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.
OMG I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time. C’mon, are we completely certain the second article isn’t the result of a few stoned grad students successfully trolling the journal?
This sentence alone is one for the ages: “It is not necessarily the case that the best messengers for establishing trust in university research are the researchers themselves…” – – ya think?
Anyway, middle-aged academic keyboard warriors not as convincing as – what? – Nordic teenagers? Movie stars? Activists glued to priceless paintings?
Seriously…..someone had to actually do a study to try and determine why people don’t trust used car salesmen who are known to sell lemons! Or to study why few people have any desire to pick up a snake they find slithering around. Or delve into the psychology of people who join a cult that demands male members be castrated and all must commit suicide while awaiting the Hale Bopp comet and the supposed alien ship that will follow it?
The answers are very simple and don’t require any sort of academic study. First, who would trust someone who is known to lie to people and sell them garbage? Second, who wants to trust anything to do with something (someone) that is likely to do them harm? And finally, who wants to adhere to a draconian set of rules and give everything enjoyable in life and probably life itself?
That someone actually thought this was worth researching is insane!
In other words, out of touch with reality.
I have three times submitted “controversial” manuscripts to PLOS One, where controversial means challenging the conventional wisdom. Three angry editorial rejections without review.
PLOS is set up so that the section editors are specialists in the field. They have a career conflict of interest with any paper that vitiates the prevailing narrative. So, they act in a way that protects the narrative, their research program, their funding, and their career.
The rejectionary comments were meritless. In one case it was clear that the editor had only read the abstract before composing about two pages of dismissive chastisement.
The first time it happened, I appealed up the ladder. Forget it. Rubberstampitis.
I’ll be honest, in my opinion, much of this is either written by an AI or paraphrased from an AI!
Indeed there is enough “Why don’t they BELIEVE” blather out there from the snake oil “climate” salesmen to feed the Automated Idiocy algorithms.
All of which misses the point; if they had a good scientific case to begin with, people wouldn’t dismiss it.
Hypothetical bullshit, endless extrapolation piled on top of said hypothetical bullshit, imaginary positive, amplifying feedbacks that don’t exist, and the obstinate refusal to ever recognize that they are wrong means their endless bleating is simply not compelling.
IIRC, studies have shown that U.S. political conservatives are more scientifically cognizant than their liberal counterparts.
‘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.’
___
Them segments sho is smart Americans.
Why is it that so many people on the left side of the political spectrum, have so much trouble accepting those who are aware of how the world actually works?
During the pandemic we were told constantly that the government were ‘following the science’ and that we must accept ‘what the scientists say’. That went well, didn’t it. The morons responsible for the above paper might reflect on that.
“Why don’t American’s trust university researchers?”
Because those supposed researchers stopped doing science and dedicated themselves to publishing crap propaganda like the following:
“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.”
The consensus mentioned doesn’t exist, and only a modest inquiry would make that clear, nor does consensus have anything to do with determining what is true. Climate alarmists keep making this claim without providing any objective evidence supporting it. “Climate denialism” is an invented nonsense term of the propagandists that doesn’t exist in the real world. It is both an intended insult and attempt to conflate honest scientific skepticism (a fundamental principle of scientific work) with support for outrageous human rights violations including state-sponsored genocide.
If the people who peddle this idiocy ever took a step back and tried a bit of self reflection they would realize that the Holocaust was predicated on and fuelled by exactly the type of unscientific misdirection and propaganda they are presently selling.
“climate change is real”
Activist talking point, not science.