Connie Roser-Renouf, PhD

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

The information-deficit model fails because ability & willingness to process

information vary

• Systematic vs. heuristic processing• Systematic processing is based on a rational

evaluation of information• Heuristic processing relies on cognitive

shortcuts: Do I like & trust the source?• Attitude change achieved through heuristic

processing is shallow, unstable, and anything learned is easily forgotten.

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

communicators’ motivations

• 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.

Who takes action in response to personal & societal threats?

The people who….

• recognize and understand the threat & its urgency: risk perceptions

• believe that action to reduce the threat will be effective: outcome expectancy

• feel motivated and empowered to take personal action: self-efficacy

Key Beliefs Among Those Who Support Aggressive Climate Change Policies

• Climate change is real

• I am certain that it’s real

• It’s bad for people

• People caused it

• People can fix it

The Origins and Consequences of Democratic Citizens’ Policy Agendas: A Study of Popular Concern about Global Warming. Krosnick et al., 2006

Most of the results reported in the subsequent slides are from a recent

nationally representative survey, conducted in the fall of 2008.

Please note that these results reported are preliminary, and may be subject to

revision.

25%

27%

17%

3%

19%

1%

4%

3%

3%

0% 30%

Extremely sure it'shappening

Very sure it's happening

Somewhat sure it'shappening

Not at all sure it'shappening

Don't know

Not at all sure it's nothappening

Somewhat sure it's nothappening

Very sure it's nothappening

Extremely sure it's nothappening

Belief in the Existence of Global Warming

24%

43%

29%

4%0%

45%

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree

“I have personally experienced the effects of global warming.”

28%

17%

15%

14%

13%

6%

5%

4%

4%

54%

49%

43%

37%

64%

60%

43%

34%

43%

18%

14%

20%

20%

23%

19%

25%

30%

37%

33%

49%

14%

22%

26%

4%

10%

22%

25%

20%

33%1%

4%

0% 100%

Scientists

Environmental organizations

Al Gore

Barack Obama

Fanily & friends

Television weather reporters

Religious leaders

John McCain

The mainstream news media

Corporations

Strongly trust Somewhat trust Somewhat distrust Strongly distrust

Trust in Information Sources

18%

3%

33%

47%

0%

50%

Don't know enough tosay

Most scientists thinkglobal warming is not

happening

There is a lot ofdisagreement

Most scientists thinkglobal warming is

happening

What Do the Scientists Think?

“Within the lifetimes of most Americans now living, today’s media-manufactured alarm about man-made global warming might be an embarrassing memory. The nation will then be better off because Bush – during whose administration the embarrassing planet warmed not at all – refused to be stampeded toward costly ‘solutions’ to a supposed crisis that might be chimerical, and that, if real, could be adapted for considerably less cost than will be sunk in efforts at prevention.”

-- George Will, Newsweek, Jan. 26, 2009

“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/

“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

“I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen," he said. "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going" either.

- Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy,

“California farms, vineyards in peril from warming, U.S. energy secretary warns,”

Los Angeles Times, Feb. 4, 2009

11% 12% 12%

51% 50%53%

29% 30%27%

9% 9% 8%

0%

100%

Causes Consequences Ways to Reduce

Not at allinformed

Not very wellinformed

Fairly wellinformed

Very wellinformed

Self-Assessed Knowledge

3% 2% 2%

8%

24% 23%

38%

0

0.4

Never heardof globalwarming

+3 - verygood

+2 +1 -1 -2 -3 - very bad

Evaluation of Global Warming

45%

44%

31%

22%

21%

13%

11%

10%

17%

17%

22%

28%

28%

26%

24%

22%

8%

7%

11%

13%

15%

20%

23%

24%

10%

13%

13%

14%

17%

19%

22%

20%

22%

24%

24%

22%

23%

23%

23%

9%

0% 100%

Plant and animal species

Future generations of people

People in developing countries

People in other industrializednations

People in the US

Your community

Your family

You personally

A great deal A moderate amount Only a little Not at all Don't know

Who Will Be Harmed, and How Much?

43%

42%

39%

41%

39%

39%

38%

31%

32%

22%

24%

23%

24%

24%

24%

24%

22%

19%

18%

14%

14%

15%

14%

15%

15%

16%

20%

20%

23%

1%

1%

0%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

0%

19%

19%

22%

19%

20%

21%

21%

26%

27%

25%33%

0% 100%

Droughts & water shortages

Severe Heat Waves

Intense hurricanes

Extinction of plant and animal species

Intense Rainstorms

Famines & food shortages

Forest Fires

Disease epidemics

Refugees

People living in poverty

Many more A few more No difference A few less Many less Don't know

Types of Harm Global Warming Will Cause

1% 1% 4%

32%

5%

57%

0%

60%

Don't know Other Neither becauseglobal warmingisn't happening

Caused mostlyby naturalchanges in

environment

Caused byhuman

activities andnatural changes(volunteered)

Caused mostlyby humanactivities

The Cause of Global Warming

1% 3% 1%

6%1%

15%

3%

32%

4%

4%

11%

15%

1%1%1%

0%

60%

Neither because globalwarming isn't

happening

Caused mostly bynatural changes in the

environment

Caused by humanactivities and natural

changes

Caused mostly byhuman activities

Not at all informedon the causes ofglobal warming

Not very well-informed on thecauses

Fairly well-informedon the causes

Very well-informedon the causes

Self-Assessed Knowledge of the Causes of Climate Change by Beliefs about the Causes

American’s Beliefs Regarding the Causes of Climate ChangeBord & O’Connor, 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%

5%

16%22%

51%

6%0%

60%

Global warmingisn't happening

Humans can'treduce global

warming, even if itis happening

Humans couldreduce globalwarming, butpeople aren't

willing to changetheir behavior, sowe're not going to

Humans couldreduce global

warming, but it'sunclear at this

point whether wewill do what's

needed

Humans can reduceglobal warming,

and we are going todo so successfully

Can We Solve Global Warming?

Climate change is real. 72%

I am certain it is real.extremely surevery sure

25%27%

It will be bad.very bad (-3)somewhat bad (-2)

38%23%

Humans are causing it. 57%

Humans can fix it.can & willcould, but outcome is unclear

6%51%

Current Public Opinion on Key Beliefs

Six Americas

Alarmed19%

Concerned22%

Cautious20%

Doubtful16%

Dismissive11%

Unconcerned12%

Segments Total AlarmedConvinc

edCautiou

sProtecti

veDoubtfu

lDismissi

ve

Most scientists think global warming is happening (percent who agree)

50 76 74 49 49 17 8

Global warming is mostly caused by: humans = 3; humans & natural causes = 2; natural causes=1

2.29 2.79 2.81 2.41 2.31 1.55 1.16

You can take actions to reduce global warming

3.27 3.88 3.89 3.29 3.45 2.64 1.66

US can take actions to reduce global warming

3.46 3.98 3.98 3.63 3.76 2.83 1.76

Segments

Percent Who Agree with Each Statement

Total Alarmed Convinced Cautious Protective Doubtful Dismissive

The world would be a more peaceful place if wealth more equally

divided among nations.

49% 70% 64% 52% 45% 30% 12%

We have gone too far in pushing equal rights.

40% 24% 23% 42% 39% 58% 70%

Government regulation of business usually

does more harm than good.

56%　 40% 41% 61% 61% 71% 83%

People are poor because they are lazy or lack will power.

29% 16% 17% 33% 37% 40% 48%

Values of the Six America Segments

　 Total Alarmed Convinced Cautious Protective Doubtful Dismissive

Political party 　 　 　 　 　 　 　

Republicans 32% 8% 14% 24% 42% 57% 72%

Democrats 38% 57% 54% 44% 33% 15% 4%

Independent 28% 34% 30% 29% 24% 26% 22%

Other party (volunteered) 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%

Political ideology 　 　 　 　 　 　 　

Conservative 38% 18% 23% 31% 44% 60% 81%

Moderate 36% 38% 37% 47% 43% 31% 14%

Liberal 24% 43% 38% 19% 14% 8% 4%

Registered to vote 　 　 　 　 　 　 　

Yes 87% 91% 84% 84% 84% 84% 95%

No 11% 6% 12% 14% 13% 13% 4%

Political Orientation of Audience Segments

66%

65%

60%

54%

50%

48%

48%

44%

35%

31%

17%

17%

13%

8%

11%

34%

0% 70%

Provide a better life for our children and grandchildren

Save many plant and animal species from extinction

Improve people's health

Create green jobs and a stronger economy

Prevent the destruction of most life on the planet

Help free us from dependence on foreign oil

Protect God's creation

Lead to more government regulation

Protect the world's poorest people from environmentalharm caused by the world's richest people

Save many people around the world from poverty andstarvation

Cause energy prices to rise

Improve our national security

Cost jobs and harm our economy

Interfere with the free market

Harm poor people more than it helps them

Undermine American sovereignty

“If our nation takes steps to reduce global warming, it will…”

1 2 3 4 5 6

Free us from dependence on foreign oil 80 57 43 27 29 12

Improve people's health 93 75 54 50 22 4

Improve national security 39 19 12 7 2 3

Create green jobs/stronger economy 92 70 43 37 20 9

Save species from extinction 96 86 60 56 17 5

Protect God's creation 65 60 46 40 27 6

Save from poverty and starvation 73 43 17 23 9 3

Better life for children and grandchildren 96 84 65 52 24 5

Prevent destruction of most life 83 69 40 34 8 3

Protect poorest people from harm caused by rich 76 43 19 25 6 2

Perceived Benefits of Mitigation Action, By Audience Segment

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 don’t 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 there’s 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, I’d try to…

• Emphasize what I know, instead of what I don’t 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 our website:

http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/