consensus – Cabot Institute for the Environment blog

Cultural cognition vs. consensus messaging:

Challenges of climate communication in a polarized world

If anyone attending the Cabot Institute debate between science communication researchers Dan Kahan and Stephan Lewandowsky last Wednesday was hoping for a relaxing, passive glance into the word of climate communication then they were in for a shock.Attending the event, which was moderated by Climate Outreach director Dr Adam Corner, was like being thrown into a politically-fuelled hurricane of communication and miscommunication. The mildly terrifying, albeit engaging, debating style of Dan Kahan meant there was never a dull moment as the two world-leading cognitive scientists locked horns over their opinions on how science should communicate climate change to the public.

The evening was kicked off by Kahan, whose invasive debating style saw him thundering into the audience to deliver his messages, a style which certainly drew attention if not support. The greatest focus of his message seemed to be in addressing the motivations of climate sceptics. Kahan claimed that the climate change consensus delivered by the scientific community is polarising opinion; those who are sceptics are not misinformed, their scepticism is fuelled by how they identify themselves. To put simply, the side of the climate change war they fight is supported more by culture than learning.

If this is the case, then increasing the budget powering the scientific consensus won’t help. Indeed, as Kahan expressed, the expensive climate change communication campaign in the U.S. hasn’t made any difference to the opinions of the public. His message? Stop trying to change who we are and do something proactive with the budget instead.

Next Lewandowsky stepped up to the floor. His argument is pro-consensus, defining the consensus as a few simple facts; that climate change is happening, is caused by humans and is problematic. His theory is that people respond to education and change their opinions based on the information available to them. This, he claims, is based on testing trials performed in Australia where participants found themselves more concerned about climate change after being exposed to the general consensus. In Lewandowsky’s words “consensus is the gateway to belief’.

Underpinning his argument is the relationship between the layman and the expert. Lewandosky claims that in times of uncertainty, people defer to the expert; “If 97% of engineers delivered a consensus that the bridge was unsafe to cross, would you cross the bridge?”. 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is an issue, so we submit to the opinion of the expert. The idea works in theory but, according to Kahan we aren’t submitting to the expert, in fact, public opinion is unchanged.

So where does the answer lie? Despite lengthy discussions on the climate consensus, no communication consensus was reached. After the discussion was opened up to the audience, the complexities of the task at hand became apparent: while the ‘yes’ versus ‘no’ controversy is clearly polarised, audience members suggested there are degrees of ‘yes’. Is climate change part man made and part natural? Should we be spending more money on adaption rather than mitigation as Kahan suggested? To what extent is politics contributing to the miscommunication; how can we disentangle the issue of left-wing environmentalism as an opponent of capitalism? The list goes on.

My opinion of the outcome was that the path forwards was a hybrid of the opinions present. Yes, we shouldn’t focus on ‘converting’ the minority of sceptics. The consensus should focus on revaluating the options and behaviour of the supporters. How can we make reducing climate change an economic option for free market capitalism, rather than just trying to close it down. Maybe, as Kahan suggests, instead of aggressive PR campaigns that polarise opinion, we should be working on strengthening the knowledge of the ‘believers’. Indeed making the outcome of the consensus more attractive to those who are in support of climate change, to me, seems like a more progressive step forward.

——————————————
This blog is written by Cabot Institute member Keri McNamara, a PhD student in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol.

The climate consensus

97% of climate scientists agree that humans are responsible
for climate change. Image credit: Skeptical Science

Several studies, including John’s own (Cook et al., 2013), have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are significantly contributing to global warming. Doran and Zimmermann (2009) asked earth and climate scientists whether they thought that humans are significantly impacting global climate change and found that 97.4% agreed we are, while Anderegg and colleagues (2010) found that 97-98% of climate scientists agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finding that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the Earth’s global warming.

Public perception of consensus

John described how the public does not seem to realise the extent of scientific agreement. When asked to estimate “how many climate experts agree that the global warming we are witnessing is a direct consequence of the burning of fossil fuels by humans”, the average response was 55%, a marked underestimate of the 97% consensus.

John
is working to improve public understanding of
the scientific consensus around global
climate change.
Image credit: Skeptical Science

John showed a video from comedian John Oliver, who insisted that the only reason there was still an ongoing debate about climate change is because it is always portrayed with an “inherently misleading” 50:50 divide in representation. He goes on to hold a “mathematically fair” debate with three sceptics and 97 climate scientists, which ends with the immortal line, “I can’t hear you over the weight of scientific evidence”.

John Cook tried to bridge the consensus gap with a more balanced approach in his latest project, entitled “97 hours of consensus”. A total of 97 experts were asked to address the topic of humans causing global warming. Cabot’s own director, Professor Rich Pancost, was one of the scientists included.

Cabot Institute Director Professor Rich Pancost was a featured
climate expert in the 97 Hours
of Consensus project.
Image credit: Skeptical Science

John said that there is a lot of misinformation out there, causing confusion for the public who put their trust in scientific experts. He highlighted one particular website, the Global Warming Petition Project, which as of today [10 February 2014] had been signed by 31,487 American scientists urging their government to reject any limits on greenhouse gas emissions. As John pointed out, only 39 of these people are actually climatologists, therefore 99.9% of them are simply people with science degrees. As I mentioned earlier, I’m a biologist, but that doesn’t give me the expertise needed to decide whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring or what the causes are. I leave that to the experts. Instead, I focus my intellectual energy on ecosystems and how global warming (and other factors) will affect them.

Dr. Tamsin Edwards is a climate scientist who actively engages with people who differ in their opinions on what the science shows. In her blog, she states, “We can’t avoid scientific uncertainty, because we can’t perfectly measure or understand the universe. So we need to be very clear about what we know, what we don’t know, and the surprises we might face”. It can be tempting to avoid discussing difficult topics, but Tamsin inspires me (and hopefully her fellow climate scientists) to explain the science behind the conclusions and hopefully enable the public to make informed decisions too.

Do we need to close the consensus gap?

John said that he fears that if people don’t realise there is 97% scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change, they won’t accept that it is happening and/or care enough to do anything about it. In the video abstract for his 2013 paper, John states that, “This misperception has real world consequences. When people correctly understand that the scientists agree, they are more likely to support policy that mitigates climate change”.

In the UK, several polls over the past five years have looked at what people consider the main cause of global climate change. Where two options (humans versus natural causes) were given, 43-71% of respondents chose humans as the main driver of global warming. These results were diluted when a third option (both human and natural causes) was given, however it is encouraging to note that only around 10-15% blamed natural processes alone.

Carbon
Brief compared UK participants’ opinions on what
causes climate change. Image
credit: Carbon Brief

The weekend following John’s talk was a perfect example of a possible change in public opinion of climate change globally. Hundreds of thousands of people marched in cities across the world in the People’s Climate March, including a couple thousand locally in Bristol. This was the largest climate march in history. The biggest turnout was in New York, where over 300,000 people called for action from the UN climate summit, which convened in the city on Tuesday 23 September 2014. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon marched with the crowd, an unusual move highlighting the importance of the event. He said, “Action on climate change is urgent. The more we delay, the more we will pay in lives and in money”.

I think Joel Pett’s cartoon sums up my thoughts pretty well on the subject of climate change…

Joel Pett, USA Today and Kentucky.com

——————————————
This blog is written by Sarah Jose, Cabot Institute, Biological Sciences, University of Bristol

Sarah Jose

Tag: consensus

The great climate communication clash

Cultural cognition vs. consensus messaging:

Challenges of climate communication in a polarized world

Further reading

John Cook in Bristol: The consensus gap

The climate consensus

Public perception of consensus

Do we need to close the consensus gap?