The Delegitimisation of Climate Science - Essay Example

The Delegitimisation of Climate Science Name Institution Course Date The Delegitimisation of Climate Science Introduction Climate change has been one of the hottest and most contentious environmental issues of the 21st century. The argument that global warming is responsible for climate change experienced the world over has been marred by politics to the extent that it has become difficult for the world leaders to find an amicable solution to the problem. At present, the world is faced with the prospect of increased climate change as the planet continues to warm up and this presents a serious challenge to the living things on planet to adapt. Over the years, scientists from different fields of study, including oceanographic scientists, geographical and atmospheric scientists, and paleoclimatologists have gathered and interpreted a lot of evidences to debunk the reality of climate change. Physicians, in particular has helped in understanding the mechanisms regarding the warming/cooling of the atmosphere, in what has come to be known as Greenhouse Effect. According to physicists, the warming of the earth is caused by the excessive emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (C02) and methane that when released into the atmosphere, blocks the ozone layer by forming a blanket and this prevents the heat from escaping from the earth’s surface. Indeed, the increased recognition of the role of human activity has seen a many efforts being made by world leaders in an attempt to address this environmental scourge such efforts include the Kyoto Protocol and change in energy policy. However, the changes in energy policy have been met with strong resistance from those with vested interest in the fossil fuel market who argue that climate change science is a fallacy. Attempts to delegitimize climate change are meant to divert attention of the legislators and the public from the climate change efforts. This essay reviews critique five articles that that are based on research that attempts to delegitimize climate science. Analysis Whether or not climate change is real is a controversial matter. Although more than 90% of climate scientists are in consensus that the climate is changing based on scientific evidence that has been gathered over a long period of time, some sceptics especially politicians and fossil fuel interest groups have continued to deny the reality of climate change by making publications that delegitimize climate science. One such is Dr. Lewandowsky’s recent study titled, NASA Faked the Moon Landing – Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. The researchers analysed a sample of 1145 comprising of Internet bloggers who either accepted or rejected climate change science. In this respect, the researchers sought the view of the bloggers on climate change, free-markets and conspiracy theories, as well as their views regarding their sensitivity to the problems that occur in the environment and their feelings about the science of climate change. Lewandowsky et al. (2013) study found that the more an individual embraces the laissez-fare of free markets economists, the more they are likely to deny the science of climate change. A free market economy is that market where the direction taken by the market is determined by the forces of demand and supply. In such an economy, the government does not interfere or control demand, supply or prices. A laissez-fare economy, on the other hand, is that where transactions between individuals or corporations are not subject to government subsidies, tariffs or enforced controls. Therefore, Lewandowsky et al. (2013) indicates that people who believe in free economy feels that climate change science is a way of controlling people’s perception on climate change. The researchers also found that respondents who had a conspiracist ideation, the more likelihood of them denying scientific evidence about climate change. In the article, the authors discussed multiple conspiracy theories. An example being where participants believed it was the United States that created HIV with the primary aim of wiping out African Americans. Additionally, the majority of the participants who rejected climate science were those who believe that climate change is a matter of scientists’ conspiracy. Additionally, it emerged that personal ideology of an individual towards climate change influences the perception that one has towards climate change. In other words, those who have a negative ideology towards climate change are more likely to reject climate science. In summary, the findings of this study indicate that conspirational thinking lead to a rejection of climate science. This has negative implication on the fight against climate change because the more people continues to deny climate science, the more it becomes difficult to come up with the needed policy measures to address the problem. A research conducted by the Pew Research Centre (2016) found that climate change is a hot topic in the United States, where the views about climate change and the contribution of climate scientists differing along party line. According to the research, it was found that trust in climate scientists is low among Republicans compared to liberal Democrats. The Pew Research Centre (2016) study particularly found that the majority of liberal democrats (70%) trust climate change scientists to provide detailed and accurate information regarding the causes of climate change compared to just 15% of conservative Republicans. Additionally, the study found that up to 54% of liberal democrats believe that climate scientists are knowledgeable about the things that trigger climate change compare to just 11% of conservative Republicans. Moreover, the study found that 55% of liberal Democrats strongly believe that research on climate change provides the best available evidence most of the time compared to just 9% of conservative Republicans. The differing trust level on climate scientists in America has serious implications on the fights against climate change in the sense that it creates a polarized political climate that makes it difficult for the United States to come up with an agreeable policy to address climate change. This is because the different views held about climate scientists by liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans means that whereas liberal Democrats would find it good to rely on the existing scientific research on climate change when coming up with a policy, conservative Republicans are likely to oppose relying on climate science. This has been the case as seen recently when President Donald Trump, who is a conservative Republican decided to pull out the United States from Paris Climate Accord. Pulling out of Paris Climate Agreement was more driven by the fact that conservative Republicans do not subscribe to climate science as reported by Pew Research Centre (2016) study. Dunlap and Jacques (2013) study also found that climate change denial is catalysed by conservative think tanks. The authors argue that conservative think tanks (CCT) have been at the forefront in promoting climate change denial by using different tactics that include sponsoring and catalysing the voices of contrarian scientists , as well as producing media materials. Despite not having any expertise or scientific backgrounds, the media and policymakers have often treated the information provided by CCTs is credible information. In fact, based on are review of 108 English language books promoting climate change denial, the authors found that the books are denying scientific evidence that global warming is occurring and maintaining that humans actions have no role in causing global warming and denying that global warming will have adverse effects on the natural systems and humans. Surprisingly, these books these books had connection with CCT and produced with people without scientific training and are not pure reviewed. Accordingly, it emerges from the climate change denial books that the information published on these books have no scientific backing, but are rather meant to promote the interests of conservative think tanks, who perhaps have vested interest on climate change debate. In most cases, CCTs are interested in achieving political scores but it is worrying that the media and policymakers are buying into the CCTs ideology and biased views on climate change by acting as their voice for denying climate science. Leviston et al. (2011) study, however, found that the majority of Australians agree on climate science that climate change is real though fewer believe that human activities have a role in this growing environmental problem. The study was conducted by reviewing 22 studies on the views expressed by Australians about climate change, its causes and implications. Although the majority of Australians (63%) were found to believe that climate change is a reality and that it is a problem that need immediate action by Australian government without having to wait for global consensus, the believes about climate change varied depending on whether the respondent lived in rural or urban areas, in which case it emerged that Aussies in urban centres (58%) believe that human activity has a role in climate change compared to just 27% for those in rural areas. The differences are attributed mainly to political persuasions. Analysis of this study by Leviston et al. (2011) suggests that the majority of Australians do not deny/delegitimize climate science as the majority appears to support the scientific evidence regarding climate change. This has the significance in that it makes it easy for the government to come up with an agreeable policy on climate change because there is no much difference in views about the subject matter, which is good for the country as far as the country’s efforts in combating climate change, is concerned. Lastly, McCright et al. (2016) tested a variety of climate change messages to understand how the perception of Americans about anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is influenced by four variables for promoting ACC, including national security, economic opportunity, public health and Christian stewardship. The researchers found that the four issues have no effect on the views of Americans regarding ACC. However, the authors noted that exposure to climate change denial messages significantly reduced the participant’s belief in climate change reality. This finding has serious implication in the fight against climate change in the sense that it suggests that, as long as science of denial continues generate misinformation, the general public’s understanding of climate change will undermined and this is likely to erode support of climate action. Conclusion Climate change has become a global environmental problem that requires immediate action. Nonetheless, the efforts to combat the problem is slowed down by climate science denial that has become more prevalent than ever before as illustrated in the above five studies. The implications of deligitimization of climate science is that it has delayed the much needed climate change mitigation policies and committing the world into dire consequences of global warming and climate change. References Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G.E. (2013). NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science Is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622-633. McCright, A. M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K. and Dietz, T. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 76–97. Dunlap, R., & Jacques, P.J. (2013).Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: Exploring the connection. American Behavioural Scientist, 57, 699-731. Leviston, Z., Leitch, A., Greenhill, M., Leonard, R., & Walker, I. (2011). Australians’ views of climate change. Social & Economic Sciences Program, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences. http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/australians-view-of-climatechange.pdf Read More