Divergent Perspectives on Expert Disagreement: Evidence from Astrophysicists, Climate Scientists, Climate Policy Experts, and Non-Experts

Abstract

We report the results of an exploratory study that examines the judgments of climate scientists, climate policy experts, astrophysicists, and non-experts (N = 3,367) about the factors that contribute to the creation and persistence of disagreement within climate science and astrophysics and about how one should respond to disagreements among experts. We found that, as compared to educated non-experts, climate experts believe that within climate science (i) there is less disagreement about climate change, (ii) methodological factors play less of a role in generating existing disagreements, (iii) fewer personal or institutional biases influence the nature and direction of climate research, (iv) there is more agreement among scientists about which methods or theoretical perspectives should be used to examine the relevant phenomena, (v) disagreements about climate change should not lead people to conclude that the scientific methods being employed are unreliable, and (vi) climate science is more settled than ideological pundits would have us believe and settled enough to base public policy on it. In addition, we observed that the uniquely American political context predicted experts’ judgments about some of these factors. We also found that, in regard to disagreements concerning cosmic ray physics, and commensurate with the greater inherent uncertainty and data lacunae in their field, astrophysicists working on cosmic rays were generally more willing to acknowledge expert disagreement, more open to the idea that a set of data can have multiple valid interpretations, and generally less quick to dismiss someone articulating a non-standard view as non-expert, than climate scientists were in regard to climate science.