Tomislav Longinović, known to many as Tom Long, sent me today a fresh paper on how humans react to perceived scientific consensus on climate change. Written by Sander van der Linden, Anthony Leiserowitz, Geoffrey Feinberg, and Edward Maibach, the paper appeared in an American open access scientific journal called Public Library of Science or PLOS (www.plos.org). Entitled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence,” the paper was published only yesterday. Based on credible data and methodology, the paper rests on the so-called gateway belief model or GBM.

The model is presented in a simple diagram with six boxes. Perceived scientific agreement on climate change leads to the belief in climate change, belief in human causation of climate change, and worry about climate change, where the two beliefs additionally increase the worry, and where all three lead to support for public action on climate change. In addition, messaging about consensus leads to the perceived scientific agreement on climate change. It is the consensus messaging that drives the whole model.

In short, the stronger the messaging about scientific consensus on climate change, the greater the support for public action on climate change. Thus the GBM also explains the success of influential ideological and politically motivated actors, also known as “manufacturers of doubt,” who publically dispute the scientific consensus about climate change. “Plausible enough,” I wrote back to Tom. “All that GBM actually says is that humans are herd animals. Sorry, tribal creatures.” After some reflection, I added a few more words: “The only problem is that there are no tribes in sight any longer, which makes humans mightily confused.” Anyhow, I enjoyed the paper quite a bit. Many thanks, Tom!