Learning from and about scientists: Consensus messaging shapes perceptions of climate change and climate scientists.

Despite overwhelming scientific consensus on the existence of human-caused climate change, public opinion among Americans remains split. Directly informing people of scientific consensus is among the most prominent strategies for climate communication, yet the reasons for its effectiveness and its limitations are not fully understood. Here, we propose that consensus messaging provides information not only about the existence of climate change but also traits of climate scientists themselves. In a large ( $n=2,545$ ) nationally representative survey experiment, we examine how consensus information affects belief in human-caused climate change by shaping perceptions of climate scientist credibility. In the control group ( $n=847$ ), we first show that people learn both from and about climate scientists when presented with consensus and that perceived scientist credibility (especially skill) mediates up to about 40% of the total effect of consensus information on climate belief. We demonstrate that perceptions of climate scientists are malleable with two novel interventions that increase belief in climate change above and beyond consensus information.