Advertisement

Scientists, Communication and the Space of Global Media Attention

  • Elisabeth Eide
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the IPCC, its structure and its efforts to communicate the AR5 reports. It discusses challenges to IPCC science communication such as the balance between being policy relevant and policy prescriptive, and how to communicate to a larger public. It draws on science communication theories as well as interviews with several IPCC scientists mainly conducted during the UNESCO scientific conference “Our Common Future” in Paris, July 2015.

Keywords

Climate Change Climate Research Unit Climate Science Communication Challenge IPCC Report 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Austgulen, M. H., & Stø, E. (2013). Norsk skepsis og usikkerhet om klimaendringer. Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning, 54(2), 124–150.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, M. W. (2009). Editorial. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 378–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, U. (2010). Climate for change or how to create a green modernity? Theory Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckett, C. (2010). The value of networked journalism. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
  5. Berglez, P., & Olausson, U. (2014). The post-political condition of climate change: An ideology approach. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 25(1), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Black, R. (2015). No more summaries for wonks. Nature Climate Change, 5, 282–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boykoff, M. T., Daly, M., Gifford, L., Luedecke, G., McAllister, L., Nacu-Schmidt, A., et al. (2015). World newspaper coverage of climate change or global warming, 2004–2015. Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado. Retrieved from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/world/index.html
  8. Budescu, D. V., Por, H., Broomell, S. B., & Smithson, M. (2014). The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nature and Climate Change, 4, 508–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., & Upham, P. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. WIREs Climate Change, 6, 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooke, R. M. (2014). Messaging climate change uncertainty. Nature Climate Change, 5, 8–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cottle, S. (2013). Environmental conflict in a global media age: Beyond dualisms. In L. Lester & B. Hutchins (Eds.), Environmental conflict and the media (pp. 19–37). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  12. Eide, E. (2012). Visualizing a global crisis. Constructing climate, future and present. Conflict and Communication Online, 11(2), 1–16.Google Scholar
  13. Ekwurzel, B., Frumhoff, P., & McCarthy, J. (2011). Climate uncertainties and their discontents: Increasing the impact of assessments on public understanding of climate risks and choices. Climatic Change, 108(4), 791–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse and Society, 4(2), 133–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hahn, O., Eide, E., & Ali, Z. S. (2012). The evidence of things unseen: Visualizing global warming. In E. Eide & R. Kunelius (Eds.), Media meets climate: The global challenge for journalism (pp. 217–242). Gothenburg: Nordicom.Google Scholar
  16. Harris, A. J. L., & Corner, A. (2011). Communicating environmental risks: Clarifying the severity effect in interpretations of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory & Cognition, 37(6), 1571–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hulme, M. (2014). Can science fix climate change? A case against climate engineering. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  19. IPCC. (2013). Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., & Midgley, P. M. (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Summary for policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. IPCC (2015). Structure: How does the IPCC work? Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml
  21. Jasanoff, S. (2007). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Nature, 450(7166), 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jennings, N., & Hulme, M. (2010). UK newspaper (mis-)representations of the potential for a collapse of the thermohaline circulation. Area, 42(4), 444–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones, R. (2011). The latest iteration of IPCC uncertainty guidance-an author perspective. Climatic Change, 108(4), 733–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C.-Y., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change, 5, 1014–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lorenzoni, I., & Hulme, M. (2009). Believing is seeing: Laypeople’s views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and Italy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lynn, J. (2016a). IPCC communications issues—Constraints and opportunities. Advance paper submitted to the IPCC Expert Meeting on Communication. IPCC, Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from https://ipcc.ch/meeting_documentation/pdf/Communication/160119_advance_paper_on_constraints-JLynn.pdf
  28. Mastrandrea, M., & Mach, K. (2011). Treatment of uncertainties in IPCC Assessment Reports: Past approaches and considerations for the Fifth Assessment Report. Climatic Change, 108(4), 659–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Plattner, G., Edenhofer, O., Stocker, T. F., Field, C. B., Ebi, K. L.,& Matschoss, P. R. (2011). The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Climate Change 108, 675–691.Google Scholar
  30. Nerone, J. (2015). The media and public life: A history. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  31. Oxburgh Report. (2010, April). Summary. Norwich, UK. Retrieved from http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf
  32. Painter, J. (2010). Summoned by science: Reporting climate change at Copenhagen and beyond. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.Google Scholar
  33. Patt, A. G., & Schrag, D. P. (2003). Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change, 61(1/2), 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearce, F. (2010). The climate files: The battle for the truth about global warming. London: Guardian Books.Google Scholar
  35. Russell Report. (2010, July 7). The independent climate change e-mails review. London, UK. Retrieved from http://www.cce-review.org/
  36. Schenk, N. J., & Lensink, S. M. (2007). Communicating uncertainty in the IPCC’s greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Climatic Change, 82(3/4), 293–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Secko, D., Amend, E., & Friday, T. (2013). Four models of science journalism: A synthesis and practical assessment. Journalism Practice, 7(1), 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stavins, R. N. (2014, April 25). Is the IPCC government approval process broken? An economic view of the environment. A blog. Retrieved from http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/
  39. Sterman, J. (2011). Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Climatic Change, 108(4), 811–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2–3), 213–232.Google Scholar
  41. Szerszynski, B., & Urry, J. (2010). Changing climates: Introduction. Theory, Culture and Society, 27(2–3), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53. (1988, December 6). Protection of global climate for present and future generations of mankind, A/RES/43/53. United Nations General Assembly: 70th Plenary Meeting. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm
  43. Victor, D. G. (2015). Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature, 520, 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ytterstad, A. (2014). Vite, men ikke røre? Profesjonelle grenser for klimahandlinig hos norske forskere og journalister. In E. Eide, D. Elgesem, S. Gloppen, & L. Rakner (Eds.), Klima, medier og politikk. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Eide
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Journalism and Media StudiesOslo and Akershus University College of Applied SciencesOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations