Communicating Uncertainty about Climate Change: The Scientists’ Dilemma

Boykoff and Mansfield (2008), in a recent paper in this journal, provide a detailedanalysis of the representation of climate change in the UK tabloid newspapers.They conclude that the representation of this issue in these papers ‘diverged fromthe scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change’. That is,portrayal of climate change in tabloid newspapers contradicts the conclusions ofthe fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment (IPCC2007). Is it healthy to have the scientific consensus challenged so frequently? Butshould we worry about systematic misrepresentation of scientific consensus? Webelieve the answer to both of these questions is yes. To present regular updates onclimate change issues in the popular press is important because the changes inbehaviour needed to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissionsrequire a broad understanding of the basic facts. However, if the majority ofreaders receive misleading information, it will be difficult to achieve the level ofpublic understanding necessary to make such reductions needed to avoiddangerous climate change (Schellnhuber

Runaway Climate Change: A Justice‐Based Case for Precautions

Negotiating failure: understanding the geopolitics of climate change

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2022

Facilitating Climate-Smart Investments

A Culture of Neglect: Climate Discourse and Disabled People

On 17 September 2021, the Grantham Institute hosted a follow-up to the Royal Meteorological Society's virtual event on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 6th assessment report (AR6). The event focused on the response to the climate crisis and taking actions from AR6. Three sectors were covered, including 'School leaders and educators', led by Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Learning Network & London Schools Climate Summit; 'Business and Industry - Environmental, social and corporate governance', chaired by Anita Punwani, Deputy Chair NED, Institute of Risk Management; and 'Geologists, earth scientists and energy experts', led by the European Federation of Geologists and Imperial College London researchers. Panel members were from British Standards Institution, 11 https://www.bsigroup.com/ Save the Children UK, 22 https://www.savethechildren.org.uk/ University College London 33 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ and Resurgence. 44 https://www.resurgence.io/ Dr Alex Brown (STEM learning) and Malini Mehra (Globe International) chaired a session on the implications of AR6 for school leaders and educators. Participants agreed that we now have an opportunity for collaboration, as the UK Prime Minister recently appointed a new Education Secretary (Nadhim Zahawi) and Schools Minister (Robin Walker). With COP26 (Smith et al., 2021) at the time just five weeks away, it was emphasised that now is the time to put climate education on the agenda and embedded in the green recovery. There was a feeling that teachers are constrained by the curriculum and do not have the skills, capacity, or appropriate resources to apply climate issues to their own subjects. Recommendations were given to address this through exam bodies and quality assurance organisations, and to provide better training for teachers, so they are empowered to embed climate change into their lessons. A curriculum reform should also include green skills for students, to ensure the next generation is equipped to apply for green jobs in the future. Further discussion focussed on climate risk and adaptation. Few educational leaders recognise that the most harmful impacts of climate change to the educational sector are likely to be physical, such as flooding and extreme heat. It is important to find ways to communicate this effectively with school leaders, drawing on what has been learned from COVID-19. The session ended with discussion about the next steps, starting with a letter to the Education Secretary and Schools Minister regarding an enquiry into whether the current education system is fit for purpose in relation to the government's net zero commitments. Nuha Eltinay's (Middle East and North Africa representative) 55 https://www.resurgence.io/team/ key messages included the need to build bridges between existing communities and weather forecasters. The need to communicate weather information and climate change to grassroots were essential for progress. Specifically, what the IPCC meant to her organisation was centred around vulnerabilities in Middle East and Northern African regions. It was emphasised that compound and cascading hazards after natural events are often not reported and under-addressed, despite their ability to produce further catastrophic hazards that propagate through socio-economic systems (e.g. Alexander and Pescaroli, 2019). Kit Vaughan (Save the Children) mentioned the importance of dealing with the disruption arising from climate change. Kit also explained the interrelationship between other global issues including COVID-19 which led us to recognise global inequality. Kit raised the important point that children born in 2020 are subject to a seven-fold increase in climate events when compared with their grandparents born in the 1960s (Thiery et al., 2021). This is further exacerbated by the fact that one billion children are living in high-risk areas. This discussion raised important issues of climate change with regard to children. These stakeholders require a specific focus of support and integration at every level with effective communication. Gianluca Pesacaroli (University College London) expressed issues pertaining to operational silos whereby private companies operate independently from public bodies. This becomes problematic when addressing and meeting mutual climate mitigation targets. There is a need for the co-production of information between private and public entities, scientists and non-scientists, which can facilitate important discourses allowing for effective policy making. Lesley Wilson (British Standards Foundation, BSI) emphasised the need to have a common benchmark of sustainability that organisations should employ in their environmental agendas. The BSI works collaboratively across sectors to foster such common standards. Katrina Ramage (World Values Day) highlighted the need to communicate climate change to young children in layperson terms so that they can understand the issues facing them and how the government aims to support the future generation. Discourses in the realm of decision making, be that public or private, regarding the next generation, often do not directly involve young people. Moreover, the complexities of such discourses are rarely understood by children and more needs to be done to explain the ramifications of climate change to them. Examples of this include encouraging children to debate climate change in educational establishments and visiting schools to educate children and facilitating such discussions. Hannah Wood (UBS Foundation) identified that there is a funding gap between climate and environmental issues. There is growing concern that within corporate settings there is untapped capital which can be used to support financing the global environmental agenda (Clark et al., 2018). Funding is not disseminated appropriately with little communication between corporate and public entities. Therefore, there is a serious need to trigger funding for climate change initiatives and move capital to where it is more needed. Glen Burridge (European Federation of Geologists) led the breakout session 'Earth Sapience: How can Earth Scientists work together to address the climate crisis?'. Dr Yves Plancherel (Imperial College London) started by highlighting that much of the new IPCC reports are not novel, raising the debate of how the information in the IPCC should be delivered in the future. Cedric John (Imperial College London) and Dr Edward Gryspeerdt (Imperial College London) agreed with the sentiment but added that the IPCC reports do pave the way for more platforms to discuss the IPCC, beyond the short periods that it is popularised by the news media (Pearce et al., 2014; Sanford et al., 2019). Dr Isabelle Fernandez (European Federation of Geologists) continued this concept of communication, highlighting that involving people – both the general public and companies – is an important solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Dr Edward Gryspeerdt followed this saying that geologists can develop such solutions at economic cost, with the key being to find a way where it is cheaper not to emit, but to leave the CO2 in the ground. Magnus Johansson (SGU) was the last panellist in the group and highlighted that there also needs to be resilience built into everyday life, as well as a push for mitigation measures. At present, Magnus Johansson said, there is a disconnect between those planning climate mitigation and resilience measures and those applying it on the ground. The session was then opened up for general input, where carbon capture and storage (CCS) was heavily discussed. Highlighted as a sustainable opportunity, CCS needs to be implemented as soon as possible to ensure CO2 is utilised, not wasted (Martin-Roberts et al., 2021). Yves highlights that, due to the cost of implementation, oil and gas companies might be in a unique position to spearhead the transition over to CCS by converting their assets (infrastructure, knowledge and workforce) over. The breakout room concluded on discussions around the importance of investigating other energy sources and alternate forms of carbon storage. Renewable and thermal energy are important clean energy options but must also be discussed alongside a candid conversation about their accompanying issues, such as raw material supply. Forest restoration is hugely valuable in tackling both the biosphere crisis, as well as providing a nature-based solution to the carbon issue (Seddon et al., 2020). The event was concluded with a large discussion of all three sectors and the key points that were brought up in the breakout rooms. Melina Mehra clarified that one overarching message that came through was the need to be clear with messages that are being communicated, ensuring those messages are accessible in terms of the capabilities of that person, group or industry. There needs to be clarity on questions such as: What is being asked to be done? How is the success of it measured? Katrina Ramage highlighted how societal tolerance of climate injustice has reduced and that works in favour of better communication, but it does not lessen the complexity of the issue being communicated. COVID-19, as a potentially climate-induced zoonotic 66 An infectious disease which has spread from animals to humans. pandemic, and the rise in extreme weather events, has made it clear that the impacts of climate change are happening now. Glen Burridge summarised that clear communication of complex issues alongside de-biased and practically analysed decisions will allow these issues to be addressed effectively, in the present rather than in the future.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports are a primary source of climate change data. The peer-review process for IPCC assessments is extensive and the reports are generally taken in the scientific community as objective and authoritative. Within the climate change skeptic or contrarian community, the charge is frequently made that the IPCC reports are exaggerated and overly pessimistic, where on the other side of the spectrum, some scientists claim that the consensus building goal of the IPCC results in a tendency to underplay climate change impacts to avoid appearing too alarmist. The global climate will experience continued warming caused by past anthropogenic emissions as well as from additional future anthropogenic emissions. The CMIP5-based projections in the IPCC Fifth Assessment show that the Mediterranean Basin and North Africa, southern Africa, the Caribbean and Central America, Mexico and the southwestern United States, and much of Australia will likely become drier. Areas simulated to experience greater annual average precipitation include the north and south polar and boreal regions, most of the eastern and central United States and Canada, and South and East Asia.

Debate over climate change is nothing new. Scientists have been arguing about whether greenhouse gases released by human activity might change the climate since the late nineteenth century, when Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius first proposed that industrial emissions might cause global warming.1 Fueled by partisan bickering, this dispute now is more bellicose than ever.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consists of about 190 governments that commission assessments performed by the international climate science community to determine the current state of human knowledge of climate and climate change. As such, the IPCC does not perform scientific research, but, rather, assesses research in the form of published papers addressing topics in climate science related to climate variability and change. However, as the IPCC assessments have evolved (from the first in 1990 to the sixth in 2021, so far), the IPCC has formed a symbiotic relationship with climate science. Even though the goal of the IPCC is to assess the scientific research that is taking place, its high profile, prestige, and interest from governments that fund climate science research has stimulated and arguably accelerated climate science research. This is particularly relevant for Earth system modeling (including the physical climate system plus the biogeochemical components) that will be addressed here to illustrate the influence of IPCC on climate science. One outcome is that enhanced observations of the Earth system from a number of field campaigns have been funded by countries to gather targeted observations to improve the understanding of crucial processes that need to be represented with fidelity in Earth system models. Governments that fund Earth system modeling research want to have results from their model appear prominently in the IPCC assessments to partially justify the funds being spent on developing, running, and analyzing these models. And just as important as getting a model into the IPCC assessment process are the analyses of the model outputs done by the scientists in the modeling groups and other scientists around the world. The products of this process are the papers describing cutting-edge results that use the models to advance knowledge of climate variability and change. Therefore, model developers are competing with other modeling groups around the world to have the best possible models producing climate simulations that are analyzed to produce papers of the highest quality that are assessed in the IPCC reports. An important part of this process is the international scientific coordination provided by the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). CMIP involves climate scientists from around the world who volunteer their time to organize CMIP while also developing climate models in their respective countries. CMIP started in the mid-1990s for modeling groups to run exactly the same experiments so the response across the models could be directly compared to quantify uncertainty in their simulations of historical and future climate. Because these climate experiments are, by construction, the current state-of-the-art in climate modeling with the best representation of human understanding of the workings of the climate system, the papers that are written based on those model integrations are of primary interest for the IPCC assessments. CMIP has since evolved to include numerous climate science communities that interface with the modeling groups to perform model intercomparison projects to address various compelling climate science problems. Thus, there is a symbiosis between climate science/modeling, the scientific framework provided by CMIP for coordinated climate change experiments, and the IPCC process that assesses papers that emerge from the scientific research done by scientists who desire their work to be featured in those prestigious IPCC assessments.

Climate change is a security problem in as much as the kinds of environmental changes that may result pose risks to peace and development. However, responsibilities for the causes of climate change, vulnerability to its effects, and capacity to solve the problem, are not equally distributed between countries, classes and cultures. There is no uniformity in the geopolitics of climate change, and this impedes solutions.

Climate science has established human activity as the major cause of climate change. The successive reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have also provided future scenarios of the detrimental effect of rising temperatures. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus, the voices of climate deniers are still given ample space in the media. Moreover, the urgency of the problem and the importance of taking action are difficult to communicate to the public. This paper analyses the communication strategies employed by climate scientists, climate deniers and climate activists to identify similarities and differences, in particular with regard to expressing (un)certainty. The data are media reports from major British and US newspapers, IPCC reports and the speeches of climate activists, in particular Greta Thunberg. The data are analysed by means of qualitative (eco)critical discourse analysis. The aim is to draw conclusions about how climate change could be communicated more effectively to the general public to promote action.

I am delighted to be recognized with this prize. I want to first thank AGU and the prize committee and, especially, Nature's Own for establishing this prize in a field that has become contentious and highly political. It did not used to be this way. Following the media frenzy with the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, there was hope at the 2009 Conference of Parties meeting in Copenhagen that an international framework agreement on climate change might be achieved. It was not to be. Planned actions to address issues of climate change were undermined by huge funding of misinformation by vested interests. It was not helped by so‐called “climategate” in which many emails illegally hacked from a computer server at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom were released, cherry picked, distorted, and misused by climate change deniers. Minor errors in the IPCC report were blown out of all proportion and ineffectively addressed. I was caught up in all this, and one of my many emails went viral: the “travesty” quote in which I bemoaned the inability to close the global energy balance associated with short‐term climate variability but which was misinterpreted as saying there was no global warming. These examples highlight failures of communication.

A review of the present status of the global warming science is presented in this paper. The term global warming is now popularly used to refer to the recent reported increase in the mean surface temperature of the earth; this increase being attributed to increasing human activity and in particular to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) in the atmosphere. Since the mid to late 1980s there has been an intense and often emotional debate on this topic. The various climate change reports (1996, 2001) prepared by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have provided the scientific framework that ultimately led to the Kyoto protocol on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (particularly carbon dioxide) due to the burning of fossil fuels. Numerous peer-reviewed studies reported in recent literature have attempted to verify several of the projections on climate change that have been detailed by the IPCC reports. The global warming debate as presented by the media usually focuses on the increasing mean temperature of the earth, associated extreme weather events and future climate projections of increasing frequency of extreme weather events worldwide. In reality, the climate change issue is considerably more complex than an increase in the earth's mean temperature and in extreme weather events. Several recent studies have questioned many of the projections of climate change made by the IPCC reports and at present there is an emerging dissenting view of the global warming science which is at odds with the IPCC view of the cause and consequence of global warming. Our review suggests that the dissenting view offered by the skeptics or opponents of global warming appears substantially more credible than the supporting view put forth by the proponents of global warming. Further, the projections of future climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years is based on insufficiently verified climate models and are therefore not considered reliable at this point in time.

Climate change and health—action please, not words