7 reasons communicating climate science is tough
The message from the world’s climate scientists is clear: Earth is warming and humans are responsible. Almost all climate scientists (>97%) agree that human activity is a significant contributor to the increase in the average global temperature. But based on the same study, only 58% of the public agree.
There’s clearly a complicated interaction between scientific opinion and what the public thinks. Here are 7 complicating factors we plucked from the science communications literatureâ?¦
1. Hot days change people’s minds
One study, published just last week, showed that people who felt that the day was hotter than normal were more likely to show concern about climate change. The weather was almost as big a factor as people’s political belief in opinions about climate change.
2. â?¦As does being affected by climate change
People who have had direct experience of the adverse impacts of climate change were also found to show more concern over climate change. This increased level of concern was thought to arise from their greater familiarity with the adverse impacts. Of course, the reverse also holds – if you haven’t been visibly impacted by climate change, you’re going to be less concerned about it.
3. People can engage with ‘the science’, but it can also polarise views
Researchers investigating whether people could find trends in the global temperature record found that all the people they asked to examine the data identified an upwards trend – regardless of their views on climate or whether they knew the graphs showed temperature data.
While this suggests that people are perfectly capable of engaging with ‘the science’, other research shows that people are more likely to be influenced by evidence from someone with similar views, and that explaining the science behind the issue is likely to further polarise people.
4. Media coverage influences public opinion
Media coverage of climate science also plays an important role in public perception of climate science. Climate media expert Max Boykoff concludes that “US prestige-press coverage of global warming from 1988 to 2002 has contributed to a significant divergence of popular discourse from scientific discourse.” It’s probably as true for climate as it is for any other topic – accurate media coverage matters.
5. Perversely, the internet can make it hard to find good quality information
The internet is an amazing tool for tracking down information of all kinds. However, without wanting to be killjoys about the whole thing, assessing the quality of the information on offer – particularly around a contentious topic like climate science – can be tricky.
Sir Paul Nurse points out that searching the Internet for scientific material on the topic throws up a huge amount of information, giving equal weighting to everything from peer-reviewed scientific papers to conspiratorial blog posts, and unless you invest serious time to find out, it can be hard to know what sources are credible.
6. Data doesn’t speak for itself
Maybe trying to compare the scientific consensus on climate with the weight of public opinion is a bad idea. Professor Andrew Hoffman points out that there are two separate processes: one by which a scientific consensus is formed and another by which a social and political consensus is reached:
“The first part is the domain of data and models and physical science. The second is very much a social and political process. And that brings to the fore a whole host of value-based, worldview-based, cognitive and cultural dimensions that need to be addressed.”
He also makes the point:
“when I hear scientists say, “The data speak for themselves,” I cringe. Data never speak. And data generally and most often are politically and socially inflected.”
His take is that this is a debate about values and culture –
“to ignore that – you will never resolve it and you will end up in what I have described a logic schism, where the two sides talk about completely different things, completely different issues, demonizing the other, only looking for things that confirm their opinion. And we get nowhere.”
7. It’s just complicated!
Well, that’s our paraphrase, anyway. A recent paper in Nature Climate Change points out that:
“â?¦Public understanding of climate science deserves the strongest possible communications science to convey the practical implications of large, complex, uncertain physical, biological and social processes.”
In other words, climate science is complicated and difficult to communicate, particularly when it’s accompanied by a serious effort by ‘sceptic’ lobbyists and commentators to muddy the waters.
Like this article? Get our RSS feed or find us on twitter and facebook.