Abstract
In this paper, we study on the ways the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) communicates scientific knowledge on climate change to policymakers in the Summary for Policymakers of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5); the most recent Assessment Report issued by the IPCC. We investigate implicit argumentation with a special focus on the ways the summary may direct the orientation of the discourse towards the evasion of climate action while appearing to be pro-action on the surface. The results of a systematic analysis of polyphonic constructions in the language of the text indicate that implicit argumentation represents climate action inevitably subordinate to economic goals. In a number of constructions, the discourse reconstructs pro-economic-growth-based frames in contrast to prioritising environmental values when encouraging political action in the context of climate change. Through such language use, the discourses mediated by an institution of such high societal importance and authority as the IPCC arguably have a considerable impact in maintaining conservative climate policies and delaying, even hindering, a transition into a carbon-neutral society. Thus, we conclude that even the most authoritative climate-science-policy institutions should reconsider their use of linguistic representations in terms of implicit argumentation in their communication in order to encourage climate action in a more straightforward manner. As long as the most authoritative actors in science-policy discourse on climate change continue to reinforce cognitive frames evading urgent action to mitigate climate change, it is questionable whether we can expect the policymakers to have the courage to take ambitious action even if the figures in the natural-scientific evidence sections of the reports were demonstrating clear worsening trends.
Highlights
Beyond denialWhile there is a widespread scientific agreement on most aspects of climate change, climate policy remains a debated topic due to the influence of dominant political and economic interests
The key discursive strategy in these projects is based on manufacturing uncertainty through producing claims on scientific evidence being insufficient to support policy regulations (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). To counter these anti-climate movements with strong lobbying power and vast economic resources, climate science needs to communicate in a way that is both unambiguous and convincing. This is even more important in messages aimed at policymakers as the communicative strategies concerning the issue of climate change play a crucial role in determining the degree to which policy experts succeed in challenging the groups of political denial, that is, succeed in facing the issue of climate change and mitigating action towards it
As the construction and presentation of facts is partly argumentative, the present study takes a critical stance on the complete objectivity of the panel and we aim to investigate the way in which the communication by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) goes beyond scientific reporting of facts, and how the IPCC simultaneously engages in an argumentative endeavour reflected in its language use
Summary
Beyond denialWhile there is a widespread scientific agreement on most aspects of climate change, climate policy remains a debated topic due to the influence of dominant political and economic interests. Due to the abovementioned role of language, the discourse of climate change functions as a (public) sphere that provides a platform for competing discourses on the subject by representatives of various political and economic interests The existence of such competing discourses is well-reflected in the mismatch between the scientific understanding of climate change and the ways it is often communicated to various audiences. The key discursive strategy in these projects is based on manufacturing uncertainty (vs direct denial) through producing claims on scientific evidence being insufficient to support policy regulations (Oreskes and Conway, 2010) To counter these anti-climate movements with strong lobbying power and vast economic resources, climate science needs to communicate in a way that is both unambiguous and convincing. This is even more important in messages aimed at policymakers as the communicative strategies concerning the issue of climate change play a crucial role in determining the degree to which policy experts succeed in challenging the groups of political denial, that is, succeed in facing the issue of climate change and mitigating action towards it
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
