Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers (original) (raw)
Related papers
Narratives of denial: Examining how climate change deniers convince their audiences.
1 The Alberta-based organization Friends of Science provides several "proofs" that climate change is not happening: The earth is cooling; the Sun causes climate change; violent weather isn't getting worse; climate computer models are proven wrong (Friends of Science, 2013). 2 James Lovelock considers that it is too late and too risky to try to reach any international consensus on climate change. He recommends that Britain acts alone, by securing sources of energy, preparing for the protection and eventual abandonment of cities close to sea level such as London and Liverpool, and "plan for the synthesis of food from nothing more than air, water and a few minerals" (2006, p. 13). 3 The great global warming swindle by Martin Durkin (2007). 4 Two of them, Carl Wunsch and Eigil Friis-Christensen, are not deniers. See Ofcom (2008) for their implication.
Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide
Michigan Journal of Sustainability
Climate change is an increasingly politicized issue in the United States, with many members of the American public, especially those who identify as politically conservative, skeptical about this dangerous phenomenon. A host of social and psychological processes have been investigated in an attempt to understand skepticism and resistance to responding to the threat of climate change, including motivated reasoning, system justification theory, social dominance orientation, belief in a just world, the cultural cognition thesis, and solution aversion. In this article, we review recent research into these processes and their implications for understanding the political divide in responding to climate change. We also highlight efforts to test communications interventions aimed at ameliorating these processes underlying climate change skepticism, including framing and scientific consensus. This literature review may be informative for climate change focused communicators, policymakers, practitioners, and academics who directly or indirectly interact with the Responding to Climate Change Skepticism and the Ideological Divide Vol. 5
Beliefs and Denials About Climate Change: An Australian Perspective
Ecopsychology, 2012
Despite the scientific evidence and consensus surrounding humaninduced climate change, significant skepticism persists within the community, political circles, and some academic spheres. Some suggest that skepticism has shifted from outright denial that the climate is changing to a denial that humans contribute to climate change. We suggest that denial takes numerous forms and investigate this proposition using data from an Australian national survey (2010; n = 5,036). Although most Australians believe that climate change is occurring, they are split on their stated beliefs about the causes of climate change. The view that climate change is caused solely by natural fluctuations in Earth's temperatures appears to be widely held, and those who hold this view differ both from those who reject climate change outright and those who accept anthropogenic climate change. We examine correlates of beliefs about climate change and show that beliefs are significantly related to levels of proenvironmental behavior, political orientation, locus of responsibility, cognitive evaluations, affective responses, and perceived moral duty to act. The results suggest that in the future it will be important to account for more nuanced forms of climate change denial, including denial of responsibility and moral duty among those with the ''correct'' stated beliefs, in overcoming the gap between beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors applicable to different kinds of ''believers'' and ''deniers.''
Beyond climate change denialism. Conceptual challenges in communicating climate action obstruction
Ámbitos. Revista Internacional de Comunicación, 2022
[ENG] Climate change has been the subject of much research in various fields of the social sciences in recent decades, including that of communication. As a result, much evidence has been accumulated on the complex reality behind political inaction in this regard. However, when it comes to communicating this reality, the media, and part of academia, have tended to simplify this complexity by focusing on the climate countermovement and literal denialism of the phenomenon. This countermovement has been extensively studied in the United States, revealing the existence of a highly influential anthropogenic climate change denialism in that country. However, academic research has also shown that political inaction on the climate cannot be explained by denialism alone; not in the United States, and much less in Europe. In this article, we question the current indiscriminate use of the concept of denialism and suggest the incorporation of a more sophisticated conceptual and analytical framework that provides more nuance and aligns with the evidence emerging from academic research. It is a matter not only of critically communicating the reality of political inaction with regard to the climate, but also of identifying the entire spectrum of responsibilities, which are not limited to simply denying or not denying climate change. [ESP] El cambio climático ha sido objeto de estudio frecuente desde distintos ámbitos de las ciencias sociales en las últimas décadas, también desde la comunicación. Gracias a ello, se ha generado una cada vez más abundante evidencia de la realidad compleja que se esconde tras la inacción política al respecto. Sin embargo, a la hora de comunicar esta realidad, los medios de comunicación, y una parte de la academia, han tendido a simplificar esta complejidad poniendo el foco en el contramovimiento climático y el negacionismo literal del fenómeno. Este contramovimiento ha sido abundantemente estudiado en los Estados Unidos, lo que ha puesto en evidencia la existencia de un negacionismo del cambio climático antropogénico muy influyente en ese país. Pero la investigación académica ha hecho también evidente que la inacción política al respecto del clima no puede explicarse solo con el concepto de negacionismo; ni en los Estados Unidos, ni mucho menos en Europa. En este artículo problematizamos el uso del concepto negacionismo en su uso indiscriminado actual y sugerimos incorporar un marco conceptual y de análisis más sofisticado, que aporte más matices y se alinee con las evidencias de la investigación académica. Se trata no solo de comunicar de forma crítica la realidad de la inacción política con respecto al clima sino de hacerlo también identificando todo el espectro real de responsabilidades, que no se reducen a negar o no negar el cambio climático.
2015
climate change influence support for climate policies? Alexandra Bass November 16, 2015 Rough draft: Please do not circulate outside the workshop This analysis provides an empirical test for an idea underlying many real-world environmental advocacy campaigns: that people who believe climate change exists are more likely to be concerned about its consequences, and in turn more likely to support climate mitigation policies. The analysis also seeks to disentangle the relative influences of factual knowledge and political predispositions on Americans’ beliefs and opinions about climate change.
2019
This paper reviews and interrogates theories of climate science denialism, and climate science skepticism, from a Science and Technology Studies (STS) perspective, and proceeds as follows: (1) Compare work by Jasanoff & Simmet, and by Collins, Evans & Weinel, on post-truth rhetoric, theories of expertise, and managing climate science denialism. (2) Introduce particular boundary drawing norms that I view as promising in potentially persuading publics to support mitigation responses to climate change. (3) Review work by Jylha and by MacWilliams on the politics and demographics of climate science denialists. (4) Argue that recent work by Kenner provides a model for effectively engaging local communities in climate science epistemology, which could be fruitfully extended using social science work reviewed in this paper. (5) Conclude that there is plausibly fruitful political negotiation to be done by engaging conservative people to envision desired futures and compare those visions with...
In Australia, climate change is a particularly contentious issue of public debate, with approximately half the population rejecting the scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This widespread scepticism may have serious implications in regard to public support for the implementation of climate change mitigation policies. This study seeks to gain insights into how lay Australians, both climate change “acceptors” and “sceptics”, perceive and understand climate change. In order to do so, the study utilises data from in-depth qualitative interviews conducted with thirteen members of the Australian public during June 2012. Specifically, the data from these interviews are analysed to examine similarities and differences in the interview subject’s Mental Models about climate change (and factors that may have influenced the construction of these Mental Models). The results of this analysis are assessed having regard to the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) framework, along with previous PUS studies specifically related to climate change. In particular, the applicability of the two main theoretical arms of PUS, the Deficit Model and the Contextual Approach, to the public understanding of climate change is examined. The results of the study reveal that most of the interview subjects have a clear understanding of the basic principles of climate change science, as well as the basic arguments of prominent climate change sceptics. Significantly, the accuracy of the interview subjects’ Mental Models about climate change science does not seem to be related to their position as either an “acceptor” or “sceptic.” Whereas, levels of trust in climate scientists, and a willingness to differentiate between the legitimacy of information produced by climate change experts and sceptical commentators, appear to be key differences in the formation of “acceptor” and “sceptic’” Mental Models. In addition, regardless of their position on climate change, all of the interview subjects reveal concerns about sustainable resource use and general environmental protection - issues that are directly linked to climate change mitigation. Therefore, by focussing on these commonalities in the Mental Model’s held by members of the public, rather than on the more contentious elements of climate change, it may be possible to design more effective communication strategies to engender public support for addressing the climate change issue.
On Public Skepticism of Anthropogenic Climate Change: a review of current theories and trends
"When discussing climate change in America one cannot escape the issue of public skepticism. There are several theories that attempt to explain the prevalence of doubt in the American public on an issue of which there is little doubt in the American scientific community. I will review these “models” below using information gleaned from five different climate change studies."