Introduction

This study examines who the public trusts on climate change and why trust varies across audiences. Using a cross-national approach, it addresses three questions: which sources are trusted, which communicator features drive trust, and how trust differs between climate change believers and sceptics. The research responds to gaps in prior work that focused on trusted actors rather than underlying drivers of trust.

Methodology

The analysis draws on the 2023 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report on Trust and Climate Change. Survey data were collected from 6,479 adults across 13 countries, including the UK, India, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and South Africa. Respondents rated trust in 14 types of climate information sources on a nine-point scale and selected communicator features they associate with trustworthiness. Climate belief was used to classify respondents as believers (5,771) or sceptics (509). Multilevel modelling was applied to assess demographic and perceptual drivers of trust while accounting for cross-national variation.

Analyses and results

Trusted sources

Among climate believers, scientists and climate experts were the most trusted sources. However, across the full sample, informal and identity-based sources—friends and family, and “people like me”—ranked among the most trusted. General societal leaders, including politicians, business leaders, journalists, and religious figures, were consistently least trusted.Climate sceptics trusted all sources less than believers. Only friends and family and “people like me” scored above the midpoint for sceptics. Trust gaps between believers and sceptics were largest for dedicated climate experts (η² = 0.115) and smallest for similar others (η² ≤ 0.003), indicating that personal proximity reduces polarisation in trust.

Features of trustworthiness

Across both groups, backing claims with data and research was the most frequently selected trust feature. Other highly valued attributes included being easy to understand, not directly profiting, not dismissing opposing views, shared values, and passionate delivery.Believers prioritised academic credentials, data use, clarity, shared values, and passion more than sceptics. Sceptics placed relatively greater emphasis on communicators not being dismissive of opposing views. Differences between groups were statistically significant for all features except independence from profit.

Multilevel modelling

Trust in dedicated climate experts was lower among sceptics and higher among younger respondents, women, higher-income groups, and those with more left-leaning political views. Education did not significantly predict expert trust. Trust in experts was positively associated with valuing credentials, data, shared values, clarity, and passionate communication.Trust in general societal leaders was higher among younger, wealthier, more educated, and more conservative respondents, but lower among sceptics. Valuing shared values, clarity, and passion increased trust, while prioritising data, independence from profit, and non-dismissiveness reduced trust in these leaders.Trust in similar others was primarily driven by income rather than ideology or demographics. Shared values and passion were the strongest predictors, alongside data use, clarity, and independence from profit.

Discussion

The findings show that trust in climate communication is audience-contingent and relational. Scientists remain highly trusted, but informal networks play a central role, especially for sceptics. Trust depends not only on expertise but also on delivery style, value alignment, and perceived sincerity.Differences between believers and sceptics align with social identity theory and motivated reasoning. Sceptics’ preference for non-dismissive communicators suggests sensitivity to tone and respect, while believers respond more strongly to credentials and evidence. Trust in similar others is notably stable across demographics, indicating its potential as a communication channel.

Conclusions

Trust in climate information is shaped by who communicates, how they communicate, and to whom. While expert voices remain important, effective engagement—particularly with sceptical audiences—requires relatable messengers, clear language, respect for differing views, and visible value alignment. The study provides evidence-based guidance for tailoring climate communication to diverse audiences.