Researchers in the United States conducted an experiment to find out how people responded to climate media reports and found that people ‘s views on climate science shifted by reading reports that accurately reflected the scientific findings. They were also more willing to support policies that would address the problem. But the effect quickly disappeared, especially when people were exposed to other media that questioned climate science, according to the newspaper, which will be published Friday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Thomas Wood, an associate professor of political science at Ohio State University who led the study, said: “It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically substantiated reports when exposed to it. “But even the most accurate scientific reports are very quickly removed from the human context.” He suggested a way to enhance the effects of accurate scientific reporting was to repeat it more often. “We were impressed by how receptive the subjects of our study were to what they were reading [in scientifically accurate reporting] on climate change in our study. “But what they learned faded very quickly,” he said. “What we have found suggests that people need to hear the same exact messages about climate change over and over again. “If they only hear it once, it goes away very quickly.” Subscribe to the First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every morning at 7 p.m. BST The researchers recruited 2,898 online participants who were first asked to read media articles reflecting accurate climate science in the fall of 2020. In a second and third stage of the experiment, one week apart, the same participants were placed in randomized groups, in which they were asked to read from another scientific article in various ways. an opinion article that raised doubts about climate science. an article discussing the party debate on the climate crisis. or another “placebo” article about something irrelevant, like cooking. In a fourth stage, participants were asked about their attitudes towards politics and their understanding of climate science. After each stage, participants were asked if they believed that climate change was occurring and caused by humans. They were also asked if they preferred renewable energy sources. After the first stage, some people who were skeptical of climate science reported a change in their attitude and were more willing to consider government action on climate change and renewable energy. However, by the third and fourth stages, these people had largely returned to their previous posture. The researchers concluded: “Exposure to scientific content improves the accuracy of the data, but the improvements are short-lived and can no longer be detected by the end of our study.” We also find that reporting on science content with skepticism about science can neutralize or reverse accuracy gains. “Contrary to expectations, we do not find that reporting on party-focused news coverage reduces the accuracy of the facts. “Immediately after the report, scientific coverage of climate change increases support for government action to tackle climate change, but that effect is waning over time.” The implications of reading material that raised doubts about climate science had a greater impact on Republicans and those who already tended to reject climate science. The research was conducted in the US, where the reporting of science is often strongly influenced politically, and where many behaviors seem to reflect a partisan approach even to key facts. Most Republicans, for example, say they believe the 2020 presidential election was actually won by Donald Trump, not Joe Biden.
