Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community. (July 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lewandowsky, Stephan; Oreskes, Naomi; Risbey, James S.; Newell, Ben R.; Smithson, Michael
• Is Part Of: Global environmental change. Volume 33(2015:Jul.)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 13
• Publication Date: 2015-07
• Subjects: Climate change -- Global warming "hiatus" -- Scientific norms -- Scientific assessment -- Climate change denial; Environmental policy -- Periodicals; Human ecology -- Periodicals; Nature -- Effect of human beings on -- Periodicals; Environment -- Periodicals; Environnement -- Politique gouvernementale -- Périodiques; Écologie humaine -- Périodiques; Homme -- Influence sur la nature -- Périodiques; Environmental policy; Human ecology; Nature -- Effect of human beings on; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 333.7
• DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0959-3780

Abstract

Abstract : Highlights: Appeals to scientific uncertainty are often used to forestall action on climate change. We examine the seepage of this contrarian discourse into the scientific community. We highlight psychological reasons for scientists' susceptibility to seepage. We use the global warming "hiatus" as an example of the consequences of seepage. We offer ways in which the scientific community can detect and avoid such seepage. Abstract: Vested interests and political agents have long opposed political or regulatory action in response to climate change by appealing to scientific uncertainty. Here we examine the effect of such contrarian talking points on the scientific community itself. We show that although scientists are trained in dealing with uncertainty, there are several psychological reasons why scientists may nevertheless be susceptible to uncertainty-based argumentation, even when scientists recognize those arguments as false and are actively rebutting them. Specifically, we show that prolonged stereotype threat, pluralistic ignorance, and a form of projection (the third-person effect) may cause scientists to take positions that they would be less likely to take in the absence of outspoken public opposition. We illustrate the consequences of seepage from public debate into the scientific process with a case study involving the interpretation of temperature trends from the last 15 years. We offer ways in which the scientific community can detect and avoid such inadvertent seepage.