Search Climate Insights Directory

The December 2018 report 'Climate Change in the American Mind' reveals a continued upward trend in American concern about global warming. Key findings include that 73% of Americans believe global warming is happening, 62% attribute it primarily to human activities, and 69% express worry about the issue. The report also notes that 46% of respondents claim to have personally experienced the effects of global warming and 48% believe people in the U.S. are being harmed 'right now.' While a majority are interested in the topic, social norms for taking action remain weak, with fewer than half perceiving an expectation from family and friends to act.

The report documents an upward trend in American concern about global warming, with 73% believing it is happening and 69% feeling at least somewhat worried. While 62% recognize it as mostly human-caused and 57% acknowledge scientific consensus, only 20% understand that over 90% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming. Personal experience of effects has risen to 46%, and 48% believe people in the U.S. are being harmed 'right now'. Despite these trends, fewer than half of Americans perceive social norms encouraging action, and 59% rarely or never discuss the issue with family and friends.

The report serves as a barometer for UK climate engagement, drawing on a survey of 178 climate communicators and an expert elicitation workshop to establish best practice recommendations and identify consensus and conflict among practitioners.

Analysis of surveys involving over 8,000 U.S. adults reveals that most Americans, including those highly concerned about climate change, significantly underestimate the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. The study identifies that while pro-climate opinions can form through non-scientific routes like social norms, correcting the underestimation of scientific consensus can act as a 'gateway' to increase worry and support for climate policy.

The report finds that Latinos in the U.S., especially Spanish-language speakers, are more likely to be 'Alarmed' and less likely to be 'Dismissive' of global warming than non-Latinos. While Alarmed Latinos show a high willingness to join political campaigns, they face distinct barriers, including fear of attracting attention from immigration authorities and a lack of knowledge regarding which officials to contact.

The document analyzes climate change perceptions among US residents, finding that Spanish-speaking Latinos are significantly more likely to be 'Alarmed' and less likely to be 'Dismissive' than non-Latinos. While 'Alarmed' individuals across all groups show similar willingness to join political campaigns, Spanish-speaking Latinos face unique barriers, including fear of attracting immigration authorities and a lack of knowledge regarding which elected officials to contact.

The IAI Directorate expanded its international visibility and partnerships through participation in major climate and biodiversity forums, including the IPCC, UNFCCC, and CBD. Key achievements include securing Observer Status with the IPCC and UNCCD, establishing Memoranda of Understanding with Future Earth and IPBES, and launching a digital science communication campaign during COP-23. The Directorate also focused on enhancing the science-to-policy interface, specifically regarding ocean knowledge, climate-resilient megacities in the Americas, and the impacts of climate change on biodiversity.

The document argues that while 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, a significant 'consensus gap' exists in public perception, largely driven by decades of deliberate misinformation campaigns. It identifies perceived consensus as a 'gateway belief' that influences support for climate policy and provides evidence-based communication strategies, such as 'weight-of-evidence' reporting and 'inoculation' against misinformation, to close this gap.

The March 2018 report 'Climate Change in the American Mind' reveals an upward trend in American concern about global warming. 70% of adults believe global warming is happening, and 58% attribute it primarily to human activities. While 62% express worry and 41% report personally experiencing its effects, only 6% believe humans can and will successfully reduce it. The issue is most commonly conceptualized as an environmental (74%) and scientific (68%) challenge, with the primary motivation for reduction being to provide a better life for future generations.

The author examines how the rise of populism in Western politics, exemplified by the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and political shifts in the UK and Germany, creates risks for climate action. While some nations and entities have responded by strengthening their commitments, the author contends that overcoming political polarisation requires shifting climate communication from expert-led discourse to a values-based approach that builds broad societal consensus.

The Science communicators programme is a workshop resource developed by Climate Outreach and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research as part of the Helix project. It provides researchers with the science of climate change communication and practical exercises to build confidence when engaging with non-academic audiences. The content is based on workshops conducted with early career researchers in Europe from 2014 to 2017.

The report outlines a strategic framework for Saint Lucia to integrate climate change adaptation into national planning over a decade. It defines a four-element roadmap (laying groundwork, preparatory elements, implementation strategies, and monitoring), identifies critical capacity gaps across policy, organizational, and operational levels, and proposes specific training activities to address these weaknesses. The plan prioritizes eight key sectors, including water, agriculture, and health, and lists numerous policy entry points for adaptation integration.

The document responds to a commentary by David Roberts, arguing that while the social science of climate change communication contains uncertainties, it offers core principles and evidence-based building blocks that are superior to intuitive campaigning. It advocates for a stronger bridge between academics and practitioners and calls for more adventurous, applied research to move beyond limited lab-based studies toward systematic design and evaluation of real-world climate campaigns.

Climate Outreach criticizes the media's reliance on repetitive imagery—specifically negotiators and protesters—during UN climate conferences, arguing that this approach makes the issue seem remote and technocratic. The organization advocates for the adoption of a more diverse visual language that reflects the human impact of climate change to better engage the public.

The document outlines five key strategies for communicating climate science: managing audience expectations about the scientific process, framing uncertainty as risk, focusing on established facts, emphasizing scientific consensus, and using visual storytelling.

The document emphasizes that trust in both the messenger and the message determines how the public engages with scientific evidence and its policy implications. It notes that while trust in scientists is generally high in Europe, it varies by political ideology; specifically, politically conservative groups are more skeptical of 'impact scientists' (such as climate scientists) compared to 'production scientists' like engineers or chemists.

The document discusses the complexities of climate change communication, noting the blurred line between science and advocacy. It presents four potential roles for scientists—pure scientist, science arbiter, issue advocate, and honest broker—to help them determine how to communicate their research findings to the public and policymakers.

The report documents an upward trend in American concern about global warming, with 71% believing it is happening and 47% feeling certain of it. While 54% attribute it to human activity, only 15% are aware of the high scientific consensus. Emotional responses are predominantly negative, with high levels of disgust and helplessness. Perceived risks are increasing, with 44% reporting personal experience of its effects and 42% believing people in the U.S. are being harmed 'right now.' Most Americans view global warming as an environmental or scientific issue and believe it is affecting U.S. weather, though confidence in the human ability to successfully reduce it remains very low at 5%.

The October 2017 survey indicates an upward trend in American concern about global warming, with 71% believing it is happening and 47% feeling certain of it. While 54% attribute it to human activity, only 15% are aware of the strong scientific consensus. Emotional responses are predominantly negative, with 55% feeling disgusted and 52% feeling helpless. Perceived risks are at record highs, with 44% reporting personal experience of its effects and 42% believing people in the U.S. are being harmed "right now." Despite this, optimism for a human-led solution remains low, with only 5% confident that humans can and will successfully reduce global warming.

The report examines the utility of extreme event attribution (EEA) through interviews with government officials and NGO representatives in Ethiopia, Kenya, and India. While generally viewed positively, the practical application of EEA varies by country and sector. In Ethiopia and Kenya, EEA is seen as a critical tool for securing international climate finance and improving drought early warning systems. In India, stakeholders expressed more skepticism, emphasizing the need for a 'critical mass' of studies to identify trends before the science can effectively influence national mitigation or adaptation agendas. Across all regions, significant barriers persist, including the high technical complexity of EEA outputs, a lack of predictive capacity for future events, and the need for down-scaled, non-technical communication to reach local communities and farmers.