Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review

Abstract

Labels play an important role in opinion formation, helping to actively construct perceptions and reality, and place individuals into context with others. As a highly complex issue, climate change invites a range of different opinions and dialogs about its causes, impacts, and action required. However, the polarized labels used in the climate change debate, such as skeptic or alarmist, are both reflecting and helping to frame the debate as antagonistic and combative. This paper critically reviews the literature on climate opinion labels, and the efforts taken within an academic context to categorize differences, create new taxonomies of more detailed sub‐labels, or create or argue for the use of new labels such as denier or contrarian. By drawing on research on typologies of climate opinions, problems with labeling constructs and discussions around context and the implications for science‐policy dialog, we argue that climate labels, both as constructed in the academic literature, and as applied in science and policy debates, are serving to isolate, exclude, ignore, and dismiss claims‐makers of all types from constructive dialog. It suggests that context has been inadequately considered by the literature and that an emphasis on labels is accentuating division and diverting attention away from a focus on underlying motivations, which may be more conducive toward increasing public understanding and encouraging communication across this polarized debate. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:239–254. doi: 10.1002/wcc.332 This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Communication Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Climate stories: Why do climate scientists and sceptical voices participate in the climate debate?

“…We use the term sceptical voices (SVs) here in an attempt to move away from the problematic labelling constructs evident in the climate debate (Howarth & Sharman, 2015), but following Painter (2011) in recognising the need for a pragmatic descriptor. This public framing of the climate debate as a scientific disagreement between CSs and SVs has been recognised in the literature.…”

“…In this interpretation, framing participants as duelling adversaries in the media (Zhao, Rolfe-Redding, & Kotcher, 2014) or via labelling practices (Howarth & Sharman, 2015), helps to co-construct polarisation over time, ignoring potentially important underlying similarities between actor groups such as overlaps in motivations for debate participation. Ravetz's (2011Ravetz's ( , 2012 work on "Climategate" using the framework of postnormal science gives plausibility to the latter scenario as he finds that challenges to the speaking "truth to power" model of the science-policy interface makes both CSs and SVs uneasy.…”

A critical political ecology of consensus: On “Teaching Both Sides” of climate change controversies

“…Consensus politics emerge as incongruent with discursive cultural responses and smaller scales of meaning-making (Jasanoff, 2010). In order to effectively respond to climate change, we need to better account for the nuanced range of lived experiences and understandings about climate change across various contexts (Howarth and Sharman, 2015), and in turn, to create space for a diversity of worldviews in climate change action and advocacy.…”

“…The political context in Oklahoma suggested a need for careful language choices, especially when framing the climate contestations component. As such, items on the survey allowed for the possibility of skeptical responses and aimed to avoid isolating respondents with questions about political/religious affiliations and/or polarized discourses about climate change attitudes (Howarth and Sharman, 2015).…”

Public perception of climate change in the cold regions of Russia: an example of Yakutia

“…Общественному восприятию изменения кли мата уделяется большое внимание в зарубежной научной литературе [7][8][9][10][11] . В России этот во прос никогда не рассматривался, и настоящая работа -первый шаг для его изучения .…”