Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society

Informing people of the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is occurring increases belief in the proposition and the importance of policy action. However, consensus may not be interpreted in the same way; it could emerge from skilled experts converging on the truth, or a biased cabal working for their own gain. We show that the weight that an individual places on the skill and bias of experts affects whether they are persuaded by strong consensus. We demonstrate that beliefs about the skill and bias of pro-consensus scientists (those who express that climate change is occurring) and anti-consensus scientists (those who do not) are central components of a belief system about climate change, determining what individuals learn from climate scientists. However, these characteristics are not fixed as individuals also learn about scientists from consensus. In this way, people learn both from and about climate scientists given consensus.