CommunicatingClimateChange

THE INFORMATION-DEFICIT MODELWe 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 & beliefsExposure then reinforces existing beliefsExposure to opposing views is rareWhen it does occur, counter-arguing is high, distortion may occur

AUDIENCE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND CLIMATE SCIENCE VARIESAbout 20% of the public can read and understand the science section of The New York TimesAbout half understand probability.About 35% understand experimental design.-- Miller, 2004

AUDIENCE MOTIVATIONS FOR PROCESSING SCIENCE INFORMATION DIFFER FROM COMMUNICATORS MOTIVATIONSsocial 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:

The issue is polarized, with conservative sources disputing the reality, human causes, & need for mitigation.Many Americans have low science literacy, and low interest, both of which reduce the likelihood of people learning the science.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

"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 WRONG:Consensus Isnt ScienceDoctors #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.htmlhttp://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/casey johnbioandphotocurrent.pdfhttp://mediamatters.org/print/blog/2010/05/15/hoft-runs-with-global-cooling-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 IDEOLOGYConservatives and libertarians abhor industry and personal regulation.Regulation of industry and personal carbon limitation are essential to mitigate global warming.

CONCLUSIONS:An overwhelming majority of international climate experts agree about much of the tenets of AGW and are honest.An overwhelming majority of international climate experts are ignorant about their own expertise in a sudden and collective manner.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 CHANGEBORD & 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 industry70%people driving their cars50%use of coal and oil by utilities or electric companies46%people heating and cooling their homes13%destruction of tropical forests.66%use of aerosol spray cans25%use of chemicals to destroy insect pests28%depletion of ozone in the upper atmosphere65%nuclear power generation21%

Current Public Opinion on Key Beliefs

Climate change is real.72%I am certain it is real.extremely surevery sure25%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 unclear6%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 consensusTo understand that humans caused climate change & humans can fix itTo understand both the danger and the urgency of climate change

CLIMATE SKEPTICS ARE UNLIKELY TO BE PERSUADED. HOWEVERTheir greatest concern is government regulation They may be influenced to support green energy by arguments about energy independence & benefits to the economyInsurance metaphors may speak to themMoral/religious duty may motivate some to accept climate protection policies

IF I WERE A CLIMATE SCIENTIST SPEAKING TO THE PUBLIC, ID TRY TOEmphasize what I know, instead of what I dont know: we know climate change is realMake clear the implications of my findings, in terms of humans impacts, in the simplest, clearest language possible: its impacts are badBe positive about the potential for mitigation: humans can fix itSpeak 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/

*******************