Public Understanding of Climate Science and Trust in

Public Understanding of Climate Science and Trust in Scientists

Anthony Leiserowitz, Ph.D. Director, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Research Collaborators Edward Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf, Nicholas Smith, Lisa Fernandez,

Jennifer Marlon, Matt Kotchen, Paul Slovic, C.K. Mertz, Lauren Feldman, Matt Nisbet, Rick Bonney, Walter Staveloz, Xiaoquan Zhao

Funders

environment.yale.edu/climate

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

�

�

� ��

�

Knowledge of Climate Change AcrossGlobal Warming’s Six Americas

Global Warming s Six Americas

Leiserowitz et al., (2010)

Knowledge about Climate Change: Straight Scale Grades


The greenhouse effect refers to:


How much does the hole in the ozone layer contribute to global warming?


If you could ask an expert on global warming one question, which question would you ask?

What can the US do to reduce global warming?

What harm will global warming cause?

How do you know that global warming is

occurring?


Trust “How much do you trust or distrust scientists

as a source of information about global warming?”

Leiserowitz et al., (in press)

Awareness of “Climategate” Have you heard anything in the news recently about controversial emails between

climate scientists in England and the US? Some news organizations have called the release of these emails “Climategate.”


34

17 1430

52

66

83 8697

70

48

30

25

50

75

100

Alarmed(13%)

Concerned(28%)

Cautious(24%)

Disengaged(10%)

Doubtful(12%)

Dismissive(12%)

Yes No/DK

Climategate “Have these stories about the controversial emails caused you to have

more or less trust in scientists? *

Leiserowitz et al., (2010) *of those that had heard of it

11

8

5 12

65

6240

4025

16

29

40

14

20

46 54

2 2

82

0

100

Alarmed(13%)

Concerned(28%)

Cautious(24%)

Doubtful(12%)

Dismissive(12%)

Much more Somewhat more No change Somewhat less Much less

Climategate

81

46

19

28

32

22

48

2 29

13

54

0

50

100

Much more trust Somewhat more trust No change in my level of trustSomewhat less trust Much less trust

Moderaten=65

Liberaln=57

Conservativen=109

Per

cent

of R

espo

nden

ts“Have these stories about the controversial emails caused you to have

more or less trust in scientists? *

Leiserowitz et al., (in press) *of those that had heard of it

2

3

4

6

9

10

11

11

12

12

12

12

15

15

16

19

33

39

46

53

58

54

50

58

46

58

60

61

57

59

56

59

40

42

38

29

26

25

25

24

26

23

23

22

21

20

21

16

26

16

12

12

7

11

14

7

16

8

6

5

6

6

7

5

0 50 100

The mainstream news media

Military leaders (generals and admirals)

Television weather reporters

School teachers

Zoos and aquariums

University professors

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Environmental organizations

Family and friends

Science museums

Natural history museums

Scientists

The National Science Foundation (NSF)

Science programs on television (PBS, Discovery Channel)

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Percent of Respondents

Strongly trust Somewhat trust Somewhat distrust Strongly distrust How much do you trust or distrust the following as a source of information about global warming? (items randomized)


Summary •! There are 6 distinct Americas that respond to the issue of climate change in very different ways.

•! The facts are actively interpreted by these different audiences, who construct their own mental models in accordance with what they know , value, and feel. Knowledge is necessary, but insufficient.

•! Some audiences need know the basic facts, because they literally

don't know anything about climate change. Others accept that it may be happening, but don't know why they should care. Other groups accept that it's happening and human caused, but don't know what can be done to solve it. Finally, some are convinced that it's a conspiracy - and the more scientific information you give them, the bigger “the conspiracy” appears.

•! Trust in scientists declined significantly, but not catastrophically (still

most trusted).

•! Climategate primarily affected those individuals and groups already predisposed to doubt or dismiss climate change science.

What can scientists do? •! Develop strategic communication teams – natural scientists, decision scientists, and communication experts – and integrate into the beginning of the assessment/reporting process, don’t tack on the end. (Fischhoff & Pidgeon, 2011)

•! Know thy audience: different interpretive communities require different information, messages, messengers, and value frames.

•! Develop and TEST simple clear messages, repeat often, through a variety of trusted sources.

•! Respond quickly to crisis and opportunity. Ignore disinformation at your peril.

•! Reform the institutions and culture of science to support those scientists willing to engage with the public and policymakers.

•! Remain humble – at best, science can inform decision making in a democratic society, which has competing values and priorities.

Documents

Public Understanding of Climate Science and Trust in