Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines an educational activity where students role-play six distinct audience types—Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive—to practice science communication and evidence-based argumentation. It provides three scenarios: a coastal zoning law in 'Dune County', a school rain garden proposal, and a school sustainability plan. The goal is to foster social-emotional learning and critical thinking regarding climate change beliefs and misinformation.

The document outlines a classroom activity where students simulate a climate change-related scenario by adopting one of six distinct personas based on the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication's research. These personas—the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive—represent unique audiences within the American public. Students are required to use a graphic organizer to develop their character's opinions and evidence, write a script that includes clarifying questions and evidence-based claims, and perform the skit. The guide includes a rubric for grading based on evidence use, collaboration, and performance quality, as well as reflection questions to help students understand the challenges of communicating with people who hold differing views on global warming.

A survey of 2,034 U.S. adult video gamers reveals that their beliefs about global warming—such as the fact that it is happening and human-caused—align closely with the general U.S. population. However, video gamers exhibit higher levels of worry, a stronger personal sense of responsibility, and a greater willingness to engage in political and consumer activism compared to the broader public. The report also highlights that a majority believe the gaming industry has a responsibility to reduce its carbon emissions and that the gaming community could collectively influence government and business actions.

The document presents data on the likelihood of different groups to discuss global warming. Liberal Democrats (68%) and those in the 'Alarmed' psychographic group (83%) are the most likely to discuss the topic, while Conservative Republicans (11%) and the 'Doubtful' group (3%) are the least likely. Discussion is also strongly correlated with perceived social norms and the frequency of hearing about global warming from others.

The document outlines how marketers can leverage their roles as storytellers to drive climate action, avoid working with fossil fuel clients, and implement sustainable production and communication practices.

The Green Economy Coalition and the Wellbeing Economy Alliance are seeking a UK-based expert in media, marketing, and communications to help develop a public narrative for economic transformation. The project aims to move beyond the crisis-focused language of NGOs and scientists to create a vision of a 'wellbeing economy' that is desirable to the average citizen. Initially piloting in the UK, the initiative seeks to build a 'network of the willing' among high-profile communicators—including advertisers, filmmakers, and journalists—to design campaigns that connect climate change to the need for systemic economic change. The goal is to shift public sentiment from fear to hope and eventually scale the model to other locations, such as Germany.

A Global Witness investigation based on a survey of 468 climate scientists reveals that online abuse is common, particularly for those with high academic output and media visibility. The report highlights that women are disproportionately targeted with sexual violence and personal attacks. This harassment leads to mental health issues, productivity loss, and a 'chilling effect' where scientists become less likely to engage in public discourse. The document identifies Twitter and Facebook as primary venues for abuse and calls for reforms to social media business models and content moderation to protect scientists and ensure the flow of critical climate information.

The document specifies the learning goals for 'SESSION 9: EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS TO HEALTH', focusing on the role of communication in driving behavioral changes for adaptation and GHG mitigation, the use of audience segmentation and message tailoring, and the impact of such communications on mental health.

The report outlines 17 specific measures to protect the integrity of environmental information in France. These include institutionalizing the monitoring of media coverage via the Observatoire des Médias sur l’Ecologie, protecting environmental spokespeople from harassment, and integrating climate disinformation as a systemic risk under the EU's Digital Services Act. It advocates for stronger editorial safeguards against shareholder conflicts of interest, mandatory 'climate contracts' to fight greenwashing, and specialized training for public officials, journalists, and students. Internationally, it urges France to lead the Global Initiative for Climate Information Integrity (GI3C) and coordinate with European regulators via the EU Media Board.

The 'Science oath for the climate' is an initiative for scientists, engineers, and academics globally to commit to personal carbon footprint reduction and honest communication regarding the scale of action needed to meet Paris Agreement targets. The oath aims to eliminate the distinction between individual and systemic change, urging signatories to avoid self-censoring scientific evidence for political or economic reasons and to lobby professional institutions to sever ties with fossil fuel interests.

The document explains the science of extreme event attribution, which calculates how climate change alters the probability and intensity of specific weather events. It provides a detailed breakdown of how climate change influences heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, blizzards, droughts, and wildfires, while cautioning journalists against three common errors: ignoring climate change, attributing events without evidence, or treating climate change as the sole cause. It emphasizes that while global trends are clear for some phenomena (like heatwaves), others (like blizzards) remain highly uncertain.

The document explains how 'Extreme Event Attribution' research determines the extent to which climate change makes specific weather events more likely or intense. It warns journalists against three common errors: ignoring climate change, attributing events without evidence, or naming it as the sole cause. The guide provides detailed scientific contexts for heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires, noting that while some links (like heatwaves) are globally certain, others (like droughts or snowfall) are more complex and region-specific.

The document explains the methodology of 'extreme event attribution' to help journalists avoid common errors, such as ignoring climate change or attributing an event to it as a sole cause. It details how scientists use climate models to compare the modern world with a pre-industrial one to determine if an event was more likely or intense due to global warming. The guide provides specific scientific consensus and limitations for heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires, emphasizing that while some connections are robust (e.g., heatwaves), others are more complex and depend on regional data and human vulnerability.

The document explains 'event attribution' science, which quantifies how climate change alters the probability and intensity of specific weather events. It provides a detailed breakdown of how climate change affects heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires, while cautioning journalists against common errors such as treating climate change as the sole cause of a disaster or ignoring it entirely. It emphasizes that while some trends are globally consistent (e.g., heatwaves), others are regionally variable or complex (e.g., droughts and snowfall).

The document explains how 'attribution' studies determine if global warming increased the likelihood or intensity of a specific extreme weather event. It warns journalists against three common errors: ignoring climate change, claiming it caused an event without evidence, or treating it as the sole cause. The guide provides specific findings for heatwaves, floods, tropical cyclones, heavy snowfall, droughts, and wildfires, noting that while heatwaves are globally linked to warming, other phenomena like droughts and floods vary significantly by region.

The document explains the methodology of extreme event attribution, which determines how much human-induced climate change has influenced the probability or intensity of a specific weather event. It provides a detailed breakdown of different types of extreme events—heatwaves, floods, tropical storms, snowfall, droughts, and wildfires—outlining where scientific confidence in climate links is high and where it remains uncertain. The guide emphasizes that while climate change influences the likelihood and severity of events, local vulnerabilities and human management often determine whether an event becomes a disaster.

The guide uses the case study of Rejoyce Kgabo Legodi, a community activist in Limpopo, South Africa, to demonstrate how to use diverse communication tools—such as solar-powered film screenings, workshops, and plant nurseries—to engage rural communities. It outlines a training structure that encourages participants to analyze the rural-urban divide and apply specific 'lenses' (wealth, gender, language, and age) to ensure a variety of voices are included in climate action and the just transition debate.