Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum

Political orientation and ideology are amongst the most significant influences on climate change attitudes and responses. Specifically, those with right-of-centre political views are typically less concerned and more sceptical about climate change. A significant challenge remains to move beyond this ideological impasse and achieve a more open and constructive debate across the political spectrum. This paper reports on novel mixed-methods research in the UK to develop and test a series of ‘narratives’ to better engage citizens with centre-right political views. Qualitative work in Study 1 revealed two particularly promising narratives. The first focused on the idea that saving energy is predicated on the ‘conservative’ principle of avoiding waste; the second focused on the advantages of ‘Great British Energy’ (based on patriotic support for domestic low-carbon technologies). An online experiment in Study 2 with a representative UK sample compared these narratives with a more typically left-of-centre narrative focused on the concept of ‘climate justice’ with a representative sample of the UK public. Results indicate that the first two narratives elicited broad agreement and reduced scepticism amongst centre-right participants, while the ‘climate justice’ narrative (which reflects a common environmental message framing) polarised audiences along political lines. This research offers clear implications for how climate change communicators can move beyond preaching to the converted and initiate constructive dialogue about climate change with traditionally disengaged audiences

Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering

The linguistic frames used to describe new areas of science and technology can have a powerful effect on the way that those technologies are perceived by the general public. As geoengineering continues to attract scholarly and policy interest, a number of frames have emerged in the scientific, political and media discourse. In the current paper, we provide an empirical test of one of the most prevalent framing devices: describing geoengineering technologies by analogy to natural processes. In an online experiment with members of the UK public, participants who read a description of geoengineering technologies as analogous to natural processes were more likely to support geoengineering as a response to climate change. In addition, participants’ views about the relationship between geoengineering and nature strongly predicted support for geoengineering. Our findings suggest that communicators should be cautious when using natural analogies to communicate about geoengineering with the general public, as frame choice is likely to influence public attitudes and potentially convey undue positivity

Bayesian approach to informal argumentation : evidence, uncertainty and argument strength

The work in this thesis contributes towards answering a simple, important and longstanding question: How do people evaluate informal arguments In Chapter 1, I review existing approaches to informal argumentation, and suggest that the Bayesian approach provides the most appropriate way of capturing informal argument strength. The Bayesian approach assumes that arguments are composed of claims and evidence. When people evaluate informal arguments, they make a probabilistic judgment about how convincing it is - that is, how likely the claim is to be true given the available evidence. The Bayesian approach is normative, because it makes predictions about how convincing different arguments should be. In Chapter 2, I examine the Bayesian claim to provide normative guidance for argument evaluation, and conclude that it provides solid normative principles on which to base an account of informal argument strength. The remainder of the thesis comprises experimental work in two distinct but related domains - the evaluation of socio-scientiflc arguments, and the evaluation of slippery slope arguments. Understanding the public response to scientific messages about, for example, climate change, is becoming increasingly important. In Chapter 3, I report the results of four experiments (Experiments 1a, 1b, 1c, & 1d) designed to establish whether there are any differences in the way that people evaluate arguments about scientific topics as opposed to non-scientific topics. The data suggest that both scientific and non- scientific arguments are evaluated in a way that is broadly consistent with the rational predictions of Bayesian theory. In Chapters 4 and 5, I tackle a longstanding philosophical puzzle - when, if ever, is it rational to be persuaded by slippery slope arguments Using Bayesian decision theory, and by identifying a mechanism on which evaluation of these arguments may be predicated, I demonstrate when and why slippery slope arguments are convincing (Experiments 2 - 9). Finally, in Chapter 6, I conclude that the Bayesian approach provides a valuable metric for studying the evaluation of informal arguments, and identify some outstanding questions raised by my research.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

'Experiment Earth?' Reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering : Reflections on a public dialogue on geoengineering

During early 2010, the first series of major UK public engagement events on geoengineering took place – and were described in a report titled ‘Experiment Earth?’ The events were designed to provide an opportunity for members of the public to engage with these emerging technologies at a very early stage...This working paper reflects on the framing, process, methods and findings of the public dialogue, and offers a set of recommendations for future public engagement on this topic

Bayesian approach to informal argumentation: Evidence, uncertainty and argument strength

The work in this thesis contributes towards answering a simple, important and longstanding question: How do people evaluate informal arguments In Chapter 1, I review existing approaches to informal argumentation, and suggest that the Bayesian approach provides the most appropriate way of capturing informal argument strength. The Bayesian approach assumes that arguments are composed of claims and evidence. When people evaluate informal arguments, they make a probabilistic judgment about how convincing it is - that is, how likely the claim is to be true given the available evidence. The Bayesian approach is normative, because it makes predictions about how convincing different arguments should be. In Chapter 2, I examine the Bayesian claim to provide normative guidance for argument evaluation, and conclude that it provides solid normative principles on which to base an account of informal argument strength. The remainder of the thesis comprises experimental work in two distinct but related domains - the evaluation of socio-scientiflc arguments, and the evaluation of slippery slope arguments. Understanding the public response to scientific messages about, for example, climate change, is becoming increasingly important. In Chapter 3, I report the results of four experiments (Experiments 1a, 1b, 1c, & 1d) designed to establish whether there are any differences in the way that people evaluate arguments about scientific topics as opposed to non-scientific topics. The data suggest that both scientific and non- scientific arguments are evaluated in a way that is broadly consistent with the rational predictions of Bayesian theory. In Chapters 4 and 5, I tackle a longstanding philosophical puzzle - when, if ever, is it rational to be persuaded by slippery slope arguments Using Bayesian decision theory, and by identifying a mechanism on which evaluation of these arguments may be predicated, I demonstrate when and why slippery slope arguments are convincing (Experiments 2 - 9). Finally, in Chapter 6, I conclude that the Bayesian approach provides a valuable metric for studying the evaluation of informal arguments, and identify some outstanding questions raised by my research

British public perceptions of climate risk, adaptation options and resilience (RESiL RISK): Topline findings of a GB survey conducted in October 2019

This report summarises topline findings from a nationally representative survey conducted in October 2019 with 1,401 British respondents to examine public perceptions of climate change, its associated impacts, and to map public support for climate change adaptation and resilience building strategies. The survey results provide evidence for a shift in perceptions among the British public towards greater concern and a general willingness to support steps to address the issue. By comparing the current survey results to previous studies conducted in 2010, 2013 and 2016, this report illustrates how public beliefs have altered over recent years

Messing with nature? Exploring public perceptions of geoengineering in the UK

Anthropogenic influence on the climate – and possible societal responses to it – offers a unique window through which to examine the way people think about and relate to the natural world. This paper reports data from four, one-day deliberative workshops conducted with members of the UK public during early 2012. The workshops focused on geoengineering – the deliberate, large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment – as one of three possible responses to climate change (alongside mitigation and adaptation). Here, we explore one of the most pervasive and wide-ranging themes to emerge from the workshops: whether geoengineering represented an unprecedented human intervention into ‘nature’, and what the moral consequences of this might be. Using the concept of ‘messing with nature’ as an analytical lens, we explore public perceptions of geoengineering. We also reflect on why ‘messing with nature’ was such a focal point for debate and disagreement, and whether the prospect of geoengineering may reveal new dimensions to the way that people think about the natural world, and their relationship to it

Lost in translation? Interpretations of the probability phrases used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in China and the UK

Tackling climate change is a global challenge and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the organisation charged with communicating the risks, dangers and mechanisms underlying climate change to both policy makers and the general public. The IPCC has traditionally used words (e.g., ‘likely’) in place of numbers (‘70 % chance’) to communicate risk and uncertainty information. The IPCC assessment reports have been published in six languages, but the consistency of the interpretation of these words cross-culturally has yet to be investigated. In two studies, we find considerable variation in the interpretation of the IPCC’s probability expressions between the Chinese and British public. Whilst British interpretations differ somewhat from the IPCC’s prescriptions, Chinese interpretations differ to a much greater degree and show more variation. These results add weight to continuing calls for the IPCC to make greater use of numbers in its forecasts

An almost full embedding of the category of graphs into the category of abelian groups

We construct an embedding G of the category of graphs into the category of abelian groups such that for graphs X and Y we have Hom(GX,GY)=Z[Hom(X,Y)], the free abelian group whose basis is the set Hom(X,Y). The isomorphism is functorial in X and Y. The existence of such an embedding implies that, contrary to a common belief, the category of abelian groups is as complex and comprehensive as any other concrete category. We use this embedding to settle an old problem of Isbell whether every full subcategory of the category of abelian groups, which is closed under limits, is reflective. A positive answer turns out to be equivalent to weak Vopenka's principle, a large cardinal axiom which is not provable but believed to be consistent with standard set theory. Several known constructions in the category of abelian groups are obtained as quick applications of the embedding. In the revised version we add some consequences to the Hovey-Palmieri-Stricland problem about existence of arbitrary localizations in a stable homotopy categoryComment: 20 page