A Reply to Cook and Oreskes on Climate Science Consensus Messaging

Bibliographic Data

ID21192804
AuthorsWarren Pearce (0000-0001-6884-3854, University of Sheffield), Reiner Grundmann (0000-0003-0266-9296, University of Nottingham, corresponding author), M Hulme (0000-0002-1273-7662, University of Cambridge), Sujatha Raman (0000-0002-9037-5716, University of Nottingham), Eleanor Hadley Kershaw (0000-0001-5911-5505, University of Nottingham), Judith Tsouvalis (0000-0001-6399-3394, University of Nottingham)
Year2017
Volume11
Issue6
Pages736-739
Publication date2017-11-02
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueEnvironmental Communication (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1752-4032 • E-ISSN: 1752-4040
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/17524032.2017.1392109
OpenAlexW2770918613
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited14

In their replies to our paper (Pearce et al., 2017), both Cook and Oreskes agree with our central point: that deliberating and mobilizing policy responses to climate change requires thinking beyond public belief in a scientific consensus. However, they both continue to defend consensus messaging, either because of ‘the dangers of neglecting to communicate the scientific consensus’ (Cook, 2017, p. 1) or because ‘“no consensus”...remains... a contrarian talking point’ (Oreskes, 2017, p. 1). Both highlight previously conducted market research by fossil fuel companies which suggested that scientific uncertainty provided a political weapon in fighting regulation, concluding that incorrect public perceptions of the scientific consensus weaken support for policy action (Oreskes, 2017, p. 2)

Biology · Climate change · Climate science · Global warming · Political science · Science policy · Scientific consensus · Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Public Administration · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance · Ecology

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access