Progress on climate depends on speaking to the movable middle.
Most people are open to climate information. They just need it delivered in ways that feel connected to their values, communities and lived realities. For two decades, Yale's Six Americas research has shown that about nine in ten Americans sit somewhere between Alarmed and Doubtful:
- the Alarmed see tackling climate change as an urgent priority
- the Concerned see it as serious but less immediate
- the Cautious are still making up their minds about how urgent it is
- the Disengaged rarely encounter the issue in their lived experience
- the Doubtful are still reachable, but often see climate impacts as distant or natural rather than rejecting the science outright.
Over the past decade the share of Americans who are Alarmed has more than doubled, up from 11% to 25%. The Concerned share has kept broadly stable (30% to 27%), while the Cautious has fallen 7 percentage points as more people have transited into the Alarmed category.
The Doubtful are by no means a lost cause. Most are uncertain rather than actively opposed, and can move as experiences and conversations change. The Disengaged are different again: they're often not rejecting science so much as not experiencing the issue in ways that feel relevant to their daily lives.
The research shows that, overall, Americans are becoming more concerned about human-caused climate change, more engaged with the issue and more supportive of policies to tackle it.
The Dismissive group interprets things differently
Unlike the other five groups, the Dismissive share has barely budged, hovering just above 10% for the last decade. This group's views are often rooted in identity or ideology.
‘The principal reason people disagree about climate change science is not that it has been communicated to them in forms they cannot understand. Rather, it's that positions on climate change convey values that divide them along cultural lines.’ — Dan Kahan
When beliefs are tied to identity, facts tend to bounce off. That's why argument rarely changes the mind of your cranky uncle. For the Dismissive, accepting climate science might mean having to accept solutions they're ideologically opposed to (solution aversion) or compromising political, cultural or group identities they see as core to who they are.
New information, no matter how clear or credible, is filtered out before it’s seriously considered.
You can’t reason someone out of a belief they didn’t reason themselves into
That's why good climate communication should focus on the 89% above the line, not the 11% below it. Trying to convert the dismissive seldom moves the needle. By contrast, efforts to engage the persuadable majority is how you shift whole societies. As anthropologist Margaret Mead famously said:
‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.’
Positive social change has never needed unanimous agreement. A 2024 study published in Nature found that 89% of people support stronger climate action, yet most underestimate how many others share that view. Closing that perception gap could be climate communication's greatest opportunity. (It will be getting a visual of its own.)
When science communicators meet people where they are, find common ground and use trusted messengers, opinions shift, dialogue opens up and politicians are forced to listen.
Good climate communication is ultimately about trust, relevance and shared values – not more facts.
Note: Image percentages are rounded; total may not equal 100%.
