Abstract
Public discourse on climate change often refers to possible bias among climate scientists as a rationale for limited climate policy action by the United States. Part of this discussion is the association of scientists with environmental interest groups and whether such affiliations facilitate the perception that climate scientists lack objectivity. While surveys suggest that some climate scientists disapprove of affiliations with interest groups, recent research indicates that climate scientists are quite likely to be involved with environmental organizations. This paper compares the affiliations of scientists and the general public to discern whether scientists are uniquely likely to affiliate with interest groups or they simply share characteristics common to the public who also affiliate with these organizations. Our findings suggest that climate scientists are no more likely to donate money, but are less likely to sign a petition or attend a demonstration, when controlling for other factors. These results strengthen our understanding of the affiliations between scientists and interest groups and hold implications for the accuracy of popular perceptions of climate scientists.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The 13 journals sampled were Global Environmental Change, Journal of Climate, Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Journal of Geophysical Research, Climatic Change, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Weather and Forecasting; Journal of Hydrometeorology; Earth Interactions; Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Meteorological Monographs.
Following the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) conventions and algorithms, the 2004 response rate was 12 %, the cooperation rate was 18.6 %, and the completion rate was 69.1 %. The 2007 survey response rate was 6.9 %, the cooperation rate was 14.7 %, and the completion rate was 69.5 %. Lower AAPOR computed response rates have been the norm because of many factors, one being their inclusion of completely failed contacts in the computational denominator. Recent studies have significantly reduced the need to fear these lowered rates. For example, Merkle and Edelman (2002) find no relationship between response rate and survey accuracy, and Keeter et al. (2006) find that surveys with lower response rates are statistically indistinguishable from those with higher response rates. AAPOR itself has recently acknowledged this reality (See www.aapor.org/response_rates_an_overview1.htm).
The 2007 national public survey only asked respondents about donating money to an environmental group in the previous one year. Consequently, this data is not included in the other analyses.
Although there appears to be inconsistent scopes between the independent and dependent variables, this is out of necessity. While there were certainly niche groups that existed at the time of these surveys that focused primarily on climate change, climate change was not the sole objective of any of the largest environmental interest groups (e.g. Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, or Environmental Defense) or groups that cross between wildlife and environmental interests (e.g. World Wildlife Fund, National Audubon Society, or Ducks Unlimited). This distinction is particularly important for the public surveys, where it is less likely that respondents would know of climate change niche groups, but would be familiar with the mainstream groups. If anything, the inconsistent scopes create a tougher test for the primary independent variables.
Although not presented in the analysis, we estimated a third model that sought to determine whether there was a temporal difference between the 2004 and 2007 survey respondents. Both dichotomous variables are statistically significant and negative, which suggests that there was not a large difference based on time or due to the limitation of only one year in the 2007 survey.
We also estimated these models using a complementary log-log regression, which is designed to estimate better dichotomous dependent variables associated with rare events. With less than 15 % of the overall pooled cases having attended a demonstration, this is a relatively rare event, yet the results show no substantively important differences. Therefore, for consistency, we present the logit results.
References
Ainsworth SH (2000) Modeling political efficacy and interest group membership. Polit Behav 22:89–108
Anderson L, Betsill M (2010) Scientists’ perspectives on navigating the science-policy frontier. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1643185
Bandura A (2000) Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 9:75–78
Berry JM (1999) The new liberalism: the rising power of citizen groups. Brookings Institution Press, Washington
Bies A, Lee DG, Lindsey C, Stoutenborough JW, Vedlitz A (2013) Citizens, nonprofits and climate change policy. Nonprofit Policy Forum 4:5–28
Boehmke FJ, Bowen DC (2010) Direct democracy and individual interest group membership. J Polit 72:659–671
Bromley-Trujillo R, Stoutenborough JW, Kirkpatrick KJ, Vedlitz A (2014) Climate scientists and environmental interest groups: the intersection of expertise and advocacy. Polit Groups Identities 2:120–134
Brulle RJ (2014) Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of US climate change counter-movement organizations. Clim Chang 122:681–694
Cigler AJ, Nownes AJ (1995) Public interest entrepreneurs and group patrons. In: Cigler AJ, Loomis BA (eds) Interest group politics, 4th edn. Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington, pp 77–99
Frohlich N, Oppenheimer JA (1970) I get by with a little help from my friends. World Polit 23:104–120
Herrick CN (2004) Objectivity versus narrative coherence: science, environmental policy, and the US Data Quality Act. Environ Sci Pol 7:419–433
Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, Best J, Craighill P (2006) Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opin Q 70:759–779
Kellstedt PM, Zahran S, Vedlitz A (2008) Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal 28:113–126
Lackey RT (2007) Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conserv Biol 21:12–17
Leiserowitz AA (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Chang 77:45–72
Leiserowitz AA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N (2011) Global warming’s six Americas, May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University
Leiserowitz AA, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N, Dawson E (2013) Climategate, public opinion, and the loss of trust. Am Behav Sci 57:818–837
Liu, X, Vedlitz A, Stoutenborough JW, Robinson SE (2015) Scientists' views and positions on global warming and climate change: a content analysis of congressional testimonies. Clim Chang 131:487–503
Luszczynska A, Schwarzer R, Lippke S, Mazurkiewicz M (2011) Self-efficacy as a moderator of the planning-behavior relationship in interventions designed to promote physical activity. Psychol Health 26:151–166
Marris E (2006) Should conservation biologists push policies? Nat 442:13
Martin B, Richards E (1995) Scientific knowledge, controversy, and public decision-making. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Petersen JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 506–526
McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: the conservation movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Soc Probl 50:348–373
McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2010) Anti-reflexivity: the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory Cult Soc 27(2-3):100–133
McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52:155–194
Merkle DM, Edelman M (2002) Nonresponse in exit polls: a comprehensive analysis. In: Groves RM, Dilman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (eds) Survey nonresponse. Wiley, New York, pp 243–257
Moe TM (1980) The organization of interests. University of Chicago Press
Moe TM (1981) Toward a broader view of interest groups. J Polit 43:531–543
Moe TM (1988) The organization of interests: incentives and the internal dynamics of political interest groups. University of Chicago Press
Olson M Jr (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, Chicago
Rabe B, Borick C (2010) A reason to believe: examining the factors that determine Americans’ views of global warming. Soc Sci Q 91:777–800
Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith H (1993) Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press, Boulder
Salisbury RH (1969) An exchange theory of interest groups. Midwest J Polit Sci 13:1–32
Salisbury RH (1984) Interest representation: the dominance of institutions. Am Polit Sci Rev 78:64–76
Schlozman KL, Verba S, Brady HA (1995) Participation’s not a paradox: the view from American activists. Br J Polit Sci 25:1–36
Steel B, List P, Lach D, Shindler B (2004) The role of scientists in the environmental policy process: a case study from the American west. Environ Sci Pol 7:1–13
Stoutenborough JW, Vedlitz A (2014) The effect of perceived and assessed knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: an empirical comparison. Environ Sci Pol 37:23–33
Stoutenborough JW, Bromley-Trujillo R, Vedlitz A (2014a) Public support for climate change policy: consistency in the influence of values and attitudes over time and across distinct policy alternatives. Rev Pol Res 31:555–583
Stoutenborough JW, Liu X, Vedlitz A (2014b) Trends in public attitudes toward climate change: the influence of the economy and climategate on risk, information, and public policy. Risk Hazards Crisis Publ Pol 5:22–37
Stoutenborough JW, Vedlitz A, Liu X (2015) The influence of specific risk perceptions on public policy support: an examination of energy policy. ANN Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 658:102–120
Truman DB (1971) The governmental process, 2nd edn. Knopf, New York
Weible CM, Sabatier PA (2009) Coalitions, science, and belief change: comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Pol Stud J 37:195–212
Wynne B (1996) Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science. In: Irwin A, Wynne B (eds) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 19–46
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon research conducted by the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy in The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University under awards NA03OAR4310164 and NA04OAR4600172 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Department of Commerce. The authors would like to thank Kellee Kirkpatrick, Carol Goldsmith, and the reviewers for their comments throughout the development of this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bromley-Trujillo, R., Stoutenborough, J.W. & Vedlitz, A. Scientific advocacy, environmental interest groups, and climate change: are climate skeptic portrayals of climate scientists as biased accurate?. Climatic Change 133, 607–619 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1477-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1477-0