Hubbry Logo
Climate communicationClimate communicationMain
Open search
Climate communication
Community hub
Climate communication
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Climate communication
Climate communication
Climate communication
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A warming stripes graphic portraying global warming since 1850 as a series of color-coded stripes in which blue (= cool years) progresses over time to red (= warm years). Climatologist Ed Hawkins designed the graphic purposely devoid of scientific notation to be quickly understandable by non-scientists.[1]

Climate communication or climate change communication is a field of environmental communication and science communication focused on discussing the causes, nature and effects of anthropogenic climate change.

Research in the field emerged in the 1990s and has since grown and diversified to include studies concerning the media, conceptual framing, and public engagement and response. Since the late 2000s, a growing number of studies have been conducted in countries in the Global South and have been focused on climate communication with marginalized populations.

Most research focuses on raising public knowledge and awareness, understanding underlying cultural values and emotions, and bringing about public engagement and action. Major issues include familiarity with the audience, barriers to public understanding, creating change, audience segmentation, changing rhetoric, public health, storytelling, media coverage, and popular culture.

History

[edit]
This 1902 newspaper article attributes to Swedish Nobel laureate (chemistry) Svante Arrhenius a theory that coal combustion could cause a degree of global warming that could eventually lead to human extinction.[2]
This 1912 article, from an earlier Popular Mechanics article, succinctly describes the greenhouse effect to the public, focusing on how burning coal creates carbon dioxide that causes climate change.[3]

Scholar Amy E. Chadwick identifies Climate Change Communication as a new field of scholarship that truly emerged in the 1990s.[4] In the late 80s and early 90s, research in developed countries (e.g. the United States, New Zealand, and Sweden) was largely concerned with studying the public's perception and comprehension of climate change science, models, and risks and guiding further development of communication strategies.[4][5] These studies showed that while the public was aware of and beginning to notice climate change effects (increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns), the public's understanding of climate change was interlinked with ozone depletion and other environmental risks but not human-produced CO2 emissions.[5] This understanding was coupled with varied yet overall increased net concern that continued through the mid-2000s.[5]

In studies from the mid-2000s to the late 2000s, there is evidence of rising global skepticism despite growing consensus and evidence of increasingly polarized views due to climate change's growing use as a political "litmus test."[5] In 2010, researcher Susanne C. Moser viewed both the expansion of climate change communication's focus, which began to include subjects such as materialized evidence of climate change effects in addition to science and policy, as well as more prolific conversation/communication from a variety of voices as increasing climate change's relevance to society.[6] Surveys through the mid-2010s showed mixed concern for climate change depending on global region —notably consistent concern in developed Western countries but a trend towards global unconcern in countries such as China, Mexico, and Kenya.[5]

In 2016, Moser noted an increase in the total number of climate communication studies in both Westernized countries and the Global South and an increased focus on climate communication with indigenous peoples and other marginalized communities since 2010.[7] As of 2017, research remained focused on public understanding and had since begun to also analyze the relevance of the media, conceptual framing, public engagement and response, and persuasive strategies.[4][7] This expansion has legitimated climate change communication as its own academic field and has yielded a group of experts specific to it.[7]

Primary goals of climate communication

[edit]
The Gateway Belief Model, which models the thought that communicating scientific consensus will impact belief in climate change and produce support for action

Most climate communication and research within the field is concerned with (1) the mechanisms related to the public's understanding/awareness of and perception of climate change which are intertwined with (2) personal cultural values and emotions related to social norms and (3) how these components can influence the engagement and action that may emerge as a response to communication.[4][6][8]

Within the academic field, there are debates over which is more important: knowledge-based communication or emotion-driven communication.[9] Though both are inherently linked to action, researchers often view increased understanding as leading to increased action.[9][10] A 2020 study by Kris De Meyer et al. attempts to push back against that notion and argues that action produces belief.[9]

Analyzing and increasing public understanding and perception

[edit]

One line of climate communication study is concerned with analyzing public understanding and risk perception.[4] Understanding public perception of risk and its relevant influences, as well as public knowledge, concern, consensus, and imagery is thought to help policymakers better address the concerns of constituents and inform further climate communication.[4][10][11] This notion has opened the realm of climate communications to political communications, sociology, and psychology.[11]

Achieving increased public understanding is often associated with communicating levels of scientific consensus and other scientific facts or futures in order to spur action and address the "information-deficit" model but can also be related to connecting with values and emotions.[9][11] Perception is often related to personal recognition to impacted locations, times (the present vs. the future), weather events, or economics, which has placed emphasis on different methods of framing (linking concepts) and rhetoric when communicating.[5][10][11] Connection of the self with events, such as those mentioned and often times through perceiving problems as local, increases recognition of the larger problem of climate change.[6] These methods of communication presently include scientific communication, knowledge transfer, social media, news media, and entertainment amongst others, which are also studied individually regarding climate change.[5][9]

Some experts focus on how public perceptions of climate change can be related to public perceptions of smaller parts of the environment. Through teaching about the interconnectedness of humans and nature, some environmental writers believe that a fundamental shift in thinking is possible, and that this in turn would lead to greater desire to preserve the natural world.[12]

Connecting to values and emotions

[edit]

In addition to studies regarding knowledge, climate communication researchers inspect existing values and emotions related to climate change and how they are impacted by various communication strategies and can influence the effects of communication modes.[8][9] Understanding and relating to the audiences' moral, cultural, religious, and political values, identities, and emotions (like fear) are viewed as imperative to appropriate and effective communication because climate change can otherwise seem intangible due to uncertainty and distance (physical, social, temporal).[8][13] Recognizing and understanding these values is key to impacting perception of climate science and mitigative action because values serve as filters through which information is processed.[7] Emotional reactions to climate change and the role emotions can play in decision-making have encouraged researchers to study the emotional side of climate change.[7] Appeals to emotions (such as fear and hope) and to values can also be used in communication strategies.[4][6] It is unclear whether negative emotions (e.g. concern and fear) or positive emotions (e.g. hope) better promote climate change action.[4][9][13] Emotions can also be analyzed by their level of pleasantness and/or to the extent they evoke action, which is often understudied.[13]

Instead of warning of global warming's impending negative impacts, some renewable energy lobbyists emphasize economic benefits, profitability, job creation, and energy dominance—items that fossil fuel advocates have traditionally touted.[14] The goal was to "harness" self-interest rather than condemn it, and to "meet the audience where they are".[14]

Producing engagement and action

[edit]
Presenting data and other facts is less effective in motivating people to act to mitigate climate change, than financial incentives and social pressure involved in showing people climate-related actions of other people.[15]
The strongest factors in self-reported changes in opinion about global warming were Republican party identification, seeing others experience impacts of global warming, and learning more about global warming.[16]

Studying climate communications can also be focused on civic engagement and the production of behavior changes for adapting or increasing resiliency to climate change.[6] Engagement and action can occur on multiple geographic scales (local, regional, national, or international), and examples include participation in climate justice movements, support for policies or politics, changes to agricultural practices, and addresses to vulnerabilities to extreme weather vulnerabilities.[6][10] Behavioral changes can also address more fundamental norms and values that influence lifestyles, life choices, and society as a whole.[6] Engagement can also involve how those who communicate climate change interact with researchers studying the field of communications.[7]

Studies have recognized that increased understanding and perception does not automatically produce action and have argued for increased means of enabling action in communication methods.[7] Research into engagement and action often focuses on the perception and understanding of different demographics and geographic locations.[11] Some politicians, such as Arnold Schwarzenegger with his slogan "terminate pollution", say that activists should generate optimism by focusing on the health co-benefits of climate action.[17]

A study published in Nature Human Behaviour in 2025 found that presenting people with binary climate data—for example, a lake freezing versus not freezing—significantly increases the perceived impact of climate change compared to when continuous data such as temperature change is presented.[18] The researchers said the findings confirmed the boiling frog effect for climate change communication.[18]

Major issues

[edit]

Barriers to understanding

[edit]
A 2022 study found that the public substantially underestimates the degree of scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.[19] Studies from 2019–2021[20][21][22] found scientific consensus to range from 98.7–100%.
Research found that 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to be 37–43%. Researchers have called this misperception a false social reality, a form of pluralistic ignorance.[23]
National political divides on the seriousness of climate change consistently correlate with political ideology, with right-wing opinion being more negative.[24]

Climate communications is heavily focused on methods for inviting larger scale public action to address climate change. To this end, a lot of research focuses on barriers to public understanding and action on climate change. Scholarly evidence shows that the information deficit model of communication—where climate change communicators assume "if the public only knew more about the evidence they would act"—doesn't work.[25] Instead, argumentation theory indicates that different audiences need different kinds of persuasive argumentation and communication. This is counter to many assumptions made by other fields such as psychology, environmental sociology, and risk communication.[26]

Additionally, climate denialism by organizations, such as The Heartland Institute in the United States,[27][28][29] and individuals introduces misinformation into public discourse and understanding.

There are several models for explaining why the public doesn't act once more informed. One of the theoretical models for this is the 5 Ds model created by Per Epsten Stoknes.[30] Stoknes describes 5 major barriers to creating action from climate communication:

  1. Distance – many effects and impacts of climate change feel distant from individual lives
  2. Doom - when framed as a disaster, the message backfires, causing Eco-anxiety
  3. Dissonance – a disconnect between the problems (mainly the fossil fuel economy) and the things that people choose in their lives
  4. Denial -- psychological self defense to avoid becoming overwhelmed by fear or guilt
  5. iDentity -- disconnects created by social identities, such as conservative values, which are threatened by the changes that need to happen because of climate change.

In her book Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life, Kari Norgaard's study of Bygdaby—a fictional name used for a real city in Norway—found that non-response was much more complex than just a lack of information. In fact, too much information can do the exact opposite because people tend to neglect global warming once they realize there is no easy solution. When people understand the complexity of the issue, they can feel overwhelmed and helpless which can lead to apathy or skepticism.[31]

A study published in PLOS Climate studied defensive and secure forms of national identity—respectively called "national narcissism"[Note 1] and "secure national identification"[Note 2]—for their correlation to support for policies to mitigate climate change and to transition to renewable energy.[32] The researchers concluded that secure national identification tends to support policies promoting renewable energy; however, national narcissism was found to be inversely correlated with support for such policies—except to the extent that such policies, as well as greenwashing, enhance the national image.[32] Right-wing political orientation, which may indicate susceptibility to climate conspiracy beliefs, was also concluded to be negatively correlated with support for genuine climate mitigation policies.[32]

A study published in PLOS One in 2024 found that even a single repetition of a claim was sufficient to increase the perceived truth of both climate science-aligned claims and climate change skeptic/denial claims—"highlighting the insidious effect of repetition".[33] This effect was found even among climate science endorsers.[33]

Climate literacy

[edit]
Changes in interest in climate change, as measured by use of "climate change" as a Google search term.

Though communicating the science about climate change under the premises of an Information deficit model of communication is not very effective in creating change, comfort with and literacy in the main issues and topics of climate change is important for changing public opinion and action.[34] Several agencies and educational organizations have developed frameworks and tools for developing climate literacy, including the Climate Literacy Lab at Georgia State university,[35] and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.[36] Such resources in English have been collected by the Climate Literacy and Awareness Network.[37]

Creating change

[edit]

As of 2008, most of the environmental communications evidence for effecting individual or social change were focused on behavior changes around: household energy consumption, recycling behaviours, changing transportation behavior and buying green products.[38] At that time, there were few examples of multi-level communications strategies for effecting change.[38]

Behaviour change

[edit]
Main article: Social and behavior change communication

Since much of Climate communication is focused on engaging broad public action, much of the studies are focused on effecting behavior change. Typically, effective climate communication has three parts: cognitive, affective and place based appeals.[39]

Audience segmentation

[edit]
The sharp divide over the existence of and responsibility for global warming and climate change falls largely along political lines.[40] Overall, 60% of Americans surveyed said oil and gas companies were "completely or mostly responsible" for climate change.[40]
Opinion about human causation of climate change increased substantially with education among Democrats, but not among Republicans.[41] Conversely, opinions favoring becoming carbon neutral declined substantially with age among Republicans, but not among Democrats.[41]
Perceptions differ along political lines, on whether climate change was a "major factor" contributing to various extreme weather events experienced by respondents.[42]
Democrats and Republicans have long differed in views of the importance of addressing climate change, with the gap widening in the 2010s[43] and Democrats three times as likely to view global warming as human-caused.[44]

Different parts of different populations respond differently to climate change communication. Academic research since 2013 has seen an increasing number of audience segmentation studies, to understand different tactics for reaching different parts of populations.[45] It involves the identification of homogenous subgroups within an audience or target population with same demographic or psychological profiles, or both. It enables targeted messages for each subgroup for efficient communication.[46] Major segmentation studies include:

  • US Segmentation of the American audiences into 6 groups:[47] Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive.
  • AUS Segmentation of Australians into 4 segments in 2011,[48] and 6 segments analogous to the Six America's model.[49]
  • DE Segmentation of German populations into 5 segments[50]
  • India Segmentation of Indian populations into the 6 segments[51]
  • Singapore Segmentation of Singapore audiences into 3 segments[52]
  • France Segmentation of France audiences intro 6 segments mixing climate attidues and values.[53]

Changing rhetoric

[edit]
Google Trends data shows a growth in searches for the terms climate emergency (shown in red) and climate crisis (shown in blue).
Terms like "climate emergency" and climate crisis" have often been used by activists, and are increasingly found in academic papers.[54]

A significant part of the research and public advocacy conversations about climate change have focused on the effectiveness of different terms used to describe "global warming". More recently, the focus has shifted to rhetoric describing all aspects and effects of climate change, including human-non-human relationships.

History of global warming

[edit]
This section is an excerpt from Climate change § Terminology.[edit]

Before the 1980s, it was unclear whether the warming effect of increased greenhouse gases was stronger than the cooling effect of airborne particulates in air pollution. Scientists used the term inadvertent climate modification to refer to human impacts on the climate at this time.[55] In the 1980s, the terms global warming and climate change became more common, often being used interchangeably.[56][57][58] Scientifically, global warming refers only to increased global average surface temperature, while climate change describes both global warming and its effects on Earth's climate system, such as precipitation changes.[55]

Climate change can also be used more broadly to include changes to the climate that have happened throughout Earth's history.[59] Global warming—used as early as 1975[60]—became the more popular term after NASA climate scientist James Hansen used it in his 1988 testimony in the U.S. Senate.[61] Since the 2000s, usage of climate change has increased.[62] Various scientists, politicians and media may use the terms climate crisis or climate emergency to talk about climate change, and may use the term global heating instead of global warming.[63][64]

Advocating change in the way non-humans are referred to

[edit]

In her book Braiding Sweetgrass, author and botanist Robin Wall Kimmerer has suggested that the way in which animals and plants are referred to in language, specifically the English language, impact how they are perceived and therefore treated by persons who speak that language.[65] Her ideas have gained attention and inspired other considerations of how language involving non-human species/groups affects views of and actions taken that involve them.[12] The ways animals, plants, rivers, mountains, etc. are expressed in legislation can, in the view of University of Waterloo Professor, Jennifer Clary-Lemon, be damaging to perceptions as they seem to carry a persuasive tone, in favor of seeing these pieces of nature as less than; not recognizing their importance.[12]

Analysis of current conversations on rhetorical changes in climate communication

[edit]

There is not enough contribution to the field of climate change rhetoric to adequately implement rhetorical changes, despite the presumed effectiveness. Professor of Writing and Rhetoric, Eileen E. Schell of Syracuse University has described a lack of attention to conversations concerning changing rhetoric used to discuss climate change and other environmental problems. Experts believe research needs to be done in this area and then it could be applied to climate communication and could be effective in creating better messaging that spurs greater engagement and action.[66]

Health

[edit]
Main article: Climate change and health

Climate change exacerbates a number of existing public health issues, such as mosquito-borne disease, and introduces new public health concerns related to changing climate, such as increase in health concerns after natural disasters or increases in heat illnesses. Thus the field of health communication has long acknowledged the importance of treating climate change as a public health issue, requiring broad population behavior changes that allow societal climate change adaptation.[38] A December 2008 article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine recommended using two broad sets of tools to effect this change: communication and social marketing.[38] A 2018 study, found that even with moderates and conservatives who were skeptical of the importance of climate change, exposure to information about the health impacts of climate change creates greater concern about the issues.[67] Climate change is also expected to impact mental health significantly. With the increase in emotional responses to climate change, there is a growing need for greater resilience and tolerance to emotional experiences. Research has indicated that these emotional experiences can be adaptive when they are supported and processed appropriately. This support requires the facilitation of emotional processing and reflective functioning. When this occurs, individuals increase in tolerance to emotion and resilience, and are then able to support others through crisis.[68]

Importance of storytelling

[edit]

Framing climate change information as a story has been shown to be an effective form of communication. In a 2019 study, climate change narratives structured as stories were better at inspiring pro-environmental behavior.[69] The researchers propose that these climate stories spark action by allowing each experimental subject to process the information experientially, increasing their affective engagement and leading to emotional arousal. Stories with negative endings, for example, influenced cardiac activity, increasing inter-beat (RR) intervals. The story signalled the brain to be alert and take action against the threat of climate change.

A similar study has shown that sharing personal stories about experiences with climate change can convince climate change deniers.[70] Hearing about how climate change has influenced someone's life elicits emotions like worry and compassion, which can shift beliefs about climate change.

Media coverage

[edit]
Main article: Media coverage of climate change

The effect of mass media and journalism on the public's attitudes towards climate change has been a significant part of communications studies. In particular, scholars have looked at how the media's tendency to cover climate change in different cultural contexts, with different audiences or political positions (for example Fox News's dismissive coverage of climate change news), and the tendency of newsrooms to cover climate change as an issue of uncertainty or debate, in order to give a sense of balance.[4]

[edit]
Main article: Global warming in popular culture

Further research has explored how popular media, like the film The Day After Tomorrow, popular documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and climate fiction change public perceptions of climate change.[4][71] However, a 2025 study found that climate change is largely absent from popular culture. Only 12.8% of the most popular films released from 2013 to 2022 were found to include climate change in their story world, though the rate of inclusion increased substantially over time. When climate change was present, it was generally mentioned in just one scene, and its gravity and/or urgency was not emphasized.[72]

Effective climate communication

[edit]

Effective climate communications require audience and contextual awareness. Different organizations have published guides and frameworks based on experience in climate communications. This section documents those various guidelines.

General guidance

[edit]

A 2009 handbook developed by the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions at the Earth Institute at Columbia University describes eight main principles for communications based on the psychological research about Environmental decisions:[73]

  1. Know your audience
  2. Get the Audience's Attention
  3. Translate Scientific Data into Concrete Experiences
  4. Beware the Overuse of Emotional Appeals
  5. Address Scientific and Climate Uncertainties
  6. Tap into Social Identities and Affiliates
  7. Encourage Group Participation
  8. Make Behavior Change Easier

A strategy playbook, developed based on lessons learned from the COVID pandemic communication, was released On Road Media in the UK in 2020. The framework is focused on developing positive messages that help people feel optimistic about learning more to address climate change.[74] This framework included six recommendations:

  1. Make it do-able and show change is possible
  2. Focus on the big things and how we can change them
  3. Normalize action and change, not inaction
  4. Connect the planet's health with our own health
  5. Emphasis our shared responsibility for future generations
  6. Keep it down to earth

By experts

[edit]

In 2018, the IPCC published a handbook of guidance for IPCC authors about effective climate communication. It is based on extensive social studies research exploring the impact of different tactics for climate communication.[75] The guidelines focus on six main principles:

  1. Be a confident communicator
  2. Talk about the real world, not abstract ideas
  3. Connect with what matters to your audience
  4. Tell a human story
  5. Lead with what you know
  6. Use the most effective visual communication

Visuals

[edit]

A 2018 study concluded that graphical illustrations such as charts and graphs more effectively overcome misperceptions than the same information presented in text.[76] Separately, Climate Visuals a nonprofit, published in 2020 a set of guidelines based on evidence for climate communications.[77] They recommend that visual communications include:

  1. Show real people
  2. Tell new stories
  3. Show climate change causes at scale
  4. Show emotionally powerful impacts
  5. Understand your audience
  6. Show local (serious) impacts
  7. Be careful with protest imagery.

Applying findings from psychology

[edit]

Psychologists have increasingly been assisting the worldwide community in facing the difficult challenge of organizing effective climate change mitigation efforts. Much work has been done on how to best communicate climate related information so that it has positive psychological impact, leading to people engaging in the problem, rather than evoking psychological defenses like denial, distance or a numbing sense of doom.[78][79][80]

As well as advising on the method of communication, psychologists have investigated the difference it make when the right sort of person is doing the communication – for example, when addressing American conservatives, climate related messages have been shown to be received more positively if delivered by former military officers.[81] Various people who are not primarily psychologists have also been advising on psychological matters related to climate change. For example, Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, who led the efforts to organize the unprecedentedly successful 2015 Paris Agreement, have since campaigned to spread the view that a "stubborn optimism" mindset should ideally be part of an individual's psychological response to the climate change challenge.[82][83][84][85]

A study from 2020 found that persuasive messaging that explains the mechanisms behind climate change, rather than the risks or consequences of climate change, was more effective in changing beliefs, especially among conservatives.[86]

A 2023 synthesis in the Annual Review of Psychology found that climate change communication is more effective when it does the following simultaneously: (a) triggers biospheric values and environmental self-identity; (b) communicates social norms, including dynamic norms such that more people are behaving that way over time; and (c) is accompanied by system-level changes that lower the structural costs of behavior (e.g., enabling infrastructure, pricing, and defaults). Perceived distributive and procedural fairness, and trust in responsible actors, significantly predict the public acceptability of mitigation measures such as carbon pricing. Expected emotions, like the anticipated feelings of pride from low-carbon behaviors and guilt from high-carbon ones, also influence intentions and support for policies.[87]

Noting multiple studies showing that people often prefer receiving numerical details over purely verbal communication, a study by science communicators Ellen Peters and David M. Markowitz reported that participants responded more favorably to messages with precise numeric information on climate change consequences, trusting the messages more, and thinking the message sender was more likely an expert.[88] However, the researchers stated that people's math anxiety and level of mathematical ability suggested limiting the quantity of numerical information that should be presented.[88]

Sustainable development

[edit]

The impacts of climate change are exacerbated in low- and middle income countries; higher levels of poverty, less access to technologies, and less education, means that this audience needs different information. The Paris Agreement and IPCC both acknowledge the importance of sustainable development in addressing these differences. In 2019 the nonprofit, Climate and Development Knowledge Network published a set of lessons learned and guidelines based on their experience communicating climate change in Latin America, Asia and Africa.[89]

Organizations

[edit]

Research centers in climate communication include:

Other bodies that research climate communication
NGOs

Notes

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Climate communication

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Climate communication refers to the processes and strategies employed to convey scientific understanding of , its causes, and implications to non-expert audiences such as the , policymakers, and media outlets, with the aim of shaping perceptions, attitudes, and actions toward and . This field draws on , , and to address barriers like cognitive biases and that hinder comprehension of complex probabilistic risks. Central to climate communication are efforts to highlight the near-unanimous consensus among climate scientists on human-caused warming, as public estimates often fall short of the empirical reality exceeding 97% agreement among experts. Techniques such as consensus messaging have demonstrated modest success in elevating perceived agreement and concern, yet meta-analyses reveal only small overall effects on support or behavioral change, with interventions yielding effect sizes around d=0.15. Framing messages around gain versus loss or local impacts versus global scales shows variable efficacy, often limited by preexisting worldviews and political affiliations that predict attitudes more strongly than exposure to information. Controversies persist regarding the field's reliance on alarmist narratives, which empirical evidence suggests can induce defensive responses or rather than engagement, particularly when diverging from data-driven projections. Systemic biases in academic and media institutions toward emphasizing worst-case scenarios over balanced risk assessments have been critiqued for eroding trust, as coverage often amplifies in impacts while downplaying adaptive capacities or dissenting analyses within credible bounds. Despite extensive campaigns, global emissions continue to rise, underscoring causal factors like economic incentives outweighing communicative influences in driving outcomes.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Principles and Scope

Climate communication encompasses the processes by which findings from climate science—derived from empirical observations, physical models, and peer-reviewed analyses—are conveyed to non-specialist audiences, including the public, educators, and decision-makers, to enable informed comprehension of climatic dynamics. At its core, it prioritizes the accurate representation of data-driven insights, such as the human-induced increase of approximately 1.1°C (with a best estimate of 1.07°C) from 1850–1900 to 2010–2019, as assessed through multiple independent datasets including surface, , and reanalysis records. This transmission focuses on elucidating causal mechanisms, including the enhanced from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (which have risen from about 280 ppm pre-industrially to over 410 ppm by 2020), while integrating natural forcings like variations and volcanic aerosols that modulate short-term trends. Distinguishing climate communication from is fundamental: the former adheres to principles of neutrality and verifiability, presenting evidence without endorsing particular policies or mobilizing for predefined outcomes, in line with guidelines for scientific summaries to be "policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive." , by contrast, often incorporates normative appeals or selective framing to influence behavior or , potentially introducing biases that undermine , as seen in instances where alarmist projections diverge from realized outcomes like moderated sea-level rise rates (averaging 3.7 mm/year since 1993, below some early high-end estimates). Effective communication thus employs first-principles reasoning—rooted in , , and biogeochemical cycles—to explain phenomena like positive feedbacks (e.g., amplification) alongside countervailing negative feedbacks (e.g., cloud effects), without amplifying unsubstantiated narratives of inevitable catastrophe that lack empirical corroboration in current observations. The scope of climate communication is delimited to fostering clarity on uncertainties, such as estimates ranging from 2.5–4.0°C per CO2 doubling (with medium confidence in the IPCC's 3°C best estimate), and variability from phenomena like El Niño-Southern Oscillation, rather than venturing into prescriptive recommendations. It excludes direct engagement in political advocacy, prioritizing instead the demystification of complex interactions—e.g., how combustion contributes roughly 75% of recent —to equip audiences for causal evaluation grounded in reproducible evidence, while noting institutional biases in media and academia that may favor dramatized interpretations over balanced probabilistic assessments.

Relation to Climate Science and Policy

Climate communication serves as the intermediary between empirical climate science findings and policy formulation, yet frequent divergences arise where messaging prioritizes alarmist narratives over central projections from models like those in the (CMIP). General Circulation Models (GCMs) in IPCC AR6 assessments project global surface temperature increases of approximately 1.5–4.4°C by 2100 relative to pre-industrial levels under low-to-high emissions scenarios (SSP1-2.6 to SSP5-8.5), with medians around 2.0–3.5°C depending on socioeconomic pathways; these ranges reflect uncertainties in (2.5–4.0°C per CO2 doubling in CMIP6) and emissions trajectories, not inevitable catastrophe. However, communication efforts often amplify high-end tails of these distributions, framing outcomes as existential threats despite evidence that models have historically overestimated warming rates—for instance, CMIP5 ensembles simulated 16% faster global surface air temperature rise than observations since 1970, partly due to excessive sensitivity to forcings. A core element of consensus-building in communication is the assertion of near-unanimous agreement among scientists on anthropogenic warming, with studies like Cook et al. (2013) claiming 97.1% endorsement among papers expressing a position; this figure, derived from abstract ratings of 11,944 climate papers from 1991–2011, has been invoked to justify policy urgency. Critiques highlight methodological flaws, such as classifying neutral or ambiguous papers as non-endorsing without full-text review and overrepresenting endorsement by assuming silence equates to disagreement, leading to inflated figures that overlook dissenting analyses of natural variability or model limitations. Historical precedents, including media-hyped 1970s cooling fears from effects—which lacked , as peer-reviewed literature leaned toward warming—underscore risks of overreliance on incomplete models, a pattern echoed in communication's selective emphasis on projections over verified trends like the (UAH) satellite record showing +0.14°C per decade lower warming since 1979. Policy interfaces with science through communication's role in translating into actionable frameworks, such as targets, but gaps emerge when advocacy diverges from verifiable metrics favoring direct observations over proxy-based reconstructions prone to methodological controversies. and data provide robust, unadjusted global coverage, contrasting with surface proxy networks (e.g., tree rings, ice cores) where screening for correlation with modern temperatures can artifactually flatten pre-20th-century variability, as critiqued in analyses of principal component methods generating "" shapes from noise. Such adjustments, often defended as necessities, fuel amid documented urban heat island biases and station siting issues in surface records, prompting calls for policy grounded in empirical instrumentation rather than reconstructed narratives that communication amplifies without proportional scrutiny of error margins. This disconnect risks policies like rapid decarbonization that assume high-confidence catastrophic risks, despite science indicating modest, attributable warming amid natural forcings.

Historical Evolution

Pre-1990s Awareness and Early Warnings

In the , scientific assessments increasingly warned of potential atmospheric CO2 accumulation leading to global warming, as detailed in the ' 1979 Charney report, which projected a rise of 1.5 to 4.5°C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations and emphasized the physical basis of the with equilibrium likely between 1.5 and 4.5°C. This report, chaired by Jule Charney, synthesized modeling and observational data to conclude that fossil fuel emissions would drive detectable warming within decades, though uncertainties in feedbacks like water vapor and clouds persisted. Concurrently, media outlets amplified concerns over from sulfate aerosols, with articles in outlets like in 1975 speculating on an impending , but peer-reviewed literature revealed no for net cooling—only balanced debate between aerosol masking and CO2 forcing, with greenhouse warming gaining traction by decade's end. The 1980s marked a pivot in communicating warming risks, exemplified by NASA climatologist James Hansen's June 23, 1988, testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where he stated with 99% confidence that observed temperature increases were due to the enhanced greenhouse effect from human-emitted trace gases, predicting continued warming even if emissions halted immediately. Delivered amid record U.S. heat and droughts, Hansen's presentation—supported by GISS models showing 1988 as the warmest year on record—elevated climate discourse from niche journals to national headlines, though he cautioned against over-alarmism by noting natural variability's role. Early warnings often invoked extreme scenarios, such as a June 1989 Associated Press report citing UNEP official Noel Brown's projection that a three-foot sea-level rise from polar ice melt could submerge flat island nations like the Maldives by 2000 if trends persisted, a prediction rooted in then-preliminary ice core and tide gauge data but not realized, as subsequent observations showed island stability or growth from sedimentation outweighing modest rises. Public engagement prior to 1990 remained constrained by reliance on print media, scientific conferences, and bulletins, with risks overshadowed by immediate issues like and stratospheric ; surveys indicated awareness hovered below 50% in the U.S. until the late heatwaves spurred coverage. Communication strategies emphasized factual reporting of geophysical mechanisms over behavioral calls, reflecting a focused on amid aerosol versus CO2 uncertainties, rather than coordinated advocacy. This era's efforts, while pioneering, achieved limited societal penetration without amplification or policy mandates.

1990s-2000s Institutionalization and Advocacy

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted on May 9, 1992, at the Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, established a formal international framework for addressing climate change through negotiation and information-sharing mechanisms, including annual (COP) meetings that amplified scientific assessments and policy discussions to global audiences. The convention's emphasis on stabilizing concentrations to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system marked a shift toward institutionalized communication, with early COPs serving as platforms for disseminating IPCC reports and fostering diplomatic advocacy among 154 initial signatories. Building on this, the , adopted on December 11, 1997, at COP3 in , , introduced the first binding emission reduction targets for developed nations—aiming for at least 5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012—and was promoted through UN campaigns highlighting the urgency of mitigation to avert projected economic and environmental damages. These milestones formalized climate communication by integrating with calls for policy action, though implementation relied heavily on advocacy from environmental NGOs like the World Wildlife Fund and , which organized public campaigns tying protocol commitments to immediate threats such as sea-level rise and . Advocacy efforts peaked with Al Gore's 2006 documentary , which presented a slideshow-style narrative of observed warming trends, IPCC projections, and human causation, reaching millions via theatrical release and earning an Academy Award for its role in elevating public discourse. Empirical studies confirmed the film's short-term effects, including increased viewer knowledge of causes and willingness to support carbon reductions, contributing to heightened media coverage and political momentum. However, the presentation faced criticism for selective emphasis on alarmist scenarios while downplaying model uncertainties and historical variability, as evidenced by a 2007 High Court ruling identifying nine factual inaccuracies for educational use, including overstated sea-level rise predictions and hurricane links. Public concern in the rose modestly amid these efforts, with Gallup polls showing the share of Americans viewing global warming effects as a "serious problem" increasing from 35% in to 49% by April 2000, reflecting growing awareness from UN outputs and media amplification. Yet adoption lagged due to perceived economic burdens; the unanimously rejected ratification in (95-0 vote) over estimates of multi-trillion-dollar GDP losses and disproportionate costs to American industry, leading to President Bush's 2001 withdrawal announcement. Skeptic responses emerged, questioning institutional gatekeeping; the 2009 "Climategate" leak of over 1,000 emails from the of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit revealed scientists discussing data adjustments and peer-review pressures in ways that appeared to prioritize narrative over transparency, eroding trust in climate research bodies despite subsequent inquiries clearing formal misconduct. This incident highlighted vulnerabilities in advocacy reliant on centralized expertise, fueling demands for greater data openness.

2010s-Present: Digital Era and Polarization

The advent of platforms in the facilitated rapid dissemination of messages, exemplified by Greta Thunberg's solo school strike in August 2018 outside the Swedish parliament, which inspired the global Fridays for Future movement and mobilized over 1.4 million participants in strikes by March 2019. However, analyses of discourse reveal increased ideological polarization, with discussions often confined to chambers that reinforce preexisting views, though some open forums allow mixed interactions. Exposure to opposing opinions on these platforms has been shown to heighten affective polarization rather than foster consensus. Longitudinal indicates that while amplified visibility, it did not independently drive rises in skepticism during the decade. The 2021 (AR6) Working Group I summary asserted that human influence on climate is "unequivocal," with responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since pre-industrial times, prompting UN Secretary-General António Guterres to describe it as a "code red for humanity." This emphatic framing encountered criticism for potentially inducing psychological reactance, where fear-based appeals emphasizing threats without emphasizing lead to defensive , particularly among skeptical audiences, as evidenced in experimental studies on climate doom communication. Such reactance contributes to entrenched divides, with exacerbating partisan gaps during events like COP26 in 2021. In the United States, partisan disparities in climate concern persist, with 2024 surveys showing Democrats far more likely than Republicans to attribute warming primarily to activities and support aggressive policies. events, such as heatwaves, have driven temporary spikes in across regions, yet these do not consistently narrow ideological gaps. From 2023 to 2025, communication strategies have increasingly shifted toward messaging, recognizing the inevitability of some impacts and focusing on resilience rather than solely , amid ongoing polarization.

Primary Objectives

Enhancing Public Comprehension of Risks

Enhancing public comprehension of climate risks focuses on disseminating verifiable empirical data, such as observed global increases of approximately 1.1°C since pre-industrial levels, to build foundational understanding of ongoing changes. This approach utilizes concrete observables like , which has accelerated to an average rate of 4.5 mm per year as of 2023, derived from satellite altimetry measurements spanning 1993 onward. By prioritizing such metrics, communication efforts aim to ground public perceptions in measurable trends rather than unverified extrapolations. Event attribution studies provide a rigorous method to link anthropogenic influences to specific occurrences, estimating, for example, that has doubled the likelihood of certain heatwaves exceeding historical norms in and . These analyses employ climate models to compare event probabilities in current versus counterfactual warmer-free scenarios, revealing causal contributions without overstating certainty, as not all extremes are solely attributable to human factors. Presenting these findings through data visualizations and historical comparisons fosters on probabilistic risks, countering tendencies toward binary interpretations of variability. Evidence from communication research underscores that factual baselines, including pre-industrial CO2 levels of about 280 ppm contrasted with current concentrations exceeding 420 ppm, outperform vague future-oriented warnings in promoting accurate of radiative forcing mechanisms. Emotional overload from hyperbolic scenarios can induce fatigue and skepticism, whereas numerical and historical anchors enhance engagement with core physics like the . Metrics of success include reductions in literacy gaps documented in surveys; for instance, global assessments reveal that only around 40% of respondents in select populations correctly identify human-induced consensus on warming, highlighting persistent deficits in grasping basic risk drivers.

Fostering Behavioral and Policy Shifts

Climate communication strategies aimed at behavioral shifts target actions such as reducing household energy use, adopting low-carbon transportation, and altering consumption patterns like decreasing meat intake, with the goal of lowering personal carbon footprints. Empirical analyses indicate that widespread adoption of high-impact behaviors—such as cutting and shifting to plant-based diets—could theoretically reduce from developed countries by 40-70%, though actual implementation has achieved far smaller reductions due to limited scale and persistence. For instance, individual efforts, often promoted through public campaigns, have historically yielded modest savings of 5-10% in household energy consumption in targeted programs, but these translate to less than 2% of national emissions in practice, underscoring their marginal global effect without systemic enforcement. In policy advocacy, communication emphasizes framing mechanisms like carbon taxes and subsidies for renewables to garner public support, contrasting top-down mandates with voluntary incentives. Studies from the early 2020s demonstrate that messages highlighting the efficacy of carbon pricing—such as revenue recycling through rebates—can increase support among lower-income groups by 10-20 percentage points in experimental settings across countries like the and , as rebates mitigate perceived regressivity. Voluntary incentives, including subsidies and information campaigns, have shown greater long-term efficacy in fostering sustained behavioral changes compared to coercive mandates, which often provoke backlash and noncompliance, per reviews. Meta-analyses confirm that designs incorporating clear benefits and feasibility perceptions enhance endorsement for mitigation measures, though support varies by revenue use, with direct household rebates outperforming vague environmental funds. Critiques of these approaches highlight risks associated with aggressive top-down net-zero policies, which communication efforts sometimes downplay, including heightened energy costs and supply vulnerabilities. The 2022 European energy crisis, exacerbated by reliance on intermittent renewables and premature phase-outs of fossil and nuclear capacity amid the Russia-Ukraine conflict, led to gas consumption drops of 19% but also soaring prices that affected millions, with rates rising in several nations. From 2022 to 2025, these dynamics illustrated how rapid decarbonization paths, without adequate to transition costs, can induce blackouts and economic strain, as seen in partial French nuclear outages and hydro shortfalls, potentially undermining in policy shifts. Evidence suggests that overemphasizing without balancing expenses ignores causal trade-offs, where voluntary, incentive-based strategies may better align with realistic behavioral responses than mandates risking energy insecurity.

Bridging Scientific Consensus with Societal Action

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesizes scientific consensus through its Assessment Reports, with the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Summary for Policymakers stating that human activities have unequivocally caused approximately 1.1°C of warming since pre-industrial times, with the likely range of human-induced warming exceeding 1.0°C. This consensus, reflecting near-unanimous agreement among climate scientists (over 99% attributing recent warming primarily to anthropogenic greenhouse gases), is communicated via targeted summaries to inform policy without technical jargon. However, public perception often underestimates this agreement, with surveys showing average estimates around 65-70% in countries like the UK and US, leading to reduced concern and policy support. Empirical experiments demonstrate that explicitly communicating the consensus level increases public belief in human-caused change, heightens worry, and boosts support for mitigation policies across diverse demographics and 27 countries tested in 2024, without polarizing effects. Despite these gains in belief, translating consensus awareness into societal action reveals persistent gaps, as high recognition of risks does not consistently yield behavioral or shifts. Causal factors include psychological distance, where climate impacts are perceived as remote in time, space, or personal relevance, diminishing urgency; 2024 studies using to constrict this distance enhanced engagement and reduced indifference. Media amplification of IPCC findings, such as the 1.5°C threshold from the 2018 Special Report, often dilutes nuance by hyping irreversible tipping points and "12-year deadlines" for action, whereas IPCC models project risks within probability ranges (e.g., low-likelihood high-impact events) rather than certainties, potentially eroding trust when predictions vary. This sensationalism, critiqued for overstating immediacy against the report's emphasis on feasible pathways to limit warming, contributes to about actionable responses. Bridging requires addressing attribution complexities beyond core consensus, as empirical analyses of natural forcings like solar activity show limited for post- warming; peaked mid-20th century and declined slightly since, correlating inversely with temperature trends, per reconstructions and models. While studies affirm solar variability's historical role (e.g., contributing to centennial-scale changes pre-1750), IPCC assessments attribute less than 0.1°C to it since , highlighting causal dominance of greenhouse gases via balances. Verifiable pathways to action thus hinge on empirical cost-benefit analyses of interventions, prioritizing those with high efficacy like over ideologically driven mandates, to align societal responses with consensus-derived risks without overreliance on uncertain tipping cascades.

Key Challenges

Cognitive and Psychological Barriers

Cognitive limitations, such as finite attention spans and bounded worry capacity, hinder effective climate communication by reducing receptivity to repeated messaging. Psychological indicates that individuals possess a restricted capacity for sustained concern, leading to message where prolonged exposure to climate threats diminishes engagement and persuasion. A 2023 preregistered replication study with 620 participants demonstrated that climate change message correlates with lower endorsement of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors, mirroring patterns observed in campaigns. This arises from cognitive overload, where the prioritizes immediate, tangible concerns over abstract, chronic risks like gradual warming. Optimism bias further exacerbates these barriers by prompting individuals to underestimate personal vulnerability to climate impacts relative to others. Experimental evidence reveals that people systematically judge adverse climate outcomes as less probable for themselves, fostering inaction despite awareness of broader risks; for instance, surveys show adults believing global warming harms distant populations far more than their own communities. Alarmist messaging, intended to heighten urgency, often invokes psychological reactance—a defensive response to perceived threats to —resulting in heightened or opposition. A 2024 experiment found that fear appeals targeting individual responsibility in climate communication increased perceived threats and reactance, particularly when emphasizing restrictive behaviors over solutions, thereby reducing intended persuasive effects. Empirical interventions highlight that fostering perceived —belief in one's capacity for meaningful action—mitigates these barriers more effectively than doom-laden scenarios, which can induce helplessness. Studies analyzing communication strategies recommend emphasizing actionable solutions alongside risks, as pure threat framing amplifies reactance and disengagement without bolstering motivation. For example, research tied to IPCC assessments argues that nurturing efficacy beliefs through evidence of successful (e.g., renewable transitions) enhances public resolve, outperforming narratives of inevitable catastrophe in driving behavioral shifts, based on meta-analyses of outcomes. This approach counters by personalizing agency, though overuse risks diluting urgency if not grounded in verifiable progress.

Scientific Uncertainty and Complexity

Climate models estimate future warming through equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the expected global temperature rise from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations after equilibrium is reached. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), published in 2021, assesses ECS as likely ranging from 2.5°C to 4°C, with a central estimate of 3°C, narrowing the upper bound from the 1.5–4.5°C range in the Fifth Assessment Report while retaining substantial spread due to uncertainties in radiative forcings and feedbacks. Observational constraints from the instrumental record and energy budget analyses have increasingly pointed toward values in the lower half of this range, as mid-20th-century warming rates align better with ECS below 3°C when accounting for effects, though paleoclimate proxies introduce further variability. The climate system's inherent complexity amplifies these uncertainties, particularly through nonlinear feedbacks that models parameterize imperfectly. Low-level clouds, for instance, represent a dominant source of discrepancy; subtropical marine stratocumulus decks may thin and warm under rising temperatures, reducing their cooling effect and amplifying sensitivity, yet coupled model simulations often underestimate observed cloud-circulation covariability in the . Nonlinear interactions, such as those involving , efficiency, and vegetation responses, further propagate errors across scales, as local processes like defy resolution in global circulation models and can lead to bistable or threshold behaviors not captured in linear approximations. Historical precedents illustrate how such uncertainties have led to overconfident projections in environmental forecasting. In the , models predicted severe acidification of soils and waters from emissions would cause widespread across eastern and , yet empirical recovery following emissions controls revealed greater buffering capacity from soil bases and biological adaptations than anticipated, with damages confined more to sensitive lakes than broad landscapes. Analogously, early 2000s projections for summer , including ice-free conditions by 2013–2016 from some model ensembles, overestimated decline rates; while extents have diminished by about 13% per decade since 1979, persistent multi-year ice and dynamic feedbacks have delayed tipping points beyond initial timelines, highlighting model biases in ice-albedo and ocean heat uptake representations. These cases underscore the risks of communicating simplified scenarios that downplay parametric and structural uncertainties in chaotic systems.

Political and Ideological Divides

In the United States, climate communication exhibits stark partisan divides, with Democrats showing higher concern and support for measures compared to Republicans, a gap that has widened over time. Data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication indicate that from 2008 to 2024, the percentage of Democrats worried about global warming increased, while Republican concern remained relatively stable or declined, resulting in an expanding ideological chasm since around 2010. This polarization manifests in differing interpretations of scientific data, where conservative often emphasizes empirical trade-offs rather than existential threats. Progressive climate messaging, characterized by alarmist framing of imminent catastrophe, has been critiqued for alienating conservative audiences by neglecting observable benefits of elevated CO2 levels, such as global . Satellite observations from reveal that rising atmospheric CO2 has driven significant vegetation growth, accounting for roughly 70% of the greening trend between 1982 and 2012, enhancing and contributing to increased leaf area across a quarter to half of Earth's vegetated lands. This , which boosts plant productivity and , is frequently omitted in mainstream narratives, potentially undermining credibility among those prioritizing comprehensive causal assessments over selective risk emphasis. Skepticism among conservatives is empirically linked to the perceived inefficiency of policies, where trillions in global expenditures yield marginal temperature reductions. Analyses suggest that removing sufficient CO2 to lower temperatures by 0.1°C via would require approximately $22 trillion, highlighting the disproportionate costs relative to climatic outcomes. Such cost-benefit disparities, rooted in economic realism, fuel ideological resistance to policies framed as urgent imperatives without adequate acknowledgment of adaptive alternatives or net impacts.

Media Distortions and Misinformation Dynamics

frequently employs sensational language, such as " " or " ," which studies indicate heightens perceived urgency but risks overstating immediacy and eroding long-term trust when empirical outcomes diverge from predictions. A experimental study found that framing news stories with " " or " " increased public engagement and support for policy action compared to neutral "" , yet it also amplified emotional responses without proportionally improving comprehension of scientific nuances. This shift in correlates with a surge in usage; trends show " " queries rising sharply post-2018, coinciding with advocacy campaigns, though peer-reviewed analyses caution that such hyperbolic framing can foster fatigue and skepticism when extreme forecasts, like widespread or mass migrations by specific dates, fail to materialize as projected. Mainstream outlets, which empirical audits reveal exhibit toward alarmist narratives due to institutional alignments, contribute to this dynamic, with coverage in liberal-leaning publications increasing over 300% since 2012, often prioritizing dramatic events over balanced assessments. Social media platforms exacerbate distortions through algorithms optimized for engagement, which amplify both alarmist and , polarizing and undermining consensus on verifiable data like observed warming trends. Research from 2022 demonstrated Facebook's recommendation systems preferentially surfacing ist content denying anthropogenic influences, yet subsequent platform policies, including YouTube's 2021 ban on monetizing videos, have asymmetrically curtailed skeptical viewpoints while permitting unchecked escalation of doomsday scenarios. A 2025 analysis across platforms revealed higher relative engagement with misinformation sources, where extremes—such as claims of imminent or outright dismissal of temperature records—outpace moderate scientific communication, driven by virality incentives rather than evidentiary merit. efforts highlight bidirectional exaggerations: alarmist projections have overstated short-term impacts like hurricane frequency intensification, while some skeptic arguments downplay the 97% expert agreement on human causation, though suppression of debate via has stifled empirical scrutiny, as evidenced by internal platform documents revealing coordinated de-amplification of nonconforming analyses in 2021. Corporate greenwashing represents another vector of , with 2020s net-zero pledges often lacking verifiable pathways, misleading stakeholders on emission reductions. For instance, major conglomerates faced accusations in 2025 reports for touting net-zero ambitions reliant on unproven carbon offsets and lax certifications, while actual Scope 3 emissions from supply chains continued rising, as audited by independent verifiers. Regulatory actions, such as the €25 million fine against DWS in 2023 for unsubstantiated ESG claims, underscore how such tactics distort public perception of mitigation feasibility, fostering cynicism toward broader initiatives when discrepancies emerge. These dynamics collectively erode trust, as surveys link exposure to unbalanced coverage and deceptive claims to diminished faith in institutions, with bidirectional distortions impeding causal understanding of feedbacks over ideological entrenchment.

Communication Strategies

Evidence-Based Framing Techniques

Evidence-based framing techniques in communication draw from psychological experiments testing message structures that enhance perceived and support. Studies from the early indicate that positive framing, emphasizing gains from action such as improved outcomes and , outperforms negative or fear-based appeals, which can provoke defensive reactions or inaction among audiences. For instance, a experiment across multiple countries found that and environment-focused frames increased public endorsement of carbon taxes and regulations by 5-10 percentage points compared to neutral baselines, while economic frames showed no such gains. Framing climate risks in terms of immediate protection and benefits further amplifies , as local reduces psychological distance. highlights that messages stressing of health and local environments elicit stronger intentions for mitigation behaviors than abstract global threats, with messages mitigating potential backlash from loss-framed content. Conversely, overemphasizing temporal immediacy without accompanying hope or solutions can exacerbate anxiety without proportional action, as demonstrated in a 2024 BMC study where fear paired with near-future framing interacted to lower behavioral intentions in certain demographics. Critiques of these techniques note their frequent omission of economic trade-offs, potentially inflating short-term support for policies with high costs. Peer-reviewed analyses reveal that efficacy-driven moral appeals succeed in lab settings but may falter in real-world contexts where fiscal realism influences sustained public and political buy-in, underscoring the need for integrated cost-benefit framings. Such approaches, while empirically supported for attitude shifts, require validation against long-term behavioral to avoid overpromising transformative change.

Narrative and Visual Approaches

Narrative techniques in climate communication frequently incorporate personal stories and anecdotes to humanize abstract risks, aiming to evoke emotional responses and foster . Experimental evidence indicates that exposure to narratives featuring individuals impacted by weather events can positively influence beliefs about causation and support for , with studies showing shifts in attitudes comparable to factual but through heightened engagement. However, such often prioritizes dramatic, low-probability disasters from events like the floods or heatwaves, potentially skewing perceptions by overlooking empirical trends in declining global vulnerability; weather-related disaster deaths have decreased by a factor of 6.5 since 1920, attributable to advancements in , infrastructure, and response capabilities amid rising baseline temperatures. This selective emphasis risks amplifying availability heuristics, where vivid tales overshadow statistical realities of reduced per capita mortality rates despite increased event frequency in some categories. Visual methods complement narratives by translating complex datasets into accessible formats, such as trend infographics and anomaly maps, which the employed in its 2025-2029 decadal forecast to illustrate an 80% likelihood of at least one record-warm year, using ensemble projections to highlight regional hotspots. Research on underscores their efficacy in enhancing message retention and comprehension, with systematic reviews confirming that outperforms text-only presentations in conveying climate projections to diverse audiences. Despite these strengths, visual representations carry inherent risks of misrepresentation, exemplified by the popularized in the early 2000s, which depicts stable temperatures for the prior millennium followed by abrupt 20th-century warming but has been critiqued for proxy data handling that allegedly truncates medieval warmth and relies on principal component analyses prone to smoothing natural variability. Such depictions can mislead by employing cherry-picked baselines or scales that accentuate recent anomalies while compressing historical context, prompting when independent reconstructions reveal greater pre-industrial fluctuations inconsistent with unprecedented claims. Empirical assessments of manipulated visuals reveal they can provoke backlash, eroding trust more than neutral data presentations, particularly amid documented institutional biases favoring alarmist framings in academic and media outlets.

Audience Targeting and Segmentation

The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication delineates public attitudes toward climate change into six segments known as Global Warming's Six Americas: the Alarmed (who view the issue as urgent and support aggressive policies), Concerned (aware but less motivated), Cautious (uncertain and requiring more information), Disengaged (largely unaware), Doubtful (skeptical of human causation and impacts), and Dismissive (rejecting the consensus and opposing action). As of fall 2024, these groups represent distinct demographic and ideological profiles, with the Alarmed at approximately 25% of U.S. adults, the Dismissive at 15%, and the Doubtful at 18%; conservatives and Republicans predominate in the latter two, while liberals dominate the Alarmed. This segmentation underscores the need to customize messages, as uniform alarmist appeals often reinforce skepticism among the Doubtful and Dismissive by triggering defensive responses rooted in ideological priors favoring intervention. Regional variations further necessitate granular targeting, as revealed by Yale's Climate Opinion Maps, which aggregate survey data from through fall 2024 to depict state- and county-level differences in beliefs, risk perceptions, and policy support. For instance, higher concentrations of the Dismissive and Doubtful appear in rural Midwest and Southern counties, where economic dependencies on fossil fuels amplify resistance to narratives, compared to coastal urban areas with larger Alarmed populations. Communicators leverage these maps to adapt content, such as emphasizing local benefits in skeptical regions over global catastrophe rhetoric, thereby aligning with audience-specific causal understandings of risks like or energy costs. Tailored strategies for conservative-leaning segments prioritize frames invoking economic prosperity, job opportunities in , and innovation-driven growth, which resonate with values of and market solutions. Experimental evidence indicates that such economic and patriotic framings—portraying as enhancing national competitiveness or technological leadership—elevate support for policies like incentives among conservatives more effectively than environmental moral appeals, which can polarize further. For example, messages highlighting job creation in energy transitions have reduced opposition in trials by shifting focus from regulatory burdens to opportunity costs, avoiding the inefficacy of one-size-fits-all doom narratives that dismiss underlying doubts about alarmist projections. Empirical assessments of targeted communication reveal modest but consistent attitude shifts, with meta-analyses of framing experiments showing average increases in endorsement of 5-15% among non-Alarmed segments, alongside reduced partisan gaps in willingness to act. These gains stem from causal mechanisms like lowered threat perceptions and heightened efficacy beliefs, though effects diminish without sustained exposure and vary by message ; generic broadcasts, by contrast, often exacerbate divides by confirming ideological . Overall, segmentation mitigates backlash risks, fostering incremental where broad appeals fail due to heterogeneous priors on scientific and trade-offs.

Integration of Economic and Adaptation Realities

Effective climate communication requires incorporating economic analyses to provide a balanced view, highlighting both the substantial costs of aggressive strategies and potential benefits from technological advancements, rather than focusing solely on emission reductions. Estimates indicate that achieving global net-zero emissions by 2050 would necessitate annual investments of approximately $3.5 trillion to $4 trillion, representing a significant reallocation of global capital toward low-carbon technologies and infrastructure upgrades. These figures underscore the trade-offs involved, as such expenditures could strain developing economies and compete with investments in alleviation or , yet proponents argue they yield long-term savings through avoided , though empirical validation of these savings remains debated due to uncertainties in damage projections. Technological innovations have demonstrated that emissions reductions can occur through market-driven adaptations rather than regulatory mandates alone, as seen where hydraulic fracturing enabled to displace in power generation. Between 2005 and 2019, U.S. power sector CO2 emissions fell to levels comparable to the mid-1980s, primarily due to —produced via —replacing , which emits about twice the CO2 per unit of . This shift, driven by economic competitiveness rather than policy alone, highlights how can lower emissions while supporting affordability and job growth, countering narratives that frame as inherently zero-sum. A growing emphasis in climate communication involves promoting measures, which address inevitable changes through resilient , as evidenced by a 2025 shift noted in science communication discourse toward balancing with adaptation strategies. The Netherlands exemplifies successful adaptation via its extensive dike and flood defense systems, which have protected low-lying areas since major reinforcements following the 1953 North Sea flood, reducing flood risk probabilities to below 1 in 10,000 years in key regions through ongoing programs like the Delta Programme. These efforts demonstrate causal effectiveness in mitigating flood impacts, with empirical data showing minimal major breaches since implementation despite rising sea levels. Investments in resilient often yield positive returns, challenging views that is merely a costly concession to failure. Studies estimate that each dollar spent on climate-resilient measures can generate $4 to $10 in benefits over a decade by averting damages and enhancing system durability, as calculated in analyses of projects incorporating walls, elevated structures, and improved drainage. For instance, World Bank evaluations of in vulnerable regions project benefit-cost ratios exceeding 4:1, factoring in reduced economic losses from , though these returns depend on accurate risk modeling and upfront planning to avoid . Communicating such ROI evidence fosters realism, emphasizing 's role in sustaining economic productivity amid climatic variability without presupposing unattainable outcomes.

Controversies and Critiques

Alarmism, Exaggeration, and Prediction Failures

In climate communication, alarmist messaging has frequently emphasized dire, time-bound forecasts of catastrophe to galvanize and policy responses, yet many such have proven inaccurate, fostering toward broader narratives. For example, in June 1989, Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the (UNEP), stated that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the by rising levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000," attributing this to a narrow 10-year window for action. No such wholesale submersion of nations occurred by 2000, with low-lying states like the and persisting despite sea-level rise of approximately 10-20 cm over the subsequent decades. A prominent instance involves former U.S. , who in December 2009 at the Copenhagen climate summit cited research indicating the could become ice-free in summer "as soon as five to seven years" from then, implying potential disappearance by 2014-2016. This projection, drawn from estimates by scientist Wieslaw Maslowski, did not materialize; Arctic sea ice minima in 2013-2016 averaged around 4-5 million square kilometers, far from zero, though extents have declined overall since satellite records began in 1979. Gore's statement amplified a modeled possibility into a near-certain timeline, highlighting how selective emphasis on worst-case scenarios in can amplify perceived urgency at the expense of probabilistic nuance. These unfulfilled forecasts contrast with empirical trends that undermine narratives of escalating disaster lethality. Global death tolls from , including weather-related events, peaked in the at an average of about 485,000 annually but have since plummeted by over 90%, reaching roughly 13,000 per year in the 2020s when adjusted for and improved reporting via databases like EM-DAT. mortality rates have fallen even more sharply, from over 500 deaths per million people in the early to under 1 per million today, attributable to advances in , , and response rather than any abatement in event frequency. Alarmist communication often overlooks this decoupling of disaster impacts from warming, portraying static or worsening human despite data showing adaptation's efficacy. Repeated prediction shortfalls have been linked to diminished public engagement, as hyperbolic claims invite scrutiny and contribute to "hype fatigue," where audiences discount credible warnings amid cries of . Surveys indicate that exposure to overstated doomsday scenarios correlates with lower belief in anthropogenic warming among certain demographics, as failed timelines erode and invite counter-narratives. This backlash dynamic underscores a causal tension in communication strategy: while may spike short-term attention, its empirical disconfirmation risks long-term desensitization, reducing motivation for behaviors.

Censorship of Skeptical Viewpoints

Platforms such as and have implemented policies restricting content deemed to contradict the prevailing on anthropogenic , often targeting skeptical analyses that highlight effects or natural variability cycles. In April 2022, announced a prohibition on advertisements promoting views that deny or downplay established climate science, limiting the visibility of paid skeptical messaging. Similarly, in June 2024, demonetized the , a advocating skeptical positions including critiques of surface temperature data biases from , after it uploaded videos challenging mainstream narratives. These measures, framed as combating , have included algorithmic deprioritization and content removal, effectively shadowbanning or accounts emphasizing alternative causal factors like solar influences or ocean oscillations over human emissions. Academic institutions have also disciplined researchers presenting data inconsistent with alarmist projections. In 2018, dismissed physics professor Peter Ridd for questioning peer-reviewed claims of imminent collapse due to warming, arguing instead that coral resilience and historical recovery patterns undermine exaggerated decline narratives; an Australian court ruled the dismissal unfair in 2019, citing breaches of , though the university prevailed on appeal in 2020. Climatologist retired from in 2017, citing a "poisonous" environment where her emphasis on , natural forcings, and issues—such as adjustments inflating warming trends—led to professional and labeling as a "heretic." Such suppression tactics have eroded in institutions, as evidenced by U.S. national surveys showing a drop from to in belief that global warming is occurring (from 71% to 57%) and trust in as sources (from 81% to 72%), coinciding with the 2009 Climategate revelations of emails suggesting manipulation and efforts to exclude dissenting papers from the IPCC process. Post-Climategate analyses confirmed the scandal significantly diminished perceptions of scientific integrity, with politically conservative respondents experiencing sharper declines in risk assessments. By limiting open debate on verifiable like versus surface discrepancies—where skeptics contend urban expansion accounts for up to 50% of 20th-century U.S. warming—these actions foster suspicions of enforced , further polarizing and hindering empirical scrutiny.

Neglect of Costs, Benefits, and Trade-offs

Climate communications often emphasize the urgency of mitigation without adequately addressing the economic costs imposed by policies such as carbon pricing mechanisms. The 's Emissions Trading System ( ETS), implemented to cap emissions from power and industry, has driven allowance prices from under €20 per tonne in the early 2020s to approximately €70 per tonne by mid-2025, contributing to energy price volatility and higher costs for consumers and industries. These rises have exacerbated in , particularly amid the 2022 price spikes that, while influenced by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, were amplified by pre-existing regulatory pressures from the ETS and related reforms. Public discourse on climate action seldom quantifies how such mechanisms transfer costs to households and firms, potentially undermining support for policies by obscuring their immediate fiscal burdens. Opportunity costs of aggressive mitigation are similarly downplayed in messaging, where trillions in global spending on emission reductions compete with investments in poverty alleviation and basic development needs. For example, direct impacts of mitigation policies like reduced access to affordable energy or payments for avoided deforestation can adversely affect low-income livelihoods without commensurate benefits in the short term. This framing overlooks empirical trade-offs, such as reallocating funds from climate targets to health or education interventions that could yield higher returns in human welfare, especially in developing regions where immediate deprivation outweighs deferred climate risks. Potential benefits of modest warming, including agricultural gains in high-latitude regions, receive minimal attention despite evidence of productivity enhancements. In Russia, warmer conditions and extended growing seasons have boosted winter wheat yields by 1% to 17% across federal districts from the early 2000s onward, enabling expanded cultivation northward. Such effects, driven by CO2 fertilization and reduced frost risks, contrast with predominant narratives focused on uniform crop losses globally. Discussions of trade-offs between and are often sidelined, with communications prioritizing emission cuts over resilient that could deliver tangible near-term gains. Research indicates that while stringent reduces long-term risks, it can diminish the economic returns on investments by altering the baseline against which adaptations are optimized. This imbalance ignores scenarios where —such as improved management or varieties—proves more cost-effective for vulnerable populations than unattainable net-zero pathways, limiting holistic evaluation.

Greenwashing and Corporate Influences

Greenwashing refers to the practice by which corporations misrepresent their environmental impact through unsubstantiated claims of sustainability, often to deflect scrutiny from ongoing high-emission activities in climate communications. In the sector, major companies have frequently pledged net-zero emissions by 2050 while simultaneously approving expansions in and gas production, which empirical analyses show would lock in emissions exceeding limits. For instance, a 2024 assessment by Oil Change International found that the climate plans of five leading U.S. firms—, Chevron, Occidental, , and —failed to meet benchmarks for reducing production or investing meaningfully in low-carbon alternatives, with production levels projected to remain high through 2030 despite public commitments. Corporate reliance on carbon offsets exacerbates greenwashing concerns, as these mechanisms are marketed as emission equivalents but often deliver minimal verified reductions. A 2024 study in Nature Communications analyzed forestry and renewable energy offset projects, estimating that fewer than 16% of issued credits corresponded to actual emission reductions, due to issues like non-additionality (credits for activities that would occur anyway) and overestimation of baselines. Similarly, research from the University of Oxford's Smith School concluded that voluntary offset programs have systematically overstated impacts by factors of up to ten, with empirical audits revealing pervasive verification failures over 25 years. These offsets allow companies to claim progress without curtailing core operations, influencing public and investor perceptions through selective reporting in sustainability disclosures. While some corporate initiatives, such as (CCS), represent genuine technological potential for mitigating emissions from hard-to-abate sectors, their deployment remains dwarfed by hype in communications. Global CCS capture capacity reached approximately 50 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2024, capturing less than 0.1% of annual emissions, with many announced projects delayed or underperforming due to high costs and technical hurdles. Reports indicate a of over 600 projects, but operational scale lags, often serving as a narrative tool to justify continued expansion rather than a primary decarbonization strategy. This distinction highlights how verifiable metrics—such as actual CO2 injected versus pledged—expose discrepancies between corporate messaging and causal impacts on emissions trajectories.

Empirical Assessments

Impacts on Public Opinion and Perception

Public opinion on climate change in the United States has exhibited significant volatility since the , with concern levels peaking following high-profile disasters or intensified media coverage but often declining thereafter absent sustained emphasis. Gallup polls indicate that in the late and early , around 76% of identified as environmentalists, reflecting broad awareness, yet by this figure had fallen to 40%. Concern about global warming as a serious personal threat reached a record 48% in April 2025, following recent climate-related events, up from lower levels in prior years such as 35% in 1989 who expressed high care. However, historical patterns show fades, as seen after the 2008 recession when belief in anthropogenic declined amid economic insecurity. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication's 2025 opinion maps reveal geographic and demographic variations, with approximately 70% of Americans believing global warming is occurring and 58% attributing it primarily to human activities, though worry levels differ sharply by state and ideology. These maps, updated through early 2025, highlight that while national aggregates suggest majority concern, subnational data underscore persistent in regions like the Midwest and South, where economic dependencies on fossil fuels influence perceptions. Partisan divides remain stable despite episodic events, with Republicans consistently less alarmed than Democrats. Gallup data from 2023 show Republicans' worry about global warming edging down slightly since 2013, widening the gap to Democrats who maintain high concern levels around 80-90%. Pew Research confirms this stability, with 82% of Democrats viewing as a critical threat in 2023 versus 16% of Republicans, a chasm unaltered by events like hurricanes or heatwaves. Skeptical viewpoints, often amplified in , cite empirical anomalies such as the 1998-2013 global warming slowdown—during which surface temperatures rose minimally despite rising CO2 concentrations—as evidence challenging the urgency in mainstream communications. This period, acknowledged even by NOAA as featuring the slowest warming rate in decades while still being the warmest on record, fuels arguments that predictive models overestimate near-term risks, contributing to public doubt and preventing consensus on alarmist framings. Overall, these dynamics illustrate that communication efforts have shaped transient shifts but failed to erode deep-seated partisan and evidentiary divides.

Effects on Behavior and Policy Adoption

Empirical assessments reveal that communication has yielded only modest shifts in s, with effect sizes typically too small to achieve meaningful emissions reductions. A 2024 global megastudy testing 11 behavioral interventions, including messaging strategies, across 59,440 participants in 63 countries reported negligible impacts on concrete actions like , with some interventions even reducing participation, despite small gains in support (2.6 percentage points) and information sharing (12.1 percentage points). Similarly, a of randomized controlled trials on behavioral interventions for found very small effects (Cohen's d = -0.093), equivalent to less than 5% variance explained in pro-environmental s, which dissipated after interventions ended. These findings underscore the difficulty in translating into sustained high-impact actions such as reduced flying or meat consumption, where reported intentions rarely convert to verifiable reductions. In the realm of policy adoption, efficacy-oriented communications—emphasizing collective capability and actionable solutions—have shown potential to bolster support, particularly when balanced with threat information. Studies indicate that such messages enhance intended political engagement and endorsement of policies by reinforcing perceptions of feasibility. For example, framing around shared efficacy predicts stronger advocacy for policies like carbon or measures. Positive framing techniques, highlighting benefits and opportunities, have increased voluntary commitments in experiments by 10-15 percentage points in supportive behaviors or intentions, though real-world uptake remains constrained by barriers. Conversely, communications advocating top-down mandates often provoke backlash, eroding support among audiences who view them as overreaching, with evidence of heightened resistance to behavior-focused policies compared to systemic ones. Overall, while targeted messaging can marginally aid acceptance, its influence is overshadowed by socioeconomic factors and public toward coercive approaches.

Unintended Consequences and Backlash Evidence

Fear-based messaging in climate communication frequently triggers psychological reactance, a defensive response where individuals resist perceived threats to their , leading to diminished for behavioral change rather than enhanced engagement. Empirical studies demonstrate that such appeals, intended to spur action, instead provoke boomerang effects, particularly among those with preexisting skeptical views, where exposure to basic facts increases and reduces support for policies. A 2025 meta-analysis of message effects further substantiates that language perceived as restrictive or overly directive heightens reactance, undermining persuasive outcomes in environmental . Framing climate risks around tipping points has similarly yielded unintended resistance, as the inherent uncertainties and abstract nature of these concepts fail to elevate risk perceptions or prompt responses, often distracting from tangible measures. Research from 2022 indicates that nonlinear tipping narratives do not outperform linear projections in motivating public action, contributing to inaction or about the urgency conveyed. This ineffectiveness aligns with broader patterns where alarmist emphases amplify partisan divides, as tactics reinforce ideological sorting and protective cognition, entrenching opposition among conservative audiences. Over time, unfulfilled alarmist predictions erode institutional trust, as extreme forecasts—such as imminent catastrophes—can only be falsified through their absence, prompting widespread dismissal of subsequent warnings. Analyses of historical forecasting failures highlight how such discrepancies fuel skepticism, with public perception of exaggeration leading to backlash against policy demands. Economically, this manifests in resistance to high-cost interventions; for example, Europe's 2024-2025 green transition policies, driven by urgent climate narratives, provoked farmer protests and populist opposition due to disproportionate burdens on rural sectors, underscoring how neglect of trade-offs in messaging exacerbates economic grievances and policy reversals. Critiques of suboptimal strategies, including doom-laden appeals, argue they inadvertently cultivate denial by alienating audiences without addressing feasibility concerns.

Influential Entities

Research and Academic Bodies

The Yale Program on Communication (YPCCC), founded in 2005 following a on American public perceptions of , conducts nationwide surveys and develops data-driven tools to assess and inform communication strategies. Its Yale Climate Opinion Maps provide granular visualizations of climate beliefs, risk perceptions, and support for mitigation policies at state, county, and district levels, drawing on biennial probability-based samples of over 20,000 U.S. adults, with the latest iterations incorporating 2023-2024 data on evolving attitudes. YPCCC's "Six Americas" segmentation framework categorizes audiences into six psychographic groups—from the "Alarmed" to the "Dismissive"—based on empirical analysis of values, worldviews, and responsiveness to messaging, enabling tailored approaches that empirical tests show improve engagement without polarizing skeptics. The Center for Climate Change Communication (GMU CCCC), established in 2007, applies social and psychological sciences to evaluate how messaging influences climate-related behaviors and decisions, often in partnership with YPCCC. Through series like "Climate Change in the American Mind," it tracks indicators such as worry over (e.g., 55% of Americans in fall 2023 reported high concern for severe heat) and policy preferences, using validated scales to isolate causal factors like media exposure and personal experience. In 2023, CCCC's reviews synthesized evidence on climate's linkages, including psychological distress metrics where exposure to climate events correlated with elevated anxiety rates in longitudinal U.S. samples, advocating for comms that leverage health frames to boost efficacy without overreliance on fear appeals. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Working Group III (WGIII) evaluates mitigation pathways, incorporating assessments of communication's role in demand-side reductions and behavioral shifts, as in AR6's Chapter 5 on services and social aspects, which reviews from randomized trials showing modest of norms-based and incentive-framed interventions in curbing emissions. WGIII reports synthesize meta-analyses indicating that transparent, -focused comms can enhance adherence, though outcomes vary by cultural and trust in institutions. Critiques, however, highlight that the Summary for Policymakers often condenses technical findings into high-confidence statements on urgent risks, diluting discussions of scenario uncertainties and adaptive potentials from underlying chapters—government-approved line-by-line processes may prioritize consensus-driven narratives over probabilistic ranges, influencing downstream comms with selective emphasis.

Advocacy and NGO Networks

Advocacy networks in climate communication encompass non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that mobilize through campaigns emphasizing urgency and systemic change. Prominent groups like , founded in 2008 by author , have coordinated global actions such as the Fossil Free campaign launched in 2012, which targeted institutional investments in fossil fuels to stigmatize the industry and promote renewable transitions. By December 2023, this effort had secured commitments from over 1,600 institutions managing more than $40.6 trillion in assets to divest from fossil fuels in whole or part, influencing universities, pension funds, and governments. Similarly, the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal initiative, active since around 2010, has contributed to the retirement of over 300 U.S. -fired power plants, representing a significant portion of the nation's coal capacity, through legal challenges, , and policy . These campaigns have raised awareness of carbon budgets and emission trajectories, fostering networks of activists and local groups. Critics argue that such often relies on alarmist framing, exaggerating near-term risks to spur action, which can undermine credibility when predictions falter. For instance, declarations of imminent " emergencies" by NGOs have paralleled unsubstantiated claims like rapid Himalayan glacier melt timelines in IPCC-influenced reports, sourced from non-peer-reviewed documents rather than robust . Empirical studies reveal limited translation to individual change; despite heightened awareness, surveys indicate persistent attitude- gaps, with messaging on personal actions sometimes provoking resistance or helplessness rather than sustained efforts like reduced use. Behavioral interventions show variable efficacy, often failing to bridge perceptions of threats to support or shifts, particularly when costs are downplayed. Counterbalancing these are skeptic-oriented NGOs like the , which sponsor the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) to produce reports such as Climate Change Reconsidered (2009 onward), scrutinizing IPCC assessments through cost-benefit lenses. These analyses highlight potential benefits of CO2 fertilization for and question the net harms of warming, arguing that aggressive policies impose disproportionate economic burdens without commensurate global emission reductions. Heartland's work emphasizes empirical trade-offs, such as access improving human welfare via reliable energy, and critiques alarmism for overlooking adaptation's role over drastic decarbonization. Such groups, often funded independently of government grants prevalent in mainstream environmental NGOs, advocate for pragmatic policies prioritizing verifiable data over consensus-driven narratives.

Media and Political Actors

Mainstream media outlets like and the have shaped narratives through selective framing that often prioritizes dramatic scenarios over balanced discussion of uncertainties, contributing to public perceptions skewed by institutional left-leaning biases. A 2025 Humanities & Social Sciences Communications article examined communication's intersection with journalism ethics, noting persistent challenges in accurately conveying scientific complexities without . Similarly, a analysis in July 2025 urged newsrooms to elevate reporting amid underfunding, highlighting how ethical lapses in climate coverage amplify alarm while downplaying adaptive capacities or historical context. In U.S. politics, the Obama administration elevated climate communication as a national priority, with President Obama delivering major speeches in 2013 outlining carbon reduction plans and framing the issue as a for . Conversely, Donald Trump's tenure emphasized , withdrawing from the and questioning anthropogenic dominance in warming, a stance that resonated in the 2024 election where Yale Program surveys found 39% of registered voters viewing global warming as "very important" to their vote, yet with stark partisan gaps—73% of Democrats versus 10% of Republicans prioritizing action. These divides illustrate how political actors leverage climate messaging to mobilize bases, often sidelining cost-benefit analyses in favor of ideological appeals. Influential figures further mold discourse: Anthony Leiserowitz, director of Yale's Program on Climate Change Communication, has advanced strategies to shift through targeted polling and framing research, influencing policy advocacy. , former climatologist, continues issuing dire statements on warming acceleration, as in his 2025 research documenting a surge in global temperatures risking ocean circulation disruptions. On the skeptical side, , emeritus MIT atmospheric physicist, contends that to CO2 is low and feedbacks like clouds introduce substantial uncertainty, critiquing alarmism as overstated given empirical data on modest observed warming relative to projections. Such voices highlight causal realism, urging focus on verifiable forcings over consensus-driven narratives prone to bias in media and political amplification.

Shift Toward Adaptation Messaging

In 2025, climate communicators began pivoting toward and resilience messaging, recognizing that net-zero emission targets, even if attained, cannot eliminate committed warming or regional impacts from prior emissions. This shift emphasizes communicating persistent changes like sea-level rise and intensification, broadening beyond global temperature metrics to include actionable local responses. A July 2025 analysis in Nature Communications Earth & Environment recommends explicitly addressing these ongoing effects in public discourse to set realistic expectations and prioritize resilience-building. Such framing counters over-reliance on narratives that assume rapid stabilization, which empirical models show is constrained by technological and socioeconomic barriers, including supply shortfalls for critical minerals needed for decarbonization. Empirical underscores the rationale, with investments demonstrating high returns on investment compared to uncertain timelines. For example, U.S. federal disaster preparedness programs, including grants, have been shown to reduce subsequent and damages by factors yielding up to $13 in avoided losses per dollar invested, based on analyses of historical event from 2000 to 2020. These benefits arise from verifiable, localized measures such as elevated and barriers, which provide immediate causal protection against observable risks, unlike global emission cuts whose effects manifest over decades. Post-2023 events, including record anomalies exceeding prior baselines by 90% in key basins like the North Atlantic, accelerated this trend by highlighting the need for defensive strategies over predictive alone. Communicators responded with campaigns promoting site-specific adaptations, such as enhanced coastal monitoring and natural barriers in affected regions, as outlined in updated national plans like Canada's 2022–2025 strategy extensions. This focus yields practical gains, including reduced vulnerability in high-exposure areas, without requiring consensus on anthropogenic attribution debates. By centering on tangible, non-partisan outcomes like economic safeguarding and community durability, messaging diminishes ideological divides inherent in appeals. on communication strategies indicates that resilience narratives, which align with universal values of and , elicit higher cross-spectrum than alarmist or equity-framed alternatives, as evidenced in audience segmentation studies from polarized contexts. This approach fosters policy support through demonstrable successes, such as lowered disaster recovery costs, rather than contested projections.

Role of Technology and Data Visualization

Technology plays a pivotal role in climate communication by enabling interactive models and access that enhance public understanding of complex dynamics. Advances in have facilitated sophisticated scenario visualizations, allowing users to explore potential future outcomes based on varying emission pathways. For instance, in 2024, and developed an AI foundation model trained on diverse and datasets, enabling high-resolution simulations that outperform traditional methods in speed and detail. Similarly, a 2025 AI model from the simulates 1,000 years of climate evolution in just 12 hours on a single processor, providing accessible visualizations for educational and policy purposes. These tools promote accuracy by grounding communications in empirical simulations rather than simplified narratives. Satellite data applications further bolster precise communication by delivering direct observational evidence, reducing dependence on proxy indicators or model extrapolations that can introduce . Platforms like Climate TRACE integrate public and private to track global emissions in near real-time, offering transparent visualizations of anthropogenic sources such as industrial facilities. In 2024, RainbirdGEO launched satellite-based tools using data to forecast risks like heavy rainfall, providing verifiable metrics that counter anecdotal or aggregated proxies often critiqued for overgeneralization. Such apps democratize access to , fostering trust through verifiable, high-resolution over interpretive summaries. Empirical studies affirm that effective data visualization significantly boosts comprehension and engagement. A 2023 analysis found that animated visualizations in climate data stories increased public engagement by making abstract trends more intuitive, with viewers demonstrating higher retention of key facts compared to text-only formats. Another 2023 study showed that integrating artistic elements with climate data visualizations bridged perceptual divides, enhancing perceived relevance across demographics and improving attitude shifts toward evidence-based views. These findings, drawn from controlled experiments, indicate visualization can elevate discourse by clarifying causal mechanisms without relying on emotive appeals. However, the deployment of these technologies requires caution to mitigate risks of manipulation. Misleading , such as distorted scales or selective omission, can erode and foster toward legitimate , as evidenced by critiques of visuals that exaggerate trends to drive agendas. To maintain , communicators should prioritize open-source datasets and reproducible methodologies, ensuring visualizations reflect unmanipulated empirical inputs rather than advocacy-driven alterations. This approach aligns with causal realism by emphasizing verifiable over persuasive framing.

Lessons from 2023-2025 Events and Studies

In the United States, the June and July 2025 heatwaves, which affected a majority of with record-breaking summer temperatures, temporarily elevated in , as evidenced by increased mentions in surveys linking personal experiences to broader environmental concerns. However, follow-up data from Yale's Spring 2025 opinion maps revealed only modest upticks in perceived personal harm (46% reporting direct experience) without corresponding surges in support for stringent policies or behavioral shifts, indicating that event-driven awareness often dissipates without targeted follow-up messaging on actionable solutions. The World Meteorological Organization's May 2025 forecast, projecting a 70% likelihood of global temperatures averaging above 1.5°C over the subsequent five years due to ongoing trends, exemplified the challenges of probabilistic warnings in communication; despite underscoring overshoot risks, it correlated with stagnant international commitments at forums like COP30 preparations, as publics and policymakers prioritized over alarmist projections lacking clear efficacy pathways. A 2024 global survey of 59,000 respondents across 63 countries demonstrated that "gloom and doom" messaging emphasizing immediate catastrophe proved ineffective at driving intentions, often inducing helplessness rather than action, while approaches highlighting expert consensus and moral obligations yielded better engagement. Complementing this, peer-reviewed analyses of the 2023-2024 temperature spike attributed much of its intensity to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation rather than solely anthropogenic forcing, recommending that communicators integrate natural variability explanations to preserve credibility and avoid backlash from perceived causal overreach. These findings urge a pivot toward evidence-based narratives balancing realism with empowerment, as unbalanced attribution risks alienating skeptics amid recurrent natural fluctuations.

References

  1. https://coast.noaa.gov/data/digitalcoast/pdf/psychology-climate-change-communication.pdf
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424002536
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494421000761
  4. https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2189&context=jac
  5. https://gc.copernicus.org/articles/5/281/2022/
  6. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/newspapers-are-using-climate-researchers-false-claims-about-journal-bias-to-mislead-readers/
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10810730.2024.2361566
  8. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf
  9. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
  10. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter04.pdf
  11. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/
  12. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
  13. https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002821
  15. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml
  16. https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
  17. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=50
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2647809/
  19. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016RG000521
  20. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/12181/carbon-dioxide-and-climate-a-scientific-assessment
  21. https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/charney.1979.report.pdf
  22. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2007/11/common-climate-misconceptions-1970s-global-cooling-concerns-lacked-todays-scientific-rigor-and-relevance/
  23. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html
  24. https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/library/files/james-e-hansen-hansen-pdf/
  25. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2018/06/judgment-on-hansens-88-climate-testimony-he-was-right/
  26. https://tallahasseereports.com/2019/03/09/a-1989-ap-report-nations-wiped-off-face-of-the-earth-by-2000/
  27. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/26/climate/maldives-islands-climate-change.html
  28. https://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001655
  30. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/united-nations-framework-convention-on-climate-change
  31. https://unfccc.int/process/the-convention/history-of-the-convention
  32. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-kyoto-protocol
  33. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916509357696
  34. https://cei.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Marlo-Lewis-Jr-Al-Gores-Science-Fiction-A-Skeptics-Guide-to-An-Inconvenient-Truth.pdf
  35. https://news.gallup.com/poll/2086/scientists-deliver-serious-warning-about-effects-global-warming.aspx
  36. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/squandering-the-surplus-11-billion-the-unratified-kyoto-protocol
  37. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.168
  38. https://news.mit.edu/2009/climategate-story-1215
  39. https://fridaysforfuture.org/
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015000369
  41. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
  42. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374384947_Longitudinal_national_evidence_that_social_media_use_did_not_drive_climate_skepticism_and_polarization_in_the_2010s
  43. https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09/ar6-wg1-20210809-pr/
  44. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-58130705
  45. https://spsp.org/news/character-and-context-blog/bilfinger-climate-change-fear-appeals-efficacy
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384501569_The_effects_of_fear_appeals_on_reactance_in_climate_change_communication
  47. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01527-x
  48. https://www.rff.org/publications/reports/climate-insights-2024-partisan-views/
  49. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobeccles/2025/05/13/we-need-a-new-american-narrative-for-talking-about-climate-change/
  50. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/what-prompts-interest-in-climate-change/
  51. https://www.communicatemagazine.com/features/2025/a-new-dawn-for-climate-communications/
  52. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01761-5
  53. https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/
  54. https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-the-evolving-science-of-extreme-weather-attribution/
  55. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/dl/CT-Communicating-Climate-Change.pdf
  56. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
  57. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK593523/
  58. https://iiasa.ac.at/blog/feb-2020/climate-change-or-behavior-change
  59. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8607
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9464095/
  61. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00153-x
  62. https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/3431/2025/
  63. https://www.epc.eu/publication/The-European-energy-crisis-Shock-therapy-for-the-EUs-clean-energy-tr-575954/
  64. https://www.socialeurope.eu/europes-energy-divide-why-the-green-transition-risks-leaving-half-the-continent-behind
  65. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/public-hugely-underestimate-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change
  66. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/even-americans-highly-concerned-about-climate-change-dramatically-underestimate-the-scientific-consensus/
  67. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01928-2
  68. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21098-z
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259033221930140X
  70. https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
  71. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009rg000282
  72. https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article-abstract/49/3/339/7160345
  73. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/384/BAR33-05-Beattie.pdf
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000799
  75. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03232-8
  76. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
  77. https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-report-on-climate-science/
  78. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/07/climate-change-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity-global-warming/
  79. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL104573
  80. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL110525
  81. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/21/jcli-d-12-00631.1.xml
  82. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac8238
  83. https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/legacy-epas-acid-rain-research
  84. https://www.britannica.com/story/what-happened-to-acid-rain
  85. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/05/predicted-arctic-sea-ice-trends-over-time/
  86. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/09/but-you-said-the-ice-was-going-to-disappear-in-10-years/
  87. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/explore-16-years-of-u-s-climate-opinions-with-the-ccam-explore/
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306930520_The_Political_Divide_on_Climate_Change_Partisan_Polarization_Widens_in_the_US
  89. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
  90. https://www.creaf.cat/en/articles/world-has-become-greener-over-past-33-years
  91. https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-023-03601-6/index.html
  92. https://www.researchwithrutgers.com/en/publications/upping-the-ante-the-effects-of-emergency-and-crisis-framing-in-cl
  93. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-03082-9
  94. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-growing-divide-in-media-coverage-of-climate-change/
  95. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/climate-divide-how-facebooks-algorithm-amplifies-climate-disinformation/
  96. https://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Climate-of-Misinformation.pdf
  97. https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
  98. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/a/4a86454f-4287-4d1c-ae5f-85a01b8c78b8/7E90482A76C15A7B2D2473E6EDC911C0.refuting-12-claims-made-by-climate-alarmists.pdf
  99. https://agfundernews.com/new-report-accuses-big-food-of-corporate-greenwashing-danone-and-nestle-hit-back
  100. https://ecoskills.academy/global-greenwashing-enforcement-consequences/
  101. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/08/09/why-some-americans-do-not-see-urgency-on-climate-change/
  102. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00571-x
  103. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7411
  104. https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-024-02183-w
  105. https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/30982/noaa_30982_DS1.pdf
  106. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02425-6
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6686205/
  108. https://nypost.com/2024/06/09/opinion/weather-disasters-decreased-despite-warming-study-finds/
  109. https://wmo.int/publication-series/wmo-global-annual-decadal-climate-update-2025-2029
  110. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/09/230920111147.htm
  111. https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/iconic-graph-center-climate-debate
  112. https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-Climategate-Corruption/dp/1906768358
  113. https://www.igminresearch.com/articles/html/igmin296
  114. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/20563051231164310
  115. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-americas-fall-2024/
  116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S027249441830611X
  117. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.234
  118. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aba4c7
  119. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2405973121
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378024001559
  121. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/sustainability/our-insights/the-net-zero-transition-what-it-would-cost-what-it-could-bring
  122. https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/beyond-promises-120-trillion-path-net-zero-world
  123. https://www.c2es.org/content/natural-gas/
  124. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2024/05/20/how-natural-gas-and-renewables-dethroned-coal-in-america/
  125. https://www.communicatemagazine.com/news/2025/a-new-dawn-for-climate-communications/
  126. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/netherlands-flood-management-climate-adaption-model-world
  127. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/14/9/1460
  128. https://www.wri.org/news/release-wri-study-finds-climate-adaptation-investments-yield-massive-returns
  129. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2024/07/22/the-case-for-climate-resilient-infrastructure/
  130. https://climate.axa/publications/building-climate-resilience-infrastructure/
  131. https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/
  132. https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
  133. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gore-arctic-ice-may-soon-vanish-in-summer/
  134. https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/al-gore-did-not-predict-ice-caps-melting-by-2013-but-misrepresented-data-idUSL1N2RV0K6/
  135. https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
  136. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/08/27/why-deaths-from-hurricanes-and-other-natural-disasters-are-lower-than-ever/
  137. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2025.2507006
  138. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-beliefs-attitudes-december-2022/toc/2/
  139. https://niemanreports.org/battling-climate-change-backlash-environmental-journalism-coverage-tips/
  140. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764212458272
  141. https://www.cer.eu/insights/eu-emissions-trading-system-larger-eu
  142. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/2025/01/24/u-turn-on-eus-emissions-trading-system-for-road-transport-and-buildings-carries-huge-environmental-social-and-economic-price-tag/
  143. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.281
  144. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/2/718
  145. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/climate2030_russia.pdf
  146. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01976-6
  147. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w
  148. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/greenwashing
  149. https://www.iea.org/reports/the-oil-and-gas-industry-in-net-zero-transitions/executive-summary
  150. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-new-oil-and-gas-projects-since-2021-could-emit-14bn-tonnes-of-co2/
  151. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/21/oil-companies-report-fossil-fuels-climate
  152. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53645-z
  153. https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/news/carbon-offsets-have-failed-25-years-and-most-should-be-phased-out-research-0
  154. https://www.statista.com/topics/4101/carbon-capture-and-storage/
  155. https://houstonccs.com/newsroom/2024-global-status-of-ccs-report-shows-record-number-of-projects-in-ccs-pipeline-global-capture-capacity-on-track-to-double/
  156. https://news.gallup.com/poll/348227/one-four-americans-say-environmentalists.aspx
  157. https://news.gallup.com/poll/659387/record-high-call-global-warming-serious-threat.aspx
  158. https://time.com/3758465/americans-dont-care-environment-poll/
  159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959378012000143
  160. https://news.gallup.com/poll/509129/update-partisan-gaps-expand-government-power-climate.aspx
  161. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/republicans-and-democrats-continue-clash-over-climate-change
  162. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998
  163. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj5778
  164. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12457-2
  165. https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/2/1/kgac007/6839984
  166. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0157658
  167. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/understanding-six-key-truths-about-climate-change-predicts-policy-support-discussion-and-political-advocacy/
  168. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924002416
  169. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wcas/12/4/WCAS-D-19-0141.1.xml
  170. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12198273/
  171. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329956261_Psychological_Reactance_From_Reading_Basic_Facts_on_Climate_Change_The_Role_of_Prior_Views_and_Political_Identification
  172. https://academic.oup.com/hcr/advance-article/doi/10.1093/hcr/hqaf016/8178818
  173. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/438360127/Tipping_points_commentary_v6_-_authors_manuscript.pdf
  174. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-022-03459-z
  175. https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-385
  176. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378021001278
  177. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210225082517.htm
  178. https://nypost.com/2025/09/15/opinion/fearmongering-predictions-about-climate-change-keep-falling-apart/
  179. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/09/climate-backlash-europe-green-transition-farmers-protests?lang=en
  180. https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-10-26/bad-communication-on-climate-has-bad-consequences-we-must-do-better/
  181. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/the-program/
  182. https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/global-warmings-six-americas/
  183. https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/
  184. https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/all/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-beliefs-attitudes-fall-2023/
  185. https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Climate-Communication-Primer-for-Public-Health-Professionals-1.pdf
  186. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
  187. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378022000760
  188. https://350.org/our-history/
  189. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/10/2/timeline-fossil-fuels-divestment/
  190. https://www.pionline.com/esg/institutions-topping-406-trillion-total-assets-commit-fossil-fuel-divestment/
  191. https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2021/04/new-chapter
  192. https://coal.sierraclub.org/the-campaign/success-stories
  193. https://commonslibrary.org/campaign-case-study-divestment-campaign-2013-2021/
  194. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/attitude-behavior-gap/
  195. http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
  196. https://heartland.org/opinion/climate-doom-ahead-think-twice/
  197. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/in-shift-key-climate-denialist-group-heartland-institute-pivots-to-policy/
  198. https://heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/full-report-ccr-ii-biological-impacts.pdf
  199. https://sites.williams.edu/cop21/blog-posts/what-role-does-the-media-play-in-climate-change-discussion/
  200. https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/bbc-coverage-of-climate-change-should-be-accurate-as-well-as-impartial/
  201. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04585-6
  202. https://www.nature.com/articles/d44151-025-00139-6
  203. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2013/07/the-president-as-climate-change-communicator-how-obama-delivered-his-policies/
  204. https://unfccc.int/news/president-obama-climate-change-greatest-threat-to-future-generations
  205. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/ypccc-2024-election-resources/
  206. https://environment.yale.edu/directory/faculty/anthony-leiserowitz
  207. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04022025/james-hansen-research-documents-global-warming-acceleration/
  208. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-all?ID=5E3E21F5-1B4C-4208-912D-87D0A5BA342B
  209. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8335
  210. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02472-1
  211. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61090-9
  212. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/disasters/unpacking-the-roi-of-disaster-preparedness
  213. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.16111
  214. https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2025/07/28/unprecedented-ocean-heat-waves-suggest-climate-tipping-point-00477053
  215. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2025-05/24197.01%2520Canada%25E2%2580%2599s%2520Second%2520Adaptation%2520Communication_Report_E_v02N.pdf
  216. https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2269&context=jac
  217. https://www.thenationshealth.org/content/50/4/E15
  218. https://science.nasa.gov/open-science/ai-model-weather-climate/
  219. https://www.washington.edu/news/2025/08/25/ai-simulates-1000-years-of-climate/
  220. https://climatetrace.org/news/getting-clear-on-satellite-imagery
  221. https://cleantech.com/rainbirdgeo-democratizing-climate-risk-solutions-with-satellite-technology/
  222. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08838151.2023.2182788
  223. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230707153828.htm
  224. https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-risks-of-misleading-visuals/
  225. https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-implications-of-misleading-visualizations/
  226. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-beliefs-attitudes-spring-2025/toc/2/
  227. https://globalclimaterisks.org/insights/blog/world-meteorological-organization-global-temperatures-will-continue-to-break-records-in-the-next-5-years/
  228. https://scitechdaily.com/new-research-gloom-and-doom-warnings-about-climate-change-do-not-work/
  229. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/11275/2024/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.