Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world

Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been extraordinarily successful in the task of knowledge synthesis and risk assessment. However, the strong scientific consensus on the detection, attribution, and risks of climate change stands in stark contrast to widespread confusion, complacency and denial among policymakers and the public. Risk communication is now a major bottleneck preventing science from playing an appropriate role in climate policy. Here I argue that the ability of the IPCC to fulfill its mission can be enhanced through better understanding of the mental models of the audiences it seeks to reach, then altering the presentation and communication of results accordingly. Few policymakers are trained in science, and public understanding of basic facts about climate change is poor. But the problem is deeper. Our mental models lead to persistent errors and biases in complex dynamic systems like the climate and economy. Where the consequences of our actions spill out across space and time, our mental models have narrow boundaries and focus on the short term. Where the dynamics of complex systems are conditioned by multiple feedbacks, time delays, accumulations and nonlinearities, we have difficulty recognizing and understanding feedback processes, underestimate time delays, and do not understand basic principles of accumulation or how nonlinearities can create regime shifts. These problems arise not only among laypeople but also among highly educated elites with significant training in science. They arise not only in complex systems like the climate but also in familiar contexts such as filling a bathtub. Therefore they cannot be remedied merely by providing more information about the climate, but require different modes of communication, including experiential learning environments such as interactive simulations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. The Gunning Fog index is given by 0.4(W/S) + 100(W 3/W) where W is the number of words in the text, S is the number of sentences, and W 3 is the number of words of three or more syllables. Fog index calculated by www.editcentral.com/gwt1/EditCentral.html (result: 16.7) and www.online-utility.org/english/readability_test_and_improve.jsp (result: 16.9).

References

  • Axelrod R (1976) The structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth Sweeney L, Sterman J (2000) Bathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory. Syst Dynam Rev 16(4):249–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth Sweeney L, Sterman J (2007) Thinking about systems: students’ and their teachers’ conceptions of natural and social systems. Syst Dynam Rev 23(2–3):285–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D (1994) What do people know about global climate change? Part 1: mental models. Risk Anal 14(6):959–970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buehler R, Griffin D, Ross M (2002) Inside the planning fallacy: the causes and consequences of optimistic time predictions. In: Gilovich T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (eds) Heuristics and biases. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 250–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini R (2009) Influence: science and practice, 5th edn. Pearson, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly T, Arkes H, Hammond K (2000) Judgment and decision making, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin M, Gonzalez C, Sterman J (2009) Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? a challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 108(1):116–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean C (2009) Am I making myself clear? A scientist’s guide to talking to the public. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörner D (1980) On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulation & Games 11(1):87–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörner D (1996) The logic of failure. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ediwards P (2010) A vast machine. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Egan P, Mullin M (2011) Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. Working paper, New York University, March; available at http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_mullin_mar2011.pdf

  • Einhorn H, Hogarth R (1986) Judging probable cause. Psychol Bull 99(1):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (2007) Non-persuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: climate change. Environ Sci Technol 41:7204–7208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (2009) Risk perception and communication. In: Detels R, Beaglehole R, Lansang M, Gulliford M (eds) Oxford textbook of public health, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 940–952

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JW (1969) Urban dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit 40(2):351–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup (2010) Americans’ global warming concerns continue to drop. Available at www.gallup.com/poll/126560/americans-global-warming-concerns-continue-drop.aspx

  • Gilovic T, Griffin D, Kahneman D (2002) Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales P, Williams T, Jocelyn L, Roey S, Kastberg D, Brenwald S (2009) Highlights from TIMSS 2007: mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC; available at nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009001.pdf

  • Hartley L, Wilke B, Schramm J et al (2011) College students’ understanding of the carbon cycle: contrasting principle-based and informal reasoning. Bioscience 61:65–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) Principles governing IPCC work. Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1–3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the 21st Session (Vienna, 3 and 6–7 November 2003) and at the 25th Session (Mauritius, 26–28 April 2006); available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

  • IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK; available at www.ipcc.ch

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Boyle B, Hsu Y, Dunleavy E (2007) Literacy in everyday life: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC; available at nces.ed.gov/Pubs2007/2007480.pdf

  • Leiserowitz A (2007) Public perception, opinion and understanding of climate change—current patterns, trends and limitations (UNDP, New York); available at hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/papers/leiserowitz_anthony.pdf

  • Leiserowitz A, Smith N (2010) Knowledge of climate change across global warming’s six Americas. Yale University, New Haven CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Available at environment.yale.edu/climate/files/Knowledge_Across_Six_Americas.pdf

  • Leiserowitz A, Smith N, Marlon J (2010) Americans’ knowledge of climate change. Yale University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication; available at environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateChangeKnowledge2010.pdf

  • Li Y, Johnson E, Zaval L (2011) Local warming: daily temperature change influences belief in global warming. Psychol Sci 22(4):454–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Phillips L (1982) Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McClure S, Laibson D, Loewenstein G, Cohen J (2004) Separate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards. Science 306:503–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan G, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman C (2001) Risk communication: a mental models approach. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser S, Dilling L (2004) Making climate hot. Environment 46(10):32–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes E (1998) Not only the tragedy of the commons: misperceptions of bioeconomics. Manag Sci 44(9):1234–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes E (2004) Misperceptions of basic dynamics: the case of renewable resource management. Syst Dynam Rev 20(2):139–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes E, Saysel AK (2009) Misperceptions of global climate change: information policies. Clim Change 93(1–2):15–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson R (2009) Don’t be such a scientist. Island Press

  • Oreskes N, Conway E (2010) Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury Press

  • Paich M, Sterman J (1993) Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets. Manag Sci 39(12):1439–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Read D, Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Smuts D (1994) What do people know about global climate change? Part 2: survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14(6):971–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repenning N, Sterman J (2001) Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never happened: creating and sustaining process improvement. Calif Manage Rev 43(4):64–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Risen J, Critcher C (2011) Visceral fit: while in a visceral state, associated states of the world seem more likely. J Pers Soc Psychol 100(5):777–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (ed) (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (1989) Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Manag Sci 35(3):321–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Syst Dynam Rev 10(2–3):291–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill

  • Sterman J (2002) All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. Syst Dynam Rev 18(4):501–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (2008) Risk communication on climate: mental models and mass balance. Science 322:532–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J (2010) Does formal system dynamics training improve people’s understanding of accumulation? Syst Dynam Rev 26(4):316–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman J, Booth Sweeney L (2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Clim Change 80(3–4):213–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock P (2005) Expert political judgment. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar W (1978) Intuitive prediction of growth. In: Burkhardt D, Ittelson W (eds) Environmental assessment of socioeconomic systems. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagenaar W, Sagaria S (1975) Misperception of exponential growth. Percept Psychophys 18:416–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber E, Stern P (2011) Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am Psychol 66(4):315–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John D. Sterman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sterman, J.D. Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Climatic Change 108, 811 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0189-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0189-3

Keywords

Navigation