Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Tension between scientific certainty and meaning complicates communication of IPCC reports

Abstract

Here we demonstrate that speakers at the press conference for the publication of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group 1; ref. 1) attempted to make the documented level of certainty of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) more meaningful to the public. Speakers attempted to communicate this through reference to short-term temperature increases. However, when journalists enquired about the similarly short ‘pause’2 in global temperature increase, the speakers dismissed the relevance of such timescales, thus becoming incoherent as to ‘what counts’ as scientific evidence for AGW. We call this the ‘IPCC’s certainty trap’. This incoherence led to confusion within the press conference and subsequent condemnation in the media3. The speakers were well intentioned in their attempts to communicate the public implications of the report, but these attempts threatened to erode their scientific credibility. In this instance, the certainty trap was the result of the speakers’ failure to acknowledge the tensions between scientific and public meanings. Avoiding the certainty trap in the future will require a nuanced accommodation of uncertainties and a recognition that rightful demands for scientific credibility need to be balanced with public and political dialogue about the things we value and the actions we take to protect those things4,5,6.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Increased certainty of AGW.
Figure 2: Intended process of making AGW publicly meaningful.
Figure 3: Public meaning of AGW increased at expense of certainty.
Figure 4: Incoherent attempt to maintain public meaning and certainty.

References

  1. IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hawkins, E., Edwards, T. & McNeall, D. Pause for thought. Nature Clim. Change 4, 154–156 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rose, D. Met Office proof that global warming is still ‘on pause’ as climate summit confirms global temperature has stopped rising. Mail Online (28 September 2013); http://go.nature.com/l9GoAo

  4. Jasanoff, S. A new climate for society. Theory, Cult. Soc. 27, 233–253 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lejano, R. P., Tavares-Reager, J. & Berkes, F. Climate and narrative: Environmental knowledge in everyday life. Environ. Sci. Policy 31, 61–70 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Siebenhüner, B. The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making Processes 126–147 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Star, S. L. Scientific work and uncertainty. Soc. Stud. Sci. 15, 391–427 (1985).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Edwards, P. N. A Vast Machine: Computer Models, Climate Data, and the Politics of Global Warming (MIT Press, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Chapin, F. S. III & Ellemor, H. This must be the place: Underrepresentation of identity and meaning in climate change decision-making. Glob. Environ. Polit. 11, 1–25 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fahnestock, J. Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. Writ. Commun. 15, 330–350 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Principles Governing IPCC Work (IPCC, 2012); http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

  12. Communications Strategy (IPCC, 2012).

  13. Bucchi, M. Science and the Media: Alternative Routes to Scientific Communications (Routledge, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Hajer, M. A. Authorative Governance: Policy Making in the Age of Mediatization (Oxford Univ. Press, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Shackley, S. & Wynne, B. Representing uncertainty in global climate change science and policy: Boundary-ordering devices and authority. Sci. Technol. Human Values 21, 275–302 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zehr, S. C. Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Underst. Sci. 9, 85–103 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leck, H., Sutherland, C., Scott, D. & Oelofse, G. in Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation (eds Masters, L. & Duff, L.) 61–83 (Institute for Global Dialog, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Midgley, M. The Myths We Live By (Routledge, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  19. IPCC Summary for Policymakers in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Carrington, D. IPCC: Rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change. The Guardian (2 November 2014); http://go.nature.com/bCsahQ

  21. Hulme, M. Why We Disagree About Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Jaspal, R. & Nerlich, B. When climate science became climate politics: British media representations of climate change in 1988. Public Underst. Sci. 23, 122–141 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rose, D. Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it. Mail on Sunday (13 October 2012); http://go.nature.com/ckAtqU

  24. Rose, D. The great green con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all along. Mail on Sunday (16 March 2013); http://go.nature.com/62eFbK

  25. Cook, J. et al. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Vaughan, S. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Clim. Change 3, 399–404 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wynne, B. Strange weather, again: Climate science as political art. Theory, Cult. Soc. 27, 289–305 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Geden, O. & Beck, S. Renegotiating the global climate stabilization target. Nature Clim. Change 4, 747–748 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Suleski, J. & Ibaraki, M. Scientists are talking, but mostly to each other: A quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media. Public Underst. Sci. 19, 115–125 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Moore, A. Bad science in the headlines. EMBO Rep. 7, 1193–1196 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nelkin, D. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (W. H. Freeman and Company, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Star, S. L. Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty (Stanford Univ. Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mellor, F. Negotiating uncertainty: Asteroids, risk and the media. Public Underst. Sci. 19, 16–33 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Moreira, T., May, C. & Bond, J. Regulatory objectivity in action: Mild Cognitive Impairment and the collective production of uncertainty. Soc. Stud. Sci. 39, 665–690 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pickersgill, M. Ordering disorder: Knowledge production an uncertainty in neuroscience research. Sci. Cult. 20, 71–87 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Webster, A. J. & Eriksson, L. Standardising the unknown: Practicable pluripotency as doable futures. Sci. Cult. 17, 57–69 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Landman, T. in Real Soc. Sci. Appl. Phronesis (eds Flyvbjerg, B., Landman, T. & Schram, S.) 27–47 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

W.P. acknowledges the support of the Leverhulme Trust’s Making Science Public programme (RP2011-SP-013). G.J.S.H.’s research is supported by a Mildred Blaxter Post-Doctoral Fellowship from the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness. We would like to thank T. Edwards, M. Hulme and B. Nerlich, colleagues at Science and Democracy Network, for comments that have helped us to improve the argument. Responsibility for the content of the paper remains ours alone.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Both G.J.S.H. and W.P. contributed fully to all aspects of this submission and acknowledge joint first authorship.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Pearce.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hollin, G., Pearce, W. Tension between scientific certainty and meaning complicates communication of IPCC reports. Nature Clim Change 5, 753–756 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2672

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2672

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing