From climate skeptic to climate cynic

Abstract

Whilst we know quite a bit about organized forms of climate skepticism, very few studies focus on how disorganized climate skeptics seek an underdog position to speak truth to power. Hence, we investigate frank speech as updated ancient forms of truth-telling 'parrhesia', in two Swedish empirical sources that strongly question the climate change consensus. The first is a digital space for free speech, and the second a focus group of climate skeptics. Tracing 'epistemic skepticism' and 'response skepticism', we inquire into the attempts to counter scientific expertise and the different ways to refuse to act in accordance with officially sanctioned advice. We analyze the details of climate cynic truth-telling in relation to truthtelling as provocation, as ethical practice and as exhibition of a specific aim. We explore how the climate skeptic turns into a climate cynic, and discuss how alternative truth construction forms an anticlimate ethical selfhood. We end by problematizing how parrhesia is linked to ethical relativism, and argue that the recognition of climate cynicism facilitates our understanding of how conflicting political realities about climate change are produced.

A Climate Backlash: Comparing Populist Parties’ Climate Policies in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden

“…Climate science has for long been subjected to organized denial campaigns, which has affected the public discourse (Oreskes & Conway, 2011). Recent studies also show how disorganized climate “skeptics” seek an underdog position in the debates in order to “speak truth to power” (Skoglund & Stripple, 2019). According to Fischer (2019, p. 148), for example, climate science deniers are convinced that climate scientists are part of the political strategy of a “left-wing truth regime that promotes planning and regulation of the economy, strictures on social and economic freedoms, and more top-down (if not authoritarian) forms of government.” Similarly, studies have analyzed and confirmed the link between a far-right ideology and climate denialism, for example, in the German context (Forchtner et al, 2018).…”

“…There is a need for both conceptual and empirical work to improve our knowledge of the broader argumentation on climate change put forward by authoritarian populists (see also Skoglund & Stripple, 2019). We take initial steps in addressing this research gap through the introduction of an analytical framework for various political strategies aimed at opposing ambitious climate policies.…”

The contrasting roles of science and technology in environmental challenges

“…Instead, technical training only serves to help them to use selective scientific evidence more effectively. Climate scientists have been challenged on their objectivity, by skeptics within politics, the media, and the public (Skoglund & Stripple, 2018). While most evidence indicates that such accusations may be overstated (Bromley-Trujillo, Stoutenborough, & Vedlitz, 2015), with no strong indication that the scientific community is blurring the lines of scientific objectivity, there remains a risk that a significant increase in advocacy by scientists could be an unwelcome change, decreasing the likelihood that their discussions of the risks of climate change would be believed.…”