Keywords
science communication
climate change denial
climate scientists
scientific consensus on climate change
How to Cite
Abstract
The article’s topic reflects climate scientists’ presence and communication in the public sphere, while the main focus is on the two ways a society may respond to the climate scientists’ communicative efforts: by denying the scientific messaging (climate change denial) and by engaging in relation-building communication (climate change dialogue). Those aspects were explored from the point of view of American and Polish climate scientists through the method of in-depth interviewing. According to the scientists, as the study results show, the most effective way to enhance science-society dialogue on climate change is to detangle from unproductive denial narratives and truly embrace the dialogic model of science communication by opening it to feedback, including honest societal scepticism.
References
Anderegg W.R., Prall J.W., Harold J., Schneider S.H., 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(27): 12107-12109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003187107
Bayes R., Bolsen T., Druckman J.N., 2023. A research agenda for climate change communication and public opinion: The role of scientific consensus messaging and beyond. Environmental Communication 17(1): 16-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1805343
Bucchi M., Trench B., 2014. Science communication research: Themes and challenges. In: Bucchi M., Trench B. (eds), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology. 2nd edn. Routledge, London, U.K. and New York, U.S.A: 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203483794
Burgess R.G. (eds), 1982. Field research: A sourcebook and field manual. 1st edn. Routledge, London, U.K.
Carlton J.S., Perry-Hill R., Huber M., Prokopy L.S., 2015. The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. Environmental Research Letters 10(9): 094025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025
Chaptman D., 2013. Communicating science in the digital age. Grow. University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (CALS). Online: https://grow.cals.wisc.edu/departments/features/communicating-science-in-the-digital-age (accessed 20 August 2023).
Cologna V., Knutti R., Oreskes N., Siegrist M., 2021. Majority of German citizens, U.S. citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement. Environmental Research Letters 16(2): 024011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4ac
Cook B.R., Overpeck J.T., 2019. Relationship-building between climate scientists and publics as an alternative to information transfer. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10(2): e570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.570
Cook J., 2016. Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Online: https://oxfordre.com/climatescience (accessed 20 August 2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.314
Cook J., Nuccitelli D., Green S.A., Richardson M., Winkler B., Painting R., Way R., Jacobs P., Skuce A., 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8(2) 024024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Cook J., Oreskes N., Doran P.T., Anderegg W.R., Verheggen B., Maibach E.W., et al., 2016. Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters 11(4): 048002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Diethelm P., McKee M., 2009. Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? The European Journal of Public Health 19(1): 2-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
Doran P.T., Zimmerman M.K., 2009. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90(3): 22-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2009EO030002
Druckman J.N., 2017. The crisis of politicisation within and beyond science. Nature Human Behaviour 1(9): 615-617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0183-5
Dunlap R.E., McCright A.M., 2010. Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies. In: Routledge handbook of climate change and society, Routledge, London: 240-259.
Dunlap R.E., McCright A.M., 2011. Organised climate change denial. In: The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (1 vol), Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K: 144-160.
Dunlap R.E., McCright A.M., 2015. Challenging climate change. In: Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives, Oxford University Press, New York, U.K: 300-332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0010
Farmer G.T., Cook J., 2013a. Climate change science: A modern synthesis: (Vol 1: The physical climate). Springer, Netherlands. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5757-8
Farmer G.T., Cook J., 2013b. Understanding climate change denial. In: Climate change science: A modern synthesis. (Vol. 1: The physical climate), Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht : 445-466. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5757-8_23
Hansen J., Fung I., Lacis A., Rind D., Lebedeff S., Ruedy R., et al., 1988. Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 93(D8): 9341-9364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/JD093iD08p09341
Hartz J., Chappell R., 1997. Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. First Amendment Center, Nashville, TN.
Hornsey M.J., Fielding K.S., 2020. Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Social Issues and Policy Review 14(1): 3-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12058
House of Lords. 2000. Science and Technology Select. Committee. Science and Society 3rd Report. Stationary Office, Great Britain.
Hulme M., 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841200
Hunter P., 2016. The communications gap between scientists and public: More scientists and their institutions feel a need to communicate the results and nature of research with the public. EMBO Rep 17(11): 1513-1515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201643379
Imundo M.N., Rapp D.N., 2022. When fairness is flawed: Effects of false balance reporting and weight-of-evidence statements on beliefs and perceptions of climate change. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 11(2): 258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.002
Kennedy B., Funk C., Tyson A., 2022. Americans Value U.S. Role as Scientific Leader, but 38% Say Country Is Losing Ground Globally. Pew Research Center. Online: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2022/10/Trust-in-science-final.pdf (accessed 20 August 2023).
Knutti R., 2019. Closing the knowledge-action gap in climate change. One Earth 1(1): 21-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.09.001
Lewandowsky S., Gigna, G.E., Vaughan S., 2013. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change 3(4): 399-404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720
Lynas M., Houlton B.Z., Perry S., 2021. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 16(11): 114005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966
Maibach, E., Myers, T., & Leiserowitz, A., 2014. Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening. Earth’s Future 2(5): 295-298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000226
Malinowski Sz., 2015. Czy leci z nami klimatolog? Nauka o klimacie. Online: https://naukaoklimacie.pl/aktualnosci/czy-leci-z-nami-klimatolog-98/ (accessed 20 August 2023).
Mann M., 2021. On the climate crisis, delay has become the new form of denial. Online: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-10-31/climate-crisis-delay-has-become-the-new-form-of-denial (accessed 20 August 2023).
Milam O., Harvey R., 2019. US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds, Guardian. Online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll (accessed 10 December 2023).
Miller S., 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115-120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308
Moser S.C., Dilling L., 2007. Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511535871
Moser S.C., Dilling L., 2011. Communicating change science: closing action climate. In: John S.D., Richard B.N., Schlosberg D. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K: 161-174.
Myers F.K., Doran P.T., Cook J., Kotcher J.E., Myers T.A., 2021. Consensus revisited: Quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among earth scientists 10 years later. Environmental Research Letters 16: 104030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774
Nelkin D., 1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. (Rev edn). W.H. Freeman, New York.
Newton S., 2015. Who Counts as a Climate Scientist? NCSE. Online: https://ncse.ngo/who-counts-climate-scientist (accessed 20 August 2023).
Oreskes N., 2004. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306(5702): 1686-1686. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103618
Oreskes N., 2007. The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? In: DiMento J.F.C., Doughman P. (eds), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren. MIT Press., Cambridge, USA: 65-99.
Oreskes N., Conway E.M., 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, New York.
PAN [Polska Akademia Nauk], 2022. Polacy pozytywnie oceniają naukowców, a krytycznie rządzących. Pierwszy raport z międzynarodowego badania. Online: https://pan.pl/polacy-pozytywnie-oceniaja-naukowcow-a-krytycznie-rzadzacych-pierwszy-raport-z-miedzynarodowego-badania/ (accessed 20 August 2023).
PERITIA, 2022. PERITIA – policy, expertise and trust. Online: https://ncse.ngo/sites/default/files/NCSE%20Annual%20Report%202016 – final.pdf (accessed 20 August 2023).
Racimo F., Valentini E., Rijo De León G., Santos T.L., Norberg A., Atmore L.M., Murray M., Hakala S.M., Olsen F.A., Gardner C.J., Halder J.B., 2022. The biospheric emergency calls for scientists to change tactics. Elife 7(11): e83292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83292
Rittel H.W.J., Webber M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Science 4: 155-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730
Sadura P., European Climate Foundation, Fundacja Pole Dialogu, 2023. New climate negationism. How populism in Poland influences our thinking about climate change. Online: https://poledialogu.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/New-climate-negationism_report_ENG.pdf (accessed 10 December 2023).
Schäfer, M. S., 2012. Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(6): 527-543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.191
Schipper E.L.F., Dubash N.K., Mulugetta Y., 2021. Climate change research and the search for solutions: Rethinking interdisciplinarity. Climatic Change 168(3-4): 18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03237-3
State of Science Index 2022 Global Report, 2022. Online: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/2183175O/3m-state-of-science-index-sosi-2022-global-report.pdf (accessed 20 August 2023).
Treise D., Weigold, M.F., 2002. Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication 23(3): 310-322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300306
van der Linden S., Leiserowitz A., Maibach E.W., 2016. Communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is an effective and depolarising public engagement strategy: Experimental evidence from a large national replication study. Online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2733956 (accessed 20 August 2023). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2733956
van der Linden S., Leiserowitz A., Maibach E., 2019. The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology 62: 49-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009
Vernon J.L., Woolley M., 2019. Visibility may be the key to increasing support for science. American Scientist. Online: https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/macroscope/visibility-may-be-the-key-to-increasing-support-for-science (accessed 20 August 2023).
Weart S., 2011. Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67(1): 41-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340210392966
Webb S., Webb B., 1932. Methods of social study. Longmans Green, London.
World Public Opinion, 2009. Public attitudes toward climate change: Findings from a multi-country poll. Online: https://worldpublicopinion.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ClimateChange_Dec09_rpt.pdf (accessed: 20 August 2023).
Xifra J., 2016. Climate change deniers and advocacy: A situational theory of publics approach. American Behavioral Scientist 60(3): 276-287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215613403
Ziman J., 1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16(1): 99-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600106
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Jagoda Mytych
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.