scholarly journals A Survey Instrument to Measure Skeptics’ (Dis)Trust in Climate Science

Climate ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 18
Author(s):  
Dilshani Sarathchandra ◽  
Kristin Haltinner
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Pacific Northwest ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Survey Design ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Survey Instrument ◽  
Scientific Authority ◽  
Survey Instruments ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Using Data

Existing survey instruments of trust in science and scientists that focus on the general public are potentially insufficient to assess climate skeptics’ perspectives towards climate science. They may miss important aspects of climate science about which skeptics raise concerns, and may not accurately measure climate skeptics’ distrust in climatology. We introduce a new survey instrument developed using data gathered from interviewing 33 self-identified climate change skeptics in Idaho. The survey items capture skeptics’ beliefs regarding climate scientists’ trustworthiness and credibility, their deference to scientific authority, and their perceptions of alienation from the climate science community. We validate our survey instrument using data from an online survey administered to 1000 residents in the U.S. Pacific Northwest who are skeptical of climate change. By employing standard survey design principles, we demonstrate how our new (dis)trust in climate science instrument performs in tandem with well-known predictors of science attitudes and pro-environmentalism.

Comparing respondents who passed versus failed an Instructional Manipulation Check: A case study about support for climate change policies

2021 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 408-415
Author(s):  
Maria Rubio Juan ◽  
Melanie Revilla
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Manipulation Check ◽  
Climate Change Policies ◽  
Instructional Manipulation ◽  
Using Data

The presence of satisficers among survey respondents threatens survey data quality. To identify such respondents, Oppenheimer et al. developed the Instructional Manipulation Check (IMC), which has been used as a tool to exclude observations from the analyses. However, this practice has raised concerns regarding its effects on the external validity and the substantive conclusions of studies excluding respondents who fail an IMC. Thus, more research on the differences between respondents who pass versus fail an IMC regarding sociodemographic and attitudinal variables is needed. This study compares respondents who passed versus failed an IMC both for descriptive and causal analyses based on structural equation modeling (SEM) using data from an online survey implemented in Spain in 2019. These data were analyzed by Rubio Juan and Revilla without taking into account the results of the IMC. We find that those who passed the IMC do differ significantly from those who failed for two sociodemographic and five attitudinal variables, out of 18 variables compared. Moreover, in terms of substantive conclusions, differences between those who passed and failed the IMC vary depending on the specific variables under study.

scholarly journals Telling the boiling frog what he needs to know: why climate change risks should be plotted as probability over time

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
First Principles ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Climate Change Risks ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Over Time

Abstract. Humanity's situation with respect to climate change is sometimes compared to that of a frog in a slowly boiling pot of water, meaning that change will happen too gradually for us to appreciate the likelihood of catastrophe and act before it is too late. I argue that the scientific community is not yet telling the boiling frog what he needs to know. I use a review of the figures included in two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show that much of the climate science communicated to policymakers is presented in the form of projections of what is most likely to occur, as a function of time (equivalent to the following statement: in 5 min time, the water you are sitting in will be 2 ∘C warmer). I argue from first principles that a more appropriate means of assessing and communicating the risks of climate change would be to produce assessments of the likelihood of crossing non-arbitrary thresholds of impact, as a function of time (equivalent to the following statement: the probability of you being boiled to death will be 1 % in 5 min time, rising to 100 % in 20 min time if you do not jump out of the pot). This would be consistent with approaches to risk assessment in fields such as insurance, engineering, and health and safety. Importantly, it would ensure that decision makers are informed of the biggest risks and hence of the strongest reasons to act. I suggest ways in which the science community could contribute to promoting this approach, taking into account its inherent need for cross-disciplinary research and for engagement with decision makers before the research is conducted instead of afterwards.

scholarly journals An IPCC that listens: introducing reciprocity to climate change communication

2021 ◽  
Vol 168 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Dudman ◽  
Sara de Wit
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Communication Strategy ◽  
Climate Change Communication ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Authority ◽  
Human Voice ◽  
Change Communication ◽  
Reliable Knowledge

AbstractAs the epistemic hand in the UNFCCC’S political glove, the IPCC is charged with furnishing the global dialogues with ‘reliable knowledge’ on climate change. Much has been written about how this body of scientific information can be communicated more effectively to a diverse public, but considerably less so on the role communication might play in making the IPCC itself more receptive to alternative forms of contribution. Climate change communication remains centred on a unidirectional model that has helped climate science achieve greater public legibility, but so far not explored equivalent channels within institutional thinking for representing public and other non-scientific knowledges. Anticipating a new assessment report and major developments for the Paris Agreement, now is an opportunity to consider ambitious pathways to reciprocity in the IPCC’s communication strategy. Drawing on interdisciplinary insights from social science literatures, we argue that communication is not only inseparable from knowledge politics in the IPCC, but that communication activities and research may prove key avenues for making the IPCC more inclusive. Recognising climate communication as a developed field of study and practice with significant influence in the IPCC, we present a framework for categorising communicative activities into those which help the panel speak with a more human voice, and those that help it listen receptively to alternative forms of knowledge. The latter category especially invites communicators to decouple ‘epistemic authority’ from ‘scientific authority’, and so imagine new forms of expert contribution. This is critical to enabling active and equitable dialogue with underrepresented publics that democratises climate governance, and enhances the public legitimacy of the IPCC.

scholarly journals The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Guardian of Climate Science

2020 ◽  
pp. 295-321
Author(s):  
Eric Paglia ◽  
Charles Parker
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Anthropogenic Climate Change ◽  
Institutional Reforms ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Authority ◽  
Science And Politics

AbstractThis chapter analyzes the evolution of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from a specialist organization of climate scientists into an institution at the nexus of science and politics. We explain how the IPCC became the primary scientific authority for policymakers, the public, and climate activists on the existence, severity, consequences of, and, increasingly, possible solutions to anthropogenic climate change. We assess its influence on policymakers and governments, while examining the various tensions, critiques, and contradictions that the organization and its leaders have had to grapple with across its 32-year history, during which it successfully developed a distinct identity as a trusted provider of comprehensive scientific assessments. Our analysis also focuses on the institutional reforms that helped restore legitimacy to IPCC after ‘climategate’ and other controversies.

scholarly journals Trust/distrust judgments and perceptions of climate science: A research note on skeptics’ rationalizations

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dilshani Sarathchandra ◽  
Kristin Haltinner
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Environmental Policy ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Research Note ◽  
Climate Information ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Scientific Authority ◽  
Incentive Structures

Using interviews with residents of Idaho (a rural northwest US state) who identify as skeptical of climate change, we examine how skeptics rationalize their doubts about climate science. Skeptics tend to question the reality and human causes of climate change by (1) raising concerns about incentive structures in science that could bias climatology, (2) doubting the accuracy of data and models used by climate scientists, and (3) perceiving some practices of climate science and scientists as exclusionary. Despite these concerns, skeptics exhibit deference to scientific authority when using scientific assessments to make policy decisions, including environmental policy. Understanding skeptics’ concerns about climate science and areas where they support science-based policy, will lead to better dialogue between scientists, interest groups, policy makers, and the skeptical public, potentially clarifying avenues to communicate climate information and enact climate policy.

scholarly journals Telling the boiling frog what he needs to know: why climate change risks should be plotted as probability over time

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
First Principles ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Climate Change Risks ◽  
Science Community ◽  
Over Time

Abstract. Humanity's situation with respect to climate change is sometimes compared to that of a frog in a slowly-boiling pot of water, meaning that change will happen too gradually for us to appreciate the likelihood of catastrophe and act before it is too late. I argue that the scientific community is not yet telling the boiling frog what he needs to know. I use a review of the figures included in two reports of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change to show that much of the climate science communicated to policymakers is presented in the form of projections of what is most likely to occur, as a function of time (equivalent to: in 5 minutes' time, the water you are sitting in will be two degrees warmer). I argue from first principles that a more appropriate means of assessing and communicating the risks of climate change would be to produce assessments of the likelihood of crossing non-arbitrary thresholds of impact, as a function of time (equivalent to: the probability of you being boiled to death will be 1% in five minutes' time, rising to 100% in twenty minutes' time if you don't jump out of the pot). This would be consistent with approaches to risk assessment in fields such as insurance, engineering, and health and safety. Importantly, it would ensure decision-makers were informed of the biggest risks, and hence of the strongest reasons to act. I suggest ways in which the science community could contribute to promoting this approach, taking into account its inherent need for cross-disciplinary research and for engagement with decision-makers before the research is conducted, instead of afterwards.

Paying Attention to Inattentive Survey Respondents

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Michael Alvarez ◽  
Lonna Rae Atkeson ◽  
Ines Levin ◽  
Yimeng Li
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Political Attitudes ◽  
Survey Instrument ◽  
Attitudes And Behaviors ◽  
And Behaviors ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Survey Responses ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Attitudes And Behavior

Does attentiveness matter in survey responses? Do more attentive survey participants give higher quality responses? Using data from a recent online survey that identified inattentive respondents using instructed-response items, we demonstrate that ignoring attentiveness provides a biased portrait of the distribution of critical political attitudes and behavior. We show that this bias occurs in the context of both typical closed-ended questions and in list experiments. Inattentive respondents are common and are more prevalent among the young and less educated. Those who do not pass the trap questions interact with the survey instrument in distinctive ways: they take less time to respond; are more likely to report nonattitudes; and display lower consistency in their reported choices. Inattentiveness does not occur completely at random and failing to properly account for it may lead to inaccurate estimates of the prevalence of key political attitudes and behaviors, of both sensitive and more prosaic nature.

Designing and Evaluating Survey Instruments for Research in Human Issues in Horticulture

HortScience ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 554c-554
Author(s):  
Sonja M. Skelly ◽  
Jennifer Campbell Bradley
Keyword(s):  
Survey Research ◽  
Survey Methodology ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Survey Instrument ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
The Social ◽  
Survey Instruments

Survey research has a long precedence of use in the social sciences. With a growing interest in the area of social science research in horticulture, survey methodology needs to be explored. In order to conduct proper and accurate survey research, a valid and reliable instrument must be used. In many cases, however, an existing measurement tool that is designed for specific research variables is unavailable thus, an understanding of how to design and evaluate a survey instrument is necessary. Currently, there are no guidelines in horticulture research for developing survey instruments for use with human subjects. This presents a problem when attempting to compare and reference similar research. This workshop will explore the methodology involved in preparing a survey instrument; topics covered will include defining objectives for the survey, constructing questions, pilot testing the survey, and obtaining reliability and validity information. In addition to these topics some examples will be provided which will illustrate how to complete these steps. At the conclusion of this session a discussion will be initiated for others to share information and experiences dealing with creating survey instruments.

scholarly journals Psychological Factors Affecting Risk Perception of COVID-19: Evidence from Peru and China

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6513
Author(s):  
Fredy S. Monge-Rodríguez ◽  
He Jiang ◽  
Liwei Zhang ◽  
Andy Alvarado-Yepez ◽  
Anahí Cardona-Rivero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Perception ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Self Confidence ◽  
Global Pandemic ◽  
Negative Effect ◽  
The Government ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Health Field

COVID-19 has spread around the world, causing a global pandemic, and to date is impacting in various ways in both developed and developing countries. We know that the spread of this virus is through people’s behavior despite the perceived risks. Risk perception plays an important role in decision-making to prevent infection. Using data from the online survey of participants in Peru and China (N = 1594), data were collected between 8 July 31 and August 2020. We found that levels of risk perception are relatively moderate, but higher in Peru compared to China. In both countries, anxiety, threat perception, self-confidence, and sex were found to be significant predictors of risk perception; however, trust in the information received by government and experts was significant only in Peru, whereas self-confidence had a significant negative effect only for China. Risk communication should be implemented through information programs aimed at reducing anxiety and improving self-confidence, taking into consideration gender differences. In addition, the information generated by the government should be based on empirical sources. Finally, the implications for effective risk communication and its impacts on the health field are discussed.

Science communication and mediatised environmental conflict: A cautionary tale

2021 ◽  
pp. 096366252098513
Author(s):  
Claire Konkes ◽  
Kerrie Foxwell-Norton
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Political Communication ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Environmental Conflict ◽  
Cautionary Tale ◽  
James Cook ◽  
Social Sphere ◽  
Tenured Position

When Australian physicist, Peter Ridd, lost his tenured position with James Cook University, he was called a ‘whistleblower’, ‘contrarian academic’ and ‘hero of climate science denial’. In this article, we examine the events surrounding his dismissal to better understand the role of science communication in organised climate change scepticism. We discuss the sophistry of his complaint to locate where and through what processes science communication becomes political communication. We argue that the prominence of scientists and scientific knowledge in debates about climate change locates science, as a social sphere or fifth pillar in Hutchins and Lester’s theory of mediatised environmental conflict. In doing so, we provide a model to better understand how science communication can be deployed during politicised debates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document