We need to be smarter in how we talk about climate predictions (Image: Keith Getter/Getty)
Like most areas of complex research, predictions of how climate will change as greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth鈥檚 atmosphere aren鈥檛 free of . But unlike economic forecasts 鈥� which are often taken at face value by the public despite proving wildly inaccurate most of the time 鈥� climate predictions are criticised for having error bars. They have become a stick with which to beat climate science and delay political action.
Lobbyists ideologically opposed to the regulation of industry continue to manufacture distrust around climate research. They exaggerate areas of uncertainty while dismissing those of strong consensus and agreement 鈥� just as their predecessors once did for the links between tobacco and lung cancer.
Advertisement
As a result, climate researchers spend a lot of time apologising for what they don鈥檛 know, rather than confidently stating what they do. Even without these distorting influences, the communication of uncertainty is still a big challenge. With crucial climate talks due in Paris later this year, the need to address this is urgent. That鈥檚 why a new guide which I co-authored and which is published this week, , is timely.
It urges scientists and other communicators not to downplay uncertainties in climate models and projections, but to get smarter about how they communicate them.
For starters, outside the lab the word 鈥渦ncertainty鈥� is loaded with negative connotations: most people expect certainty from science, and get frustrated when it doesn鈥檛 deliver it 鈥� so managing expectations is crucial.
Research suggests that talking about 鈥渞isks鈥� rather than 鈥渦ncertainties鈥� could help: it is part of the language of the insurance, health and national security that people are familiar with.
A focus on uncertainty is more common among those on the right of politics, so finding ways of talking that resonate across the political spectrum is essential. One suggestion is to focus on issues of resilience and security, which conservatives tend to prioritise.
Emphasising the scientific consensus on climate change is also important 鈥� as well as the in support of a transition to low-carbon energy. And, most crucially, we must remember that this is a human story as well as a scientific one.
The amount of carbon dioxide emitted over the next 50 years will determine how much our climate shifts. But burning just half of known fossil fuel reserves, possible if current trends continue, will unleash unprecedented change, even on the most optimistic assessment. So what we choose to do 鈥� and how quickly we can muster the collective will power to do it 鈥� is one uncertainty that dwarfs all others.
Read more: 鈥�33 reasons why we can鈥檛 think clearly about climate change鈥�
The Uncertainty Handbook: A practical guide for climate change communicators is a collaboration between the University of Bristol, UK, and the Climate Outreach and Information Network (COIN), a UK-based charity
