Politicians are retreating from net zero because they think the public doesn’t care. But they’re wrong | Rebecca Willis

Politicians are retreating from net zero because they think the public doesn’t care. But they’re wrong, says @bankfieldbecky.bsky.social - Our research shows people are strongly in favour of measures to tackle the #climatecrisis - they just need to be heard www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

happy to profile our research in The Guardian today

Excited my paper on 'fluid hope' has been published 🙂 Tldr: There are different forms of hope in a climate emergency -- including urgent, slow, and radical hope. They often support one another, rather than being at odds. @lydiamessling.bsky.social @climatecitizens.bsky.social

Look! Hope! The public *actually want and support* climate policies - contrary to whatever apathy may be rumoured. Stellar analysis of the outputs from citizen assemblies and juries - literally the policies the public have designed themselves and would green light tomorrow.

The public want action on adverts for high-carbon products and services. And so so many members of the public want this, and MORE. Fantastic work and stats analysis from @bankfieldbecky.bsky.social and the Climate Citizens research group. 👏 👏 👏

In today’s highly politicized debate about #ClimateChange, what role should scientists take? Should they be #advocates for action & policy? @lydiamessling.bsky.social et al. asked 47 climate scientists & found 4 concerns, e.g,, risk of biased science & need to defend science. doi.org/10.1177/0963...

1️⃣ There’s much debate about the role of scientists in climate advocacy, but we often overlook the core concerns behind their arguments. In our latest publication 🔍, we map these concerns based on interviews with 47 climate scientists! journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

New paper out: Our paper investigating climate scientists’ fundamental concerns about climate advocacy has just been published in Public Understanding of Science. w/ great coauthors @lydiamessling.bsky.social @christelvaneck.bsky.social Check it out here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

📣NEW PAPER: ‘Advocacy - defending science or destroying it?’ Our interviews with 47 climate scientists provide detailed explanations on all the good things about policy advocacy and the legitimate concerns with threats to the integrity and credibility of science. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

I research how scientists bring all of themselves to their research. Here's something from a survey I did with 50 scientists and few interviews: How scientists think about the relationship between creating excellent scientific evidence and being a person of faith. 👇

Big news! The 'all scientists who do climate' feed now stands at: 🌏 3500 MEMBERS 🌎 ...more than it ever had on Twitter! Huge welcome to #3949, my fav colleague @brasmus.bsky.social, and #3500, @johndparker.bsky.social, who says he’s “not good at social media.” No longer, John! Pin it here ⬇️

At the COP29 climate summit, Keir Starmer said he wasn't going to tell people how to live their lives. That's not what people want to hear. I've written about what he could have said instead. climatecitizens.org.uk/climate-citi...

New blog post from Rebecca Willis on why Keir Starmer said the wrong thing at COP 29: people want government to speak up, not shut up, on climate change. climatecitizens.org.uk/climate-citi...

🚨 NEW REPORT: We summarise our recent research on how the public currently feel about climate change – what action they want and what they find frustrating – and offer three priorities for policy makers that will help achieve better climate action. climatecitizens.org.uk/new-report-p... 1/5

Keir is out of touch saying "what we're not going to do, is start telling people how to live their lives" as sounds like government is 'hands-off' with climate. All the research points to a very serious desire for government to get involved and deliver the scale change needed to live our lives.

I'm seeing a lot of free-floating hot takes these days re what scientists "should" and "shouldn't" be doing in today's increasingly anti-science atmosphere. Philosophers have been discussing this topic for centuries and there is a rich + robust body of scholarship on this topic. As we discuss here.

Whilst also looking like it’s taken its inspiration from a Sponge Bob meme, the new jaguar branding ain’t good for climate comms either. 1/6 #jaguar #climatecomms #JLR #wholivesinapineappleunderatree

Great speaking with David Powell about climate scientists and advocacy on this podcast 👇 He's done an epic edit to tell a bit more of a story and get us thinking about the issues and non-issues with scientists engaging in advocacy - chapeaux! 1/4 www.yourbrainonclimate.com/1817605/epis...

Work hack:Struggling with the/a cold? Finding work subject matter depressing? Working from home and share an office with your partner? Blast out the Lion King sound track and experience warmth radiate from your face. #Hakunamatata

Yes! @christelvaneck.bsky.social and @lydiamessling.bsky.social and I argue that claims that science must be separated from activism - particularly on thorny ethical and socially relevant issues like climate change - are fundamentally flawed.

What do people want from government on climate change? This new briefing summarises our research, and says that people want action, but don't trust government. We suggest a much more upfront dialogue with citizens. climatecitizens.org.uk/new-report-p...

It's not so much 'getting the public onboard' but more 'they're there and they're waiting for the train to leave'. New research summary and findings from Climate Citizens 1/6

sorry all here's the link link.springer.com/article/10.1...

Science doesn't exist in a vacuum. Values always play a role, especially in thorny issues like climate change. Here, @christelvaneck.bsky.social, @lydiamessling.bsky.social & I argue it's time to move beyond the pipe dream of neutrality + empower scientists to engage openly with societal values. 🧪

📣New paper with @christelvaneck.bsky.social and @katharinehayhoe.com about how it’s a myth to think that climate science can be ‘neutral’. I’m not going to say it’s ground breaking, but apparently it still needed to be said and we have ideas about what to do next. www.nature.com/articles/s44...