THE controversies swirling around the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the University of East Anglia鈥檚 Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in the UK have damaged the reputations not just of the institutions involved but of climate scientists in general.
In this respect, climate science is facing reputational meltdown similar to the Roman Catholic church鈥檚 over allegations of child abuse and the British parliament鈥檚 following the scandal over MPs鈥� expenses. Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence are eventually proven to be largely untrue, or confined to a few bad apples, mud sticks. The perceived wrongdoings of a few have raised doubts about the many.
The response of most climate scientists has been to cross their fingers and hope for the best. Many no doubt hope that the independent inquiries into the IPCC and CRU will draw a line under their problems. These will help, but they are unlikely to undo the damage caused by months of hostile news reports and attacks by critics.
Advertisement
Make no mistake, the damage is real. As Ralph Cicerone, the president of the US National Academy of Sciences, wrote in an in February: 鈥淧ublic opinion has moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent.鈥� He concluded that 鈥渢he perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole鈥� (vol 327, p 624).
An opinion poll at the turn of the year found that the proportion of people in the US who trust scientists as a source of information about global warming had dropped from 83 per cent in 2008 to 74 per cent. A in February found that just 26 per cent of British people now believe climate change is established as largely human made, down from 41 per cent in November last year.
Regaining the confidence and trust of the public is never easy. Hunkering down and hoping for the best 鈥� climate science鈥檚 current strategy 鈥� makes it almost impossible. It is much better to learn from the successes and failures of organisations that have dealt with similar blows to their public standing.
Climate science needs professional help to rebuild its reputation. It could do worse than follow the advice given by Leslie Gaines-Ross, a 鈥渞eputation strategist鈥� at PR company Weber Shandwick, in her recent book .
Gaines-Ross鈥檚 strategy is based on her analysis of how various organisations responded to crises, such as desktop-printer firm Xerox, whose business plummeted during the 1990s, and NASA after the Columbia shuttle disaster in 2003.
The first step she suggests is to 鈥渢ake the heat 鈥� leader first鈥�. In many cases, chief executives who publicly accept responsibility for corporate failings can begin to reverse the freefall of their company鈥檚 reputations. But not always. If the leader is held at least partly responsible for the fall from grace, it can be almost impossible to convince critics that a new direction can be charted with that person at the helm.
This is the dilemma facing the heads of the IPCC and CRU. Both have been blamed for their organisations鈥� problems, not least for the way in which they have dealt with critics, and both have been subjected to public calls for their removal. Both organisations appear to believe they can repair their reputations without a change of leadership.
The second step outlined by Gaines-Ross is to 鈥渃ommunicate tirelessly鈥�. Yet many climate researchers have avoided the media and the public, at least until the inquiries have reported.
This reaction may be understandable, but it has backfired. Journalists following the story have often been unable to find spokespeople willing to defend climate science. In this case, 鈥渘o comment鈥� is commonly interpreted as an admission of silent, collective guilt.
Remaining visible is only a start, though: climate scientists also need to be careful what they say. They must realise that they face doubts not just about published results but also about their conduct and honesty. It simply won鈥檛 work for scientists to continue to appeal to the weight of the evidence while refusing to discuss the integrity of their profession. The harm has been increased by a perceived reluctance to admit even the possibility of mistakes or wrongdoing.
The third step put forward by Gaines-Ross is 鈥渄on鈥檛 underestimate your critics and competitors鈥�. This means not only recognising the skill with which the opponents of climate research have executed their campaigns through blogs and other media, but also acknowledging the validity of some of their criticisms. It is clear, for instance, that climate scientists need better standards of transparency that allow for scrutiny not just by their peers but also by critics from outside the world of research.
It is also important to engage with those critics. That doesn鈥檛 mean conceding to arguments based on ideology rather than evidence, but there is an obligation to help the public understand the causes of climate change, as well as the options for avoiding and dealing with the consequences.
To begin the process of rebuilding trust in their profession, climate scientists need to follow these three steps. But that is just the start. Gaines-Ross estimates that it typically takes four years for a company to rescue and restore a broken reputation. Winning back public confidence is a marathon, not a sprint. But you can鈥檛 win at all if you don鈥檛 step up to the starting line.
鈥淚t typically takes four years for a company to rescue and restore a broken reputation鈥�
