LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Pearce, Warren; Brown, Brian; Nerlich, Brigitte; Koteyko, Nelya (2015)
Publisher: Wiley
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: communication, climate change
A review undertaken with colleagues at Nottingham and QMU London Climate change has been the subject of increasing efforts by scientists to understand its causes and implications; it has been of growing interest to policymakers, international bodies, and a variety of nongovernment organizations; and it has attracted varied amounts of attention from traditional and, increasingly, online media. These developments have been aligned with shifts in the nature of climate change communication, with changes in how researchers study it and how a variety of actors try to influence it. This article situates the theory and practice of climate change communication within developments that have taken place since we first reviewed the field in 2009. These include the rise of new social media conduits for communication, research, and practice aimed at fine tuning communication content, and the rise to prominence of scientific consensus as part of that content. We focus in particular on continuing tensions between a focus on the part of communicators to inform the public and more dialogic strategies of public engagement. We also consider the tension between efforts to promote consensus and certainty in climate science and approaches that attempt to engage with uncertainty more fully. We explore the lessons to be learnt from climate communication since 2009, highlighting how the field remains haunted by the deficit model of science communication. Finally, we point to more fruitful future directions for climate change communication, including more participatory models that acknowledge, rather than ignore, residual uncertainties in climate science in order to stimulate debate and deliberation.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B. Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2010, 1:97-110.
    • 2. Norton DW. Constructing “Climategate” and Tracking Chatter in an Age of Web n. 0. 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? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2012, 3:289-295.
    • 5. Grundmann R. The legacy of Climategate: revitalizing or undermining climate science and policy? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 2012, 3:281-288.
    • 6. Nerlich B. 'Climategate': Paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environmental Values 2010, 19:419-442.
    • 7. Mahony M. The predictive state: Science, territory and the future of the Indian climate. Social Studies of Science 2013:0306312713501407.
    • 8. Jankó F, Móricz N, Papp Vancsó J. Reviewing the climate change reviewers: Exploring controversy through report references and citations. Geoforum 2014, 56:17-34.
    • 125. Whitmarsh L. What's in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”. Public Understanding of Science 2009, 18:401-420.
    • 126. Hulme M. The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution. The Geographical Journal 2008, 174:5-16.
    • 127. Darier É, Schüle R. Think globally, act locally'? Climate change and public participation in Manchester and Frankfurt. Local Environment 1999, 4:317-329.
    • 128. Bostrom A, Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Read D. What do people know about global climate change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis 1994, 14:959-970.
    • 129. 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 Analysis 1994, 14:971-982.
    • 130. Pidgeon NF, Lorenzoni I, Poortinga W. Climate change or nuclear power-No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain. Global Environmental Change 2008, 18:69-85.
    • 131. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF. Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives. Climatic Change 2006, 77:73-95.
    • 132. Spence A, Pidgeon N, Uzzell D. Climate change - psychology's contribution. The Psychologist 2009, Pages 108-111.
    • 133. Lorenzoni I, Hulme M. Believing is seeing: laypeople's views of future socioeconomic and climate change in England and in Italy. Public Understanding of Science 2009, 18:383-400.
    • 134. Dryzek JS. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
    • 135. Fischer F. Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham: Duke University Press; 2000.
    • 136. Jasanoff S. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and the Social Order. London: Routledge; 2006.
    • 137. Mouffe C. On the political. Abingdon: Routledge; 2005.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article