Previous research has examined public perceptions of climate change, including opinions about the severity of its effects, whether it is human caused, the degree of its exaggeration in the news media, and the level of scientific consensus on the issue. This research has shown that public beliefs about each of these aspects of climate change are politically charged. What remains understudied are the sources of environmental scientists’ authority in the broader society and whether perceptions of environmental scientists themselves are polarized. Using data from the General Social Survey’s Science and Technology Module, this study fills this gap in knowledge by examining public perceptions of environmental scientists across several dimensions. We develop and formally test a theoretical model of the legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere, as measured by public support for their influence on climate policy. Consistent with other research on public beliefs about climate change, we find that perceptions of environmental scientists are polarized across multiple measures. Moreover, while previous theory and research have emphasized beliefs about scientific consensus on climate change, we find that perceptions of scientists’ understanding of the issue and the integrity of their policy advice are each stronger predictors of scientists’ legitimacy in the public sphere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Asparouhov T, Muthén B (2010). Multiple imputation with Mplus. MPlus Web Notes https://www.statmodel.com/download/Imputations7.pdf
Bauer MW (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science: discourse and comparative evidence. Sci Technol Soc 14:221–240
Dunlap RE (2014) Clarifying anti-reflexivity: conservative opposition to impact science and scientific evidence. Environ Res Lett 9:1–4
Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment 50:26–35
Dunlap RE, McCright AM, Yarosh JH (2016) The political divide on climate change: partisan polarization widens in the U.S. Environment 58:4–23
Gauchat G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev 77:167–187
Gauchat G (2015) The political context of science in the United States: public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Soc Forces 94:723–746
Hamilton LC (2011a) Climate change. Partisanship, understanding, and public opinion. Issue Brief No. 26. Carsey Institute. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=carsey
Hamilton LC (2011b) Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104:231–242
Hamilton LC (2014) Do you trust scientists about the environment? News media sources and politics affect New Hampshire resident views. Regional Issue Brief No. 40. Carsey Institute. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1213&context=carsey
Hamilton LC (2015) Conservative and liberal views of science. Does trust depend on topic? Regional Issue Brief No. 45. Carsey Institute. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/views-of-science
Hamilton LC, Saito K (2015) A four-party view of US environmental concern. Env Polit 24:212–227
Hamilton LC, Cutler MJ, Schaefer A (2012) Public knowledge about polar regions increases while concerns remain unchanged. Issue Brief No. 42. Carsey Institute. University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1156&context=carsey
Hoyle RH (2012) Introduction and overview. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Handbook of structural equation modeling. Guildford, New York, pp 3–16
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva
Kahan DM (2015) Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Polit Psychol 36:1–43
Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Chang 2:732–735
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
McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2013) Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Clim Chang 119:511–518
McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2014a) Increasing influence of party identification on perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the United States, 2006–12. Weather Clim Soc 6:194–201
McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Xiao C (2014b) The impacts of temperature anomalies and political orientation on perceived winter warming. Nat Clim Chang 4:1077–1081
Muthén B, du Toit SHC, Spisic D (1997) Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Unpublished technical report. https://www.statmodel.com/download/Article_075.pdf
O’Brien TL (2013) Scientific authority in policy contexts: public attitudes about environmental scientists, medical researchers, and economists. Public Underst Sci 22:799–816
Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Press, New York
Perrin AJ, Roos MJ, Gauchat GW (2014) From coalition to constraint: modes of thought in contemporary American conservatism. Sociol Forum 29:285–300
United Nations (2015) Paris Agreement. http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf. Accessed 31 January 2017
van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz AA, Feinberg GD, Maibach EW (2015) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PLoS One 10:e0118489
Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9:211–220
Wynne B (2007) Public participation in science and technology: performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Sci Technol Soc 1:99–110
Outcome variable. Respondents were given a brief statement that described the debate surrounding global warming: Global warming means a trend toward warmer temperatures throughout the world, with more extreme weather in many places and changes in food production that could affect our way of life. Some people believe that the burning of gasoline and other fossil fuels causes global warming. Others say that global warming has purely natural causes. To measure scientists’ legitimacy as policy advisors, respondents were asked to rate on a four-point scale how much influence environmental scientists should have in deciding what to do about global warming. In our analysis, higher scores are coded to mean more influence.
Mediator variables. Respondents were also asked to respond to the following three questions on five-point scales: (1) How well do environmental scientists understand the causes of global warming? (2) When making policy recommendations about global warming, to what extent do you think environmental scientists would support what is best for the country as a whole versus what serves their own narrow interests? (3) To what extent do environmental scientists agree among themselves about the existence and causes of global warming? Responses are coded so that higher values correspond to greater perceived understanding, more support of the nation’s best interests, and greater agreement among scientists.
Analytical technique. SEMs are ideal for this analysis, because they can simultaneously estimate a CFA, accommodate mediating factors, and allow for omnibus tests of alternative models simultaneously included in the system of equations (Hoyle 2012). In addition, unlike simple regression models, mediator variables are allowed to covary in the SEM format, reducing overall error in the model. All models were computed using Mplus 7.14 statistical software. Because our endogenous variables are categorical, we estimate our SEM using diagonally weighted least squares. Fit statistics, including the RMSEA, CFI, and TLI, indicate an excellent fit between the model and the data. Complete estimates for the SEM are contained in Supplemental Table A3.
About this article
Cite this article
Gauchat, G., O’Brien, T. & Mirosa, O. The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere. Climatic Change 143, 297–306 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2015-z