:::: MENU ::::

Climate Change

Expert credibility in climate change

Tags: , ,

Despite the fact that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found “unequivocal” evidence of anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change, the levels of public belief in this phenomenon continue to lag the scientific consensus. The explanations for this gap are myriad, and research has investigated everything from cognitive mechanisms to polarization among political elites. In any case, a small minority of scientists do express some degree of doubt about this consensus, and they have often been given prominence in the public debate. This has prompted media researchers in this area to note a trend of “false balance” in some reporting.

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. (The study notes that researchers who are unconvinced of the evidence are “often referred to as climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers.”) Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.

The study’s findings include:

  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise — the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published — are convinced by the evidence of human-induced climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: “This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature.”

“Despite media tendencies to present both sides in [human-induced climate change] debates,” the authors conclude, “which can contribute to continued public misunderstanding … not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.”

In related research, a 2011 study from George Mason University also found that, among a more diverse pool of researchers across government, industry and academia, 97% agreed that global temperatures are rising and 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.

Tags: global warming, science, climate politics

    Writer: | Last updated: July 3, 2012

    Citation: Anderegg, William R. L.; Prall, James W.; et al. “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” PNAS, July 2010, Vol. 107, No. 27, 12107–12109, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

    We welcome feedback. Please contact us here.

    Media analysis

    Read the issue-related New York Times blog titled "Skeptic Talking Point Melts Away as Inconvenient Physicist Confirms Warming."

    1. What key insights from the blog and the study in this lesson should reporters be aware of as they cover these issues? What are the particular difficulties that journalists face in covering climate change?

    Study analysis

    Read the study titled “Expert Credibility in Climate Change.”

    1. What are the study's key technical term(s)? Which ones need to be put into language a lay audience can understand?
    2. Do the study’s authors put the research into context and show how they are advancing the state of knowledge about the subject? If so, what did the previous research indicate?
    3. What is the study’s research method? If there are statistical results, how did the scholars arrive at them?
    4. Evaluate the study's limitations. (For example, are there weaknesses in the study's data or research design?)
    5. How could the findings be misreported or misinterpreted by a reporter? In other words, what are the difficulties in conveying the data accurately? Give an example of a faulty headline or story lead.

    Newswriting and digital reporting assignments

    1. Write a lead, headline or nut graph based on the study.
    2. Spend 60 minutes exploring the issue by accessing sources of information other than the study. Write a lead (or headline or nut graph) based on the study but informed by the new information. Does the new information significantly change what one would write based on the study alone?
    3. Compose two Twitter messages of 140 characters or fewer accurately conveying the study’s findings to a general audience. Make sure to use appropriate hashtags.
    4. Choose several key quotations from the study and show how they would be set up and used in a brief blog post.
    5. Map out the structure for a 60-second video segment about the study. What combination of study findings and visual aids could be used?
    6. Find pictures and graphics that might run with a story about the study. If appropriate, also find two related videos to embed in an online posting. Be sure to evaluate the credibility and appropriateness of any materials you would aggregate and repurpose.

    Class discussion questions

    1. What is the study’s most important finding?
    2. Would members of the public intuitively understand the study’s findings? If not, what would be the most effective way to relate them?
    3. What kinds of knowledgeable sources you would interview to report the study in context?
    4. How could the study be “localized” and shown to have community implications?
    5. How might the study be explained through the stories of representative individuals? What kinds of people might a reporter feature to make such a story about the study come alive?
    6. What sorts of stories might be generated out of secondary information or ideas discussed in the study?