Public perceptions of a polarised climate debate predominantly frame the key actors as climate scientists (CSs) versus sceptical voices (SVs); however it is unclear why CSs and SVs choose to participate in this hostile and antagonistic public battle. This research uses a narrative interview approach to better understand the underlying rationales behind 22 CSs and SVs engagement in the climate debate. It focuses in particular on potential overlaps between previously polarised individuals as well as each actor’s ability to be critically self-reflexive about their own opinions about climate change, as well as of the opinions of those who hold different views. Several overlapping rationales are identified such as a sense of duty to publicly engage, agreement that complete certainty about the complex assemblage of climate change is an unattainable prospect, and that political factors are a key topic of interest in the climate debate. The paper concludes that a focus on potential overlaps in perceptions and rationales as well as the ability to be critically self-reflexive may encourage constructive discussion even amongst actors who had previously engaged in purposefully antagonistic exchange.

Keep in touch with the Grantham Research Institute at LSE
Sign up to our newsletters and get the latest analysis, research, commentary and details of upcoming events.