Global study finds political left more trusting of climate scientists than right

(Press-News.org) A sweeping 26-country study reveals a consistent gap in trust toward climate scientists based on political ideology, with right-leaning individuals reporting lower trust than their left-leaning counterparts. The divide is especially stark in wealthier democracies and English-speaking nations, according to the research, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology (link is external and opens in a new window). The findings expand on past studies focused primarily on Western, English-speaking contexts.

“While climate scientists currently maintain fairly high levels of public trust—ranging from 58 percent in North America to 84 percent in South Asia—that trust is not held evenly across all groups,” says senior author Kai Ruggeri, PhD, professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. “The political divide in trust isn’t inevitable. In fact, the popularity of most climate policies is dramatically underrated, even across that divide. To have a better balance, we must engage all political perspectives and foster trust that transcends ideology.”

Trust in climate scientists is central to effective policies being implemented successfully because public support for climate policies is known to be linked to the level of trust in climate scientists. Furthermore, the links between fossil fuel emissions, warming temperatures, and how they are changing our climate, through frequent extreme weather events, as one example, often cannot be understood through direct experience. 

Analyzing survey data from 10,641 participants across 26 nations, researchers found political ideology significantly influences trust in climate scientists—with a few exceptions. While right-leaning individuals showed lower trust in 22 countries, the pattern reversed in China and Indonesia, where left-leaning respondents were more skeptical. In Egypt and Georgia, political views made no difference, suggesting climate change remains less politicized in these regions. On average, participants identified as politically centrist.

Development, Democracy, and Emissions

The link between political views and distrust of climate scientists was strongest in wealthier, more democratic countries with high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Researchers call this the “post-industrial paradox”—as nations develop, some people may see science as less essential to progress, making them more skeptical. In democracies, political divides can deepen this distrust. High-emitting countries also face well-funded misinformation campaigns, often from fossil fuel interests, that undermine trust in climate science.

Does Education Breed Distrust?

The researchers report some preliminary evidence that the link between political ideology and distrust of climate scientists may be slightly stronger among more educated individuals versus those with less education. While the difference is small, higher education may enable people to selectively interpret scientific information through an ideological lens—potentially deepening partisan divides on climate issues.

A Few Limitations
Participants were mostly young, and there was an over-representation of educated women compared to the general population, so the researchers say their findings might not apply to everyone. They also used simple yes/no-style questions about trust and political views, which can't capture all the complexities of these topics. They note that it is important to distinguish between trusting climate science and trusting climate scientists, as people may feel differently about each. Future research could explore these nuances in more depth.

Implications for Communications

The study highlights the need for climate communication strategies that address ideological divides. To increase trust among right-leaning audiences, researchers recommend emphasizing climate change’s immediate impacts rather than distant future consequences and partnering with trusted local figures—from community leaders to political representatives—who can authentically convey scientific consensus. These approaches must be carefully adapted to national contexts, given how the politics of climate trust vary across borders.

“Failing to consider the perspectives of entire populations will inevitably create roadblocks for evidence-based policies. Closing this gap requires meeting people where they are, through messengers and messages that resonate across ideological lines,” says Ruggeri. “What is especially unique about this study is that it was led entirely by students and early career researchers, who took the initiative to make creative use of data on an extremely important topic.”

A list of study authors is available in the journal article linked above. All team members were connected through the Junior Researcher Programme, which also partners with Columbia’s Global Behavioral Science Initiative.

END