Open AccessConflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society: Meteorologists’ Views on a Scientific and Organizational Controversy
Author(s) -
Neil Stenhouse,
Allison C Harper,
Xiaomei Cai,
Sara Cobb,
Anne Maydan Nicotera,
Edward Maibach
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
bulletin of the american meteorological society
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.367
H-Index - 197
eISSN - 1520-0477
pISSN - 0003-0007
DOI - 10.1175/bams-d-15-00265.1
Subject(s) - contradiction , politics , political science , climate change , global warming , resistance (ecology) , public opinion , scientific evidence , public relations , political economy , social psychology , environmental ethics , sociology , psychology , law , epistemology , philosophy , ecology , biology
This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects. Among members who saw a productive side to the conflict, most agreed as to why it was productive: debate and diverse perspectives enhance science. However, among members who saw an unproductive side, there was considerable disagreement as to why. Members who are convinced of largely human-caused climate change expressed that debate over global warming sends an unclear message to the public. Conversely, members who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change often felt that their peers were closed-minded and suppressing unpopular views. These two groups converged, however, on one point: politics was seen as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the debate. This suggests that scientific organizations faced with similar conflict should understand that there may be a contradiction between legitimizing all members’ views and sending a clear message to the public about the weight of the evidence. The findings also reinforce the conclusion that attempts by scientific societies to directly address differences in political views may be met with strong resistance by many scientists.