The 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that Earth's temperatures may soon reach a tipping point that threatens humanity's future. Scientists from many disciplines agree that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem yet many Americans remain skeptical of the existence, causes, and/or severity of climate change. In this article, we review recent research on climate change communication focusing on audience variables and messaging strategies with the goal of providing communication practitioners research-based recommendations for climate change message design. Factors that influence audience acceptance and understanding of climate science include: demographic variables (such as political party affiliation, religious orientation, and geographic location), as well as brief sections on misinformation, and beliefs in pseudoscience. Keys to effectively construct climate messaging are discussed including: framing strategies; reducing psychological distance; emotional appeals; efficacy cues; weight-of-evidence/ weight of expert reporting; inoculation/correcting misinformation; and separating science from conspiracy theories. Evidence-based strategies are critical in giving science communicators the tools they need to bridge the gap between the scientific community and the at-risk public.

Environmental threats increasingly entail important risks from government responses. In considering the risks of a new vector-borne disease, for example, decision-makers must also grapple with potential risks from responses such as the aerial spraying of pesticides. In communicating about these complex risks, public officials often choose different “frames” that promote different conceptualizations of the issue. Yet prior research has paid limited attention to how public officials frame the related risks of the environmental threat and the public response. This paper starts to fill that gap by conducting a content analysis of statements by public officials regarding risks from the threat of a local outbreak of the Zika virus in South Florida in 2016, as well as risks from the response of aerial pesticide spraying. Based on limited prior research, we hypothesize that public officials are likely to have adopted a “risk maximization” frame that stressed the high risks from exposure to Zika, but a “risk trade-off” frame when discussing aerial spraying. In actuality, we find that officials strongly favored a “reassurance” frame that downplayed both types of risks. Based on this analysis, we suggest framing strategies for disease outbreaks and other threats with potentially risky government responses may vary significantly depending on local contexts and that the South Florida experience was a missed opportunity to test the strategy of trade-off framing.