Overcoming challenges to communicating Antarctic climate science

Abstract

The output of current Antarctic climate science is compelling and highlights the global teleconnections of the climate system. However, these findings are as yet failing to resonate with and promote the need for mitigation action among the general public and policymakers in many countries, inhibiting the establishment of concerted global action to combat the escalation of climate change. Subsequently, there is a need to re-evaluate how the general public interprets and understands the complex issues surrounding climate change generally and the impacts of climate change on Antarctica more specifically. Barriers to garnering public support for action are numerous and diverse, from the individual’s worldview, cognitive reinforcement and religious beliefs to the misreporting and miscommunication of climate science by the media, as well as the influence of vested interests. In order to combat misinformation and to familiarise the general public with the value of Antarctic science and the importance of research output in guiding climate policy formation, substantial efforts must be made in education, outreach and communication (EOC) strategies. We suggest that the establishment of an Antarctic Climate Education, Outreach and Communication Standing Committee as a part of the highly respected Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research could provide the foundation for boundary work at the interface of climate science and policy, in which EOC strategies are strongly integrated and valued. By raising awareness and increasing public understanding of the complex issues and interactions of Antarctica and the global climate system, the scientific community can better channel the importance of action to mitigate global greenhouse gas emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change and potentially provide the catalyst required for substantial climate change action.

Keywords:

• Antarctic science
• climate science
• global teleconnections
• communication
• education
• outreach

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Gateway Antarctica and the University of Canterbury for inspiring us to develop this topic. We would also like to sincerely thank Dr Daniela Liggett and Professor Chuck Kennicutt, and two anonymous reviewers, for their comments in improving this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ IPCC, Climate Change 2013, v.

² Schneider, “Abrupt Non-Linear Climate Change,” 14–5.

³ Kennicutt, “What Happens in Antarctica,” 3.

⁴ Karl and Trenberth, “Modern Global Climate Change,” 1722.

⁵ Solomon, Climate Change 2007, 2, 25, 30, 51.

⁶ Kennicutt, “What Happens in Antarctica,” 30–2.

⁷ Turner, Antarctic Climate Change, vx.

⁸ Turner, Antarctic Climate Change, 23.

⁹ Vaughan, “Observations: Cryosphere,” 22.

¹⁰ IPCC, Climate Change 2013, 46.

¹¹ Turner, Antarctic Climate Change, xviii.

¹² Scambos, “Glacier acceleration,” 2.

¹³ Turner, Antarctic Climate Change, xix.

¹⁴ Maas, “Effect of Ocean Acidification,” 1.

¹⁵ Feely, “Impact of Anthropogenic CO₂,” 365.

¹⁶ Le Quéré, “Saturation of the Southern,” 1735.

¹⁷ Turner, Antarctic Climate Change, 20.

¹⁸ Newman, “When will the Antarctic,” 1.

¹⁹ Turner, Antarctic Climate Change, xiii.

²⁰ Fischhoff, “Nonpersuasive communication,” 7204; McBean and Hengeveld, “Communicating the Science,” 21.

²¹ Heath et al., “Amplify the Signal,” 517; Liggett et al., “Communicating Polar Research”; Trench and Miller, “Policies and Practices,” 723.

²² Baron, “Stand Up For Science,” 1032.

²³ Royal Society, Survey of Factors.

²⁴ Mole, “Mixing Science and Politics.”

²⁵ Provencher et al., Polar Research Education, 12.

²⁶ Pauls et al., “Education, Outreach and Communication,” 277.

²⁷ Cheek et al., “Princess Elisabeth Antarctica,” 10–11.

²⁸ Ashworth et al., Communication and Climate Change, 37; Cormick, Community Attitudes Toward Science, 7.

²⁹ Davies and Glasser, “Analysis of www.AntarcticGlaciers.org,” 1, 4.

³⁰ Horrigan, The Internet as a Resource, 4, 12, 21.

³¹ Davies and Glasser, “Analysis of www.AntarcticGlaciers.org,” 1, 4.

³² Besley and Tanner, “Science Communication Scholars,” 243.

³³ Horrigan, The Internet as a Resource, 27.

³⁴ Brush, “History of Science,” 60.

³⁵ Castell et al., Public Attitudes to Science, 124.

³⁶ Cormick, Community Attitudes Toward Science, 5.

³⁷ NASA, “Consensus: 97%.”

³⁸ PEW Research Centre, Public Praises Science.

³⁹ NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators 2004; NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators 2014

⁴⁰ Antarctica, New Zealand, “Antarctica Public Opinion.”

⁴¹ Blunden et al., “State of the Climate,” 4.

⁴² Weingart et al., “Risks of Communication,” 261.

⁴³ Rapley et al., Climate Science Reconsidered, 745.

⁴⁴ Brulle et al., “Shifting Public Opinion,” 171; Rapley et al., Climate Science Reconsidered, 745.

⁴⁵ Bell, “Media (mis)communication,” 260.

⁴⁶ Huertas and Kriegsman, Science or Spin? 2–7.

⁴⁷ Olmstead et al., How Americans Get TV News, 1.

⁴⁸ Huertas and Kriegsman, Science or Spin? 2–7.

⁴⁹ Rapley et al., Climate Science Reconsidered, 745.

⁵⁰ Lieserowitz et al., Climate Change in the American Mind, 27.

⁵¹ Bell, “Media (mis)communication,” 262.

⁵² Marisa Dispensa and Brulle, “Media’s Social Construction,” 74.

⁵³ Thomas et al., “Extinction Risk From Climate Change,” 145.

⁵⁴ Ladle et al., Scientists and the Media, 232, 239.

⁵⁵ Ladle et al., Scientists and the Media, 232, 239.

⁵⁶ Hudson, What Happened to Global Warming, 1.

⁵⁷ Boykoff, Public Enemy No. 1? 797, 802.

⁵⁸ Boykoff, Public Enemy No 1? 797, 802.

⁵⁹ Thomas et al., “Extinction Risk From Climate Change,” 145.

⁶⁰ Grundmann, “‘Climategate’,” 70.

⁶¹ Leiserowitz et al., “Climategate, Public Opinion,” 818; Maibach et al., “The Legacy of Climategate,” 289.

⁶² Besley and Tanner, “Science Communication Scholars,” 242; Davies and Glasser, “Analysis of www.AntarcticGlaciers.org,” 10.

⁶³ Rapley et al., Climate Science Reconsidered, 85.

⁶⁴ Besley and Tanner, “Science Communication Scholars,” 242.

⁶⁵ Bonetta, “Scientists Enter the Blogosphere,” 444.

⁶⁶ Bell, “Media (mis)communication,” 272.

⁶⁷ Huertas and Kriegsman, Science or Spin? 8.

⁶⁸ Hatfield-Dodds et al., “Adaptive Governance,” 6, 10.

⁶⁹ Hansen et al., “Earth’s Energy Imbalance,” 1431.

⁷⁰ Sumner, “No Stopping the Collapse,” 736–738.

⁷¹ Hale, “New Politics,” 256.

⁷² Leiserowitz, “American Risk Perceptions,” 1437.

⁷³ Tin, “Public Perception,” 111–116.

⁷⁴ Lakoff, “Why it Matters,” 71–2.

⁷⁵ Nisbet and Scheufele, “What’s Next,” 1770–1, 1774.

⁷⁶ Harding et al., Environmental Decision-Making, 53–69.

⁷⁷ Hedlund-de Witt, “Exploring Worldviews,” 76–78; O’Brien and Wolf, “Values-Based Approach,” 234–6.

⁷⁸ Rickards et al., “Barriers to Effective Climate Change Mitigation,” 764–5.

⁷⁹ Hurlstone et al., “Effect of Framing,” 10–12.

⁸⁰ Markusson et al., “Framing Geoengineering,” 282, 286–7.

⁸¹ Ibid., 288.

⁸² Knight and Greenberg, “Talk of the Enemy,” 324–8.

⁸³ Hatfield-Dodds and Morrison, “Confusing Opportunity Costs,” 13–15.

⁸⁴ Samuelson and Zeckhauser, “Status Quo Bias,” 8.

⁸⁵ Hurlstone et al., “Effect of Framing,” 2–6, 10–12.

⁸⁶ Manning et al., “Framing Climate Change,” 327–329, 332–334.

⁸⁷ Bertolotti and Catellani, “Effects of Message Framing,” 482–4.

⁸⁸ Dickinson et al., “Framing Climate Change,” 152–4.

⁸⁹ Groffman et al., “Restarting the Conversation,” 286–9.

⁹⁰ Rapley et al., Climate Science Reconsidered, 10–11.

⁹¹ Haluza-DeLay, “Religion and Climate Change,” 262.

⁹² Dunlap and McCright, “Widening Gap,” 26–35.

⁹³ Haluza-DeLay, “Religion and Climate Change,” 263.

⁹⁴ Wardekker et al., “Ethics and Public Perception,” 515.

⁹⁵ Reddy et al., Public Attitudes to Science, 4.

⁹⁶ Wilson, The Creation.

⁹⁷ Christoff and Eckersley, Globalization and the Environment, 83, 93, 97.

⁹⁸ Dunlap and McCright, “Climate Change Denial,” 244.

⁹⁹ Dunlap and McCright, Organised Climate, 146.

¹⁰⁰ Dunlap and McCright, Organized Climate Change, 149.

¹⁰¹ Godin, “The Linear Model of Innovation,” 641–645.

¹⁰² Balconi et al., “In Defence of the Linear Model,” 10–11.

¹⁰³ Rapley et al., Climate Science Reconsidered, 26–30.

¹⁰⁴ Pielke, The Honest Broker.

¹⁰⁵ Rapley et al., Climate Science Reconsidered, 31–36.

¹⁰⁶ Hoppe et al., “Lost in the Problem,” 284.

¹⁰⁷ Hoppe et al., “Lost in the Problem,” 285–294.

¹⁰⁸ Parker and Crona, “On Being All Things to All People,” 264.

¹⁰⁹ SCAR, “About Us.”

¹¹⁰ Provencher et al., Polar Research Education, 4–6.

¹¹¹ McIvor and Tracey, “Climate Change,” 92–3.

¹¹² ACTM, Working Paper 63, www.ats.aq/documents/ATCM33/wp/ATCM33_wp063_e.doc

¹¹³ ICSU, “Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research.”

¹¹⁴ Head, “Three Lenses of Evidence,” 8.

¹¹⁵ Bjurström and Polk, “Climate Change and Interdisciplinarity,” 527–8.

¹¹⁶ Ibid.

¹¹⁷ Bracken and Oughton, “What Do You Mean?” 372.