Scientists against denialist politicians?

Recently, some political leaders, such as Trump or Bolsonaro, have denied climate change.

It seems unlikely that these public officials lack advisors on issues as relevant as this, regarding which science offers very consistent evidence, little discussed and about which almost everyone has heard.

Many scientists are outraged by this situation and feel a legitimate desire to react angrily to denialist statements.

However, this may not have helped much.

It is unlikely that these politicians would recognize that such a public statement, probably well thought out, is a mistake.

Furthermore, it is not so clear that scientists will succeed in convincing those who listen to the deniers.

Why do some politicians insist on denying the evidence about the climate?

One possible reason is that recognizing the existence of such a major problem forces them to take action.

And these are not technically or politically simple measures.

Those that do not seem to generate public rejection are usually insufficient to move quickly towards climate objectives.

On the contrary, effective policies almost always impose costs on different social sectors.

The closure of mines, energy restrictions, the increase in the price of products or the measures that try to sensitize the population about unsustainable behaviors so that they take responsibility for the situation, are difficult for citizens to accept even when they are aware of their need.

The immediate negative effects that can generate,

Faced with these situations, in which the present measures to solve a problem that some still perceive as future are not popular, politicians have two main options to avoid losing citizen support.

A responsible politician will implement measures against climate change that try to mitigate its negative effects and distribute the social costs.

These initiatives have materialized in the so-called “just transition” policies.

It is about providing employment alternatives in communities that lose their main way of life, sometimes thanks to the industry generated around the new energy, or establishing compensation mechanisms for those affected.

Even so, these are policies that rarely seem sufficient or fair to them.

Politicians can console themselves with the thought that they have done what they should.

Better still, they should know that when crises do finally arrive, evidence shows that citizens tend to punish politicians who did nothing to prevent them (even in events like natural disasters, which are hard to prevent).

However, these consolations of duty accomplished or future revenues may not be a sufficient incentive for all politicians to act responsibly against climate change.

The problem of denying the problem

Another option is to deny the problem.

This avoids having to implement technically complicated and politically painful measures that challenge citizen tolerance.

But the denialist attitudes of some politicians towards climate change are a danger and not only because they delay decisions on a phenomenon that does not admit any further extension.

In addition, there is solid evidence that the positions of party leaders on public policy issues (abortion, immigration, or climate change) contribute to shaping citizen opinions.

Thanks to denialist politicians, some citizens will have at their disposal arguments that accommodate them in beliefs such as that, perhaps at the last moment, science will find a solution, or prefer to think that, after all,

their individual contribution to mitigating climate change is insignificant and therefore expendable.

Likewise, according to some works, when an individual assumes the opinion of their party, the information from experts/scientists has little impact in limiting the effect of partisanship (or religion): citizens will ignore any information that challenges these positions. and this occurs more markedly in situations of polarization.

However, all is not lost.

Some recent empirical findings using data obtained during different crises suggest that citizens are sometimes capable of questioning what their political leaders say.

Although a part of this capacity for judgment depends on the personality of each individual and on their self-perception of their effectiveness in influencing policies, another part can be stimulated by creating certain environmental conditions.

Some of these conditions will appear naturally with the evolution of the climate itself.

There is evidence that experiencing repeated abnormal weather episodes over eleven seasons stimulates curiosity about the weather.

Explain how science works

The question then is how to convince at least this group prone to update their climate assumptions of the veracity of climate change.

The social sciences have shown that not all people consider the same sources trustworthy or are sensitive to the same messages.

An experiment on vaccines showed that, regardless of partisanship, a greater understanding of how science works (that is, how evidence is obtained, what it means that there is strong evidence about something, what is known and what is not known about certain topics), makes make scientific messages easier to accept.

It has also been shown that there are two other factors capable of predicting the acceptance of science, even above individual political commitments.

The first is the perception that the one from whom the message comes has more experience than the recipient.

The second is that sender and receiver have common interests.

Sometimes, citizens judge that scientists may be insensitive to their daily and urgent needs or suspect that they may have interests that are not entirely legitimate.

Therefore, the evidence suggests that it is clearly promising to bet on improving the scientific culture of citizens.

Institutions such as the Ministry of Science and Innovation or the Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) allocate increasing resources to this.

However, improving in this area will take us longer than we have to deal with climate change.

In the short term, scientific institutions must make a greater effort to identify the groups to which they wish to send information on the climate, understand their needs and think about how to transmit it in each case.

Dissemination and scientific communication have to be empathetic.

The scientists, especially if they belong to a recognizable institution such as the CSIC, meet the first condition (have more experience than the recipient).

Many scientists have begun to become sensitized to the need to disseminate first-rate science and dedicate their time to it.

Achieving empathic communication requires more training so that scientists are able not only to communicate in an understandable way, but also to see all sides of problems or to identify which actors can sometimes serve as intermediaries between science and the public (for example , politicians, farmers, teachers or influencers), thus fulfilling the second condition that citizens perceive that the issuer is sensitive to their concerns.

Eloísa del Pino

You can follow