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.

Linguistic analysis of IPCC summaries for policymakers and associated coverage

Abstract

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Box-and-whisker plots showing FRE scores for IPCC SPMs and scientific publications (Nature and Science) as well as quality (The Independent, The Times, New York Times, Washington Post) and tabloid newspapers (The Mirror, The Sun, Daily News) related to the launch of IPCC assessment reports from 1990 to 2014.
Figure 2: Mean FRE scores over time for IPCC SPMs and scientific publications, as well as quality and tabloid newspapers related to the launch of IPCC assessment reports from 1990 to 2014.
Figure 3: Comparison of FRE scores for pre- and post-plenary AR4 and AR5 IPCC SPMs as well as TSs.
Figure 4: Box-and-whisker plots displaying DICTION optimism scores for IPCC SPMs, scientific publications, quality and tabloid newspapers related to the launch of IPCC assessment reports from 1990 to 2014.
Figure 5: Mean DICTION optimism Z-scores (with standard errors) of different types of media compared to the IPCC SPMs mean over time.

References

  1. 1

    Hulme, M. in Climate Change and the Media (eds Boyce, T. & Lewis, J.) 117–128 (Peter Lang, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Painter, J. Climate Change in the Media: Reporting Risk and Uncertainty (I. B. Tauris & Co., 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Bell, A. Media (mis) communication on the science of climate change. Public Underst. Sci. 3, 259–275 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    , 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

  5. 5

    Bowman, T. E., Maibach, E., Mann, M. E., Moser, S. C. & Somerville, R. C. Creating a common climate language. Science 324, 36–37 (2009).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Principles Governing IPCC Work (IPCC, 1998); http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

  7. 7

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Hollin, G. & Pearce, W. Tension between scientific certainty and meaning complicates communication of IPCC reports. Nature Clim. Change 5, 753–756 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Bailey, A., Giangola, L. & Boykoff, M. T. How grammatical choice shapes media representations of climate (un)certainty. Environ. Commun. 8, 197–215 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    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).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. J. Appl. Psychol. 32, 221–233 (1948).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Hart, R. P. in Progress in Communication Sciences (ed. West, M. D.) 43–60 Vol. 16 (Ablex, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Dubay, W. H. The Principles of Readability (Impact Information, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Cho, C. H., Roberts, R. W. & Patten, D. M. The language of US corporate environmental disclosure. Acc. Organ. Soc. 35, 431–443 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Holt, D. & Barkemeyer, R. Media coverage of sustainable development issues—attention cycles or punctuated equilibrium? Sustain. Dev. 20, 1–17 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    IPCC in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 33–115 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin (International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2015); http://www.iisd.ca/process/climate_atm.htm

  26. 26

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Ungerer, F. in The Language of Emotions (eds Niemeier, S. & Dirven, R.) 307–328 (John Benjamins, 1997).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Petersen, A. C. Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation Uncertainties and their Role in Climate Science and Policy Advice (CRC Press, 2012).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    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

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    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

  31. 31

    Shackley, S. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Consensual knowledge and global politics. Glob. Environ. Change 7, 77–79 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Glob. Environ. Change 14, 125–136 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    Boykoff, M. T. & Boykoff, J. M. Climate change and journalistic norms: A case study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38, 1190–1204 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Carvalho, A. & Burgess, J. Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K. broadsheet newspapers, 1985–2003. Risk Anal. 25, 1457–1469 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Putnam, H. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays (Harvard Univ. Press, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Kim, H.-S. PEP/IS: A new model for communicative effectiveness of science. Sci. Commun. 28, 287–313 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Carvalho, A. Representing the politics of the greenhouse effect: Discursive strategies in the British media. Crit. Discourse Stud. 2, 1–29 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Hart, R. P. Diction 5.0 User’s Manual (Digitext, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Short, J. C. & Palmer, T. B. The application of DICTION to content analysis research in strategic management. Organ. Res. Methods 11, 727–752 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

R.B. and B.M.-S. conceived the study. R.B., S.D. and G.N. designed the study. All co-authors contributed to analysis and writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf Barkemeyer.

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

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

Download citation

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