We can use our superpower to help end fossil fuel pollution and rise to the challenge of climate change.

In this commentary, we argue that health professionals can play a pivotal role in accelerating the adoption of public policies that will help communities, nations, and the world end fossil fuel pollution and rise to the challenges of climate change. We briefly describe our previously published research showing that communicating about fossil fuel pollution and the health relevance of climate change has many benefits in building public support for climate action. Most importantly, we make the case that because health professionals, especially medical doctors and other clinicians, are highly trusted, we collectively have a unique opportunity to bring people together across the political continuum to have constructive dialogues about the intertwined problems of fossil fuel pollution and climate change and what to do about them - even in the current hyper-partisan environment.

Climate change belief systems across political groups in the United States.

Beliefs and attitudes form the core of public opinion about climate change. Network analysis can reveal the structural configuration of these beliefs and attitudes. In this research, we utilize a belief system framework to identify key psychological elements, track change in the density of these belief systems over time and across political groups, and analyze the structural heterogeneity of belief systems within and between political groups in the United States. Drawing on fifteen waves of nationally representative survey data from 2010 to 2021 (N = 16,742), our findings indicate that worry about climate change is the most central psychological element. Interestingly, we find that among politically unaffiliated individuals, the connections between psychological elements have strengthened over time, implying an increase in the consistency of belief systems within this group. Despite the political polarization in beliefs about climate change between Republicans and Democrats, our findings reveal that the ways these two groups organize and structure climate change beliefs systems are not markedly different compared to those of other groups. These findings provide theoretical and practical insights for climate change experts and communicators.

What motivates people to defend science: Evidence from the 2017 March for science.

The 2017 March for Science was an international march organized in response to concerns over the Trump administration's misuse of science that drew unprecedented numbers of supporters as well as attention from the media, celebrities, and political figures. The March's turnout and publicity begs the question: what motivates people to defend science? Using data from a survey of March for Science listserv members in the US, we used a structural equation model to test posited relationships between self- and collective response efficacy, perceived threat, anger, fear, and the intention to engage in advocacy to defend science. We found that each of these constructs were associated with the intention to engage in advocacy, illuminating the motivators that lead to this intention and how individuals may be activated to engage on behalf of science in the future. These insights have both theoretical and practical significance, as advocacy is integral for both supporting and advancing fact-based policy- and decision-making.

Calling attention to opponents of climate action in climate and health messaging.

Previous research suggests that providing information about the health effects of climate change and the health benefits of climate action can increase public engagement with the issue. We sought to extend those findings with an experiment to test the motivational value of calling attention to opponents of climate action. In February, 2022, we conducted a survey experiment with adults from the USA, quota-sampled to represent the USA population (n=2201). Participants were randomly assigned to a no-message control condition, or one of four message conditions identified as authored by concerned health professionals. These messages warned recipients about the negative effects of climate change on health, and either made no mention of an opponent to climate action, or were messages augmented by identifying one of three opponents: (1) fossil fuel chief executive officers and their lobbyists, (2) politicians, or (3) a combination of the two. Portrayal of opponents to climate action increased attitudinal engagement, support for mitigation policies, and intentions to advocate for climate solutions, compared with message conditions not identifying an opponent-with the combined opponent portrayal tending to result in the largest effects; these effects were evident with audiences across political lines, especially political conservatives. Climate and health messages-with or without portrayal of an opponent-also increased trust in the messengers relative to the no-message control. These findings suggest that identifying opponents to climate action can be advantageous to building support for such action, reducing political issue polarisation, and fostering greater trust in health professionals as climate messengers.

Communication research to improve engagement with climate change and human health: A review.

Because of the world's dependence on fossil fuels, climate change and air pollution are profoundly harming both human and planetary health. Fortunately, climate solutions are also health solutions, and they present both local and global opportunities to foster cleaner, healthier, and safer communities. In this review, we briefly discuss the human health harms of climate change, climate and health solutions, and provide a thorough synthesis of social science research on climate and health communication. Through our review, we found that social science research provides an evidence-based foundation for messaging strategies that can build public and political will for climate and health solutions. Specifically, messages that convey the health harms of climate change and highlight the health benefits of climate solutions may be especially effective in building this public and political will. We also found that health professionals are trusted sources of information about climate change, and many have shown interest in engaging with the public and policymakers about the health relevance of climate change and clean energy. Together, the alignment between message strategies and the interest of highly trusted messengers strongly suggests the potential of health students and health professionals to create the conditions necessary to address climate change as a public health imperative. Therefore, our review serves as a resource for those interested in communicating about climate change and health and suggests that social scientists can continue to support practitioners with research and advice on the most effective communication strategies.

Can citizen pressure influence politicians' communication about climate change? Results from a field experiment.

Urgent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions depend on governments implementing and enforcing rigorous climate policy. Individuals in democracies seeking to persuade government officials to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can take steps such as voting, protesting, and contacting officials directly, but it is unclear how effective each of these actions is in changing the behavior of elected officials. Here we take advantage of the public nature of social media to evaluate the actual efficacy of climate campaign emails using an original, real-world experiment where 335 Members of Canadian Parliament were asked by constituents to post a pro-climate message to their Twitter account. Only one Member of Parliament posted the exact text suggested by the campaign. After scraping and coding 18,776 tweets, we first find no evidence that a public health messaging frame is more effective than a standard environmental frame in eliciting pro-climate posts. Furthermore, we find only a marginally significant relationship between volume of constituent contact and increased pro-climate tweeting from Members of Parliament. Follow-up interviews with political staffers suggest that analog alternatives may be more effective than campaign emails in some cases. Interview findings also reveal that some offices receive low levels of constituent communication on climate change, indicating that increased pressure from constituents could still be consequential. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10584-021-03215-9.

Health professional's willingness to advocate for strengthening global commitments to the Paris climate agreement: Findings from a multi-nation survey.

Health professionals have the potential to address the health threats posed by climate change in many ways. This study sought to understand the factors that influence health professionals' willingness to engage in climate advocacy. We hypothesized and tested a model with six antecedent factors predicting willingness to engage in advocacy for strengthening global commitments to the Paris Agreement. Using survey data from members of health professional associations in 12 nations (n = 3,977), we tested the hypothesized relationships with structural equation modeling. All of the hypothesized relationships were confirmed. Specifically, higher rates of perceived expert consensus about human-caused climate change predicted greater climate change belief certainty and belief in human causation. In turn, all three of these factors, including higher levels of perceived health harms from climate change, positively predicted affective involvement with the issue. Affective involvement positively predicted the feeling that health professionals have a responsibility to deal with climate change. Lastly, this sense that climate advocacy is a responsibility of health professionals strongly predicted willingness to advocate. As a unique study of predictors of health professionals' willingness to advocate for climate change, our findings provide unique insight into how an influential set of trusted voices might be activated to address what is arguably the world's most pressing public health threat. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are presented, and implications for message development are discussed.

Views of health professionals on climate change and health: a multinational survey study.

Climate change arguably represents one of the greatest global health threats of our time. Health professionals can advocate for global efforts to reduce emissions and protect people from climate change; however, evidence of their willingness to do so remains scarce. In this Viewpoint, we report findings from a large, multinational survey of health professionals (n=4654) that examined their views of climate change as a human health issue. Consistent with previous research, participants in this survey largely understood that climate change is happening and is caused by humans, viewed climate change as an important and growing cause of health harm in their country, and felt a responsibility to educate the public and policymakers about the problem. Despite their high levels of commitment to engaging in education and advocacy on the issue, many survey participants indicated that a range of personal, professional, and societal barriers impede them from doing so, with time constraints being the most widely reported barrier. However, participants say various resources-continuing professional education, communication training, patient education materials, policy statements, action alerts, and guidance on how to make health-care workplaces sustainable-can help to address those barriers. We offer recommendations on how to strengthen and support health professional education and advocacy activities to address the human health challenges of climate change.

Fossil fuels are harming our brains: identifying key messages about the health effects of air pollution from fossil fuels.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that providing generalized information about the health implications of air pollution from fossil fuels may be effective at promoting public support for a transition to cleaner sources of energy. We sought to extend that work by identifying the specific messages about the health implications of air pollution from fossil fuels that are most and least concerning to people, and whether rankings of concern vary among different audiences. We also hypothesized that reading the statements would influence people's attitudes and behavioral intentions in a manner supportive of a transition to cleaner sources of energy. METHODS: We conducted a survey with a diverse sample of U.S. adults (n = 1644) from a non-probability internet panel. Using maximum difference scaling, participants ranked a set of ten statements that revealed which statements were the most and least concerning to them. We also measured attitudes about air pollution and energy use before and after the ranking exercise to assess changes in opinion caused by cumulative exposure to the messages. RESULTS: Across all sub-groups examined, participants were most concerned by a message about the neurological impacts of air pollution on babies and children. After the ranking exercise, participants expressed increases in perceived health harm of air pollution and fossil fuels, a desire for more clean energy, and intention to engage in consumer advocacy to support clean energy. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this study is the first to assess how people respond to information about the neurological health harms of air pollution from fossil fuels. While efforts to communicate the cardio-pulmonary health harms of air pollution are well established, our study suggests that efforts should now be organized to communicate the neurological effects of air pollution from fossil fuels, especially the neuro-developmental effects on babies and children.

Correction: Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187511.].

Correction: Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187511.].

Scientific risk communication about controversial issues influences public perceptions of scientists' political orientations and credibility.

Many scientists communicate with the public about risks associated with scientific issues, but such communication may have unintended consequences for how the public views the political orientations and the credibility of the communicating scientist. We explore this possibility using an experiment with a nationally representative sample of Americans in the fall of 2015. We find that risk communication on controversial scientific issues sometimes influences perceptions of the political orientations and credibility of the communicating scientist when the scientist addresses the risks of issues associated with conservative or liberal groups. This relationship is moderated by participant political ideology, with liberals adjusting their perceptions of the scientists' political beliefs more substantially when the scientist addressed the risks of marijuana use when compared with other issues. Conservatives' political perceptions were less impacted by the issue context of the scientific risk communication but indirectly influenced credibility perceptions. Our results support a contextual model of audience interpretation of scientific risk communication. Scientists should be cognizant that audience members may make inferences about the communicating scientist's political orientations and credibility when they engage in risk communication efforts about controversial issues.

How Americans Respond to Information About Global Warming's Health Impacts: Evidence From a National Survey Experiment.

Americans tend to see global warming as a distant threat, but a small body of previous research suggests that information about the health implications of global warming may enhance public engagement with the issue. We sought to extend those findings with a longitudinal study that examined how Americans react to information about eight specific categories of health impacts from global warming. In winter 2017, we conducted a two-wave survey experiment using a quota sample of American adults (n = 2,254). Participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group who read eight brief essays about different categories of health impacts from global warming or to a control group who received no information. Participants answered questions before reading the essays, immediately after reading each essay and at the conclusion of all essays (treatment participants only), and 2-3 weeks later. Reading the information had small- to medium-sized effects on multiple indicators of participants' cognitive and affective engagement with global warming, especially among people who are politically moderate and somewhat conservative; some of these changes persisted 2-3 weeks later. Some impacts were seen as more novel and worrisome, including illnesses from contaminated food, water, and disease-carrying organisms. Our findings provide the most definitive evidence to date about the importance of raising awareness about the health impacts of global warming. While participants believed all of the essays as offered valuable information, educational efforts might most productively focus on impacts that are relatively less familiar and more emotionally engaging, such as food-, water-, and vector-borne illnesses.

Controversy matters: Impacts of topic and solution controversy on the perceived credibility of a scientist who advocates.

In this article, we focus on the potential influence of a scientist's advocacy position on the public's perceived credibility of scientists as a whole. Further, we examine how the scientist's solution position (information only, non-controversial, and controversial) affects the public's perception of the scientist's motivation for sharing information about specific issues (flu, marijuana, climate change, severe weather). Finally, we assess how perceived motivations mediate the relationship between solution position and credibility. Using data from a quota sample of American adults obtained by Qualtrics (n = 2,453), we found that in some conditions advocating for a solution positively predicted credibility, while in one condition, it negatively predicted scientist credibility. We also found that the influence of solution position on perceived credibility was mediated by several motivation perceptions; most notably through perception that the scientist was motivated to: (a) serve the public and (b) persuade the public. Further results and implications are discussed.

Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies.

In this article, we focus on a key strategic objective of scientific organizations: maintaining the trust of the public. Using data from a nationally representative survey of American adults ( n = 1510), we assess the extent to which demographic factors and political ideology are associated with citizens' trust in general science and climate science research conducted by US federal agencies. Finally, we test whether priming individuals to first consider agencies' general science research influences trust in their climate science research, and vice versa. We found that federal agencies' general science research is more trusted than their climate science research-although a large minority of respondents did not have an opinion-and that political ideology has a strong influence on public trust in federal scientific research. We also found that priming participants to consider general scientific research does not increase trust in climate scientific research. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Partisan differences in the relationship between newspaper coverage and concern over global warming.

The effects of news media on public opinion about global warming have been a topic of much interest in both academic and popular discourse. Empirical evidence in this regard, however, is still limited and somewhat mixed. This study used data from the 2006 General Social Survey in combination with a content analysis of newspaper coverage of the same time period to examine the relationship between general news climate and public concern about global warming. Results showed a pattern of political polarization, with increased coverage associated with growing divergence between Democrats and Republicans. Further analysis also showed evidence of reactivity in partisan response to coverage from different news outlets. These findings point to a particular form of politically motivated, biased processing of news information.

Pinching forces in crayfish and fiddler crabs, and comparisons with the closing forces of other animals.

The pinching forces of crustaceans are in many respects analogous to the biting forces of vertebrates. We examined the effects of body size and chelae size and shape, on the closing forces of the fiddler crab, Uca pugilator, and the crayfish, Procambarus clarkii. We hypothesized that the allometric relationships would be similar among species, and comparable to those reported for other decapod crustaceans. We further hypothesized that the scaling of the closing forces of crustaceans, with respect to body size and with the geometry of the pinching or biting structures, would be similar to that of vertebrates. We found that pinching forces increased with body mass, claw dimensions, and claw mass in U. pugilator, but only with claw height and claw mass in P. clarkii. Contraction time increased with body mass for both species combined, whereas contraction speed decreased. Pooled data for these and 17 other species of decapod crustacean revealed a positive correlation between the pinching force and body mass with a scaling exponent of 0.71. These data are remarkably comparable to the values on closing forces of vertebrate jaws, with the pooled data having a scaling exponent of 0.58, slightly below the value of 0.67 predicted for geometric similarity. Maximum closing forces vary tremendously among both crustaceans and animals in general, with body size and food habits being among the most important determining factors.