Climate Cynicism is Way Worse than Climate Skepticism.

You may not be familiar with the two terms, but you can almost be sure that you have or will meet people belonging to one of these categories one day. So don't get fooled by them, and beware who you might think is the most dangerous between the two.

These days, who is able to say that he or she has not heard about news on climate change, or heard the topic mentioned once? Are we sufficiently smart to remember weather patterns accurately enough to be sure that the episodes of snow we experienced during our childhood (for those who lived in higher latitudes or altitudes) were more frequent than what we see today? Probably not. But weather stations don't lie. Unless they malfunction, they record data without bias, and this data shows clear patterns of warming all around the world.

Most of us are thus confronted one day with the following question: should I believe in global warming or not? If you are a regular reader of this news and blogging website, you probably believe global warming is real and may even wonder why I am even raising this point. Most of us are not scientists, and when we are, being an expert on one domain of science does not automatically makes us an expect in a completely different domain. Hence, our choice in the belief (or not) of climate change is often, to some extent, a question of whether we trust the climate scientists, their institutions, and any other actor commenting on the same issues.

In 2020, the World Economic Forum interviewed ten thousand people over 30 countries to ask them their opinion about climate science (article here). They asked them a fundamental questions: How much do you trust what scientists say about the environment? What would you have replied to such a question? What do you think the results would be for your country? Well, if you are in a citizen of these countries, here are the results:

Source: World Economic Forum

If you are not shocked by this chart, let me present a reason for you to be. The first five countries in this ranking are India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China and Turkey. The last five (among 30), are France, USA, Ukraine, Japan and Russia. According to the World Population Review, the rankings of these countries by the percentage of literacy of the population were, in 2020, respectively (34, ?, ?, 24, 31) for the top countries, and (5, 1, 38, 11, 21) for the bottom. We don't have the estimates for Bangladesh and Pakistan, but shouldn't we already be surprised, even shocked, by the fact that the most educated countries are far from being the ones trusting scientists the most?

What pushes populations, in countries so well known for the quality of their scientific institutions, to be so doubtful about science? Is it education itself? It it cultural? In addition to that, let us mention that the GDP per capita, in 2022 and according to worldometers.info, was placing these two sets of countries at rankings of (120, 121, 129, 72, 50) and (25, 8, 104, 38, 52), respectively. Here also, it is hard to see how inhabitants of rich countries would not trust science which has helped so much their economies, the development of communication media, learning tools, etc., while inhabitants of poor countries do.

What else does the World Economic Forum study tells us? Well, first, and as you can check by yourself on its webpage, the survey has shown that most population around the world did not display more trust about what scientists say between years 2019 and 2020. On the contrary, the percentages mostly decreased by a few percentage points. But also, and in appearance quite contradictory to what we might think, the percentage of populations that were believing global warming does not exist was low in all parts of the world, including in the United States, with less than 10%. How can we reconcile these facts and make sense of it?

It appears that some of the most educated and rich countries in the world, and in fact their populations, have shifted from climate skepticism [the doubt or disbelief in the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, is largely caused by human activities (such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation), and poses significant risks to the environment, human health, and the economy,] ... to climate cynicism [a position that might accept the science of climate change but expresses doubt, apathy, or disillusionment about the efforts to address it]. While skepticism is a healthy characteristic of an educated population when facts are lacking on a given issue, it is way more problematic when the amount of evidence is so large that it becomes uncomfortable for educated people to go against it, but develop a spirit of cynicism that consists in finding any possible reason not to believe in clear evidences, and not accept a share of responsibility or guilt.

What are the reasons behind this unhealthy cynicism? Could it be the denial from certain country's populations (or politics) about their responsibility in today's climate change through their past emissions? Could it be a protective attempt to maintain wealth and refuse to admit some level of responsibility with respect to poorer nations, sometimes the least prepared against climate change? Or could it simply be a lack of courage to see the reality as it is found in populations that have the most access to education, news, and scientific knowledge?

Whatever the reason might be, it seems fair to think that a climate skeptic may often just need to be exposed to more science and, if being reasonable enough, would have a good chance after all to admit the reality of climate change and its consequences. However, a climate cynic could be much less prone to change his or her mind, retrenched behind protective mechanisms that may have more to do with emotional maturity, self-confidence and capacity to choose hope over fears, than it has to do with science or scientists efforts to popularize their findings.

Here, we believe science helps us see the world in a more accurate way, and scientists will certainly play a role in fixing climate change. We value skepticism when evidences are missing. But maybe more importantly than all that, we choose hope and positivity rather than cynicism.