‘I Love Science,’ but ‘Climate Science Completely Misses the Mark’: Understanding Criticism of Climate Science Institutions Among Those Using a Scientific Repertoire

This study aims to advance our understanding of criticism of scientific institutions by those who are scientifically oriented. To this end, we focus on a strategic case: criticism of climate science among people who use a scientific repertoire. An abductive analysis of 20 in-depth interviews highlights the existence of a ‘science confidence gap’, that is, self-ascribed affinity with modern scientific methods and principles, but distrust of climate science institutions. Our investigation illustrates how respondents equate a good scientific attitude with an individualist epistemology. Engaging in a form of boundary work, they argue that climate science institutions stifle such an individualist epistemology. More specifically, respondents identify five mechanisms that inhibit the scientific rigour of climate science: (1) ‘consensus-thinking’; (2) institutional path-dependency; (3) political agenda-setting; (4) the negativity bias inherent in the scientific endeavour; and (5) the ‘unscientificness’ of climate models. This study demonstrates empirically what a scientific critique of scientific institutions entails and how it can be understood. Our findings may inspire future research on criticism of scientific institutions in other fields.