Thanks. Just to be clear,
I was ONLY talking about the use of the 97% number specifically. That was my only point.
WRI refers to scientific consensus consistently, always have, will continue to do so and encourage using that language and certainly don’t doubt the usefulness of that!! It was only the use of that
specific number I was raising in the email. But, it is good to know talking about the 97% specifically has proven to be powerful and convincing.
Appreciate all the good information on it.
Christina DeConcini, Esq.,
Director of Government Affairs
World Resources Institute
Mobile: +1 301-512-9576
cdeconcini@wri.org
From: Philip Newell <pnewell@climatenexus.org>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 1:02 PM
To: Christina Deconcini <Christina.Deconcini@wri.org>; Hawkins, Dave <dhawkins@nrdc.org>; Combined Defense Project <cdp@groups.b-team.org>
Cc: Devine, Jon <jdevine@nrdc.org>
Subject: Re: [cdp] RE: responding to EPA reviewing climate science
Hi Christina,
The social science literature has demonstrated that understanding expert consensus is a gateway to accepting the science, which in turn drives demand for climate action. I’d
strongly suggest you stop trying to get WRI to move away from it, as it has proven to be one of the single most effective pieces of communication we have at our disposal.
Here’s one of the most recent pieces, a study from April ‘19 illustrating that informing people about the consensus changes attitudes, increases support for action, and importantly,
was particularly effective for conservatives and disbelievers:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494418305772
This study from 2013 comes at it from the opposite angle, and shows that the perception that scientists aren’t in agreement is accompanied by lower levels of support for climate
policy: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9
You can also sort of see it in Yale’s mapping data- look at the “most scientists think global warming is happening” map, then compare that to the support for policies. The
states where fewest people think scientists agree are those where support for climate action tends to be least:
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us/
By quantifying the number, anywhere between 90-97%, communicators can provide certainty to the public that the consensus is overwhelming. That replaces the mental model the
fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions trying to implant in the public, which is that scientists still disagree. Prior to the push to seed the 97% message, the public largely felt that the split was more like 50:50 than it was 9:1 (referred to
as the “consensus gap”.) By giving an exact figure, it replaces a vague sense of an even split with a concrete and memorable fact, and the social science is clear that to replace a myth in someone’s head, you need a “sticky” fact or figure, which is what the
97% figure supplies that more general “consensus” language doesn’t.
Over the past few years, polling has consistently shown that both the recognition of the consensus and concern about the problem have risen. See this chart, particularly the
post-2015 gains:
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/americans-climate-views/
Since the 1950s, industries of various types recognized that seeding doubt in the public is easily accomplished by making them believe scientists disagree on the issue. Why
would industry spend decades and millions of dollars on communications campaigns to make the public believe scientists disagree if it wasn’t helpful to their cause? We know they spend inordinate amounts on message testing, so if they’re pushing a message,
it’s not based on a hunch. Remember the “4 out of 5 doctors smoke X brand” or “9 out of 10 dentists choose Y toothpaste”? Corporate ad campaigns like that are heavily market tested, so you can feel confident that if they recognize the value of putting an exact
figure on it, there’s a reason for it.
Considering what we know about the public’s reliance on heuristics to understand complex issues, it makes sense that a simple fact (97% of scientists recognize we’re causing
climate change) is useful as a mental shortcut. The general public isn’t going to dive into the body of evidence themselves, but if they can see that the scientists (and in the case of the biggest 97% paper, the studies themselves) all agree, they don’t have
to understand the science if they know all the people who do understand agree.
It also makes sense on an intuitive level. If you hear scientists are unsure, you’re more apt to say “let’s wait and see.” If you hear scientists are uniformly in agreement,
that argument no longer holds water. We can see this in action as rising public awareness of the issue and the consensus has forced the GOP’s shift from “it’s not real” to “well I’m not a scientist” to “oh so it’s real and it’s us, but hey maybe natural gas
is a solution!”
So we know that informing people of the consensus raises their concern. We know that not knowing about the consensus dampens support for climate policy. We know the opposition
has spent literally hundreds of millions of dollars telling the public there’s no consensus. We know people use heuristics as shortcuts for understanding complex issues, and that the consensus is one such issue.
While Kahan’s opposition to it, linked below, was cause for consideration, I’ll note that in the last 2 years the Cultural Cognition blog and twitter feed have largely gone
silent on the issue, while the pro-consensus science has continued to pile up. So while yes, tailoring conservative-targeted messages to that audience with a conservative framing is helpful, consensus messaging has a broad appeal for the public writ large.
Oh and for the record, AAAS’s What We Know report featured the 97% prominently, and coverage directly compared the smoking consensus with the climate one:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-risks-as-conclusive-as-link-between-smoking-and-lung-cancer/
So we use it because the social science supported it, common sense suggested it, and as recent history has borne out, it works.
Hope that clears things up for you,
Phil
____________________________________________
Philip Newell
Associate Director, Science Defense | Climate Nexus
1140 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 609
Washington DC 20036
646.559.5868
From: <cdp@groups.b-team.org> on behalf of Christina Deconcini <Christina.Deconcini@wri.org>
Reply-To: Christina Deconcini <Christina.Deconcini@wri.org>
Date: Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 7:44 PM
To: "Hawkins, Dave" <dhawkins@nrdc.org>, Combined Defense Project <cdp@groups.b-team.org>
Cc: "Devine, Jon" <jdevine@nrdc.org>
Subject: RE: [cdp] RE: responding to EPA reviewing climate science
I rarely (never?) reply to this list serve (and in this case 3 months later, on this thread.)
I am not a social scientist, but this 97% as a talking point has always puzzled me why climate activist ever started using it (or any number) and are still using it (I have
worked hard to get WRI to stop using it.) I don’t think there are a 100% of scientist in agreement on many (any?) topic, and while scientists understand that, the world doesn’t. I have never heard a number associated to what the percentage of scientists
is who think smoking leads to lung cancer. It isn’t discussed and I doubt it is 100%. So, I never stop scratching my head as to why using any percentage (and this 97% has been a staple in the climate talking points for years) was deemed to be useful.
Puzzled,
Christina DeConcini, Esq.,
Director of Government Affairs
World Resources Institute
Mobile: +1 301-512-9576
cdeconcini@wri.org
From: Hawkins, Dave <dhawkins@nrdc.org>
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 9:54 AM
To: Combined Defense Project <cdp@groups.b-team.org>
Cc: Combined Defense Project <cdp@groups.b-team.org>; Devine, Jon <jdevine@nrdc.org>
Subject: [cdp] RE: responding to EPA reviewing climate science
Read progressive scholar Dan Kahan's critique of 97% message.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2016/2/12/will-people-who-are-culturally-predisposed-to-reject-human-c.html
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 7, 2017, at 9:38 AM, David Di Martino <david@blueenginemedia.com> wrote:
Just to continue the conversation – this data was released today from Yale. Seems that no matter what numbers we use, we have work to do.
Almost 90% Of Americans Didn’t Know There’s Scientific Consensus On Global Warming. According to Vox, “According to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, which conduct an annual survey on what Americans think about climate change, only 13 percent of Americans correctly identified that more than 90 percent of all climate scientists have concluded that human-caused global warming is happening. (It’s actually at least 97 percent of climate scientists that agree human-caused global warming is happening.) The Yale-GMU report, published yesterday, is based on a survey of 1,266 adults from May 18 to June 6 of this year, and the results have an average margin of error of 3 percentage points. Why is perception of scientific consensus so important? Turns out that it’s actually a ‘gateway belief’ to support for public action on climate change, according to a study from 2015 cited in the report. In other words, the more one perceives there to be a scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change, the more likely they are to believe that it is real and worrisome. And the more one believes that human-caused climate change is real and worrisome, the more likely one is to support public action on the issue. Now, it seems this particular finding from the report has remained pretty consistent with past surveys, which means the Trump administration hasn’t dramatically impacted the public’s understanding of the consensus.” [Vox, 7/7/17 (=)]
FWIW- CAC has used the 97% figure in all of our communications and we’ve rarely seen pushback other than that from the most strident deniers and industry voices.
David Di Martino, Blue Engine Message & Media
202-247-7271 c | 202-331-0009 o
@ddimartino1
From: Doniger, David [mailto:ddoniger@nrdc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 1:37 PM
To: Combined Defense Project <cdp@groups.b-team.org>
Cc: Devine, Jon <jdevine@nrdc.org>
Subject: [cdp] RE: responding to EPA reviewing climate science
Using the 97% figure, it seems to me, leads to this distracting sideshow argument about whether the number is correct.
That’s why I prefer to say “overwhelming” rather than a number.
Interestingly, the Forbes article includes this:
Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”
DAVID DONIGER
Director, Climate and Clean Air Program
NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL
From: John Noel [mailto:jnoel@cleanwater.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 12:23 PM
To: Combined Defense Project <cdp@groups.b-team.org>
Cc: Devine, Jon <jdevine@nrdc.org>
Subject: [cdp] RE: responding to EPA reviewing climate science
FYI this is the response circulated in some conservative circles https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#38b80d641157
From: Michael Oko [mailto:MOko@wri.org]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 9:28 PM
To: Combined Defense Project
Cc: Combined Defense Project; Devine, Jon
Subject: [cdp] RE: responding to EPA reviewing climate science
Here's the source:
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers ... Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
Also cited by NASA here:
Michael Oko
c. (202) 246-9269
On Jun 30, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Doniger, David <ddoniger@nrdc.org> wrote:Note the figure here is 90-100%.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 30, 2017, at 7:19 PM, Phil Newell <philip.e.newell@gmail.com> wrote:The 97 is easy to defend, especially now that there's the consensus on consensus paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
On Jun 30, 2017 4:14 PM, "Doniger, David" <ddoniger@nrdc.org> wrote:
Is there any concern that the “97%” statistic backfires, leading down a rabbit hole of how-do-you-know-it’s-97% and how-was-that-survey-done? Isn’t “overwhelming” good enough?
DAVID DONIGER
Director, Climate and Clean Air Program
NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL
From: Rhys Gerholdt [mailto:rgerholdt@wri.org]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:38 PM
To: Combined Defense Project <cdp@groups.b-team.org>
Cc: Devine, Jon <jdevine@nrdc.org>
Subject: [cdp] RE: responding to EPA reviewing climate science
Nice statement Lisa! We created a simple infographic about this, in case you all find it helpful for social media outreach:
https://twitter.com/WRIClimate/status/879384060619096064
<image001.png>
Rhys Gerholdt
Senior Communications Manager, Climate Program
World Resources Institute
Cell: +1-202-341-1323
From: Lisa Nurnberger [mailto:LNurnberger@ucsusa.org]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 3:00 PM
To: Combined Defense Project <cdp@groups.b-team.org>
Cc: Devine, Jon <jdevine@nrdc.org>
Subject: [cdp] responding to EPA reviewing climate science
Fyi - We just issued this statement…
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Lisa Nurnberger, lnurnberger@ucsusa.org
EPA to Launch Program Critiquing Climate Science
Statement by Ken Kimmell, President, Union of Concerned Scientists
WASHINGTON (June 30, 2017)—U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who does not acknowledge the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the primary cause of climate change, is leading an initiative to challenge mainstream climate research, according to news reports. The plan involves using a "back-and-forth critique" by experts recruited by the federal government, similar to the way the military identifies field operation vulnerabilities.
Below is a statement by Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“No one should be fooled by Scott Pruitt’s reported proposal to launch a review of climate science. Climate science has undergone comprehensive and painstaking scientific peer review for decades. Since 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has worked with literally thousands of scientists worldwide to synthesize the most recent climate science findings for world leaders every five to seven years. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences delivered a comprehensive report on the topic in 2014. Mr. Pruitt knows this. The real purpose of Pruitt’s gambit is to lay the groundwork for EPA to overturn the finding it made in 2009 that greenhouse gases endanger our health and safety. Mr. Pruitt tried to do this in court unsuccessfully when he was an attorney general in Oklahoma. He is now at it again. Why? Because under the Clean Air Act, he can’t erase climate change regulations without overturning this finding. That is what this is all about.”
###
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe and sustainable future. For more information, go to www.ucsusa.org.
Lisa Nurnberger
Media Team Manager
Union of Concerned Scientists
1825 K St NW, Suite 800
Washington DC 20006
202-331-6959 (Direct)443-668-9219 (Cell)
www.ucsusa.org
****************
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.
www.ucsusa.org | Take action with our citizen network or expert network. | Support our work. |
Join the conversation on our blog or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=fHWjkxJIx2BkAB0H38Ty6Q8R3NgKN5DY