expert credibility in climate change pdf

#Expert credibility in climate change pdf series

This article considers public usurpation of the technical sphere a problematic implication of Goodnight (1982). Leveraging communication of uncertainty with overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change should be one element of a wider reform, whereby the creation of an IPCC outreach working group could enhance the transmission of climate science to the panel's audiences. We found that the tone of the IPCC's probabilistic language is remarkably conservative (mean confidence is medium, and mean likelihood is 66%-100% or 0-33%), and emanates from the IPCC recommendations themselves, complexity of climate research, and exposure to politically motivated debates. In this article, we quantified the occurrence of knowns and unknowns about 'The Physical Science Basis' of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report by counting the frequency of calibrated qualifiers. To be explicit about the state of knowledge on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has adopted a vocabulary that ranks climate findings through certainty-calibrated qualifiers of confidence and likelihood. The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is empirically settled, but communicating it to nonscientific audiences remains challenging. In state-level data, the gap between liberal and conservative views on the reality of ACC did not widen over this period, while the liberal–conservative gap regarding existence of a scientific consensus narrowed. Growing awareness of the scientific consensus, whether from deliberate messaging or the cumulative impact of many studies and publicly-engaged scientists, provides the most plausible explanation for this rise in both series. Both rose gradually by about ten points over 2010– 2016, showing no abrupt shifts that might correspond to events such as scientific reports, leadership statements or weather. ACC and consensus beliefs have similar trends and individual background predictors. These data permit tests for change in beliefs and polarization.

#Expert credibility in climate change pdf series

A series of statewide surveys, with nationwide benchmarks, repeated questions about the reality of ACC and scientific consensus many times over 2010 to 2016. Statements about scientific consensus have been contentious among social scientists, with some arguing for consensus awareness as a ' gateway cognition ' that leads to greater public acceptance of ACC, but others characterizing consensus messaging (deliberate communication about the level of scientific agreement) as a counterproductive tactic that exacerbates polarization. Severe polarization affects even basic questions about the reality of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), or whether most scientists agree that humans are changing Earth's climate.

Questions about climate change elicit some of the widest political divisions of any items on recent US surveys.