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