Oil and gas companies invest in legislators that vote against the environment.

Do campaign contributions from oil and gas companies influence legislators to vote against the environment, or do these companies invest in legislators that have a proven antienvironmental voting record? Using 28 y of campaign contribution data, we find that evidence consistently supports the investment hypothesis: The more a given member of Congress votes against environmental policies, the more contributions they receive from oil and gas companies supporting their reelection.

Discussing global warming leads to greater acceptance of climate science.

Climate change is an urgent global issue, with demands for personal, collective, and governmental action. Although a large body of research has investigated the influence of communication on public engagement with climate change, few studies have investigated the role of interpersonal discussion. Here we use panel data with 2 time points to investigate the role of climate conversations in shaping beliefs and feelings about global warming. We find evidence of reciprocal causality. That is, discussing global warming with friends and family leads people to learn influential facts, such as the scientific consensus that human-caused global warming is happening. In turn, stronger perceptions of scientific agreement increase beliefs that climate change is happening and human-caused, as well as worry about climate change. When assessing the reverse causal direction, we find that knowing the scientific consensus further leads to increases in global warming discussion. These findings suggest that climate conversations with friends and family enter people into a proclimate social feedback loop.

Public perceptions of the health risks of extreme heat across US states, counties, and neighborhoods.

Extreme heat is the leading weather-related cause of death in the United States. Many individuals, however, fail to perceive this risk, which will be exacerbated by global warming. Given that awareness of one's physical and social vulnerability is a critical precursor to preparedness for extreme weather events, understanding Americans' perceptions of heat risk and their geographic variability is essential for promoting adaptive behaviors during heat waves. Using a large original survey dataset of 9,217 respondents, we create and validate a model of Americans' perceived risk to their health from extreme heat in all 50 US states, 3,142 counties, and 72,429 populated census tracts. States in warm climates (e.g., Texas, Nevada, and Hawaii) have some of the highest heat-risk perceptions, yet states in cooler climates often face greater health risks from heat. Likewise, places with older populations who have increased vulnerability to health effects of heat tend to have lower risk perceptions, putting them at even greater risk since lack of awareness is a barrier to adaptive responses. Poorer neighborhoods and those with larger minority populations generally have higher risk perceptions than wealthier neighborhoods with more white residents, consistent with vulnerability differences across these populations. Comprehensive models of extreme weather risks, exposure, and effects should take individual perceptions, which motivate behavior, into account. Understanding risk perceptions at fine spatial scales can also support targeting of communication and education initiatives to where heat adaptation efforts are most needed.

Systems thinking as a pathway to global warming beliefs and attitudes through an ecological worldview.

Prior research has found that systems thinking, the tendency to perceive phenomena as interconnected and dynamic, is associated with a general proenvironmental orientation. However, less is known about its relationship with public understanding of climate change and/or whether this relationship varies across people with different political views. Because climate change is a highly politicized issue, it is also important to understand the extent to which systems thinking can foster acceptance of climate science across political lines. Using an online sample of US adults (n = 1,058), we tested the degree to which systems thinking predicts global warming beliefs and attitudes (e.g., believing that global warming is happening, that it is human-caused, etc.), independent of an ecological worldview (i.e., the New Ecological Paradigm). We found that although systems thinking is positively related to global warming beliefs and attitudes, the relationships are almost fully explained by an ecological worldview. Indirect effects of systems thinking are consistently strong across political ideologies and party affiliations, although slightly stronger for conservatives and Republicans than for liberals and Democrats, respectively. We did not find evidence of the converse: Systems thinking does not seem to mediate the relationship between an ecological worldview and global warming beliefs and attitudes. Together, these findings suggest that systems thinking may support the adoption of global warming beliefs and attitudes indirectly by helping to develop an ecological ethic that people should take care of and not abuse the environment.

Global Warming Risk Perceptions in India.

Few studies have focused on global warming risk perceptions among people in poor and developing countries, who are disproportionately impacted by climate change. This analysis conducts a comprehensive assessment of global warming risk perceptions in India using a national sample survey. Consistent with cultural theory, egalitarianism was positively associated with global warming risk perceptions. In addition, perceived vulnerability and resilience to extreme weather events were also two of the strongest factors associated with global warming risk perceptions. While worry was positively associated with risk perceptions, it accounted for only a small proportion of the variance, unlike studies in developed countries. Finally, the study also collected global warming affective images. The most common responses were "don't know" or "can't say" (25%), followed by "pollution" (21%), "heat" (20%), and "nature" (16%). The study finds that the predictors of global warming risk perceptions among the Indian public are both similar and different than those in developed countries, which has important implications for climate change communication in India.

Long-Term Research in Ecology and Evolution (LTREE): 2015 survey data.

To systematically assess views on contributions and future activities for long-term research in ecology and evolution (LTREE), we conducted and here provide data responses and associated metadata for a survey of ecological and evolutionary scientists. The survey objectives were to: (1) Identify and prioritize research questions that are important to address through long-term, ecological field experiments; and (2) understand the role that these experiments might play in generating and applying ecological and evolutionary knowledge. The survey was developed adhering to the standards of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. It was administered online using Qualtrics Survey Software. Survey creation was a multi-step process, with questions and format developed and then revised with, for example, input from an external advisory committee comprising senior and junior ecological and evolutionary researchers. The final questionnaire was released to ~100 colleagues to ensure functionality and then fielded 2 d later (January 7th , 2015). Two professional societies distributed it to their membership, including the Ecological Society of America, and it was posted to three list serves. The questionnaire was available through February 8th 2015 and completed by 1,179 respondents. The distribution approach targeted practicing ecologists and evolutionary biologists in the U.S. Quantitative (both ordinal and categorical) closed-ended questions used a predefined set of response categories, facilitating direct comparison across all respondents. Qualitative, open-ended questions, provided respondents the opportunity to develop their own answers. We employed quantitative questions to score views on the extent to which long-term experimental research has contributed to understanding in ecology and evolutionary biology; its role compared to other approaches (e.g., short-term experiments); justifications for and caveats to long-term experiments; and the relative importance of incentives for conducting long-term research. Qualitative questions were used to assess community views on the most important topics and questions for long-term research to address, and primary incentives and challenges to realizing this work. Finally, demographic data were collected to determine if views were conditional on such things as years of experience and field of expertise. The final questionnaire and all responses are provided for unrestricted use.

The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition.

Prior research has found that affect and affective imagery strongly influence public support for global warming. This article extends this literature by exploring the separate influence of discrete emotions. Utilizing a nationally representative survey in the United States, this study found that discrete emotions were stronger predictors of global warming policy support than cultural worldviews, negative affect, image associations, or sociodemographic variables. In particular, worry, interest, and hope were strongly associated with increased policy support. The results contribute to experiential theories of risk information processing and suggest that discrete emotions play a significant role in public support for climate change policy. Implications for climate change communication are also discussed.

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.

The rise of global warming skepticism: exploring affective image associations in the United States over time.

This article explores how affective image associations to global warming have changed over time. Four nationally representative surveys of the American public were conducted between 2002 and 2010 to assess public global warming risk perceptions, policy preferences, and behavior. Affective images (positive or negative feelings and cognitive representations) were collected and content analyzed. The results demonstrate a large increase in "naysayer" associations, indicating extreme skepticism about the issue of climate change. Multiple regression analyses found that holistic affect and "naysayer" associations were more significant predictors of global warming risk perceptions than cultural worldviews or sociodemographic variables, including political party and ideology. The results demonstrate the important role affective imagery plays in judgment and decision-making processes, how these variables change over time, and how global warming is currently perceived by the American public.

Framing peak petroleum as a public health problem: audience research and participatory engagement in the United States.

Between December 2009 and January 2010, we conducted a nationally representative telephone survey of US adults (n = 1001; completion rate = 52.9%) to explore perceptions of risks associated with peak petroleum. We asked respondents to assess the likelihood that oil prices would triple over the next 5 years and then to estimate the economic and health consequences of that event. Nearly half (48%) indicated that oil prices were likely to triple, causing harm to human health; an additional 16% said dramatic price increases were unlikely but would harm health if they did occur. A large minority (44%) said sharp increases in oil prices would be "very harmful" to health. Respondents who self-identified as very conservative and those who were strongly dismissive of climate change were the respondents most likely to perceive very harmful health consequences.

Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change.

Effectively addressing climate change requires significant changes in individual and collective human behavior and decision-making. Yet, in light of the increasing politicization of (climate) science, and the attempts of vested-interest groups to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change through organized "disinformation campaigns," identifying ways to effectively engage with the public about the issue across the political spectrum has proven difficult. A growing body of research suggests that one promising way to counteract the politicization of science is to convey the high level of normative agreement ("consensus") among experts about the reality of human-caused climate change. Yet, much prior research examining public opinion dynamics in the context of climate change has done so under conditions with limited external validity. Moreover, no research to date has examined how to protect the public from the spread of influential misinformation about climate change. The current research bridges this divide by exploring how people evaluate and process consensus cues in a polarized information environment. Furthermore, evidence is provided that it is possible to pre-emptively protect ("inoculate") public attitudes about climate change against real-world misinformation.

Exposure to the Pope's Climate Change Message Activated Convinced Americans to Take Certain Activism Actions.

Many people who are concerned about the issue of climate change do not engage in the collective action behaviors that are most likely to lead to societal-scale solutions. Such attitude-behavior inconsistency is a well-documented phenomenon. This study investigates whether exposure to an effectively framed message from a highly credible source can increase the consistency between attitudes and activism behaviors among people with pre-existing strong attitudes, particularly for behaviors that are less difficult. The release of Pope Francis' climate change encyclical, Laudato Sí, and subsequent visit to the United States provide an opportunity to test this research question in a natural field setting. A nationally representative, within-subject panel survey was conducted two months prior to the release of the encyclical and again four months later, after the release and papal visit, to assess the impact of the Pope's message on Americans' climate change consumer and political advocacy behaviors. Among people who are already concerned about climate change, higher exposure to the Pope's climate change message is associated with increases in attitude-behavior consistency for less difficult activism behaviors. The findings suggest that sustained exposure to compelling climate messages from trusted sources can increase the performance of activism behaviors.

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.

Improving Public Engagement With Climate Change: Five "Best Practice" Insights From Psychological Science.

Despite being one of the most important societal challenges of the 21st century, public engagement with climate change currently remains low in the United States. Mounting evidence from across the behavioral sciences has found that most people regard climate change as a nonurgent and psychologically distant risk-spatially, temporally, and socially-which has led to deferred public decision making about mitigation and adaptation responses. In this article, we advance five simple but important "best practice" insights from psychological science that can help governments improve public policymaking about climate change. Particularly, instead of a future, distant, global, nonpersonal, and analytical risk that is often framed as an overt loss for society, we argue that policymakers should (a) emphasize climate change as a present, local, and personal risk; (b) facilitate more affective and experiential engagement; (c) leverage relevant social group norms; (d) frame policy solutions in terms of what can be gained from immediate action; and (e) appeal to intrinsically valued long-term environmental goals and outcomes. With practical examples we illustrate how these key psychological principles can be applied to support societal engagement and climate change policymaking.

Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments.

Human-caused climate change is happening; nearly all climate scientists are convinced of this basic fact according to surveys of experts and reviews of the peer-reviewed literature. Yet, among the American public, there is widespread misunderstanding of this scientific consensus. In this paper, we report results from two experiments, conducted with national samples of American adults, that tested messages designed to convey the high level of agreement in the climate science community about human-caused climate change. The first experiment tested hypotheses about providing numeric versus non-numeric assertions concerning the level of scientific agreement. We found that numeric statements resulted in higher estimates of the scientific agreement. The second experiment tested the effect of eliciting respondents' estimates of scientific agreement prior to presenting them with a statement about the level of scientific agreement. Participants who estimated the level of agreement prior to being shown the corrective statement gave higher estimates of the scientific consensus than respondents who were not asked to estimate in advance, indicating that incorporating an "estimation and reveal" technique into public communication about scientific consensus may be effective. The interaction of messages with political ideology was also tested, and demonstrated that messages were approximately equally effective among liberals and conservatives. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence.

There is currently widespread public misunderstanding about the degree of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, both in the US as well as internationally. Moreover, previous research has identified important associations between public perceptions of the scientific consensus, belief in climate change and support for climate policy. This paper extends this line of research by advancing and providing experimental evidence for a "gateway belief model" (GBM). Using national data (N = 1104) from a consensus-message experiment, we find that increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus is significantly and causally associated with an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused and a worrisome threat. In turn, changes in these key beliefs are predictive of increased support for public action. In short, we find that perceived scientific agreement is an important gateway belief, ultimately influencing public responses to climate change.

Do Americans Understand That Global Warming Is Harmful to Human Health? Evidence From a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Global warming has significant negative consequences for human health, with some groups at greater risk than others. The extent to which the public is aware of these risks is unclear; the limited extant research has yielded discrepant findings. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes Americans' awareness of the health effects of global warming, levels of support for government funding and action on the issue, and trust in information sources. We also investigate the discrepancy in previous research findings between assessments based on open- versus closed-ended questions. METHODS: A nationally representative survey of US adults (N = 1275) was conducted online in October 2014. Measures included general attitudes and beliefs about global warming, affective assessment of health effects, vulnerable populations and specific health conditions (open- and closed-ended), perceived risk, trust in sources, and support for government response. FINDINGS: Most respondents (61%) reported that, before taking the survey, they had given little or no thought to how global warming might affect people's health. In response to a closed-ended question, many respondents (64%) indicated global warming is harmful to health, yet in response to an open-ended question, few (27%) accurately named one or more specific type of harm. In response to a closed-ended question, 33% indicated some groups are more affected than others, yet on an open-ended question only 25% were able to identify any disproportionately affected populations. Perhaps not surprising given these findings, respondents demonstrated only limited support for a government response: less than 50% of respondents said government should be doing more to protect against health harms from global warming, and about 33% supported increased funding to public health agencies for this purpose. Respondents said their primary care physician is their most trusted source of information on this topic, followed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, and their local public health department. CONCLUSIONS: Most Americans report a general sense that global warming can be harmful to health, but relatively few understand the types of harm it causes or who is most likely to be affected. Perhaps as a result, there is only moderate support for an expanded public health response. Primary care physicians and public health officials appear well positioned to educate the public about the health relevance of climate change.

An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming.

There is a growing divide in how conservatives and liberals in the USA understand the issue of global warming. Prior research suggests that the American public's reliance on partisan media contributes to this gap. However, researchers have yet to identify intervening variables to explain the relationship between media use and public opinion about global warming. Several studies have shown that trust in scientists is an important heuristic many people use when reporting their opinions on science-related topics. Using within-subject panel data from a nationally representative sample of Americans, this study finds that trust in scientists mediates the effect of news media use on perceptions of global warming. Results demonstrate that conservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening. By contrast, use of non-conservative media increases trust in scientists, which, in turn, increases certainty that global warming is happening.