Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage

Abstract

but not policy-prescriptive 6 . We would therefore expect SPMs to reflect these principles by adopting a clear and neutral language that can be understood by a non-specialist audience.At the same time, it is of crucial importance how the print media interpret the results presented by the IPCC, as pivotal agents in science communication 7 to the general public.Previous research has focused on the way in which IPCC probabilistic statements are interpreted 8,9 , and on the discursive construction of the IPCC in national newspapers 10 and social media coverage 11,12 , including the influence of grammatical and word choices 13 .The purpose of this study is to analyse the language that has been used in IPCC SPMs as well as a sample of popular science journals and UK and US national (quality and tabloid) newspapers on the launch of the IPCC assessment reports (N = 1,010; see Supplementary WG2 and WG3 show clear downward trends, whereas readability of WG1 SPMs remains relatively stable over time. In line with previous studies 22 , these differences between working groups show that natural sciences are not necessarily the most difficult ones to communicate to general audiences.In addition to the link between scientific fields and writing styles, another more pragmatic reason could be that WG2 and WG3 are much more diverse in terms of the scientific fields they draw from than the relatively homogeneous WG1 23 . Likewise, findings from WG2 and WG3 might be exposed more directly to pressures arising from the remit to be policyrelevant but policy-neutral 6 . This diversity of scientific fields and policy implications might result in a greater need to compromise, in turn resulting in longer and more complex 5 sentences. The AR5 WG3 SPM is the least readable document across the entire sample with a Flesch Reading Ease score of 6.7.A different pattern can be identified in the readability of synthesis reports (SYR) over time.Again, the AR1 synthesis report shows the highest readability score. However, readability drops sharply in AR2 and subsequently recovers in AR3 and in particular AR4, albeit remaining at a level that is lower than in AR1. There is another sharp drop in readabilityThe average readability score across the three Working Groups for each assessment report is very close to the readability score of the Synthesis SPM for each assessment report. This observation is consistent with the fact that the Synthesis report draws most of its text from the other WGs SPMs.The readability of Technical Summaries (TSs), pre-plenary and post-plenary SPMs for each WG in AR4 and AR5 were compared (Figure 3). TSs are intended to capture the most important scientific aspects of the full Working Group Assessment Report; they are longer than SPMs and include pointers to the chapters and sections where the full assessment can be found 24 . The pre-plenary SPM is a confidential draft that is sent to governments for a final review a few months before the WG and IPCC session that approves and accepts the SPM (thus making it post-plenary...

Exploring the science–policy interface on climate change: The role of the IPCC in informing local decision-making in the UK

“…While this was accepted as a result of the nature of the evidence assessed and reference in the reports, and generally it was felt that there had been a noticeable improvement in the language in the IPCC ARs over the years, this is perceived as a significant shortcoming when engaging with audiences such as local policymakers, local businesses, councils, schools, community groups, stakeholders, members of the public, and internal staff. Such observations by users also chime with some of the academic research described in the section "The IPCC and decisionmaking" above (Black (2015), Barkemeyer et al (2015) and Dessai et al (2009). The plea for clearer, more accessible language has been echoed by other key users of the IPCC reports and their target audiences, such as business sectors, NGOs, and the media (Painter, 2015b).…”

“…In addition, localized expertise, in the form of indigenous knowledge features scarcely in the IPCC reports (particularly WGII) challenging the extent to which the knowledge base assessed in the ARs is sufficiently inclusive of expertise and understanding of vulnerability, expertise, experiences and characterization of impacts and adaptation associated with climate change (Ford et al, 2012). As targets implemented through international and national policies will affect and require participation by ordinary citizens, their awareness, understanding, engagement and personal action is necessary to ensure uptake of measures and sustained changes to fill gaps where legislation and technology are insufficient to achieve success on their own (Barkemeyer et al, 2015).…”

“…They argued that the scientists fell into what they called the "IPCC's certainty trap", and inconsistencies led to confusion within the press conference and subsequent condemnation in the media. In exploring the readibility of the language used in the IPCC's outputs, Barkemeyer et al (2015) found that the SPMs stand out for "very low readability scores" (where an equivalent to a PhD level of understanding of climate science is needed), which have remained fairly constant despite the IPCC's efforts to amend its communications policy. These results were found to contrast with changes over time in coverage of the IPCC in scientific and broadsheet newspapers, with coverage on more recent reports generally being easier to read.…”

Synthesizing a policy-relevant perspective from the three IPCC “Worlds”—A comparison of topics and frames in the SPMs of the Fifth Assessment Report

“…Risk assessments are a common way to structure decision making processes in business, government and project work. A risk framing here calls for assessing and managing risks even if the specifics of climate change impacts are not, or cannot be, quantified; it calls for action also in the face of uncertainty (Barkemayer et al 2015;Moser and Dilling 2011;van der Linden et al 2015).…”

Transitions in climate and energy discourse between Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy

“…A 2005 study on climate change in the media revealed that articles often frame climate change as a debate, controversy, or uncertainty, which is inconsistent with how the phenomenon is framed within the scientific community [2]. A recent 2015 linguistic study determined that the IPCC summaries, intended for non-scientific audiences, are becoming increasingly more complex and more difficult for people to understand [5], which highlights the critical interpretive role of the media in public discourse.…”