Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-cfh4f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T15:24:08.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who are the 3 Per Cent? The Connections Among Climate Change Contrarians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

Laura D. Young Open the ORCID record for Laura D. Young [Opens in a new window]  and
Erin B. Fitz Open the ORCID record for Erin B. Fitz [Opens in a new window]
Laura D. Young*
Affiliation:
Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, USA
Erin B. Fitz
Affiliation:
Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, USA.
*
*Corresponding author. Email: lyoung6@ggc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite 97 per cent of scientists agreeing on anthropogenic global warming, the remaining 3 per cent play a critical role in keeping the debate about climate consensus alive. Analysis of climate change contrarians from multi-signatory documents reveals 3 per cent of signees to be climate experts, while the remaining 97 per cent do not meet expert criteria and are also involved with organizations and industries who make up the climate change countermovement. The data also reveal most contrarians to be aged sixty-five or older. As a result, we explore other factors (for example, collective memories and ideological views) that may have also contributed to expert and non-expert views.

Keywords

climate changeclimate change denialneoliberalismcollective memoriesthink tankslaissez-faire economics

Information

Type
Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 1503 - 1522
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allison, E and Mandler, B (2018) Geoscientists in petroleum and environment. American Geosciences Institute. Available from https://www.americangeosciences.org/geoscience-currents/geoscientists-petroleum-and-environment (accessed January 14, 2021).Google Scholar
Anderegg, et al. (2010) Expert credibility in climate change. PNAS 107, 107–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Antonio, RJ and Brulle, RJ (2011) The unbearable lightness of politics: climate change denial and political polarization. The Sociological Quarterly 52, 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkin, JM and House, ER (1981) The federal role in curriculum development, 1950–80. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 3, 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bali Open Letter (2007) The Paris Climate Challenge. Available from https://pcc15.org/2007-bali-open-letter/ (accessed April 27, 2021).Google Scholar
Beck, C (2006) Peiser refuted Oreskes—in a poor piece of work that has been retracted by its author. Grist. Available from https://grist.org/article/peiser-refuted-oreskes/ (accessed December 13, 2020).Google Scholar
Beder, S (2001) Neoliberal think tanks and free market environmentalism. Environmental Politics 10, 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benestad, RE (2013) Comment on “Discussions on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming” by Scafetta (2013). Pattern Recognition in Physics 1, 91–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benestad, RE et al. (2016) Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 126, 699–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Björnberg, KE et al. (2017) Climate and environmental science denial: a review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. Journal of Cleaner Production 167, 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boykoff, MT (2011) Who Speaks for Climate? Making Sense on Media Reporting on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueck, H (2018) This week in 1912, a newspaper printed a spot-on warning about our warming world. We're living in the future it predicted. Business Insider. Available from https://www.businessinsider.com/newspaper-in-1912-linked-coal-to-climate-change-2018-8 (accessed November 4, 2020).Google Scholar
Brulle, RJ (2014) Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of the U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations. Climatic Change 122, 681–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrk, T (2011) The Koch brothers: what you need to know about the financiers of the Radical Right. American Progress Action. Available from https://www.americanprogressaction.org/press/release/2011/04/04/15979/release-the-koch-brothers-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-financiers-of-the-radical-right/ (accessed January 24, 2021).Google Scholar
Center for Public Integrity (2018) Why the Koch Brothers Find Higher Education Worth Their Money. Available from https://publicintegrity.org/politics/why-the-koch-brothers-find-higher-education-worth-their-money/ (accessed January 8, 2021).Google Scholar
Cook, J et al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8(2), 024024, Retrieved from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, J et al. (2016) Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters 11(4), 048002, Retrieved from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doran, PT and Zimmerman, MK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90, 22–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunlap, RE and Jacques, PJ (2013) Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 699–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellsberg, D (2003) Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Foley, KE (2017) Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed. Quartz. Available from https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/ (accessed December 18, 2021).Google Scholar
Foote, E (1856) Circumstances affecting the heat of the Sun's rays. American Journal of Art and Science 22, 382–383.Google Scholar
Gamble, VN (1997) Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. American Journal of Public Health 87, 1773–1778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gauchat, G (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review 77, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gongaware, TB (2011) Keying the past to the present: collective memories and continuity in collective identity change. Social Movement Studies 10, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, S (2015) Exxon knew about climate change almost 40 years ago: a new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation. Scientific American. Available from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (accessed December 12, 2020).Google Scholar
Heartland Institute (2016) Journalists’ Guide to Global Warming Experts. Available from https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/journalists-guide-to-global-warming-experts (accessed January 15, 2021).Google Scholar
Homans, C (2010) Hot air: why don't TV weathermen believe in climate change? Columbia Journalism Review. Available from https://archives.cjr.org/cover_story/hot_air.php?page=all (accessed January 24, 2021).Google Scholar
Hope, M (2018) Climate science deniers’ favourite journal just got overhauled—and it could lead to a skeptic shutout. DeSmogUK. Available from https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/02/23/climate-science-deniers-favourite-journal-just-got-overhauled-and-it-could-lead-skeptic-shutout (accessed December 10, 2020).Google Scholar
ICSC (The International Climate Science Coalition) (no date) The Climate Scientists’ Register. Available from http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=289 (accessed April 27, 2021).Google Scholar
ICSC (2015) ICSC Mission Statement. International Climate Science Coalition. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20150818030357/http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=703.Google Scholar
ICSC (2008) Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. Available from http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1 (accessed April 27, 2021).Google Scholar
Idso, CD, Carter, RM, and Singer, SF (2015) Why scientists disagree about global warming: the NIPCC report on scientific consensus. The Heartland Institute. Available from https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming (accessed April 26, 2021).Google Scholar
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2020) Climate Change and Land: Summary for Policymakers. Available from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/02/SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf (accessed April 28, 2021).Google Scholar
Jackson, R (2019) Eunice Foote, John Tyndall, and a question of priority. Notes and Records 74, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, P et al. (2008) The organization of denial: conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Environmental Politics 17, 349–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinne, O (2003) Climate research: an article unleashed worldwide storms. Climate Research 24, 197–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahsen, M (2013) Anatomy of dissent: a cultural analysis of climate skepticism. American Behavioral Scientist 57, 732–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindzen, R (2017) Lindzen Petition. Available from https://stoneforge.com/2017/03/10/lindzen-petition/ (accessed January 16, 2021).Google Scholar
Liverpool John Moores University (2011) Dr Benny Peiser. Available from http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/ (accessed January 20, 2021).Google Scholar
Mannheim, K (1952 [1928]) The problem of generations. In Kecskemeti, P (ed.), Karl Mannheim: Essays. London, England: Routledge, pp. 276–322.Google Scholar
Martinez, A and Christnacht, C (2021) Women are nearly half of U.S. workforce but only 27% of STEM workers. United States Census Bureau. Available from https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html#:~:text=The%202019%20American%20Community%20Survey,and%20earn%2084.1%25%20of%20men (accessed April 12, 2021).Google Scholar
McCright, AM (2007) Dealing with climate change contrarians. In Moser, SC (ed.), Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 200–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, AM and Dunlap, RE (2011a) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly 52, 155–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, AM and Dunlap, RE (2011b) Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change 21(4), 1163–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, AM et al. (2013) Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Climatic Change 119, 511–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, AM et al. (2014) Political polarization on support for government spending on environmental protection in the USA, 1974–2012. Social Science Research 48, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCright, AM et al. (2016) Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics 25, 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKewon, E (2012) Talking points ammo: the use of neoliberal think tank fantasy themes to delegitimise scientific knowledge of climate change in Australian newspapers. Journalism Studies 13, 277–297.Google Scholar
Miller, J (1983) Scientific literacy: a conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus 112, 29–48.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P and Plehwe, D (2009) The Road from Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Multi-Science (2010) Energy and Environment. Available from http://www.multi-science.co.uk/ee.htm (accessed April 20, 2021).Google Scholar
Nimmesgern, H (2016) Why are women underrepresented in STEM fields? Chemistry—A European Journal 22, 3529–3530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
NRC (National Research Council) (2013) Emerging Workforce Trends in the U.S. Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action. Available from https://www.nap.edu/read/18250/chapter/1 (accessed January 12, 2021).Google Scholar
Nuccitelli, D (2015) Here's what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers. The Guardian. Available from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers (accessed April 12, 2021).Google Scholar
O'Neill, SJ and Boykoff, M (2010) Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian? PNAS 107(39), E151–152.Google ScholarPubMed
Oreskes, Naomi (2004, Dec.) “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Science Magazine. (306), p. 1686.Google ScholarPubMed
Oreskes, N and Conway, EM (2010) Merchants of Doubt. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.Google ScholarPubMed
PCC15 (Paris Climate Challenge 2015) (2015) The Paris Climate Challenge. Available from https://pcc15.org/ (accessed December 20, 2020).Google Scholar
Peiser, B (2005) The letter Science Magazine rejected. Energy and Environment 16, 685–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center (2015) Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Available from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf (accessed March 4, 2021).Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2016) Public Views on Climate Change and Climate Scientists. Available from https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/ (accessed April 13, 2021).Google Scholar
Pew Research Center (2020) Americans’ Views of Government: Low Trust, but Some Positive Performance Ratings. Available from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/09/14/americans-views-of-government-low-trust-but-some-positive-performance-ratings/ (accessed April 20, 2021).Google Scholar
Piller, C (1991) The Fail Safe Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Plehwe, D (2014) Think tank networks and the knowledge–interest nexus: the case of climate change. Critical Policy Studies 8, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRP (Pattern Recognition in Physics) (2014) Editors in Chief. Available from http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/general_information/editorial_board.html (accessed April 18, 2021).Google Scholar
Rahmstorf, S (2012) Is journalism failing on climate? Environmental Research Letters 7, 1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scafetta, N (2013) Discussion on common errors in analyzing sea level accelerations, solar trends and global warming. Pattern Recognition in Physics 1, 37–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, H and Scott, J (1989) Generations and collective memories. American Sociological Review 54, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soon, W and Baliunas, S (2003) Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years. Climate Research 23, 89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, RW and Braswell, WD (2011) On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance. Remote Sensing 3, 1603–1613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stand Together (2020) Frequently Asked Questions with Charles Koch and Brian Hooks: Do You Advocate Public Policies as a Way to Help Your Donors’ Businesses? Available from https://standtogether.org/do-you-advocate-public-policies-as-a-way-to-help-your-donors-businesses/ (accessed January 19, 2021).Google Scholar
Sturken, M (1997) Tangled Memories: The Vietnam War, the AIDS Epidemic, and the Politics of Remembering. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tol, RS (2016) Comment on “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.” Environmental Research Letters 11(4), 48001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Linden, SL et al. (2015) The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PLoS One 10(2), e0118489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, W (2011) Taking responsibility on publishing the controversial paper “On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance” by Spencer and Braswell. Remote Sensing 3(8), 1603–1613. Remote Sensing 3, 2002–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, S (2019) Climate deniers launch personal attacks on teen activist. Scientific American. Available from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-deniers-launch-personal-attacks-on-teen-activist/ (accessed November 14, 2020).Google Scholar
Ward, B (2015) Without evidence, Ariz. rep. questions climate scientist's impartiality. The Hill. Available from https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/234478-without-evidence-ariz-democrat-questioning-climate (accessed January 21, 2021).Google Scholar
Weart, S (2008) The Discovery of Global Warming. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weise, E (2019) “How dare you?” Read Greta Thunberg's emotional climate change speech to UN and world leaders. USA Today. Available from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/09/23/greta-thunberg-tells-un-summit-youth-not-forgive-climate-inaction/2421335001/ (accessed December 8, 2020).Google Scholar
Workman, J (2019) “Our house is on fire.” 16 year-old Greta Thunberg wants action. World Economic Forum. Available from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/our-house-is-on-fire-16-year-old-greta-thunberg-speaks-truth-to-power/ (accessed January 24, 2021).Google Scholar
Yergin, D and Stanislaw, J (1998) The Chicago School. In Yergin, D and Stanislaw, J (eds), Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy. New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 145–149. Available from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_chicagoschool.html (accessed January 25, 2021).Google Scholar
Young, LD and Fitz, EB (2021) “Replication Data for Who are the 3 Per Cent? The Connections Among Climate Change Contrarians”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LOO1QN, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:PL+6OQB7R5RMCkkA8oKlnw== [fileUNF]Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Young and Fitz Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/LOO1QN
Link