Be consistent, talk about risk rather than uncertainty, use visuals, tell human stories and give the top-line message before the caveats

Uncertainty is an unavoidable feature of the climate change debate – just like any other complex scientific and societal issue. But sceptics have used (and in some cases abused) the presence of uncertainty in climate projections to argue that the science is not sufficiently settled to warrant policies to cut carbon.

In response, scientists – who naturally tend towards nuance, caution and tentativeness in their communicative style – have often felt compelled to foreground the uncertainties and caveats in their work instead of focusing on the many aspects of climate science on which there is strong consensus.

Sadly, the norms that govern dialogue between scientists are often in direct conflict with the tenets of effective communication. Simple, concise messages are difficult to extract from messy, complex data.



Business and climate: the hype and the reality Read more

But while scientists, campaigners and other communicators should never downplay or hide the intricacies inherent in climate models, there are better and worse ways of communicating uncertainty. A new Uncertainty Handbook released by the University of Bristol and the Climate Outreach and Information Network distills research finding and expert advice to set out 12 principles of smarter communication around climate change uncertainty. It’s intended to provide scientists, policymakers and campaigners with the tools they need to communicate more effectively around climate change.

1. Manage your audience’s expectations

People expect science to provide definite answers, whereas in reality it is a method for asking questions about the world. So manage people’s expectations and use plenty of analogies from everyday life so people can see that uncertainties are everywhere, not just in climate science.



2. Start with what you know, not what you don’t know

Too often, communicators give the caveats before the take-home message. On many fundamental questions, such as “are humans causing climate change?” and “will we cause unprecedented changes to our climate if we don’t reduce the amount of carbon that we burn?”, the science is effectively settled.



3. Be clear about the scientific consensus

Having a clear and consistent message about the scientific consensus is important as it influences whether people see climate change as a problem that requires an urgent societal response. Use clear graphics like a pie-chart, a messenger who is trustworthy to communicate the consensus, and try to find the closest match between the values of your audience and those of the person communicating the consensus message.



4. Shift from “uncertainty” to “risk”

Most people are used to dealing with the idea of risk. It is the language of the insurance, health and national security sectors. So for many audiences – politicians, business leaders or the military – talking about the risks of climate change is likely to be more effective than talking about the uncertainties.



Five ways that people frame climate change debates Read more

5. Be clear about the type of risk you are talking about

A common strategy of sceptics is to intentionally confuse and conflate different types of uncertainty. It’s therefore critical to be clear about what type you’re talking about – causes, impacts, policies or solutions – and adopt appropriate language for each.



6. Understand what is driving people’s views

Uncertainty about climate change is higher among people with right-leaning political values. However, a growing body of research points to ways of communicating about climate change that do not threaten conservative belief systems, using language that better resonates with the values of the centre-right.

7. The most important question is “when”, not “if”

Climate change predictions are usually communicated using a standard uncertain outcome format. So a statement might say that sea levels will rise by “between 25cm and 68cm, with 50cm being the average projection, by 2072”. But flip the statement around – using an uncertain time framing – and suddenly it is clear that the question is when (not if) sea levels will rise by 50cm: “sea levels will rise by at least 50 cm, and this will occur at some time between 2060 and 2093”.

8. Communicate through images and stories

Most people understand the world through stories and images, not lists of numbers, probability statements or technical graphs, and so it is crucial to find ways of translating and interpreting the technical language found in scientific reports into something more engaging. A visual artist can capture the concept of sea-level rise better than any graph, and still be factually accurate if scientific projections are used to inform the work.

9. Highlight the positivesof uncertainty

Research has found that uncertainty is not an inevitable barrier to action, provided communicators frame climate change messages in ways that trigger caution in the face of uncertainty. A positive framing of uncertain information would indicate that losses might not happen if preventative action was taken.



10. Communicate effectively about climate impacts

The question “is this weather event caused by climate change?” is misplaced. When someone has a weak immune system, they are more susceptible to a range of diseases, and no one asks whether each illness was caused by a weak immune system. The same logic applies to climate change and some extreme weather events: they are made more likely, and more severe, by climate change.



11. Have a conversation, not an argument

Despite the disproportionate media attention given to sceptics, most people simply don’t talk or think about climate change all that much. This means that the very act of having a conversation about climate change – not an argument or repeating a one-shot slogan – can be a powerful method of public engagement.



12. Tell a human story

The amount of carbon dioxide that is emitted over the next 50 years will determine the extent to which our climate changes. So what we choose to do – and how quickly we can muster the collective willpower to do it – is an uncertainty that dwarfs all others.

