A groundbreaking international study spanning 26 countries has unveiled a significant and persistent divide in public trust toward climate scientists, shaped heavily by political ideology. Conducted by researchers connected with Columbia University and published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, the study reveals that individuals with right-leaning political views display markedly lower levels of trust in climate scientists compared to their left-leaning counterparts. This phenomenon is especially pronounced in affluent, democratic nations and predominately English-speaking countries, expanding upon prior research largely focused on Western contexts to a global scale.
The research, which analyzed responses from over 10,000 participants, highlights a crucial challenge at the intersection of science, society, and politics. Despite relatively high overall trust in climate scientists—ranging from approximately 58% in North America to 84% in South Asia—this trust is unevenly distributed. Co-author and senior researcher Dr. Kai Ruggeri cautions against viewing political polarization as inevitable, emphasizing that climate policies enjoy greater popularity than often assumed, even among divergent ideological camps. The key to advancing effective climate action, Ruggeri argues, lies in fostering comprehensive engagement across the political spectrum and building trust that transcends entrenched ideological divisions.
Understanding the dynamics of trust toward climate scientists is of paramount importance given that successful climate policies depend fundamentally on public support. This support is closely linked to whether citizens perceive the scientific community as credible and trustworthy. Yet, climate change uniquely challenges direct experiential understanding. Unlike tangible everyday phenomena, the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increases manifest through complex, sometimes indirect mechanisms such as shifting weather patterns, rising sea levels, and increasing frequency of extreme events. Consequently, acceptance of climate science is often mediated by political beliefs rather than personal observation.
Intriguingly, the study reveals exceptions to the general trend linking right-wing ideology with skepticism: in China and Indonesia, individuals on the political left demonstrated more distrust of climate scientists than those on the right. Conversely, respondents from Egypt and Georgia exhibited no significant association between political orientation and trust, suggesting that in certain countries climate change remains a less politically charged issue. Across the dataset, most participants positioned themselves near the political center, underscoring nuanced attitudes rather than marked extremes dominating public opinion.
A central insight from the research concerns what the authors refer to as the "post-industrial paradox." This concept describes how in wealthier, more democratic nations with significant greenhouse gas emissions, skepticism towards climate science can deepen. As societies transition into post-industrial phases with economies less reliant on traditional manufacturing or resource extraction, portions of the population may begin to question the utility of science as a driver of progress. Simultaneously, in these contexts, political divides tend to sharpen, further entrenching mistrust. Moreover, high-emitting countries often face concerted and well-resourced misinformation campaigns, frequently funded by fossil fuel interests, which systematically undermine scientific consensus.
The relationship between education and climate trust emerges from the study’s findings in a complex light. Preliminary evidence suggests that among individuals with higher education levels, the correlation between political ideology and distrust of climate scientists may intensify slightly. The researchers hypothesize that education can equip people with skills to interpret scientific information analytically, but it can also enable selective cognitive filtering, leading individuals to reinforce preexisting partisan biases. This phenomenon potentially complicates efforts to build unified support for climate action, as advanced understanding does not automatically translate into greater acceptance.
Methodologically, the study’s reliance on survey data and self-reported yes/no style questions introduces limitations worthy of consideration. The participant pool was somewhat skewed towards younger demographics and included an overrepresentation of educated women compared to the general population, potentially affecting generalizability. Besides, the binary nature of trust and political identification questions may mask the subtleties and spectrum of beliefs that exist in real-world attitudes towards climate science and scientists. Most importantly, the researchers caution against conflating trust in climate science—the body of scientific knowledge itself—with trust in individual climate scientists, which can differ substantially.
From a communications standpoint, the study offers prescriptive insights aimed at bridging the ideological trust gap. To enhance trust among right-leaning audiences, the authors recommend framing climate change in terms of immediate, local impacts rather than distant, abstract future threats. The use of trusted community figures, including political representatives and local leaders who resonate authentically with these populations, is highlighted as a critical strategy. Tailoring messaging to national and cultural contexts is essential, recognizing the significant variability in how climate trust intersects with political values around the world.
The research also stresses that ignoring or marginalizing entire segments of the population based on political affiliation risks erecting substantial barriers to implementing evidence-based climate policies. A key message emphasized by Dr. Ruggeri is the imperative to "meet people where they are" by leveraging credible messengers and crafting compelling narratives that transcend traditional ideological fault lines. This approach not only strengthens democratic engagement but is fundamental to the societal shifts required to mitigate climate change effectively.
Notably, the study was spearheaded by a team predominantly consisting of students and early-career researchers, affiliated with the Junior Researcher Programme and Columbia’s Global Behavioral Science Initiative. This dynamic and interdisciplinary collaboration demonstrates the value of innovative, diverse perspectives in tackling globally significant problems like climate trust and policy acceptance.
Taken together, these findings underscore the multifaceted relationship between political ideology, trust in science, and climate change communication. They compel policymakers, scientists, and communicators to adopt more nuanced and targeted approaches that acknowledge ideological divides without allowing them to stagnate policy progress. Embracing complexity, avoiding one-size-fits-all narratives, and fostering inclusive dialogue across diverse political landscapes appear imperative to cultivating broader support for climate solutions worldwide.
As the climate crisis intensifies and transcends national borders, the challenges elucidated by this 26-country study highlight critical pathways for future research. In particular, more granular exploration of how educational attainment interfaces with ideological filters, and deeper investigations into differences in trust toward climate science versus scientists themselves, could yield actionable insights. Additionally, expanding demographic diversity in participant samples and employing more sophisticated measurement tools would enrich understanding of this delicate sociopolitical landscape.
Ultimately, the research invites a powerful reevaluation of how science engagement is conceptualized in modern democracies confronted by high stakes and stark ideological cleavages. It charts a course for moving beyond polarization, fostering trust through nuanced communication, and ensuring that climate science fulfills its central role in guiding effective, evidence-based policy action at local, national, and global scales.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Trust in Climate Scientists is Associated with Political Ideology: A 26-Country Analysis
News Publication Date: 28-Apr-2025
Web References:
- Journal of Environmental Psychology Article
- Climate Policy Popularity Study
- Junior Researcher Programme
- Global Behavioral Science Initiative
References: DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102609
Keywords: Climate change, Political science, Communications
