Ellen Phiddian
Cosmos science journalist
Between 97% and 99.99% of scientists agree that humans are causing climate change and new research suggests that telling non-scientists about this consensus may help strengthen their beliefs.
A study, published in Nature Human Behaviour, draws on an online survey of 10,527 people across 27 countries.
Participants, who were recruited via social media, had been told the survey was about “popular news topics”, so as to avoid drawing in people passionate about climate change specifically.
They were first asked about their views on climate change. Then, they were shown 1 of 3 different statements:
- ‘97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening’ (a “classical” consensus statement already in wide use)
- ‘97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening. In addition, 88% of climate scientists agree that climate change constitutes a crisis’ (an “updated” statement with a newer finding)
- ‘97% of dentists recommend brushing your teeth twice per day’ (a control)
After completing a “distraction” task on a different subject, participants were then asked again for their views on climate change.
Both consensus statements caused small changes in participants’ views, with participants who viewed them more likely to believe in and be worried about climate change than the control group. The largest change was seen among those who had lower trust in climate scientists and leaned right politically.
“In response to reading about the 97% consensus, people adjusted their perceptions of the scientific consensus, believed more in climate change, and worried more about it—but they did not support public action on climate change more,” says co-lead author Sandra Geiger, a PhD researcher at the University of Vienna, Austria.
“Other research has found that support for action can be stimulated indirectly by changing how people think and feel about climate change.”
The updated “crisis” statement was as effective as the “classical” statement, but not any more effective.
“We believe that the gap between the actual and perceived consensus might have played a role. This gap was much smaller for the crisis consensus than for the 97% consensus,” says co-lead author Bojana Većkalov, a PhD researcher at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
“A smaller gap means people already perceived a high crisis consensus before learning about it, which might have prevented any further changes in beliefs about climate change.”
The researchers point out that, since they recruited participants via social media, their pool was younger, more well-educated and more politically engaged than average for the countries they examined. But they also point out that this style of messaging is most likely to be seen online and reached by these populations.
“Especially in the face of increasing politicisation of science and misinformation about climate change, cultivating universal awareness of the scientific consensus will help protect public understanding of the issue”, says senior author Professor Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist at the University of Cambridge, UK.
