Persuading climate skeptics with facts: Effects of causal evidence vs. consensus messaging

Abstract

Communicating the “97%’’ scientific consensus has been the centerpiece of the effort to persuade climate skeptics. Still, this strategy may not work well for those who mistrust climate scientists, to begin with. We examine how the American public—Republicans in particular—respond when provided with a relatively detailed causal explanation summarizing why scientists have concluded that human activities are responsible for climate change. Based on a preregistered survey experiment ( N = 3007), we assessed the effectiveness of detailed causal evidence versus traditional consensus messaging. We found that both treatments had noticeable effects on belief in human-caused climate change, with the causal evidence being slightly more effective, though we did not observe equivalent patterns for changes in attitudes toward climate policies. We conclude that conveying scientific information serves more as a remedy than a cure, reducing but not eliminating misperceptions about climate change and opposition to climate policies.