Abstract
Despite the overwhelming body of evidence showing that human activity is altering the global climate, debates about climate change are characterised by an enormous amount of uncertainty. Some of this uncertainty stems from the science itself: important questions about the extent and impact of climatic changes remain unanswered. More uncertainty arises from policy debates about what constitutes ‘dangerous’ climate change and what mitigation and adaptation measures will be required to prevent it. However, among ordinary members of the public, a substantial amount of uncertainty remains about the reality of human-caused climate change. Why is it that a significant proportion of international public opinion has not been persuaded by arguments about climate change? In this chapter, I will outline some possible answers to this question. With reference to analyses of popular climate change media narratives, empirical data on climate change argument evaluation and the first-hand experiences of climate change communication experts, I will examine the way that people evaluate arguments about climate change.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
That the experiment contrasted the prospect of people in Bangladesh losing their homes with people in the United Kingdom losing their homes does not indicate that the housing security of British citizens is of greater value than that of Bangladeshi citizens. Rather, it was an attempt to render the negative outcome not only more negative (in the sense that 10,000, rather than 1,000 people’s homes were at risk and in 5, rather than 50 years time), but also more relevant (based on the assumption that a typical 16–18-year-old British citizen has more empathy with the security of houses in their own country within the next 5 years than the security of houses in a foreign country within the next 50 years). Bangladesh was selected as a comparison country simply because as a geographically low-lying nation, it faces very real threats from rising sea levels attributable to human-caused climate change.
- 2.
An additional difference between changing light bulbs and refraining from using aeroplanes (other than the magnitude of the sacrifice) is that they may impact on the prevention of the outcome in different ways. If people were to stop using aeroplanes, this would reduce greenhouse gas emissions more than swapping over to energy efficient light bulbs. This difference in the efficacy of the sacrifice is not present in the non-scientific argument – walking 2 minutes to the shop is no less effective as a method of buying batteries than walking 3 miles; it is simply more of a sacrifice. However, there are two indications that this potentially confounding effect does not seem to have influenced the outcome of the experiment. Firstly, if participants in the experiment were paying attention to this difference in efficacy, the arguments containing big sacrifices should have been rated as more compelling than the arguments containing small sacrifices. However, this was not the case. Secondly, no differences were observed in the impact of the level of sacrifice variable between the scientific and non-scientific arguments. It would seem, therefore, that participants treated the arguments as representing greater and lesser sacrifices, rather than more or less effective methods of avoiding the negative outcome.
References
Adams, S. (1999). Critiquing claims about global warming from the world wide web: A comparison of high school students and specialists. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 19(6), 539–543.
American Psychological Association Task Force on the Interface Between Psychology and Global Climate Change. (2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bonnefon, J. F., & Hilton, D. J. (2004). Consequential conditionals: Invited and suppressed inferences from valued outcomes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 30(1), 28–39.
Bord, R. J., O’Connor, R. E., & Fischer, A. (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science, 9, 205–218.
Bows, A., Upham, P., & Anderson, K. (2005). Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation: Contradictions with climate policy. Report for Friends of the Earth Trust Ltd.
Boykoff, M. (2007). Flogging a dead norm? Media coverage of anthropogenic climate change in United States and United Kingdom, 2003–2006. Area, 39(4), 470–481.
British Broadcasting Corporation. (2010). BBC Climate Change Poll – February 2010. Retrieved May 1, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_02_10climatechange.pdf
Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S., & Por, H. (2009). Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychological Science, 20, 299–308.
Butler, C., & Pidgeon, N. (2009). Media communications and public understanding of change – reporting scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. In T. Boyce & J. Lewis (Eds.), Climate change and the media (pp. 43–58). New York: Peter Lang.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 229–266). New York: Academic.
Corbett, J. B. & Durfee, J. L. (2004). Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication, 26, 129–151.
Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2009). Evaluating scientific arguments: Evidence, uncertainty & argument strength. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(3), 199–212.
Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2010). Message framing, fallacy & normative advocacy. Argumentation, 24(2), 153–163.
Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006). The slippery slope argument: Probability, utility and category boundary re-appraisal. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1145–1151). Vancouver: Cognitive Science Society.
Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L., & Xenias, D. (in press). Trust, uncertainty and attitudes towards climate change. Climatic Change.
Defra. (2008). A framework for pro-environmental behaviours. Retrieved January 8, 2010, from http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/social/behaviour/documents/behaviours-jan08-report.pdf
de Vries, N., Ruiter, R., & Leegwater, Y. (2002). Fear appeals in persuasive communication. In: G. Bartels & W. Nelissen (Eds.), Marketing for sustainability: Towards transactional policy making (pp. 96–104). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22–23.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Dunlap, R., & McCright, A. M. (2008). A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment, 50(5), 26–35.
Edwards, W. (1961). Behavioural decision theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 12, 473–498.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Friedman, S. M., Dunwoody, S., & Rogers, C. L. (Eds.). (1999). Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hahn, U., Harris, A. J. L., & Corner, A. (2009). Argument content and argument source – and exploration. Informal Logic, 29(4), 337–367.
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2006). A Bayesian approach to informal fallacies. Synthese, 152, 207–237.
Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2007). The rationality of informal argumentation: A Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies. Psychological Review, 114, 704–732.
Harris, A. J. L., & Corner, A. (2011). Communicating environmental risks: Clarifying the severity effect in interpretations of verbal probability expressions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0024195
HM Government. (2008). Climate change bill. London. Retrieved January 2010, from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/087/2008087.pdf
Hogg, M., & Shah, H. (2010). The impact of global learning on public attitudes and behaviours towards international development and sustainability. Development Education Authority, UK.
Hoog, N., Stroebe, W., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2005). The impact of fear appeals on processing and acceptance of action recommendations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 24–33.
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90.
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.
Korpan, C. A., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy in science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81, 515–532.
Lakoff, G. (2010). We are the polar bears: What’s wrong with the way the environment is understood. In From Hot Air to Happy Endings: How to inspire public support for a low carbon economy. London: Green Alliance.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 37(11), 2098–2109.
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17, 445–459.
Lorenzoni, I., Pidgeon, N. F., & O’Connor, R. E. (2005). Dangerous climate change: The role for risk research. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1287–1398.
Maio, G., Verplanken, B., Manstead, T., Stroebe, W., Abraham, C., Sheeran, P., & Conner, M. (2007). Social psychological factors in lifestyle change and the relevance to policy. Social Issues & Policy Review, 1(1), 99–137.
Malka, A., Krosnick, J. A. & Langer, G. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633–647.
McKenzie-Mohr, D., & Smith, W. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Canada: New Society Publishers.
Miller, A. G., McHoskey, J. W., Bane, C. M., & Dowd, T. G. (1993). The attitude polarization phenomenon: Role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioural consequences of reported attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 64(4), 561–574.
Munro, G. D., & Ditto, P. H. (1997). Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 23(6), 636–653.
Nisbett, M. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 51(2), 514–518.
Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students’ interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 123–145.
O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear won’t do it”: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30, 355–379.
Oppenheimer, M. (2005). Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference: The role of science, the limits of science. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1399–1407.
Pachauri, R. K., & Reisinger, A. (Eds). (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Geneva: IPCC.
Patt, A. (2007). Assessing model-based and conflict-based uncertainty. Global Environmental Change, 17, 37–46.
Patt, A. G., & Schrag, D. P. (2003). Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change, 61, 17–30.
Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press. (2009). Fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming. Retrieved January 2010, from http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
Pidgeon, N. F., Kasperson, R. K., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of risk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pollack, H. N. (2005). Uncertain science . . . uncertain world. Cambridge, U K: Cambridge University Press.
Randall, R. (2009). Loss and climate change: The cost of parallel narratives. Ecopsychology, 1(3), 118–129.
Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1085–1099.
Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Another look at why people are reluctant to exchange lottery tickets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 12–22.
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.
Shome, D., & Marx, S. (2009). The psychology of climate change communication: A guide for scientists, journalists, educators, political aides and the interested public. Columbia: Centre for Research on Environmental Decisions.
Spence, A., Pidgeon, N., & Uzzell, D. (2009). Climate change – psychology’s contribution. The Psychologist, 22, 108–111.
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C., & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Climate Change, 1(1). doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1059
Stern, P. C. (2000). Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.
Tannert, C., Elvers, H. D., & Jandrig, D. (2007). The ethics of uncertainty: In the light of possible dangers, research becomes a moral duty. European Molecular Biology Organisation Reports, 8(10), 892–896.
Thøgersen, J., & Crompton, T. (2009). Simple and painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy, 32, 141–163.
UK Climate Impacts Programme. (2009). Adapting to climate change: UK climate projections. Retrieved November 2009, from http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/824/517/
Upham, P., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Purdam, K., Darnton, A., McLachlan, C., et al. (2009) Public attitudes to environmental change: A selective review of theory and practice. A research synthesis for the Living with Environmental Change Programme, Research Councils UK.
Uzzell, D. L. (2000). The psycho-spatial dimensions of global environmental problems. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20(4), 307–318.
Walls, J., Rogers-Hayden, T., Mohr, A., & O’Riordan, T. (2005). Seeking citizens’ views on GM Crops – Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Environment, 47(7), 22–36.
Weber, E. U. (2006). Evidence-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change, 77, 103–120.
Weber, E. U. (2010). What shapes our perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. doi:10.1002/wcc.41
Western Strategies & Lake Research Partners. (2009). Climate and energy truths: Our common future. Washington, DC: EcoAmerica.
Whitmarsh, L. (2008). Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. Journal of Risk Research, 11(3), 351–374.
Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Global Environmental Change , 21, 690–700.
WRAP/WI. (2008). Love food champions report. Retrieved June 2009, from http://www.wrap.org.uk/retail/case_studies_research/report_love_food.html
Zehr, S. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 85–103.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Ulrike Hahn, who co-designed the experiment reported in this chapter, and Lorraine Whitmarsh and Rob Evans for helpful comments on earlier versions of this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Corner, A. (2012). Evaluating Arguments About Climate Change. In: Khine, M. (eds) Perspectives on Scientific Argumentation. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2469-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2470-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)