Diego, and the science director of Climate Communication, a nonprofit project based in Boulder, Colorado (http://www .climatecommunication.org). Susan Joy Hassol, who works with climate scientists to communicate what they know to policymakers and the public, is the director of Climate Communication. feature 12% 27% 25% 10% 10% 15% Alarmed Concerned BELIEF IN AND CONCERN ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Cautious Disengaged Doubtful Dismissive Highest Lowest Figure 1. Global warming's six Americas in May 2011, as categorized by a 2011 public-opinion study by a team from Yale and George Mason universities. 3
Science meets policy in the most important challenge of our time: global warming. Yet even the most basic facts of this issue (e.g., that the world is warming and that human activity is the dominant cause) are obscure to some decision makers who need to understand them. How can climate scientists be more effective at communicating what they know, how they know it, and how sure they are of it? The need for scientists to communicate more effectively about climate change is urgent. For people to take climate change seriously and support appropriate responses, they need to feel sure it is happening and is caused primarily by humans. But while the rise in global temperature is a fact (see, e.g., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2007], which calls the warming “unequivocal”), 56% of Americans believe there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether global warming is even occurring. And while every authoritative scientific body attributes most of the warming of the past 50 years to human activity [see, e.g., IPCC, 2007; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006], only 41% of Americans believe that humanity is the dominant cause (42% believe it is due about equally to natural and human causes), according to an April 2007 poll by ABC News, The Washington Post, and Stanford University.
Americans tend to see global warming as a distant threat, but a small body of previous research suggests that information about the health implications of global warming may enhance public engagement with the issue. We sought to extend those findings with a longitudinal study that examined how Americans react to information about eight specific categories of health impacts from global warming. In winter 2017, we conducted a two‐wave survey experiment using a quota sample of American adults (n = 2,254). Participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group who read eight brief essays about different categories of health impacts from global warming or to a control group who received no information. Participants answered questions before reading the essays, immediately after reading each essay and at the conclusion of all essays (treatment participants only), and 2–3 weeks later. Reading the information had small‐ to medium‐sized effects on multiple indicators of participants' cognitive and affective engagement with global warming, especially among people who are politically moderate and somewhat conservative; some of these changes persisted 2–3 weeks later. Some impacts were seen as more novel and worrisome, including illnesses from contaminated food, water, and disease‐carrying organisms. Our findings provide the most definitive evidence to date about the importance of raising awareness about the health impacts of global warming. While participants believed all of the essays as offered valuable information, educational efforts might most productively focus on impacts that are relatively less familiar and more emotionally engaging, such as food‐, water‐, and vector‐borne illnesses.
Findings from the most recent surveys of TV weathercasters—which are methodologically superior to prior surveys in a number of important ways—suggest that weathercasters’ views of climate change may be rapidly evolving. In contrast to prior surveys, which found many weathercasters who were unconvinced of climate change, newer results show that approximately 80% of weathercasters are convinced of human-caused climate change. A majority of weathercasters now indicate that climate change has altered the weather in their media markets over the past 50 years, and many feel there have also been harmful impacts to water resources, agriculture, transportation resources, and human health. Nearly all weathercasters—89%—believe their viewers are at least slightly interested in learning about local impacts. The majority of weathercasters are interested in reporting on local impacts, including extreme precipitation and flooding, drought and water shortages, extreme heat events, air quality, and harm to local wildlife, crops and livestock, and human health; and nearly half had reported on the local impacts in at least one channel over the past 12 months. Thus, it appears that a strong majority of weathercasters are now convinced that human-caused climate change is happening, many feel they are already witnessing harmful impacts in their communities, and many are beginning to explore ways of educating their viewers about these local impacts of global climate change. We believe that the role of local climate educator will soon become a normative practice for broadcast meteorologists—adding a significant and important new role to their job descriptions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.