Beyond Counting Climate Consensus

Pearce, Warren; Grundmann, Reiner; Hulme, Michael; Raman, Sujatha; Kershaw, Eleanor Hadley; Tsouvalis, Judith

doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965

Cited by 87 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Discussions of consensus often ask whether agreement is a laudable aim for researchers, or how far consensus is achievable (De Kerckhove et al, 2015;Lidskog and Sundqvist, 2004;Rescher, 1993). We are also interested in the tension between scientific and politician consensus, and how differences in interpretations of knowledge can be leveraged to influence political consensus (Beem, 2012;Montana, 2017;Pearce et al, 2017). What tools can be used to generate credibility?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Oliver

Boaz

2019

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For decades, the question of how evidence influences policy and practice has captured our attention, cutting across disciplines and policy/practice domains. All academics, funders, and publics have a stake in this conversation. There are pockets of great expertise about evidence production and use, which all too often remains siloed. Practical and empirical lessons are not shared across disciplinary boundaries and theoretical and conceptual leaps remain contained. This means that we are not making the most of vast and increasing investment in knowledge production. Because existing lessons about how to do and use research well are not shared, funders and researchers are poorly equipped to realise the potential utility of research, and waste resources on-for exampleineffective strategies to create research impact. It also means that the scarce resources available to study evidence production and use are misspent on overlynarrow or already-answered questions. Patchy and intermittent funding has failed to build broadly relevant empirical or theoretical knowledge about how to make better use of evidence, or to build the communities required to act on this knowledge. To transform how we as a community think about what evidence is, how to generate it, and how to use it well, we must better capture lessons being learned in our different research and practice communities. We must find ways to share this knowledge, to embed it in the design of our research systems and practices, and work jointly to establish genuine knowledge gaps about evidence production and use. This comment sets out one vision of how that might be accomplished, and what might result.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Oliver

Boaz

2019

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their replies to our paper (Pearce et al, 2017), both Cook (2017) and Oreskes (2017) agree with our central point: that deliberating and mobilizing policy responses to climate change requires thinking beyond public belief in a scientific consensus. However, they both continue to defend consensus messaging, either because of "the dangers of neglecting to communicate the scientific consensus" (Cook, 2017, p. 1) or because "'no consensus' … remains … a contrarian talking point" (Oreskes, 2017, p. 1).…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

A Reply to Cook and Oreskes on Climate Science Consensus Messaging

Pearce

Grundmann

Hulme

et al. 2017

Environmental Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is not clear that disputes resulting from political inaction on climate change are resolvable by claims to scientific consensus; in fact, for many critics, this strategy is not simply a mistake but makes public communication of climate change significantly more difficult (Machin, 2013;Howe, 2014;Maeseele, 2015;Russill, 2016;Heymann et al, 2017;Pearce et al, 2017). I focus here on the criticism of Dan Kahan and Mike Hulme not to slight other approaches but to address the most vocal critics of consensus messaging.…”

Section: Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

The “Danger” of Consensus Messaging: Or, Why to Shift From Skeptic-First to Migration-First Approaches

Russill

2018

Front. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consensus messaging is a climate change communication strategy emphasizing the fact of scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Its proponents encourage scientists, journalists, and educators to transmit consensus messages in hopes of improving public climate literacy. Critics of this approach question its methodology for determining consensus and its effectiveness as a strategy for improving public understanding and policymaking. I review these debates to determine what is at stake in disagreements over consensus messaging and suggest that issues of climate change danger are addressed too narrowly when the expectations, style and categories of consensus messaging are dominant. I recommend that "migration-first" approaches displace the priority of "skeptic-first" approaches to climate change communication, and that scholars begin asking what is owed to those most affected by climate change danger.Keywords: climate change communication, cultural cognition, environmental humanities, risk communication, climate change refugees, climate change policy, environmental politics, migration Climate change communication is an intensely contested terrain. As a growing object of scholarly interest, proposals to reshape its usual practices have proliferated rapidly and sharpened differences among experts regarding the nature and purposes of public communication on climate change. These disputes reflect differences in how communication is conceptualized among the disciplines (psychology, sociological, political science, cognitive science, communication, and media studies, etc.), how it works in various sites (science communication, intergovernmental negotiating, social marketing, social movements, risk communication, local politics, etc.) and what it is expected to do (combat skeptics, support mitigation polices, explore adaptation opportunities). Arguably, these disputes are symptomatic of a growing dissatisfaction with the conceptual narrowness of climate change communication given the expanding range of contexts, circumstances, and concerns it must address. In some cases, scholars are calling for agonistic approaches to reshape politics and public life through climate change communication (Carvalho and Peterson, 2012;Machin, 2013).In this article, I address scholarly debates about "consensus messaging" to discuss current limitations in climate change communication. While these debates often turn on how the purposes and goals of climate change communication are understood, they illustrate the narrow origins, limited intentions and general ineffectiveness of the field. Alternative approaches, I suggest, should reckon directly with the legacy and deeper implications of consensus messaging for climate change communication, not lament its popularity, dismiss its assumptions or ignore its influence.

show abstract

Beyond Counting Climate Consensus

Cited by 87 publications

References 46 publications

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations

A Reply to Cook and Oreskes on Climate Science Consensus Messaging

The “Danger” of Consensus Messaging: Or, Why to Shift From Skeptic-First to Migration-First Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About