New polling examines climate scepticism in detail
Most people in Britain believe climate change is happening and believe that it is caused by human activity. That’s one of the findings of a new, detailed investigation of British public attitudes to climate change carried out by social psychologists from Cardiff University.
Everyone involved in the climate change debate – from scientists and science communicators to campaigners, politicians and journalists – must at some level, to some degree, confront the issue of public attitudes. So, this in-depth analysis of public scepticism, using the methods of social-psychology to gain a deeper understanding, should be welcomed.
The study examined the degree of climate scepticism amongst the population. Researchers used the IPSOS-MORI polling organisation to survey a large sample of 1822 people on their attitudes and beliefs towards climate change, as well as their wider values.
The researchers used the “trend, attribution, and impact scepticism framework” suggested by scientist Stefan Rahmstorf. This identifies three categories of scepticism: Trend scepticism – disbelief in the upward trend in global temperatures; Attribution scepticism – acceptance of the warming trend but denial of human culpability; and Impact scepticism – where people acknowledge that humans are causing climate change but do not think it will lead to substantial detrimental impacts.
The study examined how the three types of scepticism are interlinked, and also how they are related to “attitudinal aspects” – such as how uncertain or ambivalent sceptics are about their beliefs. The research also analysed the social backgrounds and political views of those who identified as sceptics.
The study concluded that climate scepticism in not widespread in Britain – just 15% of the representative, weighted sample did not believe the climate was changing. However, the number of people who do agree that the world’s climate is changing has “decreased significantly” since 2005, from 91% to 78%. The authors suggest that this change may be due to the “climategate“and glaciergate” controversies and associated media coverage, or to recent unusually harsh winters.
“Attribution” scepticism is also low: 18% believe climate change is mostly or entirely caused by natural factors, compared with 47% who believe it is caused by a combination of natural and human factors.
However, when it comes to “impact scepticism”, the research found high levels of uncertainty: 69% agree that they are uncertain what the effects of climate change will be, with just 15% disagreeing. Even among respondents who agree that the climate is changing, there is a clear majority who are uncertain as to the likely impact. This uncertainty possibly reflects the “intangible and abstract nature” of climate change, and “legitimate uncertainty” in our understanding of climate systems, the researchers said.
The investigation found that people who are sceptical about one aspect of climate are more likely to be sceptical about others, perhaps showing “that the general public does not distinguish between the different ‘types’ of climate scepticism.”
Researchers found that non-sceptics are more certain about their opinions, whilst sceptical groups are more uncertain, ambivalent and hold more mixed and conflicting feelings: possibly showing that their beliefs are less strongly held. The researchers say this contrasts with the “caricature of a dogmatic sceptic”. Sceptical publics, they say, “seem to be less opinionated that non-sceptical publics”.
The study confirms that people’s beliefs about climate change are strongly correlated with their political affiliation and environmental values. Personal values of “self-transcendence” (such as equality, social justice and benevolence) correlate with less-sceptical groups, the researchers suggest, whilst traditional and conservative values (such as conformity, social order and obeidience) correlate with sceptical groups.
Scepticism was highest amongst “older respondents from lower socio-economic backgrounds and with conservative voting intentions” and amongst “people who were politically disengaged”, a finding which seems to chime with research just published in the USA reported by Conservation magazine, which claimed that “the most prominent denialists are conservative white males.”
This link with values was noted by the authors as a consideration when talking to the sceptical:
“Simply providing climate change information is unlikely to be successful, as new information is often interpreted by people in line with their existing attitudes and worldviews.”
However, they say that this may be balanced when talking to sceptics by the fact that the research suggests most sceptics do not hold their views very strongly.
“It is therefore important to tailor risk communications to different audiences and take into account the reasons of different publics for expressing doubt or disengagement from climate change, as they are likely to require very different approaches for re-engagement or behavioural change.”