This paper critiques the deficit model of science communication, which posits that increased dialogue about scientific issues will align public opinion with scientific consensus. Instead, it finds that communication about climate change has led to heightened polarization, particularly influenced by individuals’ political identities. Through an experiment with 240 adults exposed to news stories about climate change health impacts, the study reveals that identification with affected groups varied by political partisanship, leading to greater support for climate mitigation among Democrats and a boomerang effect among Republicans, thus emphasizing the role of motivated reasoning in shaping responses to science communication.