CITE.CC academic search helps you expand the influence of your papers.
Abstract
Analysis of an IPCC press conference shows that certain terms hold different meanings for scientific and public audiences, highlighting the difficulty of balancing scientific credibility with public dialogue. 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.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 