Bob Ward is policy and communications director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science
A new survey showing how public opinion in Norway has been affected by controversies surrounding climate science may also have important implications for the UK.
The TNS Gallup survey was published to coincide with a conference in Oslo, organised by the British Council, the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research and Oxford Global Media, on the challenges of communicating with the Norwegian and British media about climate change.
The results of the poll carried out in late November and early December 2010, showed that while a clear majority of the Norwegian public still accept that "climate change is man-made", the percentage had declined to 65 per cent compared with 74 per cent in autumn 2009.
This very small, but detectable, change in opinion is slightly larger than that found in a Guardian/ICM survey last month which indicated that the proportion of the UK public agreeing that "climate change is being caused mainly by man" had decreased only slightly to 68 per cent from 71 per cent in August 2009.
Such an impact in the UK is surprisingly small given the amount of negative media coverage following the unauthorised release of e-mail messages from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the identification of a mistake in the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Indeed a YouGov survey carried out in December 2009, just a couple of weeks after self-proclaimed sceptic bloggers started to spread the e-mails across the internet, found that only 21 per cent of the public agreed "the planet is warming and human activity is mainly responsible". The Guardian/ICM poll last month suggests that opinions have rebounded back since then and the majority of the public are now in accord with the scientific consensus. But does that mean the public trusts climate researchers and the work they produce?
The Norwegian survey shows that public confidence in research may have been more badly affected, with just 39 per cent agreeing that they "trust climate science in general" to a large or very large extent.
The pollsters attribute this result to lingering doubts over the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even though an independent review by the InterAcademy Council attempted to draw a line under its troubles at the end of August 2009.
In the UK, the Yougov survey in December 2009 found that only 41 per cent of the UK public thought that climate scientists could be trusted to "tell the truth about global warming". Although there was no earlier baseline against which to measure these findings, an annual Ipsos MORI survey of public opinion about the professions has consistently concluded that scientists are trusted to tell the truth by about two-thirds of the population.
A more recent survey of UK public opinion about trust in climate scientists has not been published, so we do not know for sure if their reputation has recovered. However, the negative media coverage in the UK surrounding the so-called "Climategate" e-mails could have had a bigger impact on public opinion because it focused on one of its most famous research centres.
Five separate investigations into the e-mails, by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the Independent Climate Change Review, the International Science Assessment Panel, Pennsylvania State University, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, found that the allegations of serious misconduct and fraud were without basis. However, media coverage for these was rather muted compared with the months of speculation and accusation that followed the appearance of the e-mails. Indeed sceptics have continued to use the e-mails to try to undermine the reputations of climate researchers, and have simply rejected the findings of all of the inquiries.
The research community also has to accept a large part of the blame for the harm that has been caused to the reputation of climate science. The University of East Anglia was largely left to defend itself against the tsunami of criticism from across the globe without the public support of other institutions, which failed to recognise and respond to the threat of collateral damage to the reputation of UK climate researchers in general.
The Royal Society, traditionally the standard bearer for the scientific community, spent much of 2010, the annus horribilis for climate researchers, paralysed by the demands of 43 of its 1489 Fellows that it should be more equivocal about the risks posed by climate change. Only in recent weeks has the UK's national academy started to provide a clear lead with a vigorous defence of climate science by its new president, Paul Nurse, in a BBC Horizon programme, called "Science under attack", which has been greeted with hysterical outrage by sceptics.
The Natural Environment Research Council has been virtually invisible over the past 15 months, even though it is the major funder of climate research in the UK. And just when it should be launching a major push to help climate researchers to restore confidence in their profession, it is busy planning for a 12 per cent reduction in real terms in its resource budget over the next four years as a result of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.
In the United States, a survey in June 2010 found that 50 per cent of the public thought that global warming is "caused mostly by human activities", down from 57 per cent in November 2008 but up from 47 per cent January 2010.
Similarly, those stating that they strongly or somewhat trusted scientists as a source of information about global warming dropped to 74 per cent in January 2010 from 82 per cent in November 2008, but rose again to 81 per cent in June 2010. Although the impact on public opinion has been relatively small, more than 100 scientists have now formed the Climate Science Rapid Response Team to increase the quality and quantity of reliable information available to the media and politicians.
To earn greater public trust, there must be a sustained effort by climate researchers to engage more fully with the outside world, showing the public not only that their science is sound, but also that their ethical standards and professionalism are beyond reproach. In particular researchers need to emphasise their commitment to transparency and openness, as well as to the rigour and quality of the work they carry out.
This would make more clear to the public and the media that a huge gulf exists between the standards practised by the research community and those adopted by sceptic groups, such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
 |  |