Latest news

Study across 24 countries suggests the fossil fuel industry has reshaped conservative political values in the US and Australia

• Sign up to receive the latest Australian opinion pieces every weekday

If you reckon the 11 September terrorist attacks might have been an “inside job” or there is a nefarious new world order doing whatever it is the illuminati do, what are you likely to think about the causes of climate change?

Academics have suggested that people who tend to accept conspiracy theories also underplay or reject the science showing humans are causing rapid and dangerous climate change.

Related: We are approaching the Trumpocene, a new epoch where climate change is a big scary conspiracy | Graham Readfearn

I think it’s a result of two things. First, a lot of the big business interests that are threatened by climate change are situated in the US. My overall argument is that there’s nothing inherent to political conservatism that makes people want to reject climate science.

Rather, the link between conservatism and climate scepticism only emerges in countries that are economically threatened by the notion of responding to climate change. When the vested interests are high (in terms of the fossil fuel industry, for example) then there is more of a motivation for big business to engage in an organised campaign of misinformation around climate change. These campaigns often develop as a collaboration between the fossil fuel industry and conservative thinktanks, media and politicians, and are designed to “coach” conservatives to believe that the climate science is not yet settled. From this perspective, conservatives don’t spontaneously feel the need to reject climate science; they only do so when they are taking their cues from conservative elites, and these cues only emerge when the economic stakes are high.

In the US people advertise their climate scepticism like they’re advertising their political gang colours

I think it plays a massive role. In many countries, climate scepticism is not part of the language of the conservative parties. But in Australia and America it is. So in those countries being a climate sceptic starts becoming part of the package of attitudes that you’re supposed to have if you’re a good conservative. The obvious example of this is in the US. Of the 17 candidates who campaigned to be the Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential campaign, the majority were climate change sceptics. So people’s sense of what it means to be a Republican in America has expanded to incorporate something that shouldn’t really be political, like climate science. There, people advertise their climate scepticism like they’re advertising their political gang colours. It’s not quite as bad here, but threatened to become like that during the [Tony] Abbott era.

I think it’s all about vested interests. When the vested interests are high, the fossil fuel industry and conservative thinktanks, media and politicians collaborate in an organised campaign of misinformation. In my data, the link between conservatism and scepticism is really only obvious in countries with high per capita carbon emissions. If you think of per capita carbon emissions as a measure of how fossil fuel reliant a country is, then this makes sense. In countries with low fossil fuel reliance – where the vested interests are low – then there’s no need to kick off a campaign of misinformation, and no motivation to believe one either.

Yes, but most conservatives aren’t paying that much attention. I really think conservatives have to be trained and coached to pay attention, and to see the issue through the lens of their worldviews. In the 1980s you didn’t see conservatives get upset about governments shutting down CFCs to protect the ozone layer. Technically the issue was the same – government regulations curbing the freedom of industry – but because the vested interests were low there was no need for conservative elites to fight back.

As the negative consequences of climate change become more severe and more immediate, I think the ideological element will fade away (although by then it’s likely to be too late, sadly). The other option is to use what I call “jiujitsu” persuasion techniques; to talk about climate mitigation in a way that aligns with people’s underlying ideologies rather than competing with them. There’s already evidence that if you frame climate change mitigation as something that’s sympathetic to free markets, or as a patriotic act designed to maintain energy security, or as a chance to generate green jobs, then conservatives are less likely to resist the science.

• You can read Matthew Hornsey’s paper in Nature Climate Change

Trio who wrote climate paper had no idea they were referenced more than 2.8 million times

An academic paper on global climate zones written by three Australians more than a decade ago has been named the most cited source on Wikipedia, having being referenced more than 2.8m times.

But the authors of the paper, who are still good friends, had no idea about the wider impact of their work until recently.

Related: Australian academics seek to challenge 'web of avarice' in scientific publishing

Recent research on the rate of Antarctic ice melt points to the effect of warm föhn winds

Scientists have long known that the amount of ice in the Antarctic is steadily decreasing. They were surprised, however, to discover recently that up to a quarter of the melting occurs in the depth of winter, when the average temperature is 15C below freezing. The melting is caused by a phenomenon called the föhn effect.

The föhn or foehn wind was first noted in the Alps, and occurs when a wind blowing over mountains descends on the far side. The increase in pressure at lower altitude causes the mass of air to warm up by about one degree per hundred metres. Such a wind blowing down from a high mountain range can easily rise above freezing. The Chinook wind in the Rocky Mountains is sometimes called “snow eater” for its capacity to strip snow from the slopes.

People used to roll their eyes at my gloomy talk of climate change. Then the big blaze came.

By Christina Nichol

In 2017, the weather in California was the hottest in history. It was hotter than in 2016, which was also the hottest in history. The vineyard owners spoke nervously of how difficult it was to find people willing to pick grapes in this heat. The apple trees dropped all their apples. Over the summer the smoke from hundreds of wildfires burning throughout the state gave me a chronic cough, which turned into walking pneumonia. People began to talk about how illnesses are getting weirder these days. I decided to attend a climate change action meeting I had seen announced in the local newspaper.

It was an experimental prototype course founded on the ideas in George Marshall’s book Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. After spending 15 years studying climate change-denying microcultures, Marshall concluded that facts don’t change people’s minds – only stories do. We’re so motivated by wanting to belong that we’d rather risk the dangers of climate change than the more immediate symbolic death of estrangement from our peers. In order to address climate change in our communities, Marshall suggests, we must appeal to the same desires that religion does: belonging, consolation and redemption.