“Civil disobedience by scientists has the potential to overcome the myriad complexities and confusion surrounding the climate crisis,” the researchers wrote in an article published in the journal Nature Climate Change on Monday. “When those with expertise and knowledge are willing to convey their concerns in a more uncompromising way… this gives them particular effectiveness as a communicative act. This is Greta Thunberg’s insight when she calls us to “act as you would in a crisis.” In recent months, scientists have shown that they are increasingly willing to engage in direct action to draw attention to the climate crisis. A “scientists’ riot” mobilized more than 1,000 scientists in 25 countries in April, while in the UK several scientists were arrested for sticking scientific papers – and their hands – to the glass facade of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The article was co-authored by five climate scientists: Stuart Capstick, Aaron Thierry, Emily Cox, Steve Westlake and Julia K. Steinberger. A sixth shot was taken by Oscar Berglund, a political scientist at the University of Bristol who studies civil disobedience and social movements. A note attached to the article revealed that all the authors had “participated in and offered support to groups conducting civil disobedience to push for climate action.” Berglund said: “What we’re saying in the article is that getting involved in these kinds of things can really add weight to the message that this is a crisis. that these are decent people who know more than anyone else about how deep we are and are taking this kind of action – non-violent direct action, civil disobedience. “We have here a kind of what we call epistemic authority: people listen to what we say, as scientists, and it becomes a way of showing how serious the situation is, that we see ourselves forced to go to these lengths.” The article acknowledged that by taking political action, scientists would be criticized for abandoning their impartiality. But he added that readers should ask whether the “traditional ways of researching and communicating” science are prompting a response from decision-makers responding to the enormity of the crisis. Archie Bland and Nimo Omer take you to the top stories and what they mean, free every weekday morning Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online advertising and content sponsored by external parties. For more information, see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and Google’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. He said: “The widespread notion that the sober presentation of evidence by an ‘honest broker’ to those in power will achieve the best interests of populations is not in itself a neutral perspective on the world. Instead, it is conveniently unthreatening to the status quo and often rather naïve. “In addition to documenting the climate crisis in ever greater detail, we are compelled to consider how we might act in new ways to help bring about a necessary and urgent transformation. “Meanwhile, we have long since reached the point where civil disobedience by scientists has become justified.”
