Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 613-626

  Pearce, Warren ^a   Brown, Brian ^b   Nerlich, Brigitte ^a   Koteyko, Nelya ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b DE MONTFORT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE MODELS;

CLIMATE SCIENCE; COMMUNICATION CONTENT; DEFICIT MODELS; NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS; POLICY MAKERS; PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT; SOCIAL MEDIA; THEORY AND PRACTICE;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

CLIMATE CHANGE; COMMUNICATION; INTERNET; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY MAKING; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84945188956     PISSN: 17577780     EISSN: 17577799     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcc.366     Document Type: Review

References (142)

1. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B. Theory and language of climate change communication. WIREs Clim Change 2010, 1:97-110.
2. Norton DW. Constructing "Climategate" and Tracking Chatter in an Age of Web n. 0. Washington, DC: American University Center for Social Media; 2010.
3. Holliman R. Advocacy in the tail: exploring the implications of 'climategate' for science journalism and public debate in the digital age. Journalism 2011, 12:832-846.
4. Maibach E, Leiserowitz A, Cobb S, Shank M, Cobb KM, Gulledge J. The legacy of climategate: undermining or revitalizing climate science and policy? WIREs Clim Change 2012, 3:289-295.
5. Grundmann R. The legacy of climategate: revitalizing or undermining climate science and policy? WIREs Clim Change 2012, 3:281-288.
6. Nerlich B. 'Climategate': paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environ Values 2010, 19:419-442.
7. Mahony M. The predictive state: science, territory and the future of the Indian climate. Soc Stud Sci 2014, 44:109-133.
8. Jankó F, Móricz N, Papp VJ. Reviewing the climate change reviewers: exploring controversy through report references and citations. Geoforum 2014, 56:17-34.
9. Lang C. Amazongate: IPCC, climate denial and climate science. REDD-Monitor 2010. Available at: http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/07/18/amazongate-ipcc-climate-change-denial-and-science/. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
10. Google Trends. Web search interest-worldwide. Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/trends/explore#q=climate%20change%2C%20global%20warming. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
11. Carle J. Climate change seen as top global threat. Available at: http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/07/14/climate-change-seen-as-top-global-threat/. (Accessed July 23, 2014).
12. Capstick S, Whitmarsh L, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N, Upham P. International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:35-61.
13. Landström C, Hauxwell-Baldwin R, Lorenzoni I, Rogers-Hayden T. The (mis)understanding of scientific uncertainty? How experts view policy-makers, the media and publics. Sci Cult 2015, 24:276-298.
14. Collins L, Nerlich B. Examining user comments for deliberative democracy: a corpus-driven analysis of the climate change debate online. Environ Commun 2014, 9:189-207.
15. Hulme M, Ravetz J. 'Show Your Working': what 'ClimateGate' means. BBC, 2009.
16. Edwards T. Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/31/climate-scientists-policies. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
17. Schmidt GA. What should climate scientists advocate for? Bull At Sci 2015, 71:70-74.
18. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol Q 2011, 52:155-194.
19. Poles PJ. Apart: The International Reporting of Climate Scepticism. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism; 2011, 136.
20. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P. The "nasty effect": online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J Comput-Mediat Commun 2014, 19:373-387.
21. Pielke RA Jr. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
22. Rapley CG, de Meyer K, Carney J, Clarke R, Howarth C, Smith N, Stilgoe J, Youngs S, Brierley C, Haugvaldstad A, et al. Time for change? Climate science reconsidered. Report of the UCL Policy Commission on Communicating Climate Science, 2014.
23. Fischhoff B, Scheufele DA. The science of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2013, 110:14031-14032.
24. Wibeck V. Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change-some lessons from recent literature. Environ Educ Res 2014, 20:387-411.
25. Schäfer MS, Schlichting I. Media representations of climate change: a meta-analysis of the research field. Environ Commun 2014, 8:142-160.
26. Schmidt A, Ivanova A, Schäfer MS. Media attention for climate change around the world: a comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries. Glob Environ Change 2013, 23:1233-1248.
27. Andrews K, Boykoff M, Daly M, Gifford L, Luedecke G, McAllister L, Nacu-Schmidt A, Wang X. World Newspaper Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming, 2004-2015. Available at: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/index.html. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
28. Romm J. Silence of the lambs: climate coverage drops at major U.S. Newspapers, flatlines on TV. ThinkProgress. Available at: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/14/3149961/silence-lambs-climate-coverage-drops/. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
29. Nerlich B, Forsyth R, Clarke D. Climate in the news: how differences in media discourse between the US and UK reflect national priorities. Environ Commun 2012, 6:44-63.
30. Grundmann R, Scott M. Disputed climate science in the media: do countries matter? Public Underst Sci 2014, 23:220-235.
31. Jaspal R, Nerlich B. When climate science became climate politics: British media representations of climate change in 1988. Public Underst Sci 2014, 23:122-141.
32. Kirilenko AP, Stepchenkova SO. Climate change discourse in mass media: application of computer-assisted content analysis. J Environ Stud Sci 2012, 2:178-191.
33. Mazur A. How did the fracking controversy emerge in the period 2010-2012? Public Underst Sci 2014. doi:10.1177/0963662514545311.
34. Howell R, Shackley S, Mabon L, Ashworth P, Jeanneret T. Engaging the public with low-carbon energy technologies: results from a Scottish large group process. Energy Policy 2014, 66:496-506.
35. Nerlich B, Jaspal R. Metaphors we die by? Geoengineering, metaphors, and the argument from catastrophe. Metaphor Symb 2012, 27:131-147.
36. Nerlich B, Jaspal R. UK media representations of carbon capture and storage: actors, frames and metaphors. Metaphor Soc World 2013, 3:35-53.
37. Jaspal R, Nerlich B. Fracking in the UK press: threat dynamics in an unfolding debate. Public Underst Sci 2014, 23:348-363.
38. Jaspal R, Nerlich B, Lemańcyzk S. Fracking in the Polish press: geopolitics and national identity. Energy Policy 2014, 74:253-261.
39. Jaspal R, Turner A, Nerlich B. Fracking on YouTube: exploring risks, benefits and human values. Environ Values 2014, 23:501-527.
40. O'Neill SJ, Smith N. Climate change and visual imagery. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:73-87.
41. Hollin G, Pearce W. Tension between scientific certainty and meaning complicates communication of IPCC reports. Nat Clim Change 2015, 5:753-756.
42. Carvalho A, Burgess J. Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K. broadsheet newspapers, 1985-2003. Risk Anal 2005, 25:1457-1469.
43. Pearce W. Scientific data and its limits: rethinking the use of evidence in local climate change policy. Evid Policy 2014, 10:187-203.
44. Hawkins E, Edwards T, McNeall D. Pause for thought. Nat Clim Change 2014, 4:154-156.
45. Betts R. Widening the climate conversation. Soapbox Science, 2012.
46. Koteyko N, Nerlich B, Hellsten I. Climate change communication and the Internet: challenges and opportunities for research. Environ Commun 2015, 9:149-152.
47. Koteyko N. Mining the internet for linguistic and social data: an analysis of 'carbon compounds' in Web feeds. Discourse Soc 2010, 21:655-674.
48. Koteyko N. Corpus-assisted analysis of Internet-based discourses: from patterns to rhetoric. In: Ridolfo J, Hart-Davidson W, eds. Rhetoric and Digital Humanities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2015.
49. Koteyko N, Thelwall M, Nerlich B. From carbon markets to carbon morality: creative compounds as framing devices in online discourses on climate change mitigation. Sci Commun 2010, 32:25-54.
50. Jang SM, Hart PS. Polarized frames on "climate change" and "global warming" across countries and states: evidence from Twitter big data. Glob Environ Change 2015, 32:11-17.
51. Hellsten I, Vasileiadou E. The creation of the climategate hype in blogs and newspapers: mixed methods approach. Internet Res 2015, 25:589-609.
52. Sharman A. Mapping the climate sceptical blogosphere. Glob Environ Change 2014, 26:159-170.
53. Elgesem D, Steskal L, Diakopoulos N. Structure and content of the discourse on climate change in the blogosphere: the big picture. Environ Commun 2014, 9:169-188.
54. Matthews P. Why are people skeptical about climate change? Some insights from blog comments. Environ Commun 2015, 9:153-168.
55. Koteyko N, Jaspal R, Nerlich B. Climate change and 'climategate' in online reader comments: a mixed methods study. Geogr J 2013, 179:74-86.
56. Nerlich B. Moderation impossible? On hype, honesty and trust in the context of modern academic life. Sociol Rev 2013, 61:43-57.
57. Porter AJ, Hellsten I. Investigating participatory dynamics through social media using a multideterminant "frame" approach: the case of Climategate on YouTube. J Comput-Mediat Commun 2014, 19:1024-1041.
58. Schäfer MS. Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. WIREs Clim Change 2012, 3:527-543.
59. Schmidt G. To blog or not to blog? Nat Geosci 2008, 1:208.
60. Pearce W, Holmberg K, Hellsten I, Nerlich B. Climate change on Twitter: topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report. PLoS One 2014, 9:e94785.
61. Williams HTP, McMurray JR, Kurz T, Lambert FH. Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Glob Environ Change 2015, 32:126-138.
62. Boyd D, Crawford K. Critical questions for big data. Inf Commun Soc 2012, 15:662-679.
63. Capstick SB, Pidgeon NF. What is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Glob Environ Change 2014, 24:389-401.
64. Cook J, Lewandowsky S. The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia: University of Queensland 2011.
65. Watts A. An extraordinary meeting of climate skeptics and climate scientists in Bath. Watts Up With That? Available at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/23/an-extraordinary-meeting-of-climate-skeptics-and-climate-scientists-in-bath/. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
66. Yeo S. Climate consensus: scientists and sceptics suspend hostilities. Available at: Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/03/climate-consensus-scientists-and-sceptics-suspend-hostilities. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
67. Bain PG, Hornsey MJ, Bongiorno R, Jeffries C. Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:600-603.
68. Stern PC. Psychology: fear and hope in climate messages. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:572-573.
69. Feinberg M, Willer R. Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol Sci 2011, 22:34-38.
70. Hart PS, Nisbet EC. Boomerang effects in science communication how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Commun Res 2012, 39:701-723.
71. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Change 2012, 2:732-735.
72. Shome D, Marx S. The Psychology of Climate Change Communication. New York: Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, Columbia University; 2009.
73. Leiserowitz A. Weather, climate, and (especially) society. Weather Clim Soc 2012, 4:87-89.
74. Climate Communication. What we do. Available at: https://www.climatecommunication.org/what-we-do/. (Accessed May 28, 2015).
75. Climate Outreach and Information Network. About. Available at: http://www.climateoutreach.org.uk/about/. (Accessed May 28, 2015).
76. Talking Climate. Home. Available at: talkingclimate.org. (Accessed May 28, 2015).
77. Jasanoff S. What is the regulatory science? Concept and history in United States and in Japan. Clin Eval 2011, 39:167-180.
78. Brown MB. Politicizing science: conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Soc Stud Sci 2015, 45:3-30.
79. Sarewitz D. Does climate change knowledge really matter? WIREs Clim Change 2011, 2:475-481.
80. Rockström J, Brasseur G, Hoskins B, Lucht W, Schellnhuber J, Kabat P, Nakicenovic N, Gong P, Schlosser P, Costa MM, et al. Climate change: the necessary, the possible and the desirable. Earth's Future 2014, 2:606-611.
81. Cook J, Nuccitelli D, Green SA, Richardson M, Winkler B, Painting R, Way R, Jacobs P, Skuce A. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ Res Lett 2013, 8:024024.
82. The Consensus Project. Home. Available at: http://theconsensusproject.com/. (Accessed May 28, 2015).
83. Abraham J, Nuccitelli D. Climate consensus-the 97%. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
84. Kelly H. John Oliver and Bill Nye show the world how to debate with climate change deniers. The New Republic, 2014.
85. Obama B. Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. @BarackObama, 2013. (Accessed September 10, 2015). Vol. 2015, May 28. Available at: https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/335089477296988160.
86. Cook J. Closing the consensus gap: public support for climate policy. Available at: http://thebulletin.org/closing-consensus-gap-public-support-climate-policy. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
87. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nat Clim Change 2011, 1:462-466.
88. Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Vaughan S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nat Clim Change 2013, 3:399-404.
89. Media Coverage of the Consensus Project. Available at: https://www.skepticalscience.com/republishers.php?a=tcpmediaDate. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
90. Oreskes N, Conway EM. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury; 2010.
91. Corner A, Whitmarsh L, Xenias D. Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Clim Change 2012, 114:463-478.
92. Lejano RP, Tavares-Reager J, Berkes F. Climate and narrative: environmental knowledge in everyday life. Environ Sci Policy 2013, 31:61-70.
93. Kahan DM. Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Adv Polit Psychol 2015, 36:1-43.
94. Oreskes N. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 2004, 306:1686.
95. Bray D. The scientific consensus of climate change revisited. Environ Sci Policy 2010, 13:340-350.
96. Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH. Expert credibility in climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010, 107:12107-12109.
97. Doran PT, Zimmerman MK. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 2009, 90:22-23.
98. Reginez G, Custead S. The role and effectiveness of governmental and non-governmental communications in engageing the public with climate change. In: Whitmarsh L, O'Neill S, Lorenzoni I, eds. Engaging the Public with Climate Change: Behaviour Change and Communication. London: Earthscan; 2011, 233-251.
99. Demeritt D. Science studies, climate change and the prospects for constructivist critique. Econ Soc 2006, 35:453-479.
100. Chen X, Tung K-K. Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration. Science 2014, 345:897-903.
101. Ridley DA, Solomon S, Barnes JE, Burlakov VD, Deshler T, Dolgii SI, Herber AB, Nagai T, Neely RR, Nevzorov AV, et al. Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change. Geophys Res Lett 2014, 41:GL061541.
102. Marotzke J, Forster PM. Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends. Nature 2015, 517:565-570.
103. Machin A. Negotiating Climate Change: Radical Democracy and the Illusion of Consensus. London: Zed Books; 2013.
104. Corner A. A New Conversation with the Centre-Right about Climate Change: Values, Frames and Narratives. Oxford: Climate Outreach and Information Network; 2013.
105. Corner A, van Eck C. Science & Stories: Bringing the IPCC to Life. Oxford: Climate Outreach and Information Network; 2014.
106. Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, ecoAmerica. Connecting on Climate: A Guide to Effective Climate Change Communication. New York and Washington DC: Columbia University and ecoAmerica; 2014.
107. Slovic P. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception. London: Earthscan; 2010.
108. Royal Society. The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society; 1985.
109. Hassol SJ. Improving how scientists communicate about climate change. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 2008, 89:106-107.
110. Somerville RC, Hassol SJ. Communicating the science of climate change. Phys Today 2011, 64:48-53.
111. Myers T, Maibach EW, Peters E, Leiserowitz A. Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: the results of two experiments. PLoS One 2015, 10:e0120985.
112. Wynne B. Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Underst Sci 1993, 2:321-337.
113. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science: hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 2006, 9:211-220.
114. Cooke B, Kothari U. Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books; 2001.
115. Felt U, Wynne B. Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2007.
116. Stirling A. "Opening Up" and "Closing Down" power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Human Values 2008, 33:262-294.
117. Wynne B. Further disorientation in the hall of mirrors. Public Underst Sci 2014, 23:60-70.
118. de Melo-Martín I, Intemann K. Who's afraid of dissent? Addressing concerns about undermining scientific consensus in public policy developments. Perspect Sci 2014, 22:593-615.
119. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Communicating Climate Science. London: The Stationery Office Limited; 2014.
120. Wynne B. Strange weather, again climate science as political art. Theor Cult Soc 2010, 27:289-305.
121. Edwards T. How to love uncertainty in climate science. All Models Are Wrong. Available at: http://blogs.plos.org/models/love-uncertainty-climate-science/. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
122. Slingo J, Belcher S, Scaife A, Smith D, Knight J, Hermanson L, Palmer M, Andrews M. Latest Decadal Forecast 2014-2018. Exeter: Met Office; 2014.
123. Mann ME. Earth will cross the climate danger threshold by 2036. Available at: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-will-cross-the-climate-danger-threshold-by-2036/. (Accessed September 10, 2015).
124. Lewandowsky S, Oreskes N, Risbey JS, Newell BR, Smithson M. Seepage: climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community. Glob Environ Change 2015, 33:1-13.
125. Boykoff MT. Media discourse on the climate slowdown. Nat Clim Change 2014, 4:156-158.
126. Gilbert N, Mulkay M. Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.
127. Welsh I, Wynne B. Science, scientism and imaginaries of publics in the UK: passive objects, incipient threats. Sci Cult 2013, 22:540-566.
128. Auer MR, Zhang Y, Lee P. The potential of microblogs for the study of public perceptions of climate change. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:291-296.
129. Whitmarsh L. What's in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of "climate change" and "global warming." Public Underst Sci 2009, 18:401-420.
130. Hulme M. The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geogr J 2008, 174:5-16.
131. Darier É, Schüle R. Think globally, act locally?' Climate change and public participation in Manchester and Frankfurt. Local Environ 1999, 4:317-329.
132. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D. What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Anal 1994, 14:959-970.
133. Read D, Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Smuts T. What do people know about global climate change? 2. Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 1994, 14:971-982.
134. Pidgeon NF, Lorenzoni I, Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power-no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Glob Environ Change 2008, 18:69-85.
135. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 2006, 77:73-95.
136. Spence A, Pidgeon N, Uzzell D. Climate change-psychology's contribution. Psychologist 2009, 21:108-111.
137. Lorenzoni I, Hulme M. Believing is seeing: laypeople's views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and in Italy. Public Underst Sci 2009, 18:383-400.
138. Pallett H, Chilvers J. A decade of learning about publics, participation, and climate change: institutionalising reflexivity? Environ Plann A 2013, 45:1162-1183.
139. Dryzek JS. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
140. Fischer F. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2000.
141. Jasanoff S. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge 2006.
142. Mouffe C. On the Political. Abingdon: Routledge 2005.