AAAS Conference on Promoting Climate Literacy Through Informal Science

AAAS Conference on Promoting Climate Literacy through Informal Science

February 17-18, 2010San Diego, CA

Summary of the Situation

American public opinion is shifting in the direction of fewer people believing that climate change is happening, that humans are causing climate change, that the majority of scientists agree that climate change is happening and that scientists can be trusted as a source of information. This shift is very partisan but reflects changes in attitudes among all age groups. These attitudes are at odds, however, with a continuing willingness by Americans to support a wide variety of climate change and energy policies. (For more specifics, see the attached highlighted statistics from public opinion polls.)

The strategies of “naysayers” to climate change are similar to well-organized and well-funded efforts to discredit the science that connected smoking to lung cancer, acid rain to negative environmental effects, and the hole in ozone layer to aerosols. They are backed by influential scientists and exploit basic misunderstandings by the majority of the public in the role of uncertainty in the scientific process and the process and significance of consensus in the science community.

The IPCC process is open and transparent, is overseen by governments, and includes extensive peer and public reviews. By its nature, the process is intellectually conservative. The most recent report (2007) concluded that “warming of the climate system is unequivocable and is now evident from many lines of inquiry. . .Most of the observed increase is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” The report, however, failed to document or predict a number of recent climate change phenomena such as the accelerated melting of Greenland and Antarctic icesheets, accelerated melting of glaciers and ice caps; rapid Arctic sea ice decline, changes in ocean temperatures, heat content, salinity, acidity, and oxygen; and the likelihood of a 1 meter sea level rise by 2100 (higher than IPCC prediction). The Copenhagen Diagnosis, released in late 2009, summarized the more recent science and also addressed the urgency of action in reducing CO2 emissions in relation to tipping points and irreversible changes.

Advice to Informal Science Educators to Promote Climate Literacy

Do not assume that scientific information about climate change will lead to rational choices or behavior change,or that more science will be more effective.
We don’t have time to increase science literacy for everyone before we engage people in climate change mitigation and adaptation. The urgency of the situation requires motivating people to buy into common values and inspiring and building the movement for action.
Know your audience. Incorporate social and learning sciences in your approach i.e., where is your audience on the “6 Americas” spectrum of “alarmed” to “dismissive” on climate change?
For those who don’t believe that climate change is happening, select the most compelling evidence which includes basic principles of physics and chemistry.Again, more science and more complex science will likely not be convincing to people who are unconvinced about climate change as a reality.
Few people understand that science is by nature provisional and that modern science, in particular, is a collective enterprise which validates ideas supported by a body of evidence judged by a jury of scientific peers. Teach how science works and the process by which scientific knowledge is established. Promote the importance of knowing a scientist’s or layperson’s expertise before trusting their conclusions or statements.
For people in the “alarmed” and “concerned” categories (and the ones you convert from the other categories), they want to know what they can do. Find meaningful things for them to do, e.g., citizen science. (This is new ground for many educators in zoos and aquaria, but “knowledge to action” has a long history in environmental education.)
Framing is required to engage visitors at the level of broad-based values such as public health, a healthy economy, quality of life, clean water, and clean air.

Provide relevance. “What does it mean to you?” is an important frame. Calibratedata to the visitors’ frame of reference, e.g., what does a 2 degree rise in global temperature or a 1 meter sea level rise mean in consequences they would be familiar with? (e.g, effects of Katrina on the sea level of New Orleans, decline in the Sierra snowpack, loss of habitat for wildlife).

The adventure of climate science is an effective frame provided it involves excited human beings in delivery.

Although melting ice is a logical and thus believable consequence of global warming, polar regions and melting ice are not persuasive frames for most Americans because they perceived them as geographically remote. Similarly, polar wildlife, like walrus and polar bears, are likely perceived as socially remote by most people (although zoo animals may serve effectively as ambassadors).

When using visuals, especially television or videos, consider that the visceral experience of potential impacts with powerful images can overwhelm a sense of empowerment.

“Gloom and doom” is ineffective; good characters, action, and an interesting narrative are all needed for a video or television story.

It’s important to acknowledge fear and offer hope.

Scientists and science educators are needed in the role ofcredible neutral “explainers” about climate change who help people understand choices, including broad, realistic energy choices (vs. nifty ideas).

Personal choice is an effective focus for exhibits and programs because energy efficiency is the “low hanging fruit” of emission reductions and everyone can be encourage to become a “first responder.” It is much more difficult to promote behavior change from a focus on climate science given the constraints of time that most visitors spend at an informal education facility.

Working with schools requires knowledge of their standards-based framework. Time available for professional development is often limited by other demands. For information about how to scaffold age-relevant topics to lead to an understanding of higher-level climate and climate change concepts, refer to the atlas that AAAS has developed as part of Project 2061.

Be a model. Implement green practices related to reducing emissions throughout your institution and programs. Use extended experiences like camps to promote conservation behaviors.

Evaluating the success of a climate literacy program requires that you have a clear understanding of what you expect the visitor to take away in terms of knowledge or what you expect in terms of behavior change.

Addressing climate literacy will require networks of people throughout the world. Network with other informal science educators and work together to design your climate change activities and outreach to help visitors move through the entire infrastructure of informal education about climate change in your area.

Some important statistics and information:

CO2 emissions have increased 41% since 1990. The increase in the rate of emissions during the period 2000-2009 was 3%/year (up from 1%/year

1990-99).

The average global temperature has had a steady linear upward trend from 1980-2009 at a rate of .2 deg. C/decade (3.6 deg. F.). Two degrees is the predicted rise in global average temperature that could be stabilized if CO2 emission rates were halved by 2050 compared to 1990.

Sea level is now rising at a rate at the high end of the 2007 IPCC prediction and the rate is increasing. No estimate of melt rates for the Greenland and Antarctic icesheets was available for incorporation into models before the 2007 report was completed. It’s now clear from measurements of changes in the mass balance of these icesheets that sea level is rising faster than can be accounted for by the thermal expansion of a warmer ocean.

Arctic sea ice has been identified as one of several “tipping points” in terms of the global climate.

For More Information:

Speaker bios and conference presentations are available online at

Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes, the conference keynote speaker, was recently published.

Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes, a series of polls on American attitudes toward climate change and mitigating measures related to climate change and energy policy and lifestyle choices by Yale University and George Mason University The reports include the 2006 study of the “Six Americas” and a 2010 update.

The Copenhagen Diagnosis report can be downloaded at

Attachment 1. Selected statistics from public opinion polls of American attitudes about climate change

Public Knowledge and Attitudes [Presented at a panel at the AAAS Conference on Promoting Climate Literacy through Informal Science with membersLeah Christian, Pew Research Center; Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University Project on Climate Change; and Jean Johnson, Public Agenda. Survey results below are from the 2009 American Public Agenda Pool, Pew Research Foundation (2001-2009) and the Yale Climate Change Project (2008,2010)] For a series of reports on surveys done by the Yale University and George Mason University, Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes,go to the webpage of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University:

Americans are ignorant about energy sources and climate change (4 out of 10 people can’t name a fossil fuel, 6 out of 10 people can’t name a renewable energy source, 56% believe that nuclear energy causes global warming, 32% believe that solar energy causes global warming, only 54% believe that driving cars and trucks contributes to global warming.)
Climate change is a low priorityissuefor the American public (#21 since 2001), especially with recent economic concerns.
Attitudes about global warming and trust in scientists is polarized on partisan lines.
Belief that global warming is happening and is caused by human actions has declined since 2006.
The belief that scientists agree that it is happening declined significantly after “climategate.
Many people are not engaged with the issue. (55% knew “nothing about cap-and-trade, 30% knew “a little,” and 14% knew “a lot.” When asked what “cap and trade referred to, 23% chose “energy and the environment;” of the choices made by the other 77%, 11% said “health care.)
Despite this lack of knowledge and declining belief, broad support for energy policies to reduce emissions persist. (50% favor setting limits on CO2 emissions, 82% favor funding for wind and solar energy, 70% favor funding for mass transit, 73% say that even if gas prices are lower, we still need to develop alternative energy.
The Yale project characterized the potential audiences into, “the Six Americas:”

The Alarmed (18% in 2009, 10% in 2010) – high knowledge, highest belief, most motivated to act, “What can I do?”
The Concerned (33% in 2009, 29% in 2010) – may have high knowledge but it is still a distant threat
The Cautious (19% in 2009, 27% in 2010)
The Disengaged (12% in 2009, 6% in 2010) “I don’t know.”
The Doubtful (11% in 2009, 13% in 2010)
The Dismissive (7% in 2009, 16% in 2010) – high knowledge, lowest belief, low motivation, hard-core, often-vocal naysayers

Panel members thought the shift towards less belief in climate change and engagement in solutions was due to the emphasis on the poor economy, media coverage, and a concerted backlash against Congressional actions. More highly-educated Republicans believe less in global warming and correct answers about the causes.