Framing the Climate Change Debate: The Role of Science
Key Points in the Science of Climate change:
• Explain how science works
• Communicate the science of climate change clearly
• Report observations – clearly and objectively
• Analyse climate data – clearly and objectively
• Model potential futures
• Explain potential threats
• Offer potential solutions
• Think the unthinkable
• Communicate ethical and moral issues.
Research has found:
They [society] don’t know very much and they are embarrassed about this. Generally people accept human influence on the climate system and that this is a problem. Similarly, large numbers of people think something needs to be done about this. These figures are quite stable But people don’t prioritise climate change measures against the economy and other pressing issues. In addition there is often strong resistance to specific measures such as wind farms or nuclear power. The level of general support for tackling climate change is similar to or greater than for other controversial issues where political action has been taken such as the Montreal Protocol, the invasion of Iraq, or rescuing the banks. However, there has been a significant decline in conviction in recent years, and a strong increase in political partisanship in US.
The plan to re-frame discussion:
• Avoid scientific terminology
• Use the familiar (e.g. refer to Fahrenheit not Centigrade in USA or the climate risks are under-emphasised)
• Focus on risk not uncertainty
• Disallow tribalism; avoid the language of ‘deniers’ and ‘warmists’; focus on the degree of agreement (since it is everyone’s democratic right to agree or disagree)
• Re-appropriate scepticism for scientists (who by definition are sceptical)
• Translate abstract climate science into social representations of common sense
• Provide some safe space (of hope); don’t do bad news stories
• Use metaphors and stories and images to communicate ideas
• Be honest
• Connect to deeper shared values such as social responsibility and fairness
• Recognize the distinction between dogma (closed) and scepticism (open)
• Challenge the confirmation bias (i.e. data fitting the scientist’s hypothesis); and exercise self-vigilance.