Parent Interventions: 'Morning sickness' is misleading and inaccurate  |  Parent Interventions: Infant sleep problems can signal mental disorders in adolescents  |  Parent Interventions: Children's National Hospital's quality initiative changes at NICU  |  Parent Interventions: Child Feeding Guide helps mums   |  Leadership Instincts: Successful implementation of Digital India Programme  |  Education Information: UPSC Civil Services (Preliminary) 2020 Examination Notification  |  Policy Indications: ‘Accelerate Vigyan’ to strengthen scientific research mechanism  |  International Edu News: The University of Glasgow gets a £1m award from the Wolfson Foundation  |  Policy Indications: University of Glasgow signed an agreement with Rakuten Mobile  |  Education Information: WBS Executive MBA named best in the UK  |  Leadership Instincts: SETsquared Bristol named Hottest Accelerator in Europe  |  International Edu News: Earnings of students in further education affected by what they study  |  International Edu News: Earth’s nearest supergiant is cooling down at the end of its life  |  International Edu News: ME gene study to shed light on causes  |  International Edu News: Soft coral garden discovered in Greenland’s deep sea  |  
October 15, 2019 Tuesday 02:05:25 PM IST

How Uncertainty in Findings Impact Credibility of Climate Scientists

Photo by Enrique Mesegeur

When scientists make predictions about climate change and tell as well that unknown factors can come into play, the public may find it difficult to trust those predictions. However, if the climate scientists are specific about the uncertainties of global warming, it may generate more trust among the American public, according to research done by Stanford University scholars. 
“Scientists who acknowledge that their predictions of the future cannot be exactly precise and instead acknowledge a likely range of possible futures may bolster their credibility and increase acceptance of their findings by non-experts,” said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford professor of communication and of political science and a co-author on the paper. “But these gains may be nullified when scientists acknowledge that no matter how confidently they can make predictions about some specific change in the future, the full extent of the consequences of those predictions cannot be quantified.”
To better understand how the public reacts to scientists’ messages about the uncertainties of climate change, the researchers presented a nationally representative sample of 1,174 American adults with a scientific statement about anticipated sea level rise.
Respondents were randomly assigned to read either a prediction of the most likely amount of future sea level rise; a prediction plus a worst-case scenario; or a robust prediction with worst-case and best-case scenarios, for example: “Scientists believe that, during the next 100 years, global warming will cause the surface of the oceans around the world to rise about 4 feet. However, sea level could rise as little as 1 foot, or it could rise by as much as 7 feet.” 
The researchers found that when predictions included a best-case and worst-case scenario, it increased the number of participants who reported high trust in scientists by 7.9 percentage points compared with participants who only read a most likely estimate of sea level rise.
Changes in environmental policies, human activities, new technologies and natural disasters make it difficult for climate scientists to quantify the long-term impact of a specific change – which scientists often acknowledge in their predictions, the researchers said. They wanted to know if providing such well-intended, additional context and acknowledging complete uncertainty would help or hurt public confidence in scientific findings. 
To find out, the researchers asked half of their respondents to read a second statement acknowledging that the full extent of likely future damage of sea level rise cannot be measured because of other forces, such as storm surge: “Storm surge could make the impacts of sea level rise worse in unpredictable ways.” 
The researchers found that this statement eliminated the persuasive power of the scientists’ messages. When scientists acknowledged that storm surge makes the impact of sea level rise unpredictable, it decreased the number of participants who reported high trust in scientists by 4.9 percentage points compared with the participants who only read a most likely estimate of sea level rise. The findings held true regardless of education levels and political party affiliation.



Comments