Climate Science and Ideology

Posted by Niel Bowerman on November 17, 2010
Politics, Polling, UK

The public do not accept the ideology of some climate campaigners, and hence unconsciously reject the science of climate change

The more green groups ask us to “stop flying,” the less the public believes in man-made climate change. Niel Bowerman argues there is a link.

Today is the anniversary of “climategate”. It has damaged the credibility of the IPCC, and climate science in general, and yet scientists could not be clearer that the warming observed over the past century is largely man-made.  Is it time to ask why so many people dispute a scientific theory that the vast majority of climate scientists agree with?

Could it be that some of the public’s distrust of climate science comes not from qualms with methodologies for constructing temperature records, but rather from scepticism of the ideologies of the green groups that use climate science to reinforce their campaigns?

The UK’s recent prime-time Channel 4 documentary ‘What the Green Movement Got Wrong’ was criticised by many environmental groups, not least because it contained several inaccuracies.

Many greens rightly charged the documentary with being ideologically driven, while the documentary claimed “that by clinging to an ideology formed more than 40 years ago, the traditional green lobby has failed in its aims and is ultimately harming its own environmental cause.”  As with most debates, both arguments do contain an element of truth.

The documentary struck a chord with much of the public, who are sick of a bossy, lecturing, elitist and sometimes excessively ideological environmental movement.  Unfortunately this is likely to be one of the reasons for the drop in public belief in climate change. When green groups demand that people ‘stop flying now’ instead of also working to promote viable alternatives, the public begins to reject the science of climate change outright.

If we are to tackle climate change before it is too late, the climate movement must rapidly evolve from being seen as a lefty group taking part in self-deprivation.  Green groups must become part of a larger movement for positive change that spans political boundaries and seeks to inspire and empower, not just criticise and condemn.

Younger groups are already beginning to adopt this new approach.  Ben West, Communications Coordinator at the UK Youth Climate Coalition, said: “Many of us as young people, are excited about renewing the movement and in the possibility of creating something fit and ready to overcome the big challenges of the coming decades, rather than being stuck fighting the battles and stereotypes of our parent’s generation.”

Perhaps the American climate scientists who created their ‘rapid response unit’ would have more luck convincing the public on the science if they could persuade environmental groups to say, “We’re sorry if we sometimes lecture or sound bossy, that wasn’t our intention.  We’re just trying to create green jobs, ensure energy security, and build a clean energy future; would you like to help?”

Niel Bowerman is a research climate scientist at Oxford University, and a former executive director of Climatico.

Related posts:

  1. Obama’s Science Picks Strengthen His Green Team

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Make a Donation

Like what you read? Climatico is a nonprofit organization and relies on donations from readers like you to continue to provide you with quality independent coverage. Help show your support and make a tax-deductible donation today.

Comments

  • Avatar of Niel Bowerman

    Hi Cian,
    I like your points.
    1. I too would love to see a progressive movement that is ready to tackle not just climate change, but education cuts, tax-dodgers, and the like. I agree that this is what we need to be growing, as outlined in ‘The Death of Environmentalism’
    2. Yep, Berkley recently released a psychology paper that said similar. I don’t think that telling people that climate change exists is going to make them believe in it any more, but I think that while large fractions of the population don’t believe in climate change we are not going to see the political change that we need. Thus, I wouldn’t say that they have a deficit of information, rather that they are using climate science as an excuse for inaction. If we could remove this excuse, for example using the idea outlined in this blog post, then I think that we could get further. But I agree that the solution is not ‘ramming climate science down people’s throats’ as a friend of mine said recently.
    3. Wow, great quote! How do we split the two?

    November 22 2010
    CommentsLike

    • Niel, I wonder if Ben is on the right track. Should we really be trying to bring people into (or back to) the movement? It would seem to me that the environmental movement by definition is too narrow to tackle climate change. Which is not of course to denigrate the awesome work of UKYCC, just to suggest that it shouldn’t be defined by the boundaries of the environmental movement.
      Second point, Mike Hulme’s book last year had some great work in it on the failures of the deficit model of science. That shoving more and more science at people (the public or indeed policy makers) generally doesn’t help, and in fact can make the situation a lot worse.
      Finally, a quote from a 2008 chapter by Max Boykoff I read just yesterday: “Organisational arrangements that define what environmental problems are can be seen simultaneously as a scientific framework and a movement ideology. These are therefore particularly vulnerable to deconstruction.” Which is exactly what the right wing media in the US has done so effectively.

      November 18 2010
      CommentsLike

      • [...] at Oxford University, and a former executive director of Climatico. This post first appeared on Climatico. Comments window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId: '39052314353', status: [...]

        November 17 2010
        CommentsLike

        • [...] Cross-posted from Climatico. [...]

          November 17 2010
          CommentsLike