Communicating

Climate
Change

THE INFORMATION-DEFICIT
MODEL
We teach the science,
people learn it,
it changes their attitudes,
they change their behavior
K A B

THE INFORMATION-DEFICIT MODEL FAILS

DUE TO SELECTIVE EXPOSURE
People choose content consistent with their

existing values & beliefs

Exposure then reinforces existing beliefs
Exposure to opposing views is rare
When it does occur, counter-arguing is high,
distortion may occur

AUDIENCE ABILITY TO
UNDERSTAND CLIMATE SCIENCE
VARIES

About 20% of the public can read and understand

the science section of The New York Times

About half understand probability.

About 35% understand experimental design.

-- Miller, 2004

AUDIENCE MOTIVATIONS FOR

PROCESSING SCIENCE
INFORMATION DIFFER FROM
MOTIVATIONS
COMMUNICATORS
social uses in conversation
social norms that people should be informed on

public issues

the information is personally useful

climate change involves particularly complex

information, so the entry costs are very high

So communicators on climate change must

operate within these constraints:
1.The issue is polarized, with conservative sources
disputing the reality, human causes, & need for
mitigation.
2.Many Americans have low science literacy, and
low interest, both of which reduce the likelihood
of people learning the science.
3.The complexity makes heuristic processors of
many people, which means that source credibility
becomes extremely important.

Now, there is no proof of manmade global

warming. That's why they say consensus. And as
we all know, there cannot be a consensus if there
is science. Science is not up to a vote.
-- Rush Limbaugh, Aug. 14, 2008

The reason not to rely on a scientific consensus

in these matters is that this is not how science works.
After all, scientific advances customarily come from a
minority of scientists who challenge the majority view
or even just a single person (think of Galileo or
Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method
and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a
show of hands.
-- S. Fred Singer, August 2007

WRONG:Consensus Isnt Science

"Scientific knowledge is the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of
available empirical evidence, and evaluated according to accepted methodologies.If we feel that a policy
question deserves to be informed by scientific knowledge, then we have no choice but to ask, what is the
consensus of experts on this matter. --Naomi Oreskes, Historian of Science
#1: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#2: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#3: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#4: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#5: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#6: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#7: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#8: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#9: You have a serious condition that must treated immediately delay means serious health concerns
#10: You have a mild, natural condition that is not serious no need to do anything at this timeDoctors

Doctors #1 -#9 are active, well respected, and well published in medical
journals.Doctor #10 has not worked for years and has not published in
medical journals.

WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THE SCIENTISTS

OPPOSED TO AGW?

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs

CONSIDER THE SOURCE.

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to
undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global
climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.(National Academy of Sciences)

http://www.ievpc.org/id1.html
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/case
y johnbioandphotocurrent.pdf
http://mediamatters.org/print/blog/2010/05/15/hoft-runs-with-globalcooling-warning-from-scam/164798

WHAT ABOUT GALILEO?

They laughed at Galileo but they also laughed at

Bozo the Clown! --Carl Sagan

According to the University of Illinois'

Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea
ice levels now equal those of 1979.
according to the U.N. World
Meteorological Organization, there has been
no recorded global warming for more than a
decade, or one-third of the span since the
global cooling scare.
-- George Will, Dark Green Doomsayers,
The Washington Post, Feb. 15, 2009

We do not know where George Will is getting his

information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979,
global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on
February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq.
km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km
less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease
in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas,
California, and Oklahoma combined.
It is disturbing that the Washington Post would
publish such information without first checking the facts.
University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center website:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Why So Much Misinformation?

1.Industry-backed Lobby Groups
2.Journalism Style & Mass Media
3.Political Ideology

POLITICAL IDEOLOGY

Conservatives and libertarians abhor industry and

personal regulation.
Regulation of industry and personal carbon
limitation are essential to mitigate global warming.

CONCLUSIONS:
1. An overwhelming majority of international climate experts
agree about much of the tenets of AGW and are honest.
2. An overwhelming majority of international climate experts
are ignorant about their own expertise in a sudden and
collective manner.
3. Scientists have all agreed to conspire to delude the billions
of folks on the planet and just a very tiny percentage of
them (mostly unpublished and with ties to Big Oil) are
trying to save us all from this mass hoax.

QUOTES:

AMERICANS BELIEFS REGARDING THE CAUSES OF CLIMATE

CHANGE
BORD & OCONNOR, 1999
Regardless of whether you know much about global warming, please indicate whether you
think each of the following is a major or primary cause of global warming, a minor or secondary
cause, or not a cause at all.
Response categories: major or primary cause; minor or secondary cause; not a cause at all.

major or
primary
cause:

pollution/emissions from business and industry

70%

people driving their cars

50%

use of coal and oil by utilities or electric companies

46%

people heating and cooling their homes

13%

destruction of tropical forests.

66%

use of aerosol spray cans

25%

use of chemicals to destroy insect pests

28%

depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere

65%

nuclear power generation

21%

Current Public Opinion on Key Beliefs

Climate change is real.

72%

I am certain it is real.

extremely sure
very sure

25%
27%

It will be bad.

very bad (-3)

somewhat bad (-2)

38%
23%

Humans are causing it.

Humans can fix it.

57%
can & will
could, but outcome is unclear

6%
51%

PUBLIC COMMUNICATORS
SHOULD SHAPE THEIR
MESSAGES TO THE CURRENT
INFORMATIONAL NEEDS,
VALUES & BELIEFS OF THEIR
AUDIENCES

PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY

HIGHLY CONCERNED ABOUT
CLIMATE CHANGE NEED:
Information on:
personal lifestyle changes,
effective public policy responses, and
the efficacy of these actions & policies in mitigating
climate change.
They dont need more risk information, which

may lead them to despair.

PEOPLE WHO SHOW SOME

CONCERN, BUT ARE STILL
LARGELY ON THE FENCE NEED:
To understand that theres a scientific consensus
To understand that humans caused climate change &

humans can fix it

To understand both the danger and the urgency of

climate change

CLIMATE SKEPTICS ARE

UNLIKELY TO BE PERSUADED.
HOWEVER
Their greatest concern is government regulation
They may be influenced to support green energy by

arguments about energy independence & benefits to

the economy

Insurance metaphors may speak to them

Moral/religious duty may motivate some to accept

climate protection policies

IF I WERE A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

SPEAKING
TO THE PUBLIC, ID TRY TO

Emphasize what I know, instead of what I dont

know: we know climate change is real

Make clear the implications of my findings, in terms

of humans impacts, in the simplest, clearest language

possible: its impacts are bad

Be positive about the potential for mitigation:

humans can fix it

Speak from my own values convey what climate

change means to me: for the heuristic processors

Additional resources for communicators,

may be found at :
http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/