Understanding and Countering Misinformation About Climate Change

Cook, John

doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-8535-0.ch016

Cited by 57 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 136 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Methods that have been suggested to mitigate corporate influence on the interpretation and reach of science (Macro Strategies B and C) include discontinuing industry-sponsored medical education [75], training consumers of science (including the public, journalists and health professionals) in evidence appraisal skills [76][77][78], and preventing industry relationships with civil society organisations [79].…”

Section: Identifying Solutions To Corporate Influence On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science has been at the centre of attempts by major industries, including tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical, to delay progress in tackling threats to human and planetary health by, inter alia, obscuring industry harms, and opposing regulation. Some aspects of this influence are well documented, others remain poorly understood, and similarities between industries remain underexplored. This study, therefore, aims to synthesise the literature to develop an evidence-based typology and model of corporate influence on science in order to provide an overview of this multi-faceted phenomenon. We obtained literature examining corporate attempts to influence science and the use of science in policy and practice from: database searches, bibliographies, expert recommendations, and web alerts; using a modified scoping review methodology (n = 68). Through interpretive analysis we developed the Science for Profit Typology and Model. We identified eight corporate sectors repeatedly engaging in activities to influence science, including: manipulation of scientific methods; reshaping of criteria for establishing scientific “proof”; threats against scientists; and clandestine promotion of policy reforms that increase reliance on industry evidence. The typology identifies five macro-level strategies used consistently across the eight industries, comprising 19 meso-level strategies. The model shows how these strategies work to maximise the volume, credibility, reach, and use of industry-favourable science, while minimising these same aspects of industry-unfavourable science. This creates doubt about harms of industry products/practices or efficacy of policies affecting industry; promotes industry-favoured policy responses and industry products as solutions; and legitimises industry’s role as scientific stakeholder. These efforts ultimately serve to weaken policy, prevent litigation, and maximise use of industry products/practices—maximising corporate profitability. We provide an accessible way to understand how and why corporations influence science, demonstrate the need for collective solutions, and discuss changes needed to ensure science works in the public interest.

show abstract

Section: Identifying Solutions To Corporate Influence On Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other researchers have argued that, quite the contrary, science literacy amplifies public division, and opinion polarization by exacerbating motivated interpretation of evidence (Kahan et al, , 2017. This lack of consensus about the role of of science literacy is particularly relevant in digital information environments that confront citizens with a high proportion of noise, fabricated evidence, or information of unclear, and mixed truth value, particularly so on contentious science (Benegal & Scruggs, 2018;Cook, 2019;Farrell, 2018;Treen et al, 2020). It is of high practical and theoretical importance to have clarity about the role of science literacy for dealing with evidence in these cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Politicized climate science: No evidence for science literacy driving motivated reasoning, or polarized belief-updating in a US national experiment

Fischer¹,

Huff²,

Said³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A substantial literature demonstrates public polarization over climate change, particularly among the science literate. The dominant explanation for this phenomenon is that science literacy amplifies directional motivated reasoning, the tendency to interpret evidence such that it confirms desired conclusions. However, the evidence regarding this biasing account of science literacy is inconclusive. The present study tests the biasing account of science literacy in a national survey experiment among the U.S. population. Although results replicated the typical correlational pattern of political polarization as a function of science literacy, results delivered little support for the core causal claim of the biasing account—that science literacy drives motivated reasoning, and polarized belief-updating. First, results delivered little evidence that science literacy amplified motivated reasoning, despite strong motivated reasoning effects. And second, results delivered little evidence that science literacy amplified polarized belief-updating. That is, the science literate were polarized, but science literacy was not polarizing. These results help clarify the role of science literacy for public beliefs about contested science.

show abstract

“…This difference has been highlighted in 2020, as publics contrasted how the urgency with which the media presented the crisis of, and potential solutions to, the COVID-19 pandemic and the lower urgency associated with climate change, which has made it much less prominent in the major news cycle (Peters, 2020;Regan, 2020;Roth, 2020). Further confusing the perceived sense of urgency around climate change is misinformation on the scientific consensus behind climate change (Cook, 2019), which encourages a dismissal of the threat.…”

Section: Conveying Urgency To Actmentioning

confidence: 99%

Messaging on Slow Impacts: Applying Lessons Learned from Climate Change Communication to Catalyze and Improve Marine Nutrient Communication

Canfield

Mulvaney

Merrill

2021

Front. Environ. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building publics’ understanding about human-environmental causes and impacts of nutrient pollution is difficult due to the diverse sources and, at times, extended timescales of increasing inputs, consequences to ecosystems, and recovery after remediation. Communicating environmental problems with “slow impacts” has long been a challenge for scientists, public health officials, and science communicators, as the time delay for subsequent consequences to become evident dilutes the sense of urgency to act. Fortunately, scientific research and practice in the field of climate change communication has begun to identify best practices to address these challenges. Climate change demonstrates a delay between environmental stressor and impact, and recommended practices for climate change communication illustrate how to explain and motivate action around this complex environmental problem. Climate change communication research provides scientific understanding of how people evaluate risk and scientific information about climate change. We used a qualitative coding approach to review the science communication and climate change communication literature to identify approaches that could be used for nutrients and how they could be applied. Recognizing the differences between climate change and impacts of nutrient pollution, we also explore how environmental problems with delayed impacts demand nuanced strategies for effective communication and public engagement. Applying generalizable approaches to successfully communicate the slow impacts related to nutrient pollution across geographic contexts will help build publics’ understanding and urgency to act on comprehensive management of nutrient pollution, thereby increasing protection of coastal and marine environments.

show abstract

Understanding and Countering Misinformation About Climate Change

Cited by 57 publications

References 136 publications

The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice

The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice

Politicized climate science: No evidence for science literacy driving motivated reasoning, or polarized belief-updating in a US national experiment

Messaging on Slow Impacts: Applying Lessons Learned from Climate Change Communication to Catalyze and Improve Marine Nutrient Communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About