Researchers warn that the language currently used to describe the risks of climate change may facilitate the spread of misinformation.
A new study from the University of Essex in Britain - involving more than 4,000 members of the public - suggests that some of the terminology used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) leads the public to believe that scientists are "divided" and that their predictions are "exaggerated or implausible".
The study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, says the body - set up to provide policymakers with impartial and systematic scientific assessments on climate change, its impacts and potential future risks - may be inadvertently "undermining" public trust in science due to certain expressions.
How does climate language shape audience perception?
The IPCC uses the terms "unlikely" or "low probability" to describe events such as significant sea level rise, i.e. when they are less than 33% likely to occur.
Professor Mary Juanchich from the Department of Psychology found that this linguistic framework presents results in a negative way, and is associated in people's minds with expressions that are commonly used in everyday conversations when they are skeptical or disbelieving of what they hear.
As a result, the use of the word "unlikely" led study participants to believe that climate scientists disagree among themselves, even when there is no scientific disagreement.
The danger of spreading climate misinformation
This kind of misunderstanding can facilitate the spread of misinformation. The study found that it happens regardless of political orientation or belief in climate change.
The study explains that misinformation is false or out-of-context information presented as true, while deliberate disinformation is false information disseminated with the intention of deceiving the public.
Can simple language changes improve audience understanding?
Across eight experiments, she found that simple changes in wording - such as using the phrase: "there is a small chance" - helps direct people's attention to the reasons why an event might occur, and increases their confidence in scientific predictions.
"Even though the change is small, it makes a big difference, because a lot of low-probability events can have serious impacts," she says.
She continues: "A 20 percent chance of extreme sea level rise or extreme rainfall is not something communities can ignore. But characterizing these events as 'unlikely' may make the public less aware of the risks and less willing to support actions to reduce or prepare for the threat of climate change."
A call for clearer communication
She praised the IPCC's efforts to bring together global climate research to "improve understanding of the world and guide climate action."
While the study notes that the presentation of information in the Commission's reports is primarily intended to ensure "high scientific standards and a degree of agreement among scientists," these formulations may not be the most appropriate for the general public.
She concludes: "We must come together to confront climate change, despite the political divisions and rising populism that are hampering efforts to reduce carbon emissions. "There is no alternative planet."
comments