Societies increasingly rely on scientists to guide decisions in times of uncertainty, from pandemic outbreaks to the rise of artificial intelligence.
Authors
- Omid Ghasemi
Research Associate in Behavioural Science at the Institute for Climate Risk & Response, UNSW Sydney
- Ben Newell
Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Director of the Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney
Addressing climate change is no different. For governments wanting to introduce ambitious climate policies, public trust in climate scientists is pivotal, because it can determine whether voters support or resist those efforts .
So do people trust climate scientists, and what affects levels of trust? Our new study shows climate scientists are less trusted than other types of scientists globally. But there are profound variations in this trust gap between countries, and within them.
Finding ways to increase trust in climate scientists is crucial if the world is to implement effective policies to avert dangerous global warming.
Examining trust in science
We collaborated with an international team of researchers to analyse data from one of the largest cross-national surveys of public attitudes toward science . The dataset includes responses from nearly 70,000 people across 68 countries. It offers a rare global snapshot of how people perceive scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular.
Each of these people rated their trust in climate scientists on a five-point scale, with a five indicating very high trust and a one being not trusted at all.
Trust in scientists more generally was assessed using a 12-item questionnaire that measured perceptions of expertise, integrity, benevolence and openness. The responses were averaged to create a composite trust score. Higher scores reflected higher levels of trust.
We found trust in scientists was moderately strong worldwide, as it was above the midpoint of the scale (averaging 3.6 out of 5). But trust in climate scientists was slightly lower (averaging 3.5). The difference between the two scores is what we call the "trust gap".
In 43 of the 68 countries, the trust gap was statistically significant, with people reporting lower trust in climate scientists than in scientists in general.
The size of the trust gap varied between countries. In Europe, Oceania (including Australia and New Zealand) and North America the gap tended to be smaller. Larger gaps emerged in parts of Latin America and Africa.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo had the widest gap, with climate scientists trusted less than in any other country. This may reflect local concerns that global climate agendas - often supported by international scientists - prioritise resource extraction for foreign renewable energy demands over local interests. Such feelings may be particularly acute in regions where mining has brought limited community benefit.
Six countries bucked the trend. Climate scientists were more trusted than scientists overall in China, Taiwan, South Korea, Egypt, Israel and Germany.
In China and Germany, this may reflect strong investment in green energy , high levels of public support for climate action , and the visible role climate scientists play in shaping policy.
What's going on here?
Not surprisingly, people with more positive views of science tended to express higher trust in scientists and even more so, climate scientists. But people with dim views of scientists were less trusting of climate scientists.
Age also played a role. Older people tended to trust scientists more than younger people. But younger people were more likely to trust climate scientists.
Climate scientists were generally less trusted than scientists regardless of gender. While men reported slightly lower trust in scientists than women did, the difference was not statistically significant.
Among all the variables we examined, political orientation emerged as one of the strongest factors associated with trust in climate scientists. People with right-leaning or conservative views reported lower trust in climate scientists compared with those with more left-leaning or liberal views.
However, the meaning of terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" can vary considerably between countries. For example, in Australia, the Liberal Party is politically right-leaning. But in the United States, "liberal" typically refers to left-leaning or progressive views. This variation makes cross-national comparisons complex and requires careful interpretation of results.
As a particular person's political orientation shifted further to the right, the trust gap between climate scientists and scientists widened.
In 28 countries across the Americas, Europe and Oceania, right-leaning orientation was associated not only with lower trust in climate scientists than people who leaned to the left, but also with a larger gap between trust for scientists generally and trust for climate scientists.
In a smaller subset of countries, particularly in parts of Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe, the pattern reversed - right-leaning individuals expressed greater trust in climate scientists than their left-leaning counterparts.
These findings suggest it is not political orientation alone that drives public trust, but how climate issues are framed in political discourse. In many Western countries, public messaging around climate change - particularly from conservative parties and media - has cast doubt on the credibility of climate science . This politicisation, often amplified by vested interests such as fossil fuel lobbies , may help explain the erosion of trust among some conservative groups.
Closing the trust gap
Trust alone will not solve the climate crisis, but it plays a crucial role in shaping how societies respond to scientific guidance .
Ambitious, evidence-based policies require public support to succeed. A persistent trust gap - no matter how small - can undermine that support and help explain why many governments continue to fall short of their climate targets.
Closing the trust gap through transparent communication , inclusive public engagement , and consistent political leadership is essential for turning awareness into action.
Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science.
Ben Newell receives funding from The Australian Research Council.
