Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details a survey of 1,001 American adults conducted between December 2009 and January 2010. It tracks shifts in public perception of global warming, including a decline in the percentage of people who believe global warming is happening (from 71% in 2008 to 57% in 2010) and an increase in those who believe it is not happening (from 10% to 20%). The data also explores perceived causes, the perceived level of scientific consensus, personal and global risks, and trust in various information sources.

The June 2010 survey of 1,024 American adults indicates that 61% believe global warming is happening, though 45% believe there is significant disagreement among scientists on the matter. While 50% attribute global warming to human activities, a large portion of the population expresses uncertainty about personal impact and the ability of humans to successfully reduce it. Trust in scientists remains high, while trust in mainstream news media is lower. The data shows a trend of fluctuating belief in global warming and varying levels of concern for future generations and the environment compared to previous years.

The June 2010 survey of 1,024 American adults reveals a strong public preference for developing clean energy and protecting the environment over economic growth. While a majority support regulating carbon dioxide and funding renewable energy research, there is significant political polarization regarding international treaties and gasoline taxes. The data shows that 65% of respondents believe the U.S. should reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of other countries' actions, and 56% believe environmental protection improves economic growth.

A 2008 survey of 2,164 American adults found that while the economy was the highest priority for 76% of respondents, a majority believe global warming is a real, human-caused threat. Over 90% of participants supported U.S. action to reduce global warming despite potential economic costs, and 67% supported unilateral action regardless of other countries' efforts. The most valued positive outcomes of action were providing a better life for future generations and protecting God's creation, while the primary concerns were increased government regulation and rising energy prices.

The report identifies six distinct audience segments within the U.S. adult population—the Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful, and Dismissive—that vary significantly in their level of concern, belief in the reality of climate change, and willingness to take action. While the Alarmed and Concerned are convinced of the threat and support aggressive national policies, the Doubtful and Dismissive either deny the phenomenon or believe it is caused by natural changes. The analysis highlights that communication strategies must be tailored to these specific psychological and political profiles to effectively motivate climate action.

The document assesses how communication and marketing interventions can be used within a public health ecologic model to drive population behavior change and policy support for climate change adaptation and prevention. It identifies the need for translational research to optimize the effectiveness of these messages and target audiences.

The document introduces a study designed to evaluate public support for traditionally designed communities—characterized by mixed residential and commercial land uses and pedestrian connectivity—as an alternative to the dominant suburban development model.

This research paper synthesizes data from hundreds of polling questions across more than 70 surveys to identify long-term trends in public opinion on global warming. The review focuses on six dimensions: public awareness, understanding of causes and policy, perceptions of scientific certainty and expert agreement, concern over impacts, support for policy action relative to economic costs, and support for the Kyoto climate treaty.

The document argues that climate change is the biggest health threat of the 21st century and that health professionals are uniquely positioned as trusted voices to build public support for climate action. It provides a framework for communicating these risks and benefits, emphasizing simple, human-centric messaging over technical jargon or alarmist language. The toolkit outlines specific health risks—such as air pollution, heatwaves, and food insecurity—and highlights the 'win-win' nature of climate solutions, noting that every dollar spent on reducing emissions saves approximately $2 in health costs.

A survey of 2,164 American adults in 2008 reveals that while the economy is the top national priority, a majority of Americans view global warming as a serious threat and support a wide range of climate and energy policies, including renewable energy research and carbon regulation. Despite this support, political and consumer activism remains low, largely due to a lack of information on how to act. Most Americans trust scientists and family as information sources but express uncertainty about whether humanity will successfully reduce global warming.

The document argues that broadcast meteorologists are uniquely positioned as trusted scientific sources to combat climate misinformation. It advocates for the use of 'psychological inoculation'—exposing audiences to misinformation techniques before they encounter them—and the 'Fact-Myth-Fallacy-Fact' structure to effectively educate the public. The guide details the FLICC taxonomy of science denial (fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories) and provides specific debunking scripts for ten common climate myths, such as the claim that the sun is the primary driver of current warming or that climate models are unreliable.

The document provides data on collective political efficacy—defined as being 'extremely,' 'very,' or 'moderately confident' that people working together can affect federal government action on global warming. Findings show that confidence varies significantly by political affiliation, race, age, and the frequency of social discourse on the topic. Between Fall 2018 and Fall 2023, confidence among Democrats rose from 46% to 57%, while confidence among Republicans decreased from 28% to 23%. In the most recent data, Hispanic/Latino (63%) and Black (Non-Hispanic/Latino) (57%) groups reported the highest levels of confidence, while Republicans (23%) reported the lowest. Additionally, individuals who hear others talk about global warming 'once a month' or more often exhibit higher confidence levels across the general population, Republicans, and Democrats compared to those who hear it less frequently.

The document argues that traditional climate change imagery often relies on stereotypes or distant, 'sublime' disasters that can lead to public apathy or feelings of powerlessness. By reviewing a decade of research, the author suggests that effective communication requires a balance of threat and self-efficacy, recommending the use of local images, human presence, and depictions of innovative solutions rather than solely focusing on victims or destruction.

The document argues that television meteorologists are uniquely positioned as trusted scientific sources to combat climate misinformation. It introduces 'psychological inoculation'—exposing audiences to the techniques of disinformation to build cognitive resistance—and provides a specific 'Fact-Myth-Fallacy-Fact' structure for debunking. The guide details the FLICC taxonomy (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry picking, and Conspiracy theories) and applies it to common climate myths, such as the claim that the sun causes current warming or that climate models are unreliable.

The report identifies significant gaps in expertise, funding, and priority within the U.S. public health system regarding climate change. While most local health directors recognize climate change as a threat, few prioritize it in their departmental planning. The authors recommend a three-pronged approach: protecting public health through system efficacy, preventing dangers by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and enhancing health through 'win-win' policy alignment.

The document provides a comprehensive guide for the 4C-NPS internship program, which trains students to create climate change communication materials for parks in the Washington, D.C. metro area. It outlines two primary communication heuristics—simplifying messages and promoting pro-environmental behaviors—and details the administrative roles, recruitment processes, and academic syllabus used to manage the program.

The report, produced by a consortium of medical societies, alerts the public and policymakers that climate change is already causing direct and indirect health harms across the United States. It identifies vulnerable populations, such as children and the elderly, and details how extreme heat, weather events, air pollution, and the spread of infectious diseases impact public health. The document advocates for the acceleration of a transition to clean renewable energy as the most critical action to protect health and provide immediate co-benefits like improved air and water quality.

The guide equips National Park Service (NPS) staff to communicate climate change by segmenting the American public into six audience types based on their beliefs and motivations. It provides tailored communication tips for each group—ranging from the 'Alarmed' to the 'Dismissive'—and details specific climate impacts across ten U.S. bioregions to help staff create place-based narratives. The document emphasizes using local park stories and scientific consensus to motivate visitors toward climate action and energy conservation.

The report finds that a majority of Americans in 2012 were unfamiliar with fracking and undecided about whether to support or oppose it. Among those who had formed an opinion, views were split, though a slim majority viewed the practice as 'bad'. Support and opposition varied significantly by gender, age, political affiliation, and geographic region, with conservatives and older males more supportive, and liberals, younger people, and residents of the Northeast and West more opposed. Associations with fracking were primarily divided between environmental concerns (linked to opposition) and economic or energy supply benefits (linked to support).

A survey of U.S. adults conducted between 2014 and 2019 shows a significant increase in the proportion of Americans who are 'Alarmed' about global warming, rising to 31% by November 2019. This group now outnumbers the 'Dismissive' segment by more than 3 to 1, while the 'Dismissive' and 'Doubtful' segments have both decreased to 10% each.