Trust and balance: Why its so hard to communicate climate change
Science, policy, politics and post-Copenhagen trauma have become intertwined in public understanding of climate change. That can make communicating the core issues very difficult.
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee this morning asked three experts how to better engage the public on climate change. It made for a fascinating session, which captured the difficulties of communicating climate change – and threw up more questions than it answered.
Knowing who to trust
One of the most difficult issues facing anyone interested in climate change is knowing where to go for credible information. University of Glasgow sociologist Dr Catherine Happer told the committee it is increasingly difficult for the public to choose who to trust in the “digital environment”.
Indeed, blogs and social media were rated the least trusted sources of information on climate change – coming in joint last with politicians – according to a Carbon Brief poll. The public is more likely to trust scientists and meteorologists, however. Nearly 70 per cent of respondents said this group would give accurate information about climate science.
But it’s not as straightforward as rolling a climate scientist in front of a camera and expecting her or his words to win people over. It depends on where the scientist comes from, according to an Ipsos MORI poll. People trust scientists working at universities the most (84 per cent), followed by scientists working for charities (77 per cent). Scientists from environmental groups and government are trusted a little less (72 per cent), while industry scientists are trusted the least (56 per cent).
As committee member and Labour MP Jim Dowd observed, people increasingly evaluate the speaker – whether it’s David Attenborough or Jeremy Clarkson – rather than judging what they’re saying, making it very hard to change some people’s minds.
Providing “balance”
There is also the vexed issue of what counts as a “balanced” climate change debate.
While it’s very hard to measure how many scientists agree that human activity affects the climate, a number of studies suggest it’s the vast majority do. Climate science blog, Skeptical Science, recently published a peer reviewed study showing 97 per cent of scientific papers that addressed the causes of climate change agreed global warming is human-caused – a finding echoed in previous studies.
The committee noted there is a vocal minority that disagrees, however. The trouble comes when the minority view is consistently aired as prominently as the mainstream position – giving the impression of a greater controversy than there really is.
Committee member, Plaid Cymru MP Hywel Williams, asked if there was any way the minority view could be communicated without giving it undue weight in the scientific body of knowledge. Panellist Tom Sheldon from the Science Media Centre said there was no reason why it should be excluded from the airwaves, so long as it was properly contextualised.
Sheldon said what the public really wants is a “frank” debate about areas where there is genuine scientific disagreement. For example, there is currently a very technical debate rumbling on over how sensitive the atmosphere is to carbon dioxide – an area known as climate sensitivity. In such cases it makes sense to show credible scientists publicly disagreeing, says Sheldon.
Another panellist, University of Glasgow communications and social change Professor, Greg Philo, said the overall media debate needs to be reoriented. He said there is a problematic trend for newspapers to repeat eye-catching headlines about polar bears instead of having nuanced discussions about new research.
Communicating specific scientific conflicts while clarifying that they don’t contradict human-caused climate change can be challenging – and is something the media don’t always succeed in doing.
The science of science communication
There is a lot of seemingly contradictory information on climate change which can be hard to filter. But a growing body of research is yielding important insights. Yale psychology Professor, Dan Kahan, writes:
“At this point, many more scientists, government officials, and public advocacy groups recognize that a science of science communication exists and that it has generated knowledge relevant to understanding and resolving problems like political conflict over climate change.
But Kahan says not enough is being done to act on the evidence:
“â?¦ mere familiarity with the science of science communication is not sufficient. For genuine progress to be made, it is necessary for these actors and others to proceed scientifically in making use of such knowledge.”
Seeing MPs asking intelligent questions not just about the state of climate science, but about how best to communicate it, could be an important step toward creating evidence-based climate messages.