Climate science can’t be trumped: a look at how to translate empirical data into political action

Authors

  • Элизабет Уоттс Jena University, Am Steiger, Jena, 07743, Germany
  • Уве Хоссфельд Jena University, Am Steiger, Jena, 07743, Germany
  • Георгий Семенович Левит Kassel University, 40, Heinrich-Plett-Str. Kassel, 34109, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2019.112

Abstract

Although over 97 % of scientists are in agreement regarding the occurrence, cause and consequences of climate change, studies have found that less than 50 % of Americans believe that climate change is caused by human activities and that Americans remain greatly divided regarding the causes, urgency and solutions to the climate crisis. The gravity of the situation only appears to be growing as recent reports have shown that climate change denial is not limited to the United States and that other global citizens also appear to be confused regarding the legitimacy of climate change science data. The prevalence of confusion highlights the dire need for better educational programs and grassroots actions by the scientific and academic communities. However, the path from ‘data’ to citizen action is hardly a direct one, and thus the engagement of the climate science community (ENGOs and other boundary organizations, academia, governments) in education will not be simply one of ‘getting the word out’. That community will need to grapple with the complex socio-epstemic space that lies between scientific knowledge production and citizens’ participatory engagement with climate change policies. This paper outlines some aspects of that complexity and suggests ways how certain types of knowledge dissemination as such, which lead to increased scientific literacy, can contribute to increased citizen action.

Keywords:

climate change, climate-science denial, nature of science, science education, public understanding of science

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

References/Литература

Branch, G., Rosenau, J., and Berbeco, M. (2016), “Climate education in the classroom: cloudy with a chance of confusion”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 89–96.

Cook, J., et al. (2013), “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”, Environmental Research Letters, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1–7.

Oreskes, N. (2004), “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”, Science, vol. 306, no. 5702, pp. 1686.

Funk, C. and Kennedy, B. (2016), “The Politics of Climate”. PewResearchCenter, available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/ (Accessed 2 July 2018).

Melillo, J. M., Richmond, T. T. C., and Yohe, G. W., eds (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, available at: https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/introduction (Accessed 2 July 2018).

Reardon, S., et al. (2016), “The ulimate experiement: How Trump will handle science”, Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, pp. 337–339.

Painter, J. (2011), Poles Apart — The international reporting of climate skepticism, Reuters Insitute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford, UK.

Conway, E. and Oreskes, N. (2010), Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsberry Press, London, UK.

Meyer, S. C. (2002), “Teach the Controversy”, Cincinnati Enquirer, Cincinnati, OH, available at: www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_teachthecontroversy.htm (Accessed 2 July 2018).

Greenberg, J., Knight, G., and Westersund, E. (2011), “Spinning climate change: Corporate and NGO public relations strategies in Canada and the United States”, International Communication Gazette, vol. 73, no. 1–2, pp. 65–82.

Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., and Jenkins, J. C. (2012), “Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010”, Climatic Change, vol. 114, no. 2, pp. 169–188.

Pfau, M., et al. (2007), “The Influence of Corporate Front-Group Stealth Campaigns”, . Communication Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 73–99.

Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., and Freeman, M. (2008), “The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism”, Environmental Politics, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 349–385.

Stern, P. C., et al. (2016), “The challenge of climate-change neoskepticism”, Science, vol. 353, no. 6300, pp. 653–654.

United Nations (2016), Paris Agreement, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, pp. 1–7.

Honda, M. and Markey, E. J. (2016), “Our kids learn their ABCs in school. But why not climate

change? The classroom is the right place to start educating our citizens about the greatest challenge they

will face”, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/28/climatechange-education-act-noaa-school-classrooms (Accessed 1 July 2018).

Blanco-Lopez, A., et al. (2015), “Key aspects of scientific competence for citizenship: A Delphi study of the expert community in Spain”, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 164–198.

National Research Council (2005), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom, Donovan, M. S. and Bransford, J. D., eds, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Weber, E. U. and Stern, P. C. (2011), “Public understanding of climate change in the United States”, American Psychologist, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 315–328.

Taber, K. S. (2017), “Beliefs and Science Education”, in Taber, K. S. and Akpan, B., eds, Science Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 53–67.

Soroka, S. N. (2002), “Issue Attributes and Agenda-Setting by Media, the Public, and Policymakers in Canada”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 264–285.

Hamilton, L. C. (2010), “Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects”, Climatic Change, vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 231–242.

Urban, M., et al. (2016), “Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change”, Science, vol. 353, no. 6304, pp. 1113.

Taber, K. S. (2017), “Reflecting the Nature of Science in Science Education”, in Taber, K. S. and Akpan, B., eds, Science Education, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 23–37.

Nemet, G. F., Holloway, T., and Meier, P. (2010), “Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking”, Environmental Research Letters, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 014007.

Watts, E. (2019), “Teaching Climate Science to Increase Understanding and Receptivity”, The American Biology Teacher, vol. 81, no. 5.

Stern, P. C. (2011), “Contributions to Psychology to Limiting Climate Change”, American Psychologist, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 303–313.

Ball, L. S. (2011), “El Paso Weathers Drought, Thanks To Lawn Policy”, available at: https://www.npr.org/2011/08/27/139994008/el-paso-weathers-drought-thanks-to-lawn-policy (Accessed 10 October 2018).

Downloads

Published

2019-03-29

How to Cite

Уоттс, Э., Хоссфельд, У., & Левит, Г. С. (2019). Climate science can’t be trumped: a look at how to translate empirical data into political action. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 35(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2019.112

Issue

Vol. 35 No. 1 (2019): Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies

Section

Conflict studies

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.