4 Effective communication
97. We needed to consider how communicating
the science of climate change and the evidence of anthropogenic
influence is different from other science topics.That this communication
may not be straight forward is demonstrated by the continuing
dispute about the level of consensus about the science and a persistent
minority of those actively sceptical of both the science and related
Government policies. The Met Office and Kent County Council have
commissioned research to establish how best to communicate with
the public.[219] University
College London has set up a Communicating Climate Science Policy
Commission precisely to address this issue.[220]
An emotive issue
98. Climate change is a complex subject
which is not "emotionally neutral".[221]There
is an increasing interest amongst scientists about the reasons
people may or may not support policies addressed at reducing emissions
and the impacts of climate change.[222]
The UCL Communicating Climate Science Policy Commission told us
how "the 'unwelcome messages' of climate science have the
capacity to arouse emotions of anxiety, fear, guilt, loss, interdependency
and helplessness" and that "values and worldviews are
predicative of climate change concern".[223]
People with sceptical attitudes to climate change may still support
carbon policies as achieving a "more desirable, less polluted
future".[224]
Research also indicates that communication focusing on how mitigation
efforts "can promote a better society"[225]
is more likely to engage those sceptical of the science. This
has led some to advocate targeting different messages to different
audiences. For example, the Climate Outreach and Information Network
published A new conversation with the centre-right about climate
change in 2013 aimed at "developing a better understanding
of how to engage centre-right citizens on climate change".[226]
But this approach carriers risks: "people are very sensitive
to feeling that you may be trying to manipulate them".[227]
99. Lord Deben was of the view that
the key issue was about what happened when "the general becomes
the practical and particular":
If you add to that those who have
a very strong view that almost any kind of regulation is unhappy
and is a disadvantage, there will be a tendency to argue rather
more on more of the issues.[228]
Professor Pidgeon considered that the
best approach was a message that focused on making the links with
climate change explicit and offered "positive rationales
and objectives"[229]
that went beyond climate change and therefore engaged with a wider
section of the public.
Risk and uncertainty
100. As we have previously found in
our inquiries into energy infrastructure and advice to government
during emergencies, the communication of risk is not easy. Climate
communication suffers from similar problems and these are often
attributed to be misunderstandings of the language used by scientists,
particularly what is meant by scientific uncertainty and how it
relates to risk. The Minister, Greg Barker MP, was aware of this
and told us that "we are dealing with probability and risk
rather than absolutes, which would be much easier":
Even though the probabilities are
extremely high, which are now statistically almost off the scale
according to the IPCCthey said they were 95% certainthey
are still nevertheless dealing with a range of probabilities,
and that can be difficult to convey. It also leaves open an opportunity
for doubtsome of it reasonable doubt and some of it just
sceptics who take a very contrary view.[230]
ClimateXChange, in their evidence to
the Committee told us there is very little uncertainty about human
activity influencing the global climate among climatologists.[231]
However, uncertainty means different things to the scientific
community and the lay public and this difference can result in
information being misinterpreted:
Some of the inevitable debates and
uncertainties expressed by experts and scientists are often misinterpreted
by the public as a lack of certainty in anthropogenic climate
change and therefore become a reason for scepticism by the public
in climate change.[232]
101. The Royal Meteorological Society,
in evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee
inquiry into the IPCC AR5, highlighted the difference in how scientists
use the terms uncertainty and risk in contrast to their everyday
use and that there was value in "testing and evaluating whether
statements have been interpreted as intended and exploring alternative
ways of communicating".[233]James
Painter, in his paper Climate Change in the Media: reporting
risk and uncertainty, pointed out that school science made
the communication of risk and uncertainty even more difficult
as science was treated as "a source of solid facts and reliable
understanding".[234]
This is different to research science where "uncertainty
is engrained and is often the impetus for further investigation".[235]
In his submission to the Energy and Climate Change Committee inquiry
he expressed the view that the discrepancy between the expected
scientific certainties and the reality of "scientists constantly
[talking] about uncertainty" could lead to uncertainty on
how to proceed, dodging the problem and even anger.[236]
Mr Painter went on to explore some of the benefits of talking
in terms of risk:
Many argue that when compared to
the messages of disaster or uncertainty that often surround climate
change, risk is far from being a panacea, but it does offer a
more sophisticated and apposite language to have the discussion
in and a more helpful prism through which to analyse the problem.
[...] it shifts the debate away
from what would count as conclusive proof or overwhelming certainty
before taking action, towards an analysis of the comparative costs
and risks of different policy options (including doing nothing).
[237]
Using risk terminology rather than uncertainty
was supported by the Grantham Research Institute in its evidence
to the Energy and Climate Change Committee inquiry in which it
stated that, in its view, talking about uncertainty "might
lead to a misinterpretation that there is no disadvantage in delaying
until further certainty is attained".[238]
Engagement and dialogue
102. There was a strong view amongst
many witnesses that the deficit model, where the reason for a
lack of understanding is perceived to be a deficit of information
provision, was not appropriate in the area climate change and
its causes. For example, University College London told us there
was extensive evidence demonstrating that "a 'deficit model'
of communication, in which experts treat non-experts as 'empty
vessels' to be filled with facts, is flawed".[239]
Despite polls that indicate that the public trusts scientists,
"statements from scientists are rarely sufficient to persuade
or compel particular viewpoints or actions".[240]
In UCL's view, traditional debate was also unhelpful and it suggested
dialogue as a more effective approach.
103. We were told by several other witnesses
that two-way engagement had proven more effective, though it was
more expensive and resource intensive. The National Centre for
Atmospheric Science told us "direct engagement [...] is probably
one of the more effective mechanisms, but also one of the most
costly".[241]
This was the view of many witnesses.[242]Kent
and Kirklees Councils told us of the effectiveness of two way
dialogue as a way of engaging with public but also cautioned that
"that sort of behaviour change is quite resource-intensive
and not something we can do so much of anymore".[243]
104. Direct engagement, the most effective
approach, may therefore be too expensive to be used for communicating
on climate science to the public on a significant scale. There
remains a need to produce good quality information. This was highlighted
by the Royal Meteorological Society who carried out a survey in
2009 which found that "100% of the public surveyed on weather
and climate matters were interested, or very interested, in a
plain English explanation of the causes and effects of climate
change".[244]
There is also an appetite for more information on science, generally,
amongst the public as highlighted in the BIS Attitudes to Science
Surveys.
219 Q280 [Mr John Hirst]; Sutton R. et al., (2012)
Engaging coastal communities in climate mitigation and adaptation
measures. Unpublished report commissioned by Kent County Council
for the CC2150 Back
220 UCL
Communicating Climate Science Policy Commission Back
221
Q34 [Prof. Chris Rapley] Back
222
Nature, Climate Change, Focus: Public and Experts' Views about
Climate Change Back
223 UCL
Communicating Climate Science Policy Commission, Ev 126, para16 Back
224 Understanding
Risk Research Group, Cardiff University, Ev 123 para 28 Back
225 Ibid Back
226 Climate
Outreach and Infomation Network, A new conversation with the
centre right about climate change, July 2013, p2 Back
227
Q51 [Prof Chris Rapley] Back
228
Q319 Back
229 Understanding
Risk Research Group, Cardiff University, Ev 123, para 29 Back
230
Q359 Greg Barker Back
231 ClimateXChange,
Ev w60 Back
232 Ibid Back
233 Energy
and Climate Change Select Committee, IPCC 5th Assessment
Review, Royal Meteorological Society (IPC0029), para 12 Back
234
James Painter, Climate Change in the Media: reporting risk
and uncertainty, 2013 Back
235 Ibid
Back
236 Energy
and Climate Change Select Committee, IPCC 5th Assessment
Review, James Painter (IPC0044), para9 Back
237 Ibid Back
238 Energy
and Climate Change Select Committee, IPCC 5th Assessment
Review,Bob Ward and Naomi Hicks, Grantham Research Institute on
Climate Change and the Environment (IPC0051), para12 Back
239 UCL
Communicating Climate Science Policy Commission, Ev 126 Back
240 Ibid
para 13 Back
241 Ibid Back
242
Q40 [Prof Chris Rapley] Back
243
Q216 [Katie Stead] Back
244 Royal
Meteorological Society, Ev 110 Back
|