Climate Chage
Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States
Elke U. Weber Paul C. Stern Columbia University National Research Council
This article considers scientific and public understandings of climate change and addresses the following question: Why is it that while scientific evidence has accumulated to document global climate change and scientific opinion has solidified about its existence and causes, U.S. public opinion has not and has instead become more polarized? Our review supports a constructivist account of human judgment. Public understanding is affected by the inherent difficulty of understanding climate change, the mismatch between people’s usual modes of understanding and the task, and, particularly in the United States, a continuing societal struggle to shape the frames and mental models people use to understand the phenomena. We conclude by discussing ways in which psychology can help to improve public understanding of climate change and link a better understanding to action. Keywords: risk perception, climate change perception, mental models, expert–novice differences limate change” is the name given to a set of physical phenomena and of a public policy issue, sometimes also referred to as “global warming,” even though climate change involves much more than warming. This article describes the development of scientific and public understanding1 of climate change in the United States, focusing especially on the riddle of noncorrespondence: Why, as scientific understanding of climate change has solidified, has U.S. public understanding not, and instead become more polarized? It also considers the implications of this situation for the future of public understanding and action. “Climate change” emerged as a public policy issue with improved scientific understanding of the phenomena involved, resulting in concerns. In 1959 an observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, recorded a mean level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) of 315 parts per million, well above
Elke U. Weber Paul C. Stern Columbia University National Research Council
This article considers scientific and public understandings of climate change and addresses the following question: Why is it that while scientific evidence has accumulated to document global climate change and scientific opinion has solidified about its existence and causes, U.S. public opinion has not and has instead become more polarized? Our review supports a constructivist account of human judgment. Public understanding is affected by the inherent difficulty of understanding climate change, the mismatch between people’s usual modes of understanding and the task, and, particularly in the United States, a continuing societal struggle to shape the frames and mental models people use to understand the phenomena. We conclude by discussing ways in which psychology can help to improve public understanding of climate change and link a better understanding to action. Keywords: risk perception, climate change perception, mental models, expert–novice differences limate change” is the name given to a set of physical phenomena and of a public policy issue, sometimes also referred to as “global warming,” even though climate change involves much more than warming. This article describes the development of scientific and public understanding1 of climate change in the United States, focusing especially on the riddle of noncorrespondence: Why, as scientific understanding of climate change has solidified, has U.S. public understanding not, and instead become more polarized? It also considers the implications of this situation for the future of public understanding and action. “Climate change” emerged as a public policy issue with improved scientific understanding of the phenomena involved, resulting in concerns. In 1959 an observatory on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, recorded a mean level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) of 315 parts per million, well above