While the public survey generated a general overview of public opinion, the experts’ opinions can be used also to validate and/or challenge the public’s perception. Statistical analysis of the results shows that the agreement between non-experts and experts is quite high. Even though there were differences in rank and score of the individual lessons, after an independent T-test there was only once shown a significant difference. This indicates that either the public is well educated concerning the issues, or that the education or level of the profession, does not account for a different opinion regarding those topics. Even though not statistically significant, the differences in average ratings for various lessons are visible. The lessons that showed the biggest discrepancy between experts and non-experts were the following (note: values in brackets indicate average differences between expert and non-experts ranking).
1. “Investment choices need to pursue a green economic recovery and can set the track for reaching long-term sustainability goals” (expert value is non-expert value +0.65) 2. “Geographical as well as temporal distance can make a crisis be perceived to be less grave, and only affecting faraway people or ecosystems.” (+0.63) 3. “Collective behavioral changes can lead to regeneration in nature even in the short term” (-0.62) 4. “Masses and societies need to be educated to change their behavior.” (-0.59) 5. “Climate goals must be negotiated multilaterally, but also need pioneers.” (+0.51)
As can be seen, the public appears to prefer more idealistic approaches. This can be seen in lessons 3 and 4 listed above, where the experts acknowledge more difficulties in simply educating people and changing behavior to combat both global crises.
It has to be acknowledged that with all similarities and shared potential global implications, climate change and COVID-19 represent fundamentally different crises on many levels. This is true, e.g., for the required timeframe of implementing action and the response time of the system. There are therefore lessons that are more appropriate for either of the two. Science communication should take this difference into account, and suggestions for change should be made on an individual rather than on a general basis