Climatic Change

, Volume 126, Issue 1–2, pp 255–262 | Cite as

How to communicate the scientific consensus on climate change: plain facts, pie charts or metaphors?

  • Sander L. van der LindenEmail author
  • Anthony A. Leiserowitz
  • Geoffrey D. Feinberg
  • Edward W. Maibach


Previous research has identified public perceptions of the scientific consensus on climate change as an important gateway belief. Yet, little research to date has examined how to effectively communicate the scientific consensus on climate change. In this study, we conducted an online experiment using a national quota sample to compare three approaches to communicating the scientific consensus, namely: (a) descriptive text, (b) a pie chart and (c) metaphorical representations. Results indicate that while all three approaches can significantly increase public understanding of the degree of scientific consensus, the pie chart and simple text have superior recall and are most effective across political party lines. We conclude that the scientific consensus on climate change is most effectively communicated as a short, simple message that is easy to comprehend and remember. Representing the consensus visually in the form of a pie chart appears to be particularly useful.


Metaphor Descriptive Text Climate Scientist Scientific Consensus Public Opinion Poll 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was funded by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Rockefeller Family Fund (RFF) as well as by Lawrence Linden, Robert Litterman and Henry Paulson.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization of the study and research questions. S.L.V., A.A.L., and G.D.F. designed and conducted the survey. S.L.V performed the data analysis and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. A.A.L., G.D.F., and E.W.M wrote, commented on and revised parts of the manuscript.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary material

10584_2014_1190_MOESM1_ESM.doc (248 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 248 kb)


  1. Aklin M, Urpelainen J (2014) Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy. Environ Sci & Policy 38:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH (2010) Expert credibility in climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:12107–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolsen T, Leeper TJ, Shapiro MA (2013) Doing what others Do: norms, science, and collective action on global warming. Am Polit Res 42:65–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonate P (2000) Analysis of Pretest-Posttest Designs. Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
  5. Consensus Project (2013) Accessed 10 January 2014
  6. Cook J et al (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ Res Lett 8:024024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Clim Chang 1:462–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doran PT, Zimmerman MK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 90:21–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guy S, Kashima Y, Walker I, O’Neill S (2013) Comparing the atmosphere to a bathtub: effectiveness of analogy for reasoning about accumulation. Clim Chang 121:579–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hollands JG, Spence I (1999) Judging proportions with graphs: the summation model. Appl Cogn Psychol 12:173–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahan DM, Jenkins‐Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14:147–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim Chang 2:732–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lakoff G (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony A (ed) Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 203–251Google Scholar
  15. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors We live by. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S, Marlon J (2014) Climate Change in the American Mind: American’s Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in November 2013. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, New Haven, CT.
  17. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S (2013) The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Clim Chang 3:399–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lipkus IM, Hollands JG (1999) The visual communication of risk. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 25:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Chenyang X (2013) Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Clim Chang 119:511–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mio J (1997) Metaphor and politics. Met Symb 12:113–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moser SC, Dilling L (2011) Communicating climate change: closing the science-action gap. In: Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D (eds) The oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 161–174Google Scholar
  22. National Research Council (2011) America’s climate choices. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Oreskes N (2004) Beyond the ivory tower: the scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306:1686Google Scholar
  24. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee Y-J, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 8:879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Russill C (2011) Temporal metaphor in abrupt climate change communication: an initial effort at clarification. In: Filho WL (ed) The economic, social and political elements of climate change. Climate Change Management. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sopory P, Price-Dillard J (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: a meta-analysis. Human Commun Res 28:382–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spence I, Lewandowsky S (1999) Displaying proportions and percentages. Appl Cogn Psychol 5:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sturgis P, Allum N (2004) Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13:55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tverksy B (2001) Spatial schemas in depiction. In: Gattis M (ed) Spatial schemas and abstract thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 79–111Google Scholar
  30. World Public Opinion Poll (2009) Public attitudes toward climate change: Findings from a multi-country poll.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sander L. van der Linden
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anthony A. Leiserowitz
    • 1
  • Geoffrey D. Feinberg
    • 1
  • Edward W. Maibach
    • 2
  1. 1.Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. School of Forestry and Environmental StudiesYale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Center for Climate Change Communication and Department of CommunicationGeorge Mason UniversityNew FairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations