climate communication

{{ multiple image | align = right | direction = horizontal | total_width = 400

| image3= 19021015 Hint to Coal Consumers - Svante Arrhenius - The Selma Morning Times - Global warming.jpg | caption3= 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.{{cite news |title=Hint to Coal Consumers |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-selma-times-1902-global-warming-pred/132568760/ |work=The Selma Morning Times |date=October 15, 1902 |location=Selma, Alabama, US |page=4 |via=Newspapers.com}}

| image4= 19120814 Coal Consumption Affecting Climate - Rodney and Otamatea Times.jpg | caption4 = 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.{{cite news|date=14 August 1912|title=Coal Consumption Affecting Climate|page=7|work=Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette|location=Warkworth, New Zealand|url=https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ROTWKG19120814.2.56.5}} Text was earlier [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:191203_Furnaces_of_the_world_-_Popular_Mechanics_-_Global_warming.jpg published] in Popular Mechanics, March 1912, p. 341.}}

Scholar Amy E. Chadwick identifies Climate Change Communication as a new field of scholarship that truly emerged in the 1990s.{{Cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication|access-date=2020-04-13|last=Chadwick|first=Amy E.|date=2017-09-26|language=en|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.22|isbn=978-0-19-022861-3|chapter-url=https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-22|chapter=Climate Change Communication}} 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.{{Cite journal|last1=Capstick|first1=Stuart|last2=Whitmarsh|first2=Lorraine|author-link2=Lorraine Whitmarsh|last3=Poortinga|first3=Wouter|last4=Pidgeon|first4=Nick|last5=Upham|first5=Paul|date=2015|title=International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.321|journal=WIREs Climate Change|language=en|volume=6|issue=1|pages=35–61|doi=10.1002/wcc.321|bibcode=2015WIRCC...6...35C |s2cid=143249638 |issn=1757-7799}} 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. This understanding was coupled with varied yet overall increased net concern that continued through the mid-2000s.

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." 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.{{Cite journal|last=Moser|first=Susanne C.|date=2010|title=Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.11|journal=WIREs Climate Change|language=en|volume=1|issue=1|pages=31–53|doi=10.1002/wcc.11|bibcode=2010WIRCC...1...31M |s2cid=35078083 |issn=1757-7799|url-access=subscription}} 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.

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.{{Cite journal|last=Moser|first=Susanne C.|date=2016|title=Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.403|journal=WIREs Climate Change|language=en|volume=7|issue=3|pages=345–369|doi=10.1002/wcc.403|bibcode=2016WIRCC...7..345M |s2cid=131292321 |issn=1757-7799|url-access=subscription}} 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. This expansion has legitimated climate change communication as its own academic field and has yielded a group of experts specific to it.

File:Gateway Belief Model.png, 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.{{Cite journal|last1=Nerlich|first1=Brigitte|last2=Koteyko|first2=Nelya|last3=Brown|first3=Brian|date=2010|title=Theory and language of climate change communication|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcc.2|journal=WIREs Climate Change|language=en|volume=1|issue=1|pages=97–110|doi=10.1002/wcc.2|bibcode=2010WIRCC...1...97N |s2cid=9022115 |issn=1757-7799|url-access=subscription}}

Within the academic field, there are debates over which is more important: knowledge-based communication or emotion-driven communication.{{Cite journal|last1=De Meyer|first1=Kris|last2=Coren|first2=Emily|last3=McCaffrey|first3=Mark|last4=Slean|first4=Cheryl|date=2020-12-30|title=Transforming the stories we tell about climate change: from 'issue' to 'action'|journal=Environmental Research Letters|language=en|volume=16|issue=1|page=015002|doi=10.1088/1748-9326/abcd5a|s2cid=229475653|issn=1748-9326|doi-access=free}} Though both are inherently linked to action, researchers often view increased understanding as leading to increased action.{{Cite journal|last1=Singh|first1=Ajay S.|last2=Zwickle|first2=Adam|last3=Bruskotter|first3=Jeremy T.|last4=Wilson|first4=Robyn|date=2017-07-01|title=The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116306475|journal=Environmental Science & Policy|language=en|volume=73|pages=93–99|doi=10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011|bibcode=2017ESPol..73...93S |issn=1462-9011|url-access=subscription}} A 2020 study by Kris De Meyer et al. attempts to push back against that notion and argues that action produces belief.

One line of climate communication study is concerned with analyzing public understanding and risk perception. 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.{{Cite journal|last=Nisbet|first=Matthew C.|author-link=Matthew Nisbet|date=2009-03-01|title=Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement|journal=Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development|volume=51|issue=2|pages=12–23|doi=10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23|bibcode=2009ESPSD..51b..12N |s2cid=153777919|issn=0013-9157}} This notion has opened the realm of climate communications to political communications, sociology, and psychology.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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).{{Cite journal|last1=Leviston|first1=Zoe|last2=Price|first2=Jennifer|last3=Bishop|first3=Brian|date=2014|title=Imagining climate change: The role of implicit associations and affective psychological distancing in climate change responses|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ejsp.2050|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|language=en|volume=44|issue=5|pages=441–454|doi=10.1002/ejsp.2050|issn=1099-0992|url-access=subscription}} 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. 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. Appeals to emotions (such as fear and hope) and to values can also be used in communication strategies. It is unclear whether negative emotions (e.g. concern and fear) or positive emotions (e.g. hope) better promote climate change action. Emotions can also be analyzed by their level of pleasantness and/or to the extent they evoke action, which is often understudied.

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. The goal was to "harness" self-interest rather than condemn it, and to "meet the audience where they are".{{cite news |last1=Borenstein |first1=Seth |last2=St. John |first2=Alexa |last3=Webber |first3=Tammy |title=Clean energy industry shifts marketing message from saving planet to money and jobs |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clean-energy-new-focus-on-money-jobs/ |agency=Associated Press, via CBS News |date=7 February 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250210074005/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clean-energy-new-focus-on-money-jobs/ |archive-date=10 February 2025}}

{{multiple_image |total_width=450

|image1= 20230321 Effectiveness of techniques to motivate climate mitigation action - bar chart.svg |caption1= 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.{{cite journal |last1=Bergquist |first1=Magnus |last2=Thiel |first2=Maximilian |last3=Goldberg |first3=Matthew H. |last4=van der Linden |first4=Sander |author-link4=Sander van der Linden |title=Field interventions for climate change mitigation behaviors: A second-order meta-analysis |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=21 March 2023 |volume=120 |issue=13 |page=e2214851120 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2214851120 |pmid=36943888 |pmc=10068847 |bibcode=2023PNAS..12014851B |s2cid=257637422 }} (Table 1)
— Explained by {{cite magazine |last1=Thompson |first1=Andrea |title=What Makes People Act on Climate Change, according to Behavioral Science |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-people-act-on-climate-change-according-to-behavioral-science/ |magazine=Scientific American |date=19 April 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230421034858/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-people-act-on-climate-change-according-to-behavioral-science/ |archive-date=21 April 2023 |url-status=live }}

| image2= 20230612 Predictors of changing opinions about global warming - survey.svg |caption2= 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.Data from {{cite web |last1=Ballew |first1=Matthew |last2=Marlon |first2=Jennifer |last3=Goldberg |first3=Matthew |last4=Maibach |first4=Edward |last5=Rosenthal |first5=Seth |last6=Aiken |first6=Emily |last7=Leiserowitz |first7=Anthony |display-authors=4 |title=Experience with global warming is changing people's minds about it |url=https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/experience-with-global-warming-is-changing-peoples-minds-about-it/ |publisher=Yale Program on Climate Change Communication |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230531182758/https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/experience-with-global-warming-is-changing-peoples-minds-about-it/ |archive-date=31 May 2023 |date=27 September 2022 |url-status=live }} ● Full technical article (pay wall): {{cite journal |last1=Allew |first1=Matthew |last2=Marlon |first2=Jennifer |last3=Goldberg |first3=Matthew |last4=Maibach |first4=Edward |last5=Rosenthal |first5=Seth |last6=Aiken |first6=Emily |last7=Leiserowitz |first7=Anthony |display-authors=4 |title=Changing minds about global warming: vicarious experience predicts self‑reported opinion change in the USA |journal=Climatic Change |date=4 August 2022 |volume=173 |issue=19 |page=19 |doi=10.1007/s10584-022-03397-w |bibcode=2022ClCh..173...19B |s2cid=251323601 |url=https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10584-022-03397-w|url-access=subscription }} (Fig. 2 on p. 12) ([https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GL3GXIKsE30aklRsDmYm6OX5ul_VME2k/view preprint])

}}

Studying climate communications can also be focused on civic engagement and the production of behavior changes for adapting or increasing resiliency to climate change. 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. Behavioral changes can also address more fundamental norms and values that influence lifestyles, life choices, and society as a whole. Engagement can also involve how those who communicate climate change interact with researchers studying the field of communications.

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. Research into engagement and action often focuses on the perception and understanding of different demographics and geographic locations. 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.{{Cite news |date=2021-07-01 |title=Schwarzenegger: climate activists should focus on pollution |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/schwarzenegger-climate-activists-should-focus-on-pollution-arnold-schwarzenegger-pollution-vienna-greta-thunberg-donald-trump-b1876308.html |access-date=2022-05-04 |work=The Independent |agency=Associated Press |language=en}}

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. The researchers said the findings confirmed the boiling frog effect for climate change communication.{{cite journal |last1=Liu |first1=Grace |last2=Snell |first2=Jake C. |last3=Griffiths |first3=Thomas L. |last4=Dubey |first4=Rachit |title=Binary climate data visuals amplify perceived impact of climate change |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |date=17 April 2025 |doi=10.1038/s41562-025-02183-9}}

{{

multiple image | align = right | direction = horizontal | total_width = 500

| image1 = 20220629 Public estimates of scientific consensus on climate change - horizontal bar chart.svg | caption1 = A 2022 study found that the public substantially underestimates the degree of scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.{{cite web |title=Public perceptions on climate change |url=https://peritia-trust.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/4-Climate-change_EU.pdf |website=PERITIA Trust EU - The Policy Institute of King's College London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220715062933/https://peritia-trust.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/4-Climate-change_EU.pdf |archive-date=15 July 2022 |page=4 |date=June 2022 |url-status=live }} Studies from 2019–2021{{cite journal |last1=Powell |first1=James |date=20 November 2019 |title=Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467619886266?journalCode=bsta |journal=Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society |volume=37 |issue=4 |pages=183–184 |doi=10.1177/0270467619886266 |s2cid=213454806|url-access=subscription }}{{cite journal |last1=Lynas |first1=Mark |last2=Houlton |first2=Benjamin Z. |author-link2=Benjamin Z. Houlton |last3=Perry |first3=Simon |title=Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature |journal=Environmental Research Letters |date=19 October 2021 |volume=16 |issue=11 |page=114005 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 |bibcode=2021ERL....16k4005L |s2cid=239032360 |doi-access=free }}{{cite journal |last1=Myers |first1=Krista F. |last2=Doran |first2=Peter T. |last3=Cook |first3=John |last4=Kotcher |first4=John E. |last5=Myers |first5=Teresa A. |title=Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later |journal=Environmental Research Letters |date=20 October 2021 |volume=16 |issue=10 |page=104030 |doi=10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774 |bibcode=2021ERL....16j4030M |s2cid=239047650 |doi-access=free }} found scientific consensus to range from 98.7–100%.

| image2 = 20220823 Public underestimation of public support for climate action - poll - false social reality.svg | caption2 = 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.{{cite journal |last1=Sparkman |first1=Gregg |last2=Geiger |first2=Nathan |last3=Weber |first3=Elke U. |title=Americans experience a false social reality by underestimating popular climate policy support by nearly half |journal=Nature Communications |date=23 August 2022 |volume=13 |issue=1 |page=4779 |doi=10.1038/s41467-022-32412-y |pmid=35999211 |pmc=9399177 |bibcode=2022NatCo..13.4779S |s2cid=251766448 }} ● Explained in {{cite web |last1=Yoder |first1=Kate |title=Americans are convinced climate action is unpopular. They're very, very wrong. / Support for climate policies is double what most people think, a new study found. |url=https://grist.org/politics/americans-think-climate-action-unpopular-wrong-study/ |website=Grist |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220829104543/https://grist.org/politics/americans-think-climate-action-unpopular-wrong-study/ |archive-date=29 August 2022 |date=29 August 2022 |url-status=live}}

}}

File:20220831 Climate change is a "major threat" to my country - Pew survey.svg

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.{{cite journal |last1=Cardenas |first1=IC |title=Mitigation of climate change. Risk and uncertainty research gaps in the specification of mitigation actions |journal=Environmental Science & Policy |date=2024 |volume=162 |issue=December 2024 |page=103912 |doi=10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103912 |doi-access=free }} 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.{{cite book|last1=Norgaard|first1=K. M.|title=Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life|date=2011|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-01544-8}}

Additionally, climate denialism by organizations, such as The Heartland Institute in the United States,{{cite book|last1=Dryzek|first1=John S.|title=The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society|last2=Norgaard|first2=Richard B.|last3=Schlosberg|first3=David|date=2011|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-968342-0|author-link1=John Dryzek|author-link2=Richard Norgaard}}{{cite book|last1=Pilkey Jr.|first1=Orrin H|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZB7RQmcOJXsC&pg=PA48|title=Global Climate Change: A Primer|last2=Pilkey|first2=Keith C.|publisher=Duke University Press|year=2011|isbn=978-0-8223-5109-2|page=48}}{{cite news|last=Gillis|first=Justin|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html|title=Clouds' Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters|date=May 1, 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=February 23, 2018|quote=...the Heartland Institute, the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism...}} 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.{{Cite journal|last=Stoknes|first=Per Espen|date=2014-03-01|title=Rethinking climate communications and the "psychological climate paradox"|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000218|journal=Energy Research & Social Science|language=en|volume=1|pages=161–170|doi=10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.007|bibcode=2014ERSS....1..161S |hdl=11250/278817|issn=2214-6296|hdl-access=free}} 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.{{Citation|last=Norgaard|first=Kari Marie|title=Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life|date=2011|publisher=The MIT Press|doi=10.7551/mitpress/8661.003.0003|isbn=978-0-262-29577-2}}

A study published in PLOS Climate studied defensive and secure forms of national identity—respectively called "national narcissism" and "secure national identification"—for their correlation to support for policies to mitigate climate change and to transition to renewable energy. 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. 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.{{cite journal |last1=Cislak |first1=Aleksandra |last2=Wójcik |first2=Adrian D. |last3=Borkowska |first3=Julia |last4=Milfont |first4=Taciano |title=Secure and defensive forms of national identity and public support for climate policies |journal=PLOS Climate |date=8 June 2023 |volume=2 |issue=6 |page=e0000146 |doi=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000146 |doi-access=free |hdl=10289/16820 |hdl-access=free }}

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". This effect was found even among climate science endorsers.{{cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yangxueqing |last2=Schwarz |first2=Norbert |last3=Reynolds |first3=Katherine J. |last4=Newman |first4=Eryn J. |title=Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers |journal=PLOS ONE |date=7 August 2024 |volume=19 |issue=8 |page=See esp. "Abstract" and "General discussion" |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0307294|doi-access=free |pmid=39110668 |pmc=11305575 }}

File:2004- "Climate change" as a search term - Google trends.svg.]]

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.{{Cite web|url=https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-11-01/mind-the-climate-literacy-gap/|title=Mind the Climate Literacy Gap|date=2019-11-01|website=Resilience|language=en-US|access-date=2020-04-16}} Several agencies and educational organizations have developed frameworks and tools for developing climate literacy, including the Climate Literacy Lab at Georgia State university,{{Cite web|url=http://sites.gsu.edu/geog1112/what-is-climate-literacy/|title=What is Climate Literacy? {{!}}|website=sites.gsu.edu|access-date=2020-04-16}} and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.{{Cite web|url=https://www.climate.gov/teaching/essential-principles-climate-literacy/essential-principles-climate-literacy|title=The Essential Principles of Climate Literacy {{!}} NOAA Climate.gov|website=www.climate.gov|access-date=2020-04-16}} Such resources in English have been collected by the Climate Literacy and Awareness Network.{{Cite web|url=https://cleanet.org/index.html|title=CLEAN|website=CLEAN|language=en|access-date=2020-04-16}}

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. At that time, there were few examples of multi-level communications strategies for effecting change.

{{Main|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.{{Cite journal|last1=Halperin|first1=Abby|last2=Walton|first2=Peter|date=April 2018|title=The Importance of Place in Communicating Climate Change to Different Facets of the American Public|journal=Weather, Climate, and Society|language=en|volume=10|issue=2|pages=291–305|doi=10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0119.1|issn=1948-8327|doi-access=free}}

{{multiple image | align = right | direction = horizontal | total_width = 450

| image1 = 2021 Survey on existence of global warming and responsibility for climate change - bar chart.svg | caption1 = The sharp divide over the existence of and responsibility for global warming and climate change falls largely along political lines. Overall, 60% of Americans surveyed said oil and gas companies were "completely or mostly responsible" for climate change.{{cite news |last1=McGreal |first1=Chris |title=Revealed: 60% of Americans say oil firms are to blame for the climate crisis |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/climate-change-poll-oil-gas-companies-environment |work=The Guardian |date=26 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211026122356/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/climate-change-poll-oil-gas-companies-environment |archive-date=26 October 2021 |url-status=live |quote=Source: Guardian/Vice/CCN/YouGov poll. Note: ±4% margin of error.}}

| image2= 20220301 Opinions by political party - Climate change causation - Action for carbon neutral 2050 - Pew Research.svg | caption2= Opinion about human causation of climate change increased substantially with education among Democrats, but not among Republicans. Conversely, opinions favoring becoming carbon neutral declined substantially with age among Republicans, but not among Democrats.{{cite web |last1=Tyson |first1=Alec |last2=Funk |first2=Cary |last3=Kennedy |first3=Brian |title=Americans Largely Favor U.S. Taking Steps To Become Carbon Neutral by 2050 / Appendix (Detailed charts and tables) |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/carbon-neutral-2050-appendix/ |website=Pew Research |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220418220503/https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/carbon-neutral-2050-appendix/ |archive-date=18 April 2022 |date=1 March 2022 |url-status=live }}

}}

{{multiple image |total_width=450

| image3=202307 Survey - climate change "major factor" in extreme weather - Washington Post.svg |caption3=Perceptions differ along political lines, on whether climate change was a "major factor" contributing to various extreme weather events experienced by respondents.{{cite news |last1=Ajasa |first1=Amudalat |last2=Clement |first2=Scott |last3=Guskin |first3=Emily |title=Partisans remain split on climate change contributing to more disasters, and on their weather becoming more extreme |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/23/extreme-weather-climate-change-poll/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=23 August 2023 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20230823125945/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/08/23/extreme-weather-climate-change-poll/ |archive-date=23 August 2023 |url-status=live }}

|image4= 202303 Global warming caused by human activities - Gallup survey.svg |caption4=Democrats and Republicans have long differed in views of the importance of addressing climate change, with the gap widening in the 2010s{{cite web |title=As Economic Concerns Recede, Environmental Protection Rises on the Public's Policy Agenda / Partisan gap on dealing with climate change gets even wider |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/02/13/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-on-the-publics-policy-agenda/ |website=PewResearch.org |publisher=Pew Research Center |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210116155958/https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/02/13/as-economic-concerns-recede-environmental-protection-rises-on-the-publics-policy-agenda/ |archive-date=16 January 2021 |date=13 February 2020 |url-status=live}} (Discontinuity resulted from survey changing in 2015 from reciting "global warming" to "climate change".) and Democrats three times as likely to view global warming as human-caused.{{cite web |last1=Saad |first1=Lydia |title=A Steady Six in 10 Say Global Warming's Effects Have Begun |url=https://news.gallup.com/poll/474542/steady-six-say-global-warming-effects-begun.aspx |publisher=Gallup, Inc. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230420123700/https://news.gallup.com/poll/474542/steady-six-say-global-warming-effects-begun.aspx |archive-date=20 April 2023 |date=20 April 2023 |url-status=live }}

}}

{{Expand section|date=April 2023}}

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.{{Cite journal|last1=Hine|first1=Donald W|last2=Reser|first2=Joseph P|last3=Morrison|first3=Mark|last4=Phillips|first4=Wendy J|last5=Nunn|first5=Patrick|last6=Cooksey|first6=Ray|date=July 2014|title=Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations: Audience segmentation and climate change communication|journal=Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change|volume=5|issue=4|pages=441–459|doi=10.1002/wcc.279|s2cid=128466697 }} 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.{{Cite journal |last=Hine |first=Donald W |last2=Reser |first2=Joseph P |last3=Morrison |first3=Mark |last4=Phillips |first4=Wendy J |last5=Nunn |first5=Patrick |last6=Cooksey |first6=Ray |date=2014-03-19 |title=Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations |url=https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.279 |journal=WIREs Climate Change |volume=5 |issue=4 |pages=441–459 |doi=10.1002/wcc.279 |issn=1757-7780|url-access=subscription }} Major segmentation studies include:

• {{Flag|US}} Segmentation of the American audiences into 6 groups:{{Cite journal|last1=Chryst|first1=Breanne|last2=Marlon|first2=Jennifer|last3=van der Linden|first3=Sander|author-link3=Sander van der Linden|last4=Leiserowitz|first4=Anthony|last5=Maibach|first5=Edward|last6=Roser-Renouf|first6=Connie|date=2018-11-17|title=Global Warming's "Six Americas Short Survey": Audience Segmentation of Climate Change Views Using a Four Question Instrument|journal=Environmental Communication|language=en|volume=12|issue=8|pages=1109–1122|doi=10.1080/17524032.2018.1508047|bibcode=2018Ecomm..12.1109C |s2cid=149807754|issn=1752-4032|url=https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/285758}} Alarmed, Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive.
• {{Flag|AUS}} Segmentation of Australians into 4 segments in 2011,{{Cite report|last1=Ashworth|first1=Peta|last2=Jeanneret|first2=Talia|last3=Gardner|first3=John|last4=Shaw|first4=Hylton|date=May 2011|title=Communication and climate change: What the Australian public thinks|location=Pullenvale|publisher=CSIRO|url=https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?list=BRO&pid=csiro:EP112769&sb=RECENT&n=27&rpp=50&page=67&tr=5045&dr=all&dc4.browseYear=2011|language=en-AU|doi=10.4225/08/584ee953cdee1|archive-date=2020-07-28|access-date=2020-04-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728163311/https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/pub?list=BRO&pid=csiro:EP112769&sb=RECENT&n=27&rpp=50&page=67&tr=5045&dr=all&dc4.browseYear=2011|url-status=dead}} and 6 segments analogous to the Six America's model.{{Cite journal|last1=Morrison|first1=M.|last2=Duncan|first2=R.|last3=Sherley|first3=C.|last4=Parton|first4=K.|date=June 2013|title=A comparison between attitudes to climate change in Australia and the United States|journal=Australasian Journal of Environmental Management|language=en|volume=20|issue=2|pages=87–100|doi=10.1080/14486563.2012.762946|bibcode=2013AuJEM..20...87M |s2cid=154223092|issn=1448-6563}}
• {{Flag|DE}} Segmentation of German populations into 5 segments{{Cite journal|last1=Metag|first1=Julia|last2=Füchslin|first2=Tobias|last3=Schäfer|first3=Mike S.|date=May 2017|title=Global warming's five Germanys: A typology of Germans' views on climate change and patterns of media use and information|journal=Public Understanding of Science|language=en|volume=26|issue=4|pages=434–451|doi=10.1177/0963662515592558|pmid=26142148|s2cid=35057708|issn=0963-6625|url=https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/148297/1/Metag%2Bet%2Bal%282017%29_Global%2BWarming%27s%2BFive%2BGermanys.pdf}}
• {{Flag|India}} Segmentation of Indian populations into the 6 segments{{Cite web|url=https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/global-warmings-six-indias/|title=Global Warming's Six Indias|website=Yale Program on Climate Change Communication|language=en-US|access-date=2020-04-12}}
• {{Flag|Singapore}} Segmentation of Singapore audiences into 3 segments{{Cite journal|last1=Detenber|first1=Benjamin|last2=Rosenthal|first2=Sonny|last3=Liao|first3=Youqing|last4=Ho|first4=Shirley S.|date=2016-10-11|title=Climate and Sustainability{{!}} Audience Segmentation for Campaign Design: Addressing Climate Change in Singapore|url=https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/4696|journal=International Journal of Communication|language=en|volume=10|page=23|issn=1932-8036}}
• {{Flag|France}} Segmentation of France audiences intro 6 segments mixing climate attidues and values.{{Cite web |title=Les Français parlent climat |url=https://www.parlonsclimat.org/les-francais-parlent-climat |access-date=2024-05-30 |website=Parlons Climat |language=fr}}

{{multiple image |total_width=450

| image1= 20200112 "Climate crisis" vs "Climate emergency" - Google search term usage.png |caption1= Google Trends data shows a growth in searches for the terms climate emergency (shown in {{red|red}}) and climate crisis (shown in {{blue|blue}}).

| image2=2008- Number of academic papers including the term, climate emergency.svg |caption2= Terms like "climate emergency" and climate crisis" have often been used by activists, and are increasingly found in academic papers.{{cite news |last1=Osaka |first1=Shannon |title=Why many scientists are now saying climate change is an all-out emergency |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/30/climate-emergency-scientists-declaration/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=30 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231030165112/https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/10/30/climate-emergency-scientists-declaration/ |archive-date=30 October 2023 |url-status=live }} Data source: Web of Science database.

}}

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.

{{Excerpt|Global_warming|Terminology}}

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.{{Cite book |last=Wall Kimmerer |first=Robin |title=Braiding Sweetgrass |year=2013}} 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.{{Cite web |last=Clary-Lemon |first=Jennifer |date=November 10, 2020 |title=Examining Material Rhetorics of Species at Risk: Infrastructural Mitigations as Non-Human Arguments |url=https://www.enculturation.net/material_rhetorics_species_at_risk |access-date=2024-03-18 |website=www.enculturation.net |language=en}} 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.

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.{{Cite web |last=Schell |first=Eileen E. |date=November 10, 2020 |title=Introduction: Rhetorics and Literacies of Climate Change |url=https://www.enculturation.net/rhetorics-and-literacies-of-climate-change |access-date=2024-03-18 |website=www.enculturation.net}}

{{Main|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.{{Cite journal|last1=Maibach|first1=Edward W.|last2=Roser-Renouf|first2=Connie|last3=Leiserowitz|first3=Anthony|date=November 2008|title=Communication and Marketing As Climate Change–Intervention Assets|journal=American Journal of Preventive Medicine|language=en|volume=35|issue=5|pages=488–500|doi=10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.016|pmid=18929975|s2cid=29207587 }} 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. 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.{{Cite journal |last1=Kotcher |first1=John |last2=Maibach |first2=Edward |last3=Montoro |first3=Marybeth |last4=Hassol |first4=Susan Joy |author-link4=Susan Joy Hassol |date=September 2018 |title=How Americans Respond to Information About Global Warming's Health Impacts: Evidence From a National Survey Experiment |journal=GeoHealth |language=en |volume=2 |issue=9 |pages=262–275 |doi=10.1029/2018GH000154 |pmc=7007167 |pmid=32159018|bibcode=2018GHeal...2..262K }} 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.Kieft, Jasmine and Bendell, Jem (2021) The responsibility of communicating difficult truths about climate influenced societal disruption and collapse: an introduction to psychological research. Institute for Leadership and Sustainability (IFLAS) Occasional Papers Volume 7. University of Cumbria, Ambleside, UK..(Unpublished)

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.{{Cite journal|last1=Morris|first1=Brandi S.|last2=Chrysochou|first2=Polymeros|last3=Christensen|first3=Jacob Dalgaard|last4=Orquin|first4=Jacob L.|last5=Barraza|first5=Jorge|last6=Zak|first6=Paul J.|last7=Mitkidis|first7=Panagiotis|date=2019-04-06|title=Stories vs. facts: triggering emotion and action-taking on climate change|journal=Climatic Change|volume=154|issue=1–2|pages=19–36|doi=10.1007/s10584-019-02425-6|bibcode=2019ClCh..154...19M|issn=0165-0009|doi-access=free|hdl=20.500.11815/2109|hdl-access=free}} 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.{{Cite web|title=Personal Climate Stories Can Persuade|url=https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/personal-climate-stories-can-persuade/|access-date=2020-12-19|website=Yale Program on Climate Change Communication|language=en-US}} Hearing about how climate change has influenced someone's life elicits emotions like worry and compassion, which can shift beliefs about climate change.

{{Main|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.

{{Main|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.{{Cite journal|last1=Schneider-Mayerson|first1=Matthew|last2=Gustafson|first2=Abel|last3=Leiserowitz|first3=Anthony|last4=Goldberg|first4=Matthew H.|last5=Rosenthal|first5=Seth A.|last6=Ballew|first6=Matthew|date=2020-09-15|title=Environmental Literature as Persuasion: An Experimental Test of the Effects of Reading Climate Fiction|journal=Environmental Communication|volume=17 |pages=35–50|doi=10.1080/17524032.2020.1814377|s2cid=224996198|issn=1752-4032}} 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.{{Cite journal |last=Schneider-Mayerson |first=Matthew |last2=Lim |first2=Jerald |last3=Stringer |first3=Moya |last4=Wilson |first4=Adria |last5=Zhou |first5=Zoky |last6=Bellido |first6=Dominic |date=2025-02-27 |title=The Presence and Portrayal of Climate Change and Other Environmental Problems in Popular Films: A Quantitative Content Analysis |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2025.2467427 |journal=Environmental Communication |language=en |pages=1–21 |doi=10.1080/17524032.2025.2467427 |issn=1752-4032|url-access=subscription }}

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.

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:{{Cite book|title=The Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public|publisher=Center For Research on Environmental Decisions, Columbia University|year=2009}}

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.{{Cite web|date=2020-09-15|title=Six ways to change hearts and minds about climate change|url=https://www.onroadmedia.org.uk/2020/09/15/six-ways-to-change-hearts-and-minds-about-climate-change/|access-date=2020-09-18|website=On Road|language=en-GB}} 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

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.{{Cite web|url=https://climateoutreach.org/resources/ipcc-communications-handbook/|title=Communications Handbook for IPCC scientists|date=January 30, 2018|website=Climate Outreach|language=en-US|access-date=2020-04-12}} 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

A 2018 study concluded that graphical illustrations such as charts and graphs more effectively overcome misperceptions than the same information presented in text.{{cite news |last1=Ingraham |first1=Ingraham |title=Study: Charts change hearts and minds better than words do |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/study-charts-change-hearts-and-minds-better-than-words-do/ |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=June 15, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211028123822/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/study-charts-change-hearts-and-minds-better-than-words-do/ |archive-date=October 28, 2021 |url-status=live }} ● Ingraham cites {{cite journal |last1=Nyhan |first1=Brendan |last2=Reifler |first2=Jason |title=The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions |journal=Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties |date=May 6, 2018 |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=222–244 |doi=10.1080/17457289.2018.1465061 |hdl=10871/32325 |s2cid=3051082 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17457289.2018.1465061|hdl-access=free }} Separately, Climate Visuals a nonprofit, published in 2020 a set of guidelines based on evidence for climate communications.{{Cite web|url=http://climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals|title=The evidence behind Climate Visuals|website=Climate Visuals|language=en|access-date=2020-04-12|archive-date=2021-03-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210307234115/https://climatevisuals.org/evidence-behind-climate-visuals}} 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.

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.

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.{{cite journal |author1=Matthew Motta |author2=Robert Ralston |author3=Jennifer Spindel |year=2021 |title=A Call to Arms for Climate Change? How Military Service Member Concern About Climate Change Can Inform Effective Climate Communication |journal=Environmental Communication |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=85–98 |doi=10.1080/17524032.2020.1799836 |bibcode=2021Ecomm..15...85M |s2cid=225469853|url=https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/12852651 }} 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.{{Cite book |title=The Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2018 |isbn=978-0-19-049898-6 |editor-last=Nisbet |editor-first=Matthew C. |editor-link=Matthew Nisbet |volume=1 |chapter=1, passim}}Christiana Figueres Tom Rivett-Carnac, The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis (Manilla Press, 2020) {{ISBN|978-0-525-65835-1}}{{cite journal |author=Susan Clayton |year=2020 |title=Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change |journal=Journal of Anxiety Disorders |volume=74 |page=102263 |doi=10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102263 |pmid=32623280 |s2cid=220370112}}{{Cite journal |last1=Ranney |first1=Michael Andrew |last2=Clark |first2=Dav |date=1 January 2016 |title=Climate Change Conceptual Change: Scientific Information Can Transform Attitudes |url=http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/5rv6s50g |journal=Topics in Cognitive Science |language=en |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=49–75 |doi=10.1111/tops.12187 |issn=1756-8765 |pmid=26804198 |doi-access=free}}

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.{{Cite journal |last1=Rotman |first1=Jeff D |last2=Weber |first2=T J |last3=Perkins |first3=Andrew W |date=2020 |title=Addressing Global Warming Denialism |journal=Public Opinion Quarterly |volume=84 |issue=1 |pages=74–103 |doi=10.1093/poq/nfaa002 |issn=0033-362X}}

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. 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.{{cite news |last1=Peters |first1=Ellen |last2=Markowitz |first2=David M. |title=Numbers Are Persuasive—If Used in Moderation |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/numbers-are-persuasive-if-used-in-moderation |work=National Geographic |date=16 October 2024 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20241018054100/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/numbers-are-persuasive-if-used-in-moderation/ |archive-date=18 October 2024 |url-status=live }}

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.{{Cite web|url=https://cdkn.org/resource/guide-communicating-climate-change-a-practitioners-guide/|title=GUIDE: Communicating climate change – A practitioner's guide|website=Climate and Development Knowledge Network|date=15 July 2019 |language=en-gb|access-date=2020-04-12}}

Research centers in climate communication include:

• Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
• Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University
• Climate Outreach (UK)
• Climate Commission (Australia)

;Other bodies that research climate communication:

• International Organizations
• the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
• the UN Climate Change Secretariat

;NGOs

• Climate and Development Knowledge Network
• Climate Council
• New Zero World
• Re.Climate (Canada){{Cite web |date=2024-05-16 |title=Home |url=https://reclimate.ca/ |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=Re.Climate |language=en-US}}
• Parlons Climat (France){{Cite web |title=Parlons Climat |url=https://www.parlonsclimat.org/ |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=Parlons Climat |language=fr}}
• Act Climate Labs (USA){{Cite web |date=2024-04-17 |title=ACT Climate Labs |url=https://www.actclimatelabs.org/ |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=ACT Climate Labs |language=en}}

{{reflist | group=Note | refs=

Cislak et al. define National Narcissism as "a belief that one's national group is exceptional and deserves external recognition underlain by unsatisfied psychological needs".

Cislak et al. define Secure National Identification as "reflect(ing) feelings of strong bonds and solidarity with one's ingroup members, and sense of satisfaction in group membership".

}}

• Climate crisis
• Climate emergency declaration

{{Reflist}}

• {{cite web |ref={{harvid|Associated Press, 22 September|2015}}

|url=https://www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/4

|title=An addition to AP Stylebook entry on global warming

|last=Colford

|first=Paul

|date=22 September 2015

|website=AP Style Blog

|access-date=6 November 2019}}

• {{cite web |ref={{harvid|NASA, 7 July|2020}}

|date=7 July 2020 |editor-last=Shaftel |editor-first=Holly

|editor2-last=Jackson |editor2-first=Randal

|editor3-last=Callery |editor3-first=Susan

|editor4-last=Bailey |editor4-first=Daniel

|title=Overview: Weather, Global Warming and Climate Change

|url=https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming-vs-climate-change |access-date=14 July 2020 |website=Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

}}

• {{citation|ref={{harvid|Weart "The Public and Climate Change: The Summer of 1988"}} |mode=cs1

|first=Spencer |last=Weart

|date =January 2020

|title=The Discovery of Global Warming

|chapter=The Public and Climate Change: The Summer of 1988

|chapter-url=http://history.aip.org/climate/public2.htm#S1988

|access-date=19 June 2020

|publisher=American Institute of Physics

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111191659/http://history.aip.org/climate/public2.htm#S1988

|archive-date=11 November 2016

|url-status=live

}}

• {{Cite news |ref={{harvid|The Guardian, 17 May|2019}}

|last= Carrington |first= Damian

|date= 17 May 2019

|title= Why the Guardian is changing the language it uses about the environment

|newspaper= The Guardian

|url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment

|access-date= 20 May 2019

}}

• {{cite web |ref={{harvid|NASA, 5 December|2008}}

|date= 5 December 2008

|last= Conway |first= Erik M.

|author-link= Erik M. Conway

|title= What's in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change

|publisher= NASA

|url= http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100809221926/http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

|archive-date= 9 August 2010

}}

• {{Cite book |ref={{harvid|IPCC AR5 SYR Glossary|2014}}

|chapter= Annex II: Glossary

|chapter-url= https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_Annexes.pdf

|year= 2014

|author= IPCC |author-link= IPCC

|title= IPCC AR5 SYR

}}

• {{Cite journal

| last1 = Hodder |first1 = Patrick

| last2 = Martin |first2 = Brian

| date=2009

| title=Climate Crisis? The Politics of Emergency Framing

| journal=Economic and Political Weekly |volume=44 |issue=36 |pages=53–60

| issn=0012-9976| jstor = 25663518

}}

• {{Cite journal

|last1 = Joo |first1 = Gea-Jae

|last2 = Kim |first2 = Ji Yoon

|last3 = Do |first3 = Yuno

|last4 = Lineman|first4=Maurice

|date=2015

|title=Talking about Climate Change and Global Warming

|journal=PLOS ONE

|volume=10|issue=9

|pages = e0138996 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0138996

|pmid = 26418127 |issn=1932-6203

|bibcode = 2015PLoSO..1038996L

|pmc=4587979

|doi-access = free

}}

• {{Cite web |ref = {{harvid|USA Today, 21 November|2019}}

|title='Climate emergency' is Oxford Dictionary's word of the year

|last=Rice|first=Doyle

|date=21 November 2019

|website=USA TODAY

|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/21/climate-emergency-oxford-dictionarys-word-year/4263945002/

|access-date=3 December 2019}}

• {{Cite web |ref={{harvid|BBC Science Focus Magazine, 3 February|2020}}

|last = Rigby | first = Sara

| date = 3 February 2020

|title=Climate change: should we change the terminology?

|website=BBC Science Focus Magazine

|language=en

|url=https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/climate-change-should-we-change-the-terminology/

|access-date=2020-03-24}}

• {{Cite web

|date= January 2016

|last1 = Shaftel |first1= Holly

|title= What's in a name? Weather, global warming and climate change

|website= NASA Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

|url= https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming

|access-date= 12 October 2018

|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20180928145703/https://climate.nasa.gov/resources/global-warming/

|archive-date= 28 September 2018

|df= dmy-all

}}

• {{citation |mode=cs1

|last = Weart |first= Spencer R.

|date = February 2014a

|title = The Discovery of Global Warming

|chapter= The Public and Climate Change: Suspicions of a Human-Caused Greenhouse (1956–1969)

|url = http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

|chapter-url = http://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm

|publisher = American Institute of Physics

|access-date= 12 May 2015

|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161111191711/http://history.aip.org/climate/public.htm#S2

|archive-date= 11 November 2016

|url-status= live

}}

• {{citation |mode=cs1

|first = Spencer R. |last= Weart

|date = February 2014b

|title = The Discovery of Global Warming

|chapter= The Public and Climate Change: The Summer of 1988

|url = http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

|chapter-url = http://history.aip.org/climate/public2.htm

|publisher= American Institute of Physics

|access-date= 12 May 2015

|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20161111191659/http://history.aip.org/climate/public2.htm#L_0575

|archive-date= 11 November 2016

|url-status= live

}}

• {{cite web |ref={{harvid|NOAA, 17 June|2015}}

|title=What's the difference between global warming and climate change?

|website=NOAA Climate.gov

|date=17 June 2015

|url=https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change

|access-date=15 October 2018

|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181107010134/https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change

|archive-date=7 November 2018

|url-status=live

}}

• {{cite book |ref={{harvid|U.S. Senate, Hearings|1988}}

|author= ((U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 100th Cong. 1st sess.))

|title= Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change: hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, part 2

|series= S. HRG. ;100-461

|date= 23 June 1988

|url= https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b5127807

}}

• Kleemann, Katrin, and Jeroen Oomen, eds. [http://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2019/4/communicating-climate-knowing-change-changing-knowledge "Communicating the Climate: From Knowing Change to Changing Knowledge,"] [http://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives RCC Perspectives: Transformations in Environment and Society] 2019, no. 4. doi.org/10.5282/rcc/8822.

{{Global warming}}

{{Communication studies}}

Category:Environmental communication