Climate change: Why the conspiracy theories are dangerous

Uncertainty surrounds the public understanding of climate change and provides fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Typically, such conspiracy theories assert that climate scientists and politicians are distorting or hijacking the science to suit their own purposes. Climate change conspiracy theories resemble other conspiracy theories in some respects, but in others they appear to be quite different. For example, climate change conspiracy theories appear to be motivated by the desire to deny or minimize an unwelcome and threatening conclusion. They also appear to be more contentious than other types of conspiracy theories. Perhaps to an unparalleled extent, people on both sides of the issue champion climate change conspiracy theories. Finally, more than other conspiracy theories, those concerning climate change appear to be more politically loaded, dividing opinion across the left-right continuum. Some empirical evidence suggests that climate change conspiracy theories may be harmful, steering people away from environmentally friendly initiatives. They therefore present a significant challenge for governments and environmental organizations that are attempting to convince people to take action against global warming

Continental-drift opus turns 100

One hundred years ago this year, the legendary German explorer, geophysicist and meteorologist Alfred Wegener published his milestone book The Origin of Continents and Oceans. His theory of continental drift was initially viewed as heresy by the scientific community, yet his book was later translated into many languages and updated regularly until 1929. For his opus, Wegener assembled an array of geological, palaeontological and geophysical data. They are best explained, he argued, by hypothesizing that major landmasses eventually broke apart and went their separate ways. After his death, his ideas were largely forgotten until the 1960s, when geophysicists demonstrated the phenomenon of sea-floor spreading. Plate tectonics has since gained acceptance as a synthetic theory with huge explanatory power. Wegener died in 1930 while exploring in Greenland. Buried in the ice, his body has sailed westwards at a rate of about 2 centimetres per year on the back of the North American plate. He would have been glad to know that it will have travelled some 20 kilometres in a million years' time — in accordance with his visionary theory

The (Mis)understanding of Scientific Uncertainty? How Experts View Policy-Makers, the Media and Publics

Frequent claims that publics ‘misunderstand’ science ignore the contested definition of scientific uncertainty itself. Scientific uncertainty means different things in the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities, while public controversies show that these interpretations of scientific uncertainty have different implications for policy and decision-making. This prompts analysis of the ways that experts view scientific uncertainty and how they characterise the (mis)understandings of this uncertainty by policy-makers, media and publics. Experts from diverse academic fields define scientific uncertainty differently depending on their disciplinary background. For example, mathematics provides experts from the natural sciences with a practice language that facilitates communication with those sharing this cultural competence, but it does not suffice for engaging with wider audiences. Further, experts’ views of diverse publics come across as folk theories, in Arie Rip’s terms, which, compiled from disparate pieces of information, can be used to fill a gap in the knowledge about publics

Flood realities, perceptions, and the depth of divisions on climate

Research has led to broad agreement among scientists that anthropogenic climate change is happening now and likely to worsen. In contrast to scientific agreement, US public views remain deeply divided, largely along ideological lines. Science communication has been neutralised in some arenas by intense counter-messaging, but as adverse climate impacts become manifest they might intervene more persuasively in local perceptions. We look for evidence of this occurring with regard to realities and perceptions of flooding in the northeastern US state of New Hampshire. Although precipitation and flood damage have increased, with ample news coverage, most residents do not see a trend. Nor do perceptions about past and future local flooding correlate with regional impacts or vulnerability. Instead, such perceptions follow ideological patterns resembling those of global climate change. That information about the physical world can be substantially filtered by ideology is a common finding from sociological environment/society research

Advocacy in the tail: Exploring the implications of ‘climategate’ for science journalism and public debate in the digital age

This paper explores the evolving practices of science journalism and public debate in the digital age. The vehicle for this study is the release of digitally stored email correspondence, data and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the weeks immediately prior to the United Nations Copenhagen Summit (COP-15) in December 2009. Described using the journalistic shorthand of ‘climategate’, and initially promoted through socio-technical networks of bloggers, this episode became a global news story and the subject of several formal reviews. ‘Climategate’ illustrates that media literate critics of anthropogenic explanations of climate change used digital tools to support their cause, making visible selected, newsworthy aspects of scientific information and the practices of scientists. In conclusion, I argue that ‘climategate’ may have profound implications for the production and distribution of science news, and how climate science is represented and debated in the digitally-mediated public sphere

Towards environmentally sustainable human behaviour: targeting non-conscious and conscious processes for effective and acceptable policies.

Meeting climate change targets to limit global warming to 2°C requires rapid and large reductions in demand for products that most contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These include production of bulk materials (e.g. steel and cement), energy supply (e.g. fossil fuels) and animal source foods (particularly ruminants and their products). Effective strategies to meet these targets require transformative changes in supply as well as demand, involving changes in economic, political and legal systems at local, national and international levels, building on evidence from many disciplines. This paper outlines contributions from behavioural science in reducing demand. Grounded in dual-process models of human behaviour (involving non-conscious and conscious processes) this paper considers first why interventions aimed at changing population values towards the environment are usually insufficient or unnecessary for reducing demand although they may be important in increasing public acceptability of policies that could reduce demand. It then outlines two sets of evidence from behavioural science towards effective systems-based strategies, to identify interventions likely to be effective at: (i) reducing demand for products that contribute most to GHG emissions, mainly targeting non-conscious processes and (ii) increasing public acceptability for policy changes to enable these interventions, targeting conscious processes.This article is part of the themed issue 'Material demand reduction'

Beyond counting climate consensus

Several studies have been using quantified consensus within climate science as an argument to foster climate policy. Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful. We argue that repeated efforts to shore up the scientific consensus on minimalist claims such as ‘humans cause global warming’ are distractions from more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement.  Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers. More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role. Mobilising expertise in policy debates calls for judgment, context and attention to diversity, rather than deferring to formal quantifications of narrowly scientific claims