Less thanhalf of Americansbelieve that human race are causing climate variety . For some scientists trying to advocate ways to tackle it , this can risk tarnishing their reputation in the eye of the public .
But a new work in the journalEnvironmental Communicationhas some good word . They ’ve found that when it comes to clime scientists , their credibility is not harm , nor that of the scientific community , when they make their views public .
carry out by researchers at George Mason University ’s Center for Climate Change Communication in Virginia , US , the study used a fictional scientist to post example statements on Facebook and approximate the reaction of people .
The investigator had 1,235 participant take part in an online sight experimentation , rate six posts by a fancied scientist call Dr Dave Wilson . They were given one of two bios for him , where he was either a climate scientist , or the principal meteorologist at a local television place .
Each post referenced a fictitious consultation Dr Wilson had done with the Associated Press , with a short verbal description of a point of discussion in the consultation . Participants were then asked to rate Dr Wilson ’s credibility , his perceived goals , and his motivations .
In one of the posts , Dr Wilson mentioned “ that stage of high - trapping carbon dioxide in our atmosphere have reached 400 parts per million , ” which was used to highlight a recent determination . In another , he argued that a solution to climate variety is to “ work up more nuclear power plant ” .
The credibleness of the scientist was chance not to be harmed in five out of the six statements , save for the latter one that suggested building more nuclear big businessman plant . The investigator indicate this means the public are more likely to object to a assertion when a specific standpoint is endorsed .
This was the least popular comment in terms of credibility . Kotcher et al
The investigator also found that , in general , conservative responded more negatively to Dr Wilson than liberals , having more skepticism towards clime scientists . But overall the researchers were overconfident , say that citizenry were uncoerced to hear scientific grounds .
" We hope that our finding at least help stimulate a more evidence - based conversation among scientist , ” read lead story source John Kotcher , a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at George Mason University in astatement .
It seems , then , that scientist should n’t be too queasy about in public share fact on climate alteration and other topic . And advocate for action – such as the upcomingMarch for Sciencearound the macrocosm – wo n’t harm a person ’s credibility .
