Recently I have begun to do some research on climate activists versus climate scientists. I was interested to learn that they are not often the same people. In fact, according to an article posted in The Guardian, many climate scientists do not support the climate activist movement because activists are known for saying “misleading and false things around climate science: to be associated with them is to lose credibility.” This is huge! Climate scientists are the ones that find out the real truth about climate issues and change and the people that are doing something about it or at least advocating are not people that these scientists would associate with. It begs the question, to what extent are these activists giving misleading information?
Thinking about this, it is so hard to distinguish between what is true and what is not, especially with the age of social media and the extreme amount of misinformation that we can see every day. Misinformation comes from those who want to create fear or the opposite, they want people to ignore the truth and get caught up in the chaos. One example of this comes from bigger Oil companies. They post misinformation and propaganda online and people start to believe that they might not be so bad and continue to funnel money their way. These companies will spend a huge amount of money to negate the truths that come from climate advocates or scientists because who is going to believe nobody, when there is a huge billionaire that says their product will “change the world” so to speak.
Another issue for scientists is the need to remain neutral. If they side with the activists or the opposite then they risk alienating one group of people which could negatively affect their work. On the other hand, some scientists have found that they feel a sense of moral obligation to participate in activism. In other words, scientists are in between two worlds and feel pulled in multiple directions. Many scientists believe that the information that they collect should be acted upon and because they found this they have a “moral duty.”
All of this in mind, I am beginning to wonder who I should look to for my information regarding climate change. There is so much turmoil and misinformation surrounding the topic of climate change that it may become murky in the next few years to find adequate answers and information. Especially considering the false information that some people feel the need to share on social media and to the public.
Navigating the complex landscape of climate change information can be challenging, as the divide between climate activists and scientists often leads to conflicting narratives, making it crucial to critically evaluate sources and seek credible, evidence-based insights.
ReplyDeleteWhat an amazing post! I think people often reference scientists and activists as the same, but they don't have to be! Anyone can be an activist and promote change in the fight against climate change and global warming!
ReplyDeleteWhile it is important to draw the line between activists and scientists, these bridges do often overlap. It is disappointing to think about some people considered to be activists spreading false information - though some individuals innocently attempting to participate in climate activism but are not as involved scientifically may not have access to some of the resources and information climate scientists have.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your description of scientists being "pulled between two worlds." With the pressing nature of climate change I would imagine it is difficult to retain a perfectly objective position. Even more so I question the value of that detachment, is it really best to be a climate scientist but not an activist? Or are those things actually indivisible?
ReplyDeleteI had no idea that climate activists and climate scientists were at odds with each other your post did a great job explaing why this is the case as well as defining the deference's between the two.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, Olivia! I never realized that many climate scientists distance themselves from activists due to misinformation concerns. It makes me wonder how can we ensure the public gets accurate climate information without losing urgency in the message? Also, should scientists be more involved in activism, or does that risk their credibility?
ReplyDeleteJust because someone is loud and passionate does not mean they are right and I like you showed this with your writing. Facts are facts and they should be what is put out there.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting perspective that I have not previously considered. Of course it is important to encourage climate activism, but their efforts are near worthless unless there is actual science to support their claims. It is crucial for these types of climate information to work hand in hand to advocate for change.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about climate change, I never really considered that the people trying to help may not be correct either. Sounds like nobody is immune to confirmation bias I guess.
ReplyDeleteSocial issues will always be a problem. I understand why climate scientists think they shouldn't get involved in the activism, but with their work they should be able to inspire more people to go out and speak out about the injustice.
ReplyDeleteA key issue here is that scientists are trained to not accept conclusions from data unless there is at least 90% certainty. But this approach is absolutely the wrong approach for governments and citizens to take - they need to be concerned less about accuracy and more about risk analysis. If there is even a 10% chance of an airplane falling out of the sky, not only would you not get on it, but the government should not allow it to fly. You don't need 90% certainty when the stakes of the risk are high. If the risks include extinction then you simply can't play with that kind of risk. 1% is too high. In this sense, it is the activists who are showing a better understanding of the problem than those scientists who fail to act with alarm.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the link to the NRDC website, there is trustworthy information at this website and in this blog post.
DeleteWow, I had no idea that there were two different groups. It makes sense that the activists would act on emotions though and not go through the trouble to look at the facts. This is a great post.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting perspective! I can totally understand scientists apprehension to be viewed as synonymous with activists due to exaggerations or controversial actions. I think that maintaining a conviction of telling only the truth will benefit them in the long run especially as climate change deniers spout misinformation that will eventually catch up with them.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the first few chapters of the language of climate politics, I have also been really interested in learning more about the differences between climate activists and climate scientists. I think it’s extremely important to know the difference between the two. Thank you for sharing this blog post.
ReplyDeleteThe divide between climate scientists and activists is something that isn’t talked about enough, and it really highlights the complexity of communicating climate science to the public.
ReplyDeleteIt can be so hard to know the truth about things when experts aren't helping people navigate these climate situations. It really is unfortunate to have to be so separated in our beliefs that scientists have to choose to be neutral rather than help.
ReplyDelete