Normally I'd tell you to find it yourself, especially because we've discussed this, but I typo'd that. "14%" is what I was referencing and it's well cited Ipsos study that looked at people who claimed to understand and believe in climate science, but only 1 in 7 would actually do things like stop flying to help. This is because what people "understand" about climate change is that if they have some solar panels, recycle and maybe buy an EV eventually that everything will be fine. When told "Actually, you need to do more than that" very few people are on board.
If you want to blame this on scientists for not controlling the narrative then you've lost the narrative. That's all. There's plenty of scientists who are damn near suicidal that no one's listened for decades.
If I do a study, on, say, PFAs in water and the people who fund it decide to bury it, that's out of my control.
If I do a study that shows a certain polluter is wrecking waterway, and it gets published, a PR piece goes out, and the local newspaper puts it on the front page, sure, more people read it, but we're still talking thousands in a country of 330 million.
Scale matters. To your original point why would that 70% of people who are concerned do anything more than they've been told is enough? That's where the disconnect is.
