Understanding and Countering Misinformation About Climate Change

2022 ◽  
pp. 1633-1658
Author(s):  
John Cook
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Communication Strategies ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Public ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Communication Interventions

While there is overwhelming scientific agreement on climate change, the public has become polarized over fundamental questions such as human-caused global warming. Communication strategies to reduce polarization rarely address the underlying cause: ideologically-driven misinformation. In order to effectively counter misinformation campaigns, scientists, communicators, and educators need to understand the arguments and techniques in climate science denial, as well as adopt evidence-based approaches to neutralizing misinforming content. This chapter reviews analyses of climate misinformation, outlining a range of denialist arguments and fallacies. Identifying and deconstructing these different types of arguments is necessary to design appropriate interventions that effectively neutralize the misinformation. This chapter also reviews research into how to counter misinformation using communication interventions such as inoculation, educational approaches such as misconception-based learning, and the interdisciplinary combination of technology and psychology known as technocognition.

Understanding and Countering Misinformation About Climate Change

2019 ◽  
pp. 281-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Cook
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Communication Strategies ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Public ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Communication Interventions

While there is overwhelming scientific agreement on climate change, the public has become polarized over fundamental questions such as human-caused global warming. Communication strategies to reduce polarization rarely address the underlying cause: ideologically-driven misinformation. In order to effectively counter misinformation campaigns, scientists, communicators, and educators need to understand the arguments and techniques in climate science denial, as well as adopt evidence-based approaches to neutralizing misinforming content. This chapter reviews analyses of climate misinformation, outlining a range of denialist arguments and fallacies. Identifying and deconstructing these different types of arguments is necessary to design appropriate interventions that effectively neutralize the misinformation. This chapter also reviews research into how to counter misinformation using communication interventions such as inoculation, educational approaches such as misconception-based learning, and the interdisciplinary combination of technology and psychology known as technocognition.

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.

scholarly journals Communicating Climate Change: Probabilistic Expressions and Concrete Events

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 651-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Joslyn ◽  
Raoni Demnitz
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Heat Waves ◽  
Communication Strategies ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Temperature And Precipitation ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Change Beliefs ◽  
Unanimous Agreement

Abstract Despite near unanimous agreement among climate scientists about global warming, a substantial proportion of Americans remain skeptical or unconcerned. The two experiments reported here tested communication strategies designed to increase trust in and concern about climate change. They also measured attitudes toward climate scientists. Climate predictions were systematically manipulated to include either probabilistic (90% predictive interval) or deterministic (mean value) projections that described either concrete (i.e., heat waves and floods) or abstract events (i.e., temperature and precipitation). The results revealed that projections that included the 90% predictive interval were considered more trustworthy than deterministic projections. In addition, in a nationally representative sample, Republicans who were informed of concrete events with predictive intervals reported greater concern and more favorable attitudes toward climate scientists than when deterministic projections were used. Overall, these findings suggest that while climate change beliefs may be rooted in partisan identity, they remain malleable, especially when targeted communication strategies are used.

Evidence-Based Cancer Practices, Programs, and Interventions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria E. Fernandez ◽  
Patricia Dolan Mullen ◽  
Jennifer Leeman ◽  
Timothy J. Walker ◽  
Cam Escoffery
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
The Public ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Control Research ◽  
Control And Prevention

There are many evidence-based interventions, cancer control practices, programs, treatments, and clinical practice guidelines across cancer control and prevention topic areas that have great potential for decreasing the cancer burden. Nevertheless, challenges in identifying evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that match the needs of community and practice settings, adapting EBIs for new populations and contexts, and implementing EBIs in real-world settings limit the public health impact of cancer control research and its products. This chapter provides an introduction to existing EBIs for cancer control and provides examples of different types of EBIs across the cancer continuum. It highlights issues related to the identification of EBIs, including the evaluation of EBI resources. It also describes processes that can be used to enhance the development, adaptation, and implementation of evidence-based cancer control interventions.

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.

Mass Media and the Social Amplification of Climate Change Risks

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Mazur
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
New York ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
News Media ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Climate Science ◽  
Public Concern ◽  
Forthcoming Article ◽  
Public Concerns

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. Global warming was not on public or media agendas prior to 1998. In summer of that year, during an unusual heat wave, The New York Times and other major U.S. news organizations saliently reported warnings by NASA scientist James Hansen that the earth is warming. This alarm quickly spread to secondary media and to the news media of other nations. According to the “Quantity of Coverage Theory,” public concerns and governmental actions about a problem rise and fall with the extent of media coverage of that problem, a generalization that is applicable here. Over the next few years, global warming became part of a suite of worldwide issues (particularly the ozone hole, biodiversity, and destruction of rain forests) conceptualized as the “endangered earth,” more or less climaxing on Earth Day 1990. Media coverage and public concerns waned after 1990, thereafter following an erratic course until 2006, when they reached unprecedented heights internationally, largely but not entirely associated with former Vice President Al Gore’s promotion of human-caused climate change as “an inconvenient truth.” By this time, the issue had become highly polarized, with denial or discounting of the risk a hallmark of the political right, especially among American Republicans. International media coverage and public concern fell after 2010, but at this writing in 2015, these are again on the rise. The ups and downs of media attention and public concern are unrelated to real changes in the temperature of the atmosphere.

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 Conflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society: Meteorologists’ Views on a Scientific and Organizational Controversy

2017 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Stenhouse ◽  
Allison Harper ◽  
Xiaomei Cai ◽  
Sara Cobb ◽  
Anne Nicotera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Negative Influence ◽  
Scientific Societies ◽  
The Public ◽  
American Meteorological Society ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Political Views ◽  
Survey Responses

Abstract This article analyzes open-ended survey responses to understand how members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) perceive conflict within the AMS over global warming. Of all survey respondents, 53% agreed that there was conflict within the AMS; of these individuals who perceived conflict, 62% saw it as having at least some productive aspects, and 53% saw at least some unproductive aspects. Among members who saw a productive side to the conflict, most agreed as to why it was productive: debate and diverse perspectives enhance science. However, among members who saw an unproductive side, there was considerable disagreement as to why. Members who are convinced of largely human-caused climate change expressed that debate over global warming sends an unclear message to the public. Conversely, members who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change often felt that their peers were closed-minded and suppressing unpopular views. These two groups converged, however, on one point: politics was seen as an overwhelmingly negative influence on the debate. This suggests that scientific organizations faced with similar conflict should understand that there may be a contradiction between legitimizing all members’ views and sending a clear message to the public about the weight of the evidence. The findings also reinforce the conclusion that attempts by scientific societies to directly address differences in political views may be met with strong resistance by many scientists.

scholarly journals Climate predictions: the influence of nonlinearity and randomness

2012 ◽  
Vol 370 (1962) ◽  
pp. 1007-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Michael T. Thompson ◽  
Jan Sieber
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Statistical Properties ◽  
Gradual Change ◽  
Theme Issue ◽  
The Public ◽  
Systematic Biases ◽  
Earth’S Climate ◽  
Public Demand

The current threat of global warming and the public demand for confident projections of climate change pose the ultimate challenge to science: predicting the future behaviour of a system of such overwhelming complexity as the Earth's climate. This Theme Issue addresses two practical problems that make even prediction of the statistical properties of the climate, when treated as the attractor of a chaotic system (the weather), so challenging. The first is that even for the most detailed models, these statistical properties of the attractor show systematic biases. The second is that the attractor may undergo sudden large-scale changes on a time scale that is fast compared with the gradual change of the forcing (the so-called climate tipping).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document