Though its effects are in evidence, climate change remains a debatable topic. Now, researchers have found that deniers can have an impact on climate scientists — influencing the way they present their work.
In a recent study, Stephan Lewandowsky and colleagues showed how language used by deniers has seeped into discussions among scientists regarding the alleged pause in global warming — which has them unwittingly reinforce a misleading message.
The idea of a hiatus in global warming has been promoted in many avenues available to deniers for years, even finding its way into scientific works. That includes the latest assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The researchers focused on this event to show how misleading the talk of a hiatus is.
The imbalance in discussing warming trends reflects what the researchers refer to as "seepage" of contrarian claims into scientific work. Lewandowsky said it's reasonable to say that deniers create enough pressure to get climate scientists to re-assess their studies, as if second-guessing their works.
To explain how deniers are able to influence climate scientists, researchers pointed to three psychological mechanisms: stereotype threat, pluralistic ignorance and the third-person effect.
Stereotype threat refers to behavioral and emotional responses when an individual is reminded of a stereotype against the group they belong to. So when climate scientists are dubbed as alarmists, they respond by downplaying threats to distance themselves from the stereotype.
Pluralistic ignorance is the phenomenon that arises when minority opinion is given too much attention in public discourse, which makes it seem like it represents more people. This makes those in the actual majority assume their opinion represents the minority — inhibiting them from speaking out.
As for the third-person effect, it highlights how persuasive communication can win over the truth. This hints that the scientific community is at risk of being susceptible to arguments made by deniers — even though climate scientists know them to be false.
Lewandowsky emphasized that knowing these pitfalls is half the battle.
"Our research may therefore enable scientists to recognize the potential for this seepage of contrarian arguments into their own language and thinking," he said, allowing them to act against it.
Michael Smithson, Ben Newell, James Risbey and Naomi Oreskes also contributed to this study published in the journal Global Environmental Change.
Photo: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center | Flickr
