Hearts and minds

SAN FRANCISCO--Critics of America's slow response to global warming are usually quick to point to two culprits: the Bush administration and the news media, which, critics say, give readers and viewers the false perception that there is great debate in the scientific community over whether human activity is causing climate change and how it will affect life on Earth.

"The skeptical point of view has more prominence in the media than in the scientific literature," said Jon A. Krosnick, a professor of communication and political science at Stanford University, during a symposium this morning at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Annual Meeting.

But what if the scientific method itself is to blame for the public's confusion? Krosnick was part of a panel, which included Carnegie Mellon Professor Baruch Fischhoff, that discussed how scientists--including psychologists and social scientists--can persuade the public to take action to help to curb global warming. More than one speaker noted that the culture and methods of scientists, who are hesitant to make sweeping judgments and predictions, may be contributing to public doubt. For example, scientists may not all be in accord over what will happen when as a result of climate change, but they are in agreement that the likelihood of irreversible ecological damage merits significant action on the part of policy makers and the public. 

“Science tends to be egoistic in a way. We need a nonegoistic approach, one that stresses consensus and not the individual need to be correct," said James Jackson, the director of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

The good news according to Krosnick is that a large majority of the public believes global warming is occurring and that it is getting worse, and that the public consensus on the topic is greater than on just about any other issue. The bad news is that public opinion has remained largely unchanged over the past 10 years, and the partisan divide on the issue appears to be growing. Plus, Americans don't rank global warming among the nation's most pressing problems.

What this means is that the scientific community needs to better understand the audience to which it is trying to communicate, and develop plausible solutions with benefits that are clear to the public. That's where social science comes in.

"Why social science? Climate change has a very nasty property in terms of inducing lifestyle change. ...I'm asking you to give up things that the costs to you are immediate, they are concrete and they are certain. ...The benefits are abstract, they are distant and they are uncertain," said Arthur Lupia, political science professor at the University of Michigan.

Fischhoff said that policy makers can apply the principles of decision science to help the public make informed choices about global change. Decision science tells us that people can make good decisions if they get key facts in a credible, comprehensive form; have control over themselves and their environment; are judged by their own goals; and have a minimal amount of decision-making competence.

"In order to act effectively people have to understand what their options are what might happen if they act in different ways," Fischhoff said. "You could engineer environments in which people make more effective choices."

To read more about the panel, click here and here. 

Jonathan Potts