Communication of climate projections in US media amid politicization of model science

Abstract

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 2 | SEPTEMBER 2012 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange C limate models expand scientific understanding of the projected impacts of increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases on Earth's systems and serve as decision-making tools in consideration of adaptive and mitigative policy responses 1 . As such, the use of models to generate knowledge about climatic change has been described as "a central focus of climate politics" 2 and also "a lightning rod in the climate debate" 3 . These computer programs, which work through a series of time-stepped operations to solve the mathematical equations representing Earth's climatic processes, have been the target of climate science sceptics who question the validity of their projections 4,5 and the subject of long-standing debate even among non-sceptics over their use for policy decisions [6][7][8] .Under conditions of increasingly variable climatic conditions, decision-makers on all governmental levels will probably rely on model projections for policymaking on multidecadal timescales. Thus criticisms of modelling within climate sceptic arguments, as well as debates over the use of models as tools for informing policy, are directed at an aspect of climate science that is both integral to our understanding of Earth system processes 9 and likely to become increasingly important to societal decisions in adapting to and mitigating climate change 10 .Yet large proportions of the US public are unsure whether climatemodel projections can be trusted, according to a recent nationally representative survey. Of those surveyed in 2010, 64% reported either that they believed that scientists' computer models are too unreliable to predict the climate of the future (41%), or that they did not know whether to trust them (23%) 11 . Moreover, uncertainties both in climate predictions for the next few decades and in longer-range projections may widen with the use of new modelling techniques and as additional climate processes and feedbacks are incorporated to produce more realistic simulations, posing further complications to public communication efforts 12 . Here, we map the outlines of model discourses to identify problems and opportunities for the communication of climate-model science for the purposes of improved decision-making.So far, there seems to be no systematic evaluation of the treatment of climate models and their projections in public discourse, even though they have been politically contentious and are widely misunderstood, based on comparisons with more familiar forecasting tools such as weather models 11 . Popular media have become increasingly responsible for conveying complex science to the public 13 and are a primary source of climate change information for many Computer models generate projections of future climatic conditions that lie at the crux of climate change science and policy, and are increasingly used by decision-makers. Yet their complexity and politicization can hinder the communication of their science, uses and limitatio...

Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change

“…The primary way that contrarian campaigns create skepticism and ideological polarization is through the production of an alternative contrarian discourse (To be clear, the term discourse here refers to communication in an authoritative fashion about a particular topic or debate), which necessarily takes the form of written text and speech from organizations and individuals (11,14). Indeed, many scholars have examined climate change discourse in media coverage of climate change (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21), but because of data constraints and the difficulty of gathering such complex and furtive data, we still lack a comprehensive data-driven understanding about the actual content and source of contrarian messages, as well as the complex organizational and financial networks within which they are produced. This study presents such an approach, and examines how the production of an alternative discourse is embedded within a particular social structure and how the content itself is influenced by particular funding sources.…”

Northwest U.S. Agriculture in a Changing Climate: Collaboratively Defined Research and Extension Priorities

“…There is value in providing users with climate change-related information at online locations where they already go for decision support, such as pest management DSS (McNie, 2012;Kirchhoff et al, 2013). Integrating climate change-related DSS with other agricultural DSS creates opportunities to engage users who may not seek out climate change-related tools on their own, or who are skeptical about climate change (Feldman and Ingram, 2009;Akerlof et al, 2012). Integrated tools enable producers to consider climate as one of many risks that they need to plan for and manage McNie, 2012;Kirchhoff et al, 2013).…”

“…Agricultural producers already manage multiple riskseconomic, production-based, environmental, weather-however, managing for climate change-related risks is uniquely challenging because impacts are uncertain, variable over space and time, and often perceived as being only of concern in the distant future (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010;Leiserowitz et al, 2011;Akerlof et al, 2012). In some cases, discussions of climate change with agricultural producers has been complicated both by the politicized nature of the discussion (McCright and Dunlap, 2011), and because decision-makers may discount climate science as political rhetoric (Leiserowitz et al, 2011).…”

“…Active partnerships already exist in the Northwest U.S. among individuals working at many points along the researchextension-practice continuum on specific topics, in particular geographies, or on specific crops or production systems (AgCC, 2016). There is a need for the research and extension community to continue developing strategies for effective collaboration and communication with stakeholders, who have diverse needs and expertise (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010;Akerlof et al, 2012;Wibeck, 2014;AgCC, 2016). Existing literature suggests effective mechanisms for researchers to engage with agricultural decisionmakers, and for building the necessary extension capacityincluding that of conservation district staff, private-sector technical service providers, and others-to deliver actionable climate change information (McNie, 2012;Kirchhoff et al, 2013;Wibeck, 2014;Prokopy et al, 2015a;Roesch-McNally et al, 2017).…”

Climate change frames and frame formation : An analysis of climate change communication in the Swedish agricultural sector

“…Media frames of climate change have typically been studied by analysing highquality newspapers worldwide (e.g., Akerlof et al, 2012;Dotson et al, 2012;Nerlich et al, 2012;Vestergård, 2011;Zamith et al, 2013) and to some extent tabloids (e.g., Kumpu, 2013;Waitt et al, 2012) and on-line sources (e.g., Jančevskaite and Telešiene, 2013;Scharl et al, 2013;Thorsen, 2013). In an analysis of United States (US) media and political debate from the late 1990s and onwards, Nisbet and Scheufele (2009) (Boykoff, 2008), describing climate change as sensational, alarming (Hibberd and Nguyen, 2013;Russill and Nyssa, 2009), and harmful (Ambler, 2007;Carvalho and Burgess, 2005;Zamith et al, 2013).…”