‘Scientists don’t care about truth anymore’: the climate crisis and rejection of science in Canada’s oil country

Abstract

Recent research in the area of science and technology studies focuses on climate change denial, the spread of misinformation, and public distrust in climate scientists; these beliefs are held especially by those dependent on fossil fuel extraction for their livelihoods. Many of the same individuals who deny the scientific consensus on climate change are nevertheless directly impacted by the climate crisis and environmental disasters. In fossil fuel dependent locations, do people continue to deny the scientific consensus on climate change and distrust climate scientists even after themselves experiencing a catastrophic flood? This paper investigates this question through interviews with 40 people affected by the 2013 Southern Alberta Flood, the costliest flood in Canadian history, who also live in the City of Calgary, the economic hub for Canada's tar sands. Results indicate the participants rejected the scientific consensus on climate change, voiced a distrust in the motivations of climate scientists, though hoped they would one day discover the 'truth', and worked discursively to protect the oil industry. The findings reveal the complexity of post-disaster environmental views and trust in science, as well as how fossil fuel dependence shapes these views.

General Science Skepticism: Development and Validation of a New Scale

“…Hence, they think that science itself is good, however, the "mainstream" scientists are permeated by false interests. The findings are, however, opposed to interview studies that investigated the arguments of persons who reject the climate change and who reject that lead contaminated soil in their neighborhood is detrimental (Haney, 2022;Messer et al, 2017;Sarathchandra & Haltinner, 2020). In these studies, participants most frequently expressed mistrust and doubts towards scientists' motives, the applied methods, and the presented data (which is very similar to factor 1).…”

“…Because many studies have investigated positive orientations towards science (i.e., trust in science) while largely ignoring negative aspects like distrust in science (Reif & Guenther, 2022), it is essential to also examine general negative beliefs about science. Some previous studies have found that some people who reject specific scientific facts often voice doubt and mistrust towards scientists, their used methods and data, their motives, as well as independence from other interest groups (Haney, 2022;Messer et al, 2017;Sarathchandra & Haltinner, 2020). Therefore, we argue that some persons may have developed a dysfunctional and destructive skepticism towards science and scientists (see also Bauer, 2006;Lewandowsky et al, 2013;Schmid & Betsch, 2019) that might contribute to a broad rejection of scientific claims.…”

“…In an interview study with persons who deny the anthropogenic climate change, Sarathchandra and Haltinner (2020) found that participants were skeptical and distrustful about the motives of scientists, the used methods and results of climate science, and the incentive structure of science (e.g., the influence of funders). In another interview study that examined reasons for denying the climate change, Haney (2022) found that participants believed climate scientists were using flawed data and studies, and that they were hiding the truth. Moreover, respondents expressed distrust towards scientists and were suspicious about their motivations.…”

“…The subscales focus on different targets of mistrust and skepticism like the motives of scientists (e.g., "I have doubts about the intentions with which scientists conduct their research"), the applied methods and results (e.g., "I cannot believe scientific results"), the independence from third parties (e.g., "I believe that scientific results are influenced by politics"), and the honesty and completeness of scientists' communication (e.g., "I have doubts that scientists always communicate all their findings honestly"). These four subscales are strongly oriented to the results of Haney (2022), Messer et al (2017), and Sarathchandra & Haltinner (2020). The fifth subscale focuses on science skepticism on a broader and general level (e.g., "I have doubts about science"; see Table 2 for an overview of all items).…”

Learning together out of climate change denial

“…This may well be a key antidote to conspiracy theories. We know that those working in Alberta's oil fields (the Texas of Canada), like in rural places in the US, are more likely to deny climate change (Haney, 2022), despite being more likely to have witnessed the effects of it first hand, through major floods and forest fires. When the acceptance of climate change is seen as an obligation to profess some kind of allegiance to science over religion or to self-flagellation over having fun, or as the necessary rejection of our friends and family, we all lose.…”