It’s not just conservatives who dismiss science that doesn’t suit them.

While there is a lot of evidence that people with conservative (“hierarchical individualist”) leanings are more likely to ignore science that conflicts with their worldview than liberals (“egalitarian communitaritarians”), a new study shows that the right context can reduce liberal support for science too. Because many liberals dislike the idea of geoengineering - deliberately manipulating the Earth’s climate to offset climate change - portraying climate science as supportive of geoengineering can result in them being more dismissive of the science, while it actually brings more conservatives on board.

This study is interesting for a few reasons. First, it’s good to know ways that people might seek to undermine science. Seeing that geoengineering can touch a nerve amongst people who are usually science supporters prepares us to head off criticism by working for particularly good governance of any geoengineering efforts. 

Second, it’s clear from the study that liberals are still much more trustful of climate science than conservatives, whether it’s framed in terms of geoengineering or not. While conservatives are slightly less distrustful in the geoengineering case, they’re still distrustful. So framing is not a silver bullet to bring people on board with the accuracy of peer-reviewed science.

Lastly, the study’s authors suggest that this approach of choosing the right cultural framing for scientific information can help reduce polarisation about science. Presumably the idea is to mention geoengineering when reporting about science to conservative audiences, and steer clear when reporting the same science to liberal audiences. This might work, but ultimately the audiences will still be very polarised when it comes to agreeing on what actions to take based on the science, and this might even be exacerbates if no attempt is made to engage them both on the same courses of action. Getting acceptance of the science is important, but it’s acceptance within a cultural context that enables action that’s really essential, and this approach might actually undermine that.

(Source: papers.ssrn.com)