, we shed light on the political and social determinants of climate action. Using a May 2022 nationally representative survey of American registered voters (n = 2,096), we examine the multivariate correlates of trust in university research and opinions about climate change. Our results confirm that segments of the American electorate do not believe climate change is a problem for the United States and that climate change is not a consequence of human activities. But we also show that part of the problem regarding climate denialism is a lack of trust in university research. We argue for a comprehensive four-stage research strategy based on the empirical results. First, more research must be done to understand who trusts or distrusts university research on climate change and who is persuadable. Second, more research is needed on climate communication framing and messaging. Third, additional research on appropriate messaging is necessary. Finally, we need to develop a culture of trust in climate research and how it is communicated across society.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000147#pclm.0000147.ref012
The cult of expertocrasy that has consumed academia in the last couple of decades is truly a destructive and totalitarian cult. These researchers are so ensconced in their belief in consensus “science” that they appear to be incapable of any kind of objective research.
This “paper” is really a hoot. They cite another paper of the genre that argues for a Climate Science strike.
That significant climate denialism exists in the United States, despite the scientific research showing that climate change is real and that it is being influenced by human activities, has generated significant frustration in the climate science community. This frustration has reached such a point that some climate scientists have recently argued “for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract”
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000147#pclm.0000147.ref012
Here is the quote from the cited paper.
Climate change science is settled to the point of global consensus. We have fulfilled our responsibility to provide robust knowledge. We now need to stop research in those areas where we are simply documenting global warming and maladaptation, and focus instead on exposing and renegotiating the broken science-society contract. The IPCC’s 6th Assessment will be completed in 2022. Will the response to this assessment be any different to the previous five assessments? Nothing indicates that this will be the case. In fact, given the rupture of the science-society contract outlined here, it would be wholly irresponsible for scientists to participate in a 7th IPCC assessment. We therefore call for a halt to further IPCC assessments. We call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities in good faith and urgently mobilize coordinated action from the local to global levels. This third option is the only effective way to arrest the tragedy of climate change science.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855
In my best Willie Wonka voice. Please don’t go on strike Climate Scientists. Please don’t.
Like most papers of this genre the paper ends up arguing for the development of better propaganda techniques to “solve” the “problem”.
Second, and relatedly, we need more research on the framing and messages needed to strengthen trust for the already trusting and persuade those with more malleable opinions. Furthermore, these results suggest scientists cannot necessarily expect that these groups will automatically trust their work, even if their research is of high quality and well-evidenced. Instead, scientists need to be more sensitive to understanding how to translate and discuss their work in ways that are understandable, and which generate trust among the public. We believe that the Generalizing Persuasion Framework (GPF) may be useful for guiding the next stages of study regarding trust in climate and sustainability science [64]. Scientists will need to be briefed about how to best frame and discuss their research in ways that will establish trust in their work. For instance, we refer in Section 1 to Rekker’s [14] generalizable object of science polarization framework, which provides two interpretative lenses to understand Psychological Science Rejection (PSR) and Ideological Science Rejection (ISR). Frameworks like these may be helpful for improving public trust in science by identifying PSR and ISR trigger points.
Similarly, Druckman’s [64] conceptualization of GPF allows identification of contradictory statements through a multidimensional lens involving different actors, treatments, outcomes and settings (see Table 1 in [64]). As we highlighted above, GPF can guide in selecting appropriate speakers, topics, message content, and framing of climate action to lead to desired outcomes across diverse attitudes, behavior, emotions and identities that may help in handling PSR and ISR. Future research should study the effectiveness of various components in GPF for improving trust in university research.
Third, additional research on the appropriate messengers is necessary. It is not necessarily the case that the best messengers for establishing trust in university research are the researchers themselves, instead other types of ingroup messengers might be best for communicating climate research [14,65]. While additional research is necessary, our survey results indicate that religious organizations and leaders might provide an important mechanism for the generation of higher levels of trust in university research. There may be other trusted leaders and influencers, who when provided well-crafted messages can help solidify trust and persuade those who might have more malleable opinions.
Make sure to swallow your coffee or juice before reading the entire paper.
Citation: Alvarez RM, Debnath R, Ebanks D (2023) Why don’t Americans trust university researchers and why it matters for climate change. PLOS Clim 2(9): e0000147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000147
Editor: Malcolm Fairbrother, Umeå University, SWEDEN
Received: December 11, 2022; Accepted: August 7, 2023; Published: September 6, 2023
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
more research must be done to understand who trusts or distrusts university research on climate change
You mean like the edumacated folk who came up with this scientific consensus and subsequent prescriptive action with no dissenting unpleasantries or triggerings thanks?
‘Odd censorship’: Meta declares detransitioner Chloe Cole’s Instagram bio as ‘violent’ (msn.com)
Oh THAT sort of trust!
It is not a communications problem, it is a fact problem. The US Climate Reference Network results for the August temperature of the lower 48 is in. Despite all the caterwauling about heat domes and boiling oceans, the average August temperature is a wee bit up from July but still less than May with no increasing trend. You can see it here: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/ Other factual date is available elsewhere showing overall there to be reductions or no changes in hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and other parameters. If climate scientists used facts to support their assertions, more people might believe them.
“Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” – George Orwell
When you don’t have empirical evidence you must resort to “convincing” people with propaganda.
If the facts change — facts, not opinion, not speculation, not expert opinion but facts — I will change my beliefs accordingly.
What this paper does is give us a peek behind the curtain. We aren’t supposed to know what’s going on, only what they tell us. This is a paper on propaganda techniques. I’ll help them out by saying quit insulting people who disagree with you. Quit implying we’re ignorant and uneducated. I call this the Bud Light Rule. Insulting people you’re trying to influence almost always backfires.
In fairness to the scientific community who believe that global warming is a massive problem, or at least some of them, the worst offenders are journalists and politicians. There is very little in the science (so far as I can tell), including the science published by the IPCC, which suggests that life on earth is at immediate risk. But the translation of that science into policy and what is said by scummy journalists and stupid politicians, is wildly inaccurate. The UN Secretary General is at the very bottom end of this who like to exaggerate risks. But climate scientists who believe in the risks of global warming do nothing to correct what their non scientific acolytes say.
I firmly believe that if ‘warmist’ scientists tried to correct some of the wilder claims, many of us, including me, would have more faith in what they say. But for the most partthey don’t do this, and so become parti pris to the lies told by their acolytes. And none of them seem to see this as a problem.
I appreciate that this puts me beyond the pale for some of your (Watts Up with That’s) followers, so please do not shout at me.
+1 Unfortunately many scientists have been threatened by cancellation if they dare counter the AGW ‘theory’. If you have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay you remain silent. The Marxists have instilled fear in intellectuals and scientists by controlling their livelihood.
I find it hard to believe that returning the planet to the temperatures that were enjoyed during the Holocene Optimum is a danger to life on this planet.
I firmly believe that if ‘warmist’ scientists tried to correct some of the wilder claims, many of us, including me, would have more faith in what they say.
This is why I try to refute some of the wilder claims made by those who fight on the same side as the rest of us.
Just as bad arguments discredit the alarmist position, bad arguments discredit the realist side.
I know that there are a lot of people, even some here, who take the attitude that as long as he is on our side, we shouldn’t criticize them.
The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation, in a warmer interglacial period between cold glacial periods, the ice age won’t end until all the natural ice on Earth melts.
It is still so cold that warm clothes and shoes, warmed transportation, warmed housing and warmed workplaces are necessary outside of the tropics.
It should be noted that the executive summary ends up looking different from the main body of the report, which is reasonable science except, for leaving out dissenting views.
This sounds like the lesson plan for re-education camps.
University. Is it what was called “kindergarten” yesterday?
Grade inflation is real.
“Why…Why Won’t those Troglodytes Trust Us?”
If you really want to know that, just ask them. They’ll tell you in detail.
But you really don’t want to know, or you do know but are in denial.
Look at the names in the references…
Anderegg
Conway
John Cook
Lewandowsky
Oreskes
Nuccitelli
etc.
Yup, a who’s-who of anti-scientific, alarmist conspiracy-theorist nutjobs.
Fear of open debate about COVID vaccines likely led to public hesitancy, ex-CDC director says|
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fear-open-debate-covid-vaccines-likely-public-hesitancy-cdc-director
This more evidence that lack of candor about climate science is driving skepticism. People are distrustful when they know the truth is being kept from them.
It was estimated that only 17 percent of Americans got the last covid vaccine.
They are not buying what the alarmists are selling.
Just found out that my sister in a nursing home has covid again–third time, and also has had at least 4 vaccines. Tell me again how all this is supposed to work?!
Do the terms science and consensus even belong in the same sentence?
Only as a negative correlation; see Feynman!
I don’t care how many ‘scientists’ have ‘developed a strong consensus’ about the fact that the climate is changing, or that there is concern that ‘deniers’ don’t accept the climate is changing (it always does and it always will). As far as I’m concerned the story of how ‘scientists’ tried to ignore the Australian, Barry Marshall, who won a Nobel for proving that peptic ulcers were caused by helicobacter pylori when the consensus was against him will always trump their scare stories.
They redefined climate to be only 30 years now. That guarantees that climate change is always occurring.
Actually, apart from, maybe, a slight, imperceptible rise in global temperature…
… I defy anyone to say how the “global” climate has changed in the last 30 years.
First and foremost, is the scientist a dispationate observer? Or, are they on a Noble Cause?
Climate denialism, climate hysteria, climate fanaticism.
What is being denied? That climate is changing? So what? Unless it is 100% human caused and you can control 100% of human behavior, you cannot stop it.
The only solution is adapt or join the dinosaurs.
Without incontrovertible evidence to back me up, I suspect that many of the more ardent supporters of AGW suffer from a Joan of Arc Syndrome, or worse, feeling they have a cross to bear. They think that they are helping to save the world, and a little omission here and a little hyperbole there, are justified for such a Noble Cause. Most today have probably not heard of the Dispationate Observer.
If climate change is settled science then is not a matter for scientific study.
The application of science to the real world in an engineering problem. You need a license and face legal liability, including prison time, for malpractice.
I was curious what PLOS is. Nowhere on their home page or their “About PLOS” page filled with mission statements and self-congratulatory blather is it explained. I had to go to a Wikipedia article to find out it was originally “PLoS” or “Public Library Of Science” but they decided in 2012 to obfuscate the plain meaning of their acronym and just go with PLOS. Because one-syllable acronyms that mean nothing but sound like “plods”, a slightly derogatory British slang for police officer, is so much more descriptive and intuitive than, you know, English. Brought to you by the genius marketing team of a San Francisco startup.
Alternatively onomatopoeia – the sound of a large droplet hitting the ground!
Hilarious that their ‘solutions’ to all the issues is ‘more research is needed’ (i.e. increase funding ASAP!!!)
The science isn’t settled?
Oh, but it is. The plea is for more funding to make propaganda more effective.
4.6 million people are dying from the cold compared to 500,000 dying from heat. Mainly it from increased strokes and heart attacks caused by inhaling cold air that makes the blood vessels constrict raising the blood pressure. That is reason enough to stop tying to keep it cold. The Earth is still in a 2.56 million-year ice age. 20% of the land is either permafrost on under glaciers.
Here’s an idea – perhaps they should show up at a neutral site interested in finding the truth and debate well qualified sceptics and proving their point. -sarc
At least they aren’t publicly pushing for criminal penalties for not believing what the government tells you to believe.
Yet.
An awful lot of climate research isn’t of high quality or well evidenced. When it is,it tends to nullify the catastrophic narrative that these creatures writing this paper want to promote. Perhaps, in assessing who will believe their narrative they should take into account the religiosity of their audience.
In other words: How can we do a better job of lying to the people so people will believe our lies?
When your very first sentence is a blatant lie, based on what is essentially fraud, and is absolutely no part of real science. (ie the CON-sensus myth)
Of course no-one with a rational mind trusts you. D’OH !
Maybe this helps explain the lack of trust:
Professor Fired for Faking Data.
A total incapacity at self-reflection.
Yep, It is papers just like this one that breed mistrust in what passes as “peer-review” in “climate science™”
Mantra regurgitation from the very first sentence.
The paper is not about science…
It’s not even about “climate”
These people are a joke. If the science was truly settled and there is no need for further research then it should be exceedingly easy to prove their point. They should be able to trounce any naysayer easily. The truth is exactly the opposite they have no proper science. They have anecdotal evidence and computer models neither of which are proper science. They refuse to debate those who disagree with them and on the occasion one of them submits to debate they come out second best. They know they have nothing to properly defend CAGW instead they declare victory and denounce, degrade, censor, fire and all manner of cowardly things to not be put in a position where they are forced to show their work. They have lost and they know it, hence the psychology games. Highly educated knuckle draggers that is all they are.