Do Source cues or frames matter? Convincing the public about the veracity of climate science

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Gainous ◽  
Rodger A. Payne ◽  
Melissa K. Merry
Keyword(s):  
Climate Science ◽  
The Public ◽  
Source Cues

Scenarios as Tools of the Scientific Imagination: The Case of Climate Projections

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-61
Author(s):  
Michael Poznic ◽  
Rafaela Hillerbrand
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
The Other ◽  
Climate Projections ◽  
Public Realm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One ◽  
Scientific Imagination

Climatologists have recently introduced a distinction between projections as scenario-based model results on the one hand and predictions on the other hand. The interpretation and usage of both terms is, however, not univocal. It is stated that the ambiguities of the interpretations may cause problems in the communication of climate science within the scientific community and to the public realm. This paper suggests an account of scenarios as props in games of make-belive. With this account, we explain the difference between projections that should be make-believed and other model results that should be believed.

scholarly journals Alan Betts: Green Energy Times, 2018

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Betts
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Energy Policy ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Green Energy ◽  
Collective Decision ◽  
The Public ◽  
Systems Perspective ◽  
Climate Change Denial ◽  
The Earth ◽  
The Future

This is a collection of my 2018 articles in the Green Energy Times (http://www.greenenergytimes.org/ ).This series started in 2016. Many of these articles have been edited or updated from articles I wrote forthe Rutland Herald, sometimes with different titles and pictures.They blend science and opinion with a systems perspective, and encourage the reader to explorealternative and hopeful paths for their families and society. They are written so that a scientist willperceive them as accurate (although simplified); while the public can relate their tangible experience ofweather and climate to the much less tangible issues of climate change, energy policy and strategies forliving sustainably with the earth system.The politically motivated attacks on climate science by the current president have sharpened my politicalcommentary this year; since climate change denial may bring immense suffering to our children and lifeon Earth.I believe that earth scientists have a responsibility to communicate clearly and directly to the public1 –aswe all share responsibility for the future of the Earth. We must deepen our collective understanding, sowe can make a collective decision to build a resilient future.

Communication on Climate Change and Energy Alternatives in the United States

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Bolsen ◽  
Matthew A. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Information ◽  
Forthcoming Article ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
The U.S

This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Please check back later for the full article. Most of what people think about politics comes from information acquired via exposure to mass media. Media thus serve a vital role in democracy as a fundamental conduit of political information. Scholars study the factors that drive news coverage about political issues, including the rise of discourse on climate change and shifts in media coverage over time. Climate change first received sustained attention in the U.S. press in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As scientific consensus emerged on the issue, interest groups and other actors emerged who accentuated the inherent uncertainty of climate science as a way to cast doubt on the existence of scientific consensus. The politicization of climate science has resulted in uncertainty among the public about its existence, anxiety about the effects of a fundamental transformation of U.S. energy systems, and support for the status quo in terms of the use of traditional energy sources. Media coverage often magnified the voices of contrarian scientists and skeptics because journalistic norms provided equal space to all sides, a semblance of false balance in news coverage that has persisted through the mid 2000s. By this time, the U.S. public had fractured along partisan lines due to rhetoric employed to generate support by elites. Media fragmentation and the rise of partisan news outlets further contributed to polarization, especially given the tendency of individuals to seek political information about climate change from trusted and credible sources. More recently, new media has come to play an increasingly significant role in communicating information on climate change to the public. Ultimately, there is a need for knowledge-based journalism in communicating climate change and energy alternatives to all segments of the U.S. public, but doing this effectively requires engagement with a broader audience in the debate over how best to address climate change. “Honest brokers” must be referenced in the media as they are best equipped to discuss the issue with citizens of different political identities and cultural worldviews. The success of collective efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change requires not only scientific consensus but the ability to communicate the science in a way that generates greater consensus among the public.

Strategic Framing and Persuasive Messaging to Influence Climate Change Perceptions and Decisions

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toby Bolsen ◽  
Matthew A. Shapiro
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Consensus ◽  
Partisan Polarization ◽  
Change Perceptions ◽  
Strategic Framing ◽  
Range Of Values

The importance of framing as a concept is reflected by the massive amount of attention it has received from scholars across disciplines. As a communicative process, framing involves making certain considerations salient as a way to simplify or shape the way in which an audience understands a particular problem and its potential solutions. As recently as the early 2000s, social scientists began to examine how strategic frames in a communication affect both individuals’ beliefs about climate change and the actions they are willing to support to mitigate the likely effects. Research on the effects of how strategic frames influence the attitudes, beliefs, and preferences of individuals in this domain primarily builds on insights from framing theory, which explains that an individual’s attitude or preference in any given context depends on the available, accessible, and most applicable (i.e., perceived strongest) considerations. But it is much more than theory: frames related to the effects and potential solutions for climate change have been employed strategically by various actors in an effort to shape public opinion and public policy. Perceptions of scientific consensus on climate change are thought to play an important role in determining support for policy actions. Consequently, strategic actors promote a particular agenda by accentuating the inherent uncertainty of climate science, thus casting doubt on the scientific consensus. This has contributed to partisan polarization on climate change and the rise of protective forms of information processing and reasoning in this domain. Strategic messages and frames that resonate with particular subgroups have no effect, or may even backfire, on other segments of the population. Additionally, as individuals who possess different partisan identities become more knowledgeable and numerate, they become increasingly likely to accept information and messages that bolster their existing group loyalties and to reject communications that challenge those identities. Science communicators are thus presented with a considerable barrier to building consensus among the public for action on climate change. In response, scholars have begun to identify strategies and approaches for addressing audiences with the kinds of messages that are most likely to resonate with individuals possessing a diverse range of values and political identities. Further research must identify ways to overcome partisan motivated reasoning on climate change and the persistent and deleterious effects that have resulted from the politicization of climate science.

Post-Normal Practices Between Regional Climate Services and Local Knowledge

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-230 ◽  
Author(s):  
Werner Krauss ◽  
Hans von Storch
Keyword(s):  
Local Knowledge ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Knowledge Systems ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Short History ◽  
Climate Services ◽  
The Public ◽  
Climate Research ◽  
Forms Of Knowledge

Recent surveys show that the communication about climate change between science and the public is severely disturbed. In this article we discuss this problem in focusing on both regional climate services and other, local forms of knowledge. The authors suggest that climate science and its public services have to critically revise their own practices and to acknowledge other forms of knowledge about climate as constitutive. Based on approaches from geography and anthropology, the article first discusses the short history and "normal practices" of regional climate services and how they approach the public. Outlining the potentials and constraints of this concept, the article focuses on the friction, on "its openness to change as it rubs up against society" (Hulme 2007). The focus then shifts to local knowledge systems and how they deal with the challenges of a changing climate. In addition to the "extended peer review" as a new option for climate research in a post-normal setup, the authors discuss the possibility of an "extended knowledge basis," that is, the integration of different forms of climate knowledge with a special focus on regional populations.

The Public Values Failures of Climate Science in the US

Minerva ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Climate Science ◽  
Public Values ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Us

Making the Climate a Part of the Human World

2011 ◽  
Vol 92 (10) ◽  
pp. 1297-1302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon D. Donner
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Cultural Beliefs ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Anthropogenic Climate Change ◽  
Outreach Programs ◽  
The Public ◽  
Weather And Climate ◽  
Human World ◽  
City States

Doubts about the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change persist among the general public, particularly in North America, despite overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about the human influence on the climate system. The public uncertainty may be rooted in the belief, held by many cultures across the planet, that the climate is not directly influenced by people. The belief in divine control of weather and climate can, in some cases, be traced back to the development of agriculture and the early city-states. Drawing upon evidence from anthropology, theology, and communication studies, this article suggests that in many regions this deeply ingrained belief may limit public acceptance of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Successful climate change education and outreach programs should be designed to help overcome perceived conflict between climate science and long-held cultural beliefs, drawing upon lessons from communication and education regarding other potentially divisive subjects, such as evolution.

scholarly journals Australia’s 2020 summer shows our changed climate future - a public health preparedness challenge

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Hanna
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Climate Change ◽  
Fossil Fuels ◽  
Planetary Systems ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Public Health Preparedness ◽  
The Public ◽  
Environmental Determinants Of Health ◽  
National Capital ◽  
Public Health Challenge

Abstract Background Humans have wandered this planet for hundreds of thousands of years, yet in the last 160 years we have dramatically disrupted planetary systems upon which we depend. Humanity has polluted the oceans, rivers, air and soils. Our persistent burning of fossil fuels to power opulent lifestyles is now perilously close to permanently disrupting global climatic systems. Problem It is clear. The problem is us. Australia's summer of horrors provides a terrifying glimpse into our collective future. This rich and exquisitely advantaged nation has voted for governments that have ignored fragile ecosystems, dismantled environmental protection laws, ignored climate science and expanded its fossil fuel exploration, extraction, consumption and exportation. It has systematically silenced science, ignored its duty of care to protect its present and future citizenry. Evidence The 2019-2020 summer brought unprecedented disasters to a country familiar with disasters. After the hottest and driest year on record came the world's largest bushfire, which started in winter, and burned uncontainable for 7 months across 5 states. Billions of animals perished, thousands of homes & businesses destroyed, 33 people burned alive. Continental-wide temperatures of 42oC. Smoke levels exceeded hazardous levels by a factor of 25, lingered 6weeks in the national capital, circumnavigated the southern hemisphere. 80% of Australians were affected by the fires in some way, and the nation fell into a deep grief. The public health challenge As the world faces new climate regimes, the associated health challenges are elevating to unheralded and unforeseen levels. Public health preparedness for past situations will inevitably fail. Events are no longer singular, short lived or readily managed. Today's events are multifaceted, expansive and protracted. Their sheer magnitude and scale prevent response activities, interrupt transport and supply chains and shut down power and communications. Key messages Unfettered human development has degraded planetary systems upon which humanity depends for survival and flourishing. Climate change is disrupting all our key environmental determinants of health. Environmental degradation and climate change now present a rapidly intensifying health emergency. Australia’s summer of disasters demonstrates we need an explosion of public health preparedness.

scholarly journals Consensus and contrarianism on climate change: How the USA case informs dynamics elsewhere

2016 ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Maxwell Boykoff
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Public Attitudes ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Psychological Characteristics ◽  
Economic Factors ◽  
The Public ◽  
Contextual Elements ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
The Public Sphere

Against a contrasting backdrop of consensus on key issues on climate science, a heterogeneous group dubbed climate «skeptics», «contrarians», «deniers» have significantly shaped contemporary discussions of climate science, politics and policy in the public sphere. This essay focuses on the USA context, and explores some of the intertwined social, political and economic factors, as well as cultural and psychological characteristics that have together influenced public attitudes, intentions, beliefs, perspective and behaviors in regards to climate change science and governance over time. This article makes the case that the USA example can inform developments elsewhere; as such it is important to consider these contextual elements to more capably appraise «contrarian», «skeptic», «denier» reverberations through the current public discussions on climate change. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document