The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is the most widely read section of IPCC reports and the main springboard for the communication of its assessment reports. Previous studies have shown that communicating IPCC findings to a variety of scientific and non-scientific audiences presents significant challenges to both the IPCC and the mass media. Here, we employ widely established sentiment analysis tools and readability metrics to explore the extent to which information published by the IPCC differs from the presentation of respective findings in the popular and scientific media between 1990 and 2014. IPCC SPMs clearly stand out in terms of low readability, which has remained relatively constant despite the IPCC’s efforts to consolidate and readjust its communications policy. In contrast, scientific and quality newspaper coverage has become increasingly readable and emotive. Our findings reveal easy gains that could be achieved in making SPMs more accessible for non-scientific audiences.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Hulme, M. in Climate Change and the Media (eds Boyce, T. & Lewis, J.) 117–128 (Peter Lang, 2009).
Painter, J. Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty (I. B. Tauris & Co., 2013).
Bell, A. Media (mis) communication on the science of climate change. Public Underst. Sci. 3, 259–275 (1994).
, Decisions Taken with Respect to the Review of IPCC Processes and Procedures. Communications Strategy (IPCC, 2012); http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session35/IAC_CommunicationStrategy.pdf
Bowman, T. E., Maibach, E., Mann, M. E., Moser, S. C. & Somerville, R. C. Creating a common climate language. Science 324, 36–37 (2009).
Principles Governing IPCC Work (IPCC, 1998); http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Nisbet, M. C. et al. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Commun. Res. 29, 584–608 (2002).
Budescu, D. V., Por, H.-H., Broomell, S. B. & Smithson, M. The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nature Clim. Change 4, 508–512 (2014).
Hollin, G. & Pearce, W. Tension between scientific certainty and meaning complicates communication of IPCC reports. Nature Clim. Change 5, 753–756 (2015).
Asayama, S. & Ishii, A. Reconstruction of the boundary between climate science and politics: The IPCC in the Japanese mass media, 1988–2007. Public Underst. Sci. 23, 189–203 (2014).
O’Neill, S., Williams, H. T., Kurz, T., Wiersma, B. & Boykoff, M. Dominant frames in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature Clim. Change 5, 380–385 (2015).
Pearce, W., Holmberg, K., Hellsten, I. & Nerlich, B. Climate change on Twitter: Topics, communities and conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 report. PLoS ONE 9, e94785 (2014).
Bailey, A., Giangola, L. & Boykoff, M. T. How grammatical choice shapes media representations of climate (un)certainty. Environ. Commun. 8, 197–215 (2014).
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P. Jr, Rogers, R. L. & Chissom, B. S. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel (US Naval Air Station, 1975).
Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. J. Appl. Psychol. 32, 221–233 (1948).
Hart, R. P. in Progress in Communication Sciences (ed. West, M. D.) 43–60 Vol. 16 (Ablex, 2001).
Dubay, W. H. The Principles of Readability (Impact Information, 2004).
Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W. & Patten, D. M. The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Acc. Organ. Soc. 35, 431–443 (2010).
Barkemeyer, R., Comyns, B., Figge, F. & Napolitano, G. CEO statements in corporate sustainability reports—substantive information or background noise? Acc. Forum 38, 241–257 (2014).
Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).
Holt, D. & Barkemeyer, R. Media coverage of sustainable development issues—attention cycles or punctuated equilibrium? Sustain. Dev. 20, 1–17 (2012).
Hartley, J., Sotto, E. & Fox, C. Clarity across the disciplines: An analysis of texts in the sciences, social sciences, and arts and humanities. Sci. Commun. 26, 188–210 (2004).
Bjurström, A. & Polk, M. Physical and economic bias in climate change research: A scientometric study of IPCC Third Assessment Report. Climatic Change 108, 1–22 (2011).
IPCC in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 33–115 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2015); http://www.iisd.ca/process/climate_atm.htm
Boykoff, M. T. & Mansfield, M. ‘Ye olde hot aire’: Reporting on human contributions to climate change in the UK tabloid press. Environ. Res. Lett. 3, 024002 (2008).
Ungerer, F. in The Language of Emotions (eds Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R.) 307–328 (John Benjamins, 1997).
Petersen, A. C. Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation Uncertainties and their Role in Climate Science and Policy Advice (CRC Press, 2012).
Mastrandrea, M. D. et al. Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties (IPCC, 2010); https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Addressing Uncertainties (IPCC, 2005); https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/supportingmaterial/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
Shackley, S. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Consensual knowledge and global politics. Glob. Environ. Change 7, 77–79 (1997).
Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Glob. Environ. Change 14, 125–136 (2004).
Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. Climate change and journalistic norms: A case study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38, 1190–1204 (2007).
Carvalho, A. & Burgess, J. Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K. broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Anal. 25, 1457–1469 (2005).
Putnam, H. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays (Harvard Univ. Press, 2002).
Kim, H.-S. PEP/IS: A new model for communicative effectiveness of science. Sci. Commun. 28, 287–313 (2007).
Boykoff, M. T. Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006. Area 39, 470–481 (2007).
Carvalho, A. Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect: Discursive strategies in the British media. Crit. Discourse Stud. 2, 1–29 (2005).
Hart, R. P. Diction 5.0 User’s Manual (Digitext, 2000).
Short, J. C. & Palmer, T. B. The application of DICTION to content analysis research in strategic management. Organ. Res. Methods 11, 727–752 (2008).
We thank E. Ioannou and A. Gibson for valuable research assistance. We also thank participants of the workshop ‘Media, the IPCC and the Cultural Politics of Climate Change’ held at the University of Exeter in May 2014 for their comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. S.D. is supported by the European Research Council under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Grant agreement no. 284369 and by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP).
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Barkemeyer, R., Dessai, S., Monge-Sanz, B. et al. Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage. Nature Clim Change 6, 311–316 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2824
Climatic Change (2021)
Climatic Change (2020)
Climatic Change (2019)
Nature Climate Change (2016)
Nature Climate Change (2016)