Climate Science Language in US Secondary School Student Textbooks, 2002–2012

Reference work entry


Climate science language has a profound effect on students, lending voice and power to a complex, and at times, controversial subject despite scientific consensus. Climate science language usage for US secondary earth science textbooks from 2002 to 2012 is examined. Future decision-makers will need to be climate-literate in order to make choices about how to mitigate and/or adapt to climate change. Formal education plays a key role in creating an informed citizenry – one that is able to evaluate information for its reliability, validity, and veracity in order to draw reasonable and logical conclusions. In the US’s K-12 schools, science education is largely reliant on educational textbooks and publisher-supplied materials. Textbooks strive to reach a broad national audience often using general language and simplified topics, but climate science is an interdisciplinary and complicated topic. As such, understanding what earth science textbooks include and how it is conveyed provides an opportunity for publishers, scientists, and schools to better communicate scientific results and human decisions in order to address and understand climate change’s complexity.


Climate change education Textbooks Secondary education Earth science Climate literacy 


  1. Anderegg, W. R., Prall, J. W., Harold, J., & Schneider, S. H. (2010). Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 107(27), 12107–12109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. California. (2016). California climate change. Retrieved from Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  3. Castree, N. (2001). Socializing nature: Theory, practice, and politics. In N. Castree & B. Braun (Eds.), Social nature: Theory, practice and politics (pp. 1–21). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Castree, N. (2005). Nature. In S. Valentine & G. Holloway (Eds.), Key ideas in geography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Choi, S., Niyogi, D., Shepardson, D. P., & Charusombat, U. (2010). Do earth and environmental science textbooks promote middle and high school students’ conceptual development about climate change? Textbooks consideration of students’ misconceptions. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 91, 889–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cloke, P., & Johnston, R. (2005). Spaces of geographical thought. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Corner, A., Roberts, O., Chiari, S., Voller, S., Mayrhuba, E., Mandl, S., & Monson, K. (2015). How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values, message framing, and trusted communicators. WIREs Climate Change, 6, 523–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Demeritt, D. (2002). What is the “social construction of nature”? A typology and sympathetic critique. Progress in Human Geography, 26(767), 24.Google Scholar
  9. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the 4th assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, 2007. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne Jr, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel (No. RBR-8-75). Naval technical training command millington TN research branch.Google Scholar
  14. Leiserowitz, A., Smith, N., & Marlon, J. R. (2011). American teens’ knowledge of climate change. Yale project on climate change communication. New Haven: Yale University Retrieved from Accessed 20 Sep 2015.Google Scholar
  15. Lichter, S., Farnsworth, S. J., & Rolfe-Redding, J. (2015). Scientific opinion on climate change over two decades. Journal of Climatology and Weather Forecasting, 3, 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maine. Department of Environmental Protection. (2013). Sustainability: climate change. Retrieved from Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  17. Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., & Hughes, M. K. (1999). Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6), 759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCaffrey, M. S. (2012). Teaching controversy. The Earth Scientist, 28(3), 25–29.Google Scholar
  19. McCaffrey, M. S., & Buhr, S. M. (2008). Clarifying climate confusion: Addressing systemic holes, cognitive gaps, and misconceptions through climate literacy. Physical Geography, 29(6), 512–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T. C., & Yohe, G. W. (Eds.). (2014). 2014: Climate change impacts in the United States: The third national climate assessment. Washington, DC: US Global Change Research Program.Google Scholar
  21. Moser, S. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions. WIREs Climate Change, 1, 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nerlich, B., Koteyko, N., & Brown, B. (2010). Theory and language of climate change communication. WIREs Climate Change, 1, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2013). Final next generation science standards released. Retrieved from
  24. Niepold, F., Herring, D., & McConville, D. (2007). The case for climate literacy in the 21st century. The fifth international symposium on digital Earth. Retrieved from
  25. Nisbet, M. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 51(2), 12–23.Google Scholar
  26. Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), 1686–1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko N. (2015). Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6), 613–626.Google Scholar
  28. Plutzer, E., McCaffrey, M., Hannah, A. L., Rosenau, J., Berbeco, M., & Reid, A. H. (2016). Climate confusion among US teachers. Science, 351(6274), 664–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scripps Institute of Oceanography. (2016). The Keeling curve. UC San Diego. Retrieved from
  30. Shanahan, M. (2007). Talking about a revolution: Climate change and the media. In COP13 briefing and opinion papers (pp. 1–4). London, UK: IIED.Google Scholar
  31. Sherwood, S. (2011). Science controversies past and present. Physics Today, October, 39–44.Google Scholar
  32. Somerville, R. C. J., & Hassol, S. J. (2011). Communicating the science of climate change. Physics Today, 64, 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tarbuck, F. K., & Lutgens, E. J. (2012). Earth science (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. US Global Change Research Program/Climate Change Science Program (USGCRP/CCSP). (2009). Climate literacy: The essential principles of climate sciences. (2nd version). Retrieved from
  35. Virginia. (2015). Governor Terence R. McAuliffe’s climate change and update commission. Report and Final Recommendations to the Governor. Retrieved from Accessed 15 Jan 2016.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Atmospheric ScienceUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of Northern IowaCedar FallsUSA

Personalised recommendations