Archives of Science
Open Access

Science denial; Climate change; Environment policy evidence doubt

Introduction

The Donald J. Trump administration’s initial moves in the US are extremely concerning for future environmental and climate science and policy in the country. There is a clear risk that environmental policy will become less scientifically founded in the years to come with multiple ministers, as well as the President himself, expressing scepticism about the fundamental premises of climate science. There is concern that coordinated efforts to cast doubt on the veracity of scientific data would be encouraged and seriously impede environmental policymaking. This apprehension is valid. Evidence from various policy sectors supports the idea that organised science denial by individuals or groups with significant political or financial clout can influence how society reacts to grave threats or issues. Southern Africa. For instance, governmental AIDS denial in South Africa has caused hundreds of thousands of preventable lives. Denial of cigarette-related diseases by the tobacco industry has had equally detrimental effects [1].

Denial of climate science is not a brand-new or unstudied phenomena in academia. There is a sizable body of scientific literature, especially in relation to the situation in the United States. This research has not yet undergone a systematic analysis while embracing a wide range of fields and multiple features. The extent to which the conclusions of this research may be applied to non-Anglo-American nations and to other environmental policy domains, such as chemicals control, also needs to be looked into. In order to make such assessments easier, we analyse the scholarly literature on environmental science denial produced in the last 25 years in this paper. By highlighting the key concerns and trends seen in the scientific literature and outlining the traits of denial. In order to identify research gaps and facilitate understanding of the science denial phenomenon, we want to develop measures to combat it. Such understanding is required for the effort of responding to science denial and ending its influence on environmental policy making, which is becoming an increasingly crucial issue [2, 3].

Materials and Method

Denyer and Tranfield’s five steps of a systematic review process— question formulation, study sourcing, study selection and evaluation, analysis and synthesis, and reporting and utilising the results—were used to organise and carry out the literature review. Sections 1, Introduction, and 4–5 provide information on steps (1) and (4)–(5).

What is being rejected? Who disputes?, Definition and description of science denial What tactics can be employed to combat science denial? How is science denial explained?

Limitations on the choice of databases and bibliography

The review used three bibliographical databases: Web of Science (all databases), Scopus, and Philosopher’s Index. Because it was determined that they index a sizable portion of the publications published on scientific denial, Web of Science and Scopus were picked. In order to ensure that papers addressing science denial from a philosophy of science perspective were included, 1 Philosopher’s Index was included. These articles were published in highly specialised philosophical journals that were not indexed in Web of Science or Scopus. Another database that might be relevant is PubMed, however preliminary scanning revealed that there were relatively few references there that would be of interest, therefore the database was not chosen for the review [4].

Method of analysis

Five research questions (What is being denied?, Who denies?, Who published it?, Year of publication, Title, Journal, and First Author affiliation) were briefly noted in a word document along with the bibliometric data. How is science denial defined? What are its tactics? How is science denial justified? What tactics can be employed to combat science denial? On the journal website, the word document is available as a supplemental file. As described below in the results section, specific themes, patterns, and whenever feasible, typologies were discovered in the summarising notes through question-byquestion analysis. Although the three authors who were in charge of reviewing and assessing the 161 papers initially shared the 161 articles, in. Numerous times, multiple people read the exact same article. All four writers participated in regular project meetings where the findings were presented and debated [5].

Articles are distributed among the five research questions

What is rejected? The publications in the review, with only one or two exceptions, either concentrate on environmental and/or climate science denial, or concentrate on scientific denial in general but include environmental or climate science denial as one example; for a more thorough examination, see section 4.

Who disputes? Around 90% of the papers in the review name one or more opponents of environmental or climate research. Only about 10% of the articles do not clearly address the issue of who denies; for more analysis, see section 5. What is meant by the term “science denial,” and what are its tactics? About 30% of the publications in the review define science denial (or scepticism) or go into further detail about what it means.

About 40% of the articles discuss one or more tactics employed in science denial; for more analysis, What justifies science denial? About 60% of the publications in the review make an effort to explain the existence of science denial or to analyse one or more causes of it; for more analysis. What methods can be employed to combat science denial? About 40% of the papers in the evaluation offer one or more recommendations for how to combat science denial or explore other countermeasures in more broad terms; for a more in-depth examination [6, 7].

Who disputes?

The publications in our review classify the actors and groups that reject environmental research in general and climate science in particular into six categories. The categories are used here to organise the debate but are not mutually exclusive.

Denying science. A small percentage of scientists openly contest the existence of environmental issues like climate change, ozone depletion, and acid rain. They frequently do not belong to the established community of scientists who study the subject at hand. In instance, according to Lahsen, physicists rather than climate scientists have made up the majority of the very few academic climate science deniers in the United States (2008). Older members of two communities of atmospheric scientists, particularly theoretical and empirical meteorologists, can also contain some deniers. Political and socio-cultural factors, such as their professional socialisation, their opposition to the growing allocation of government funding to applied (impact) research rather than to basic science, and their dwindling influence as science-policy advisors, are used. Many of the deniers are employed by think tanks, such as the Heartland Institute or the Marshall Institute in the United States or The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) in Australia, rather than academic institutions.

Aklin and Urpelainen (2014) demonstrated in an experimental study that when respondents were informed that there was some, albeit negligible, disagreement among scientists on an environmental problem, their level of belief in the environmental problem and their support for its regulation decreased, in comparison to when respondents were not informed about disagreement [8].

Discussion

This review’s objective was to provide an up-to-date description of the environmental science denial study area in order to illuminate how decision makers and other professionals involved in environmental and climate policy might react to the denial phenomenon. Finding study topics and issues that require more scholarly investigation was a secondary goal. We make the following deductions from the reviewed literature.

First off, despite the fact that there is a sizable body of literature examining the phenomenon of climate science denial, including what is being denied (e.g. “trend,” “attribution,” and “impact” denial), who denies, characteristics of science denial, potential explanations, and counter-strategies, there is a conspicuous lack of studies addressing other environmental issues. Only around a fifth of the publications tackle topics unrelated to climate change, instead talking about science denial in general.

The management of chemicals, air or water pollution, land, water, or biodiversity are just a few examples of policy areas that are significantly impacted by powerful economic interests and could thus be expected to be vulnerable to the organised denial activities that are manifested in climate policy, despite the existence of individual exceptions. However, there is no comprehensive body of literature, at least not in the last 25 years, addressing science denial in these policy areas [9].

Conclusion

The studied literature conclusively demonstrates that the academic community has shown a great deal of interest in the issue of how to deal with science denial. The number of studies developing and actually testing the effectiveness and efficiency of these strategies in a focused manner is still rather small, despite the fact that various strategies for improved communication, framing, etc., are argued for (see Cook (2010) and references therein for more information). This is especially true for environmental problems other than climate change. Therefore, more study that focuses on evaluating, designing, and comparing certain tactics to fight science denial, including action research, is required to fill this identified research vacuum. It is necessary to conduct a more complete review of ideas for more fundamental and drastic strategy change as well as suggestions to improve scientific.

Such research would benefit from taking into account a more comprehensive analytical strategy than what was seen in several of the examined articles. For instance, the reviewed literature contained relatively few references to papers on the transitions of human and natural systems, environmental and risk governance, science philosophy, and science and technology studies [10].

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge Björn Lundgren’s helpful criticism of an earlier draught of the manuscript. The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning (Formas) provided funding for this project.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

No conflict or competing interests in the publication of this paper.

1. Abrams D, Wetherell M, Cochrane S, Hogg MA, Turner JC(1990) Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization. Br J Soc Psychol 29: 97-119.

Indexed at, Crossref

2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50 179-211.

Crossref

3. Armitage CJ, Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 40: 471-499.

Indexed at, Crossref

4. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Jeffries C (2012) Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat Clim Chang 2: 600-603.

Crossref

5. Bartels J, Onwezen MC (2014) Consumers’ willingness to buy products with environmental and ethical claims: the roles of social representations and social identity. Int J Consum Stud 38: 82-89.

Crossref

6. Bartels J, Reinders MJ (2010) Social identification, social representations, and consumer innovativeness in an organic food context: a cross-national comparison. Food Qual Prefer 21: 347-352.

Crossref

7. Bashir NY, Lockwood P, Chasteen AL, Nadolny D, Noyes I (2013) The ironic impact of activists: negative stereotypes reduce social change influence. Eur J Soc Psychol 43: 614-626.

Crossref

8. Batalha L, Reynolds KJ (2012) Aspiring to mitigate climate change: superordinate identity in global climate negotiations. Polit Psychol 33: 743-760.

Crossref

9. Bliuc AM, Mcgarty C, Thomas EF, Lala G, Berndsen M, et al. (2015) Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nat Clim Chang 5: 226-229.

Crossref

10. Branscombe NR, Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B (1999) The context and content of social identity threat  in Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Content.