“…there are some political and social crises in which even a small degree of suspicion of scientific authorities can have disastrous consequences. One such crisis is the climate change emergency…The strategy is to overcome cultural [resistance] by convincing citizens that the relevant scientific consensus is likely not to be a threat to their values because that same consensus is accepted by those with similar values.” - Should I Do as I’m Told? Trust, Experts, and COVID-19 Matthew Bennett Kennedy, Institute of Ethics Journal September 2020

This is such nonsense. Even “a small a small degree of suspicion of scientific authorities can have disastrous consequences”? Excuse me, but “scientific authorities” do not speak in one voice. For example, climatologists may generally agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but there is absolutely no agreement on how much, how bad or how fast. For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2021) indicates that global surface temperature are very likely to rise between 1.0°C to 5.7°C by 2100, with a best estimate range of between 1.4°C and 4.4°C. That’s a big spread.

When you consider that original claims of a “consensus” on climate change were based on shoddy science, different definitions of what the consensus actually was (see here and here) and a motivation to intimate skeptics, why should anyone start trusting scientific pronouncements on climate change now? Or even if you accept that potentially catastrophic climate change is happening (as I do), why should anyone stop questioning the science of climate change? One can take or support decisive action without being absolutely sure it is the right action based on a correct understanding of the relevant facts. Doctors and patients do it all the time. So do military commandos and soldiers.

Keep in mind that intellectual humility is central to the scientific mindset. That’s why scientists often hedge their claims with disclaimers to the effect that “the evidence suggests that such-and-such is the case but more research is needed.” If scientists allow themselves the possibility of being wrong, why should we banish all doubt about their guidance?

Per the Britannica Dictionary, to be skeptical is to have or express “doubt about something (such as a claim or statement)”. Skepticism is a matter of degree, as is trust, as is certainty. It’s better to measure these states on a continuum - say, 1-10 - than as either/or categories. One can be a teeny bit, somewhat or highly skeptical. Skepticism - and its effect on action-decisions - is also relative. You may be somewhat doubtful that your doctor’s recommended treatment will work but it seems reasonable given the alternatives. Ditto how one feels about expert guidance re Covid.

Which brings me to the all-too-frequent assertion that differences in attitudes or opinions boil down to differences in values: a condescending way of saying it’s all about feelings and not facts or logic. But values, like emotions, don’t happen without a process of appraisal - that is an act of judging the nature of something or someone - especially in relation to important concerns. In other words, appraisal is an empirical process that considers “facts and logic”. And you can’t understand someone’s values unless you understand how their see their world. And how they see their world typically bears some relationship to what’s actually the case.

Which brings me back to Covid and trusting scientists. Several studies have found that strong social trust acts as a barrier to behavior necessary to reduce spread of the virus. For example, one study found that Norwegians who strongly believed most people could be trusted were less worried about Covid and were less willing to comply with the governments' infection control measures. A Swiss study also found that social trust was negatively correlated with fear of Covid. Possible explanation:

“If people believe that most people are trustworthy, they may be less willing to think of everyone else as a potential health threat (that they carry a virus), and they will consider personal protective measures less important.” - Reiersen, Roll, et al. (2022)

Note: social trust is about judging the nature of people, i.e., appraisal. If you want to persuade people to change their behavior in some way, focus on their understanding of reality. Then listen, and if you disagree, say so and explain why.

Here’s a thought: Americans who live in small towns and rural areas tend to be higher in social trust than those who reside in big cities. Perhaps that’s an important reason they’ve been less willing to follow expert guidance on Covid. Someone should do a study on it.

References: 

IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

Reiersen, J., K. Roll, et al. (2022). "Trust: A Double-Edged Sword in Combating the COVID-19 Pandemic?" Frontiers in Communication 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.822302