Researchers warn that current climate change language can make it easier for misinformation to spread.
The UN’s language around climate change risks may be confusing the public and fuelling misinformation.
A new study from the University of Essex, which surveyed more than 4,000 UK residents, found certain words used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make the public think scientists are “divided” and that predictions are “extreme or implausible”.
The research, published in Nature Climate Change, argues the IPCC – which was established to provide policymakers with neutral, regular scientific assessments on climate change, its impact and potential future risks – may be unintentionally “eroding” public trust in science due to specific phrasing.
How climate language shapes public perception
The IPCC uses the terms “unlikely” or “the likelihood is low” for events like large magnitude sea level rise, where there is a less than 33 per cent chance of them happening.
Professor Marie Juanchich from the Department of Psychology found that this frames outcomes in a negative way, and is associated with phrases people use in everyday conversation when disagreeing or doubting the truth of what they’ve heard.
As a result, hearing “unlikely” led study participants to think climate scientists are in disagreement with one another, even when they are not.
The risk of climate change misinformation
This misinterpretation can make it easier for climate misinformation to spread, with the study finding that this crosses political orientations and beliefs in climate change.
It’s important to remember that misinformation is false or out-of-context information that someone is presenting as fact. This is not the same as disinformation, which is intentionally false and meant to deceive its audience.
Can small language changes help public understanding?
Across eight experiments, Juanchich found that small wording changes – such as using “there is a small chance” focus attention on why something might happen and increase confidence in predictions.
“Although this is a simple change in wording, it can make a big difference as many low-probability events can still have severe impacts,” she adds.
“A 20 per cent chance of extreme sea level rise or extreme precipitation eventsis not something communities can afford to ignore. Yet calling these events ‘unlikely’ may make the public less aware of the risk and less willing to support actions that reduce or prepare for the threat of climate change.”
A call for clearer communication
Juanchich praises the IPCC for synthesising worldwide research on climate change to “better inform climate action”.
However, the study argues that insights covered in these reports are presented in a way that communicates their “high scientific standards and climate scientists’ agreements on those estimates”.
"We need to come together to address climate change, despite political divisions and rising populism currently dampening CO2 reduction efforts,” Juanchich adds. “There is no planet B."
