A new academic study suggests that the way the United Nations’ climate science bodies describe risk may be inadvertently weakening public trust and amplifying opportunities for misinformation. The findings indicate that specific phrases used in high-profile climate assessments can lead people to misinterpret scientific consensus, underestimate serious dangers and perceive predictions as exaggerated.

The research, published in Nature Climate Change, surveyed more than 4,000 adults and examined how they interpreted terms commonly used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC, responsible for synthesising global climate science for governments, uses calibrated language to describe levels of certainty or probability. However, the study argues that some of these terms may not align with how the general public understands everyday language.

One example is the use of words such as “unlikely” or “low likelihood” to describe events with a probability of less than 33 per cent — such as extreme sea-level rise or rare but high-impact climatic shifts. The study found that participants often associated those words with everyday expressions of disagreement or scepticism. As a result, respondents frequently assumed that scientists were divided on the issue or that the projections were exaggerated.

This misalignment between scientific terminology and public interpretation appears to have consequences. According to the study, when people heard terms like “unlikely,” they were more inclined to think that climate researchers lacked consensus, even in cases where agreement was strong. This misunderstanding also made participants more susceptible to misinformation, regardless of their political orientation or baseline views on climate science.

The research emphasises that misinformation about climate change often spreads by exploiting ambiguities or gaps in understanding. When audiences mistake high-rigour scientific caution for uncertainty or disagreement, misleading narratives can take root more easily. The study warns that this dynamic could undermine efforts to build societal support for mitigation and adaptation policies, especially in an era of rising climate impacts and increasing political polarisation.

To test potential improvements, the researchers conducted eight experiments assessing alternative phrasings. They found that subtle changes in wording, such as replacing “unlikely” with “there is a small chance,” encouraged readers to focus on the outcome itself rather than on perceived disagreement among experts. These alternative phrases also improved confidence in scientific assessments and helped participants better understand that low-probability events can still have severe consequences.

The study highlights that events such as extreme sea-level rise or intense precipitation episodes — even with probabilities as low as 20 per cent — carry significant risk for vulnerable communities. When framed as “unlikely,” the public may underestimate the seriousness of the threat. When expressed as a “small chance,” however, people were more inclined to appreciate the potential impact and the importance of preparation.

While acknowledging the enormous value of the IPCC’s global scientific assessments, the study argues that communication practices need refining to ensure clarity without compromising scientific precision. The authors note that the IPCC’s terminology is designed to reflect rigorous methodology and transparent probability ranges, but these strengths can become communication barriers when audiences interpret the phrasing differently.

The findings point to a growing need for organisations communicating climate science to consider how their language might be perceived outside expert circles. Clearer phrasing could strengthen public understanding at a time when climate-related misinformation continues to proliferate online and in political discourse.

The study concludes that improving the clarity of climate risk communication is essential to sustaining public trust and enabling collective action. As global temperatures rise, extreme events intensify and policy decisions grow more urgent, effective communication may be as critical as scientific research itself.