A recent study in the US, UK, and Australia showed that referring to the terms “climate change” or “global warming” did not affect whether people accepted what the science tells us—that the world’s climate is changing. But it showed that for various reasons, ideological or otherwise, there is a significant proportion of people who do not “believe” in climate change, despite the overwhelming evidence. In effect, there is a widespread acknowledgment of climate change (72%-85% of people worldwide), but multiple psychological and structural barriers impede understanding of its nature (natural or man-made) and the advancement of climate action. People may fail to act because climate change does not seem relevant to themselves or people they know, may be perceived as an abstract future threat, or they believe their actions are not efficacious (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2426768122). This calls into question what matters more when trying to convey scientific findings and environmental messages: Are the arguments more relevant than the “marketing” of the information? Framing can be an important way to reach audiences who may otherwise ignore certain topics. Based on cognitive science, some authors have debunked common myths about the relationship between evidence and human decision-making. Facts—and their quantity—do not make much of a difference, as they are absorbed into existing beliefs rather than the other way around: “When facing uncertainty, humans make decisions that are satisfactory, rather than optimal”. What emerges as a pattern from specialists in neuroscience and cognitive learning is the need to consider how different groups with varying backgrounds or…This article was originally published on Mongabay

From Conservation news via this RSS feed