Scientists may utilise single bound probability estimates to convey the uncertainty around climate change. Such estimates employ a verbal moderating statement to describe the lower (e.g., more than 60% likely) and/or upper bound (e.g., less than 70% likely) of a probability. Previous research has shown that single bound statements can convey many pragmatic implications, such as information about the speaker and trends. The current thesis concentrated on how individuals evaluate and remember single bound probability estimates, with an additional focus on how individual differences affect memory and appraisal. These outcomes were investigated after a delay, since people do not often make decisions about climate change information immediately after reading it. Two studies were conducted with 101 and 92 subjects respectively. In both studies participants viewed two forecasts about climate change, which separately encompassed both an upper and lower bound probability estimate. Participants then recorded their beliefs about climate change and cultural cognition during a delay period, prior to evaluating the credibility of the forecast and completing a free-recall task. In the second study participants also completed a recognition task where they were instructed to identify the original single bound probability estimate from a series of distractors. In both studies, the forecasts were rated as more credible when utilising a “more than” statement compared to a “less than” statement. However, when recalling the estimates, very few participants remembered that there was a single bound statement used in conjunction with the probability. In the second study, hierarchical and individualistic climate sceptics viewed the forecasts as less credible than believers. The thesis was able to demonstrate the various factors that scientists should take into account when determining the best way to communicate the uncertainty around climate change. By integrating the knowledge about how single bound probability estimates are evaluated with a focus on motivated reasoning, researchers who use such statements can decide how best to frame them in order to enact behaviour change from climate change acceptors and sceptics alike.