I CR I nfoamérica

The case of the United States The symbolic rupture of scientific consensus: An interdisciplinary approach to

Bernardo Díaz Nosty

Scientific consensus about climate change and the anthropogenic nature of Bernardo Díaz Nosty is the global warming is questioned before actually making it to the media agenda, Director of the UNESCO Chair of Communication of the so that the message reaches the public in a faded form. The interests that University of Malaga and the exert pressure on the media make it difficult and complex to transmit this editor of Infoamérica—ICR. consensus to the public opinion. It is not legitimate for social and, more specifically, for the field of communication to participate in the expert discussions that lead to the broad agreement of environmental researchers; however, it is indeed a responsibility of social sciences and, specifically, of and communication strategies to disseminate the environmental message. This paper analyses the symbolic rupture of scientific consensus in the United States media and the use of an interdisciplinary strategy in envi- ronmental policies.

Keywords: Climate change, media, political polarisation, United States.

El consenso científico sobre el cambio climático y la naturaleza antropogé- nica del calentamiento global sufren un cuestionamiento que es previo a su incorporación a la agenda de los medios de comunicación, por lo que se desvanecen en parte cuando llegan a las audiencias. Sobre los medios pre- sionan intereses que hacen difícil y compleja la traslación del consenso a la opinión pública. Desde las ciencias sociales y, más concretamente, desde el ámbito específico de la comunicación no es procedente intervenir en la dis- cusión experta que conduce al acuerdo amplio de los investigadores ambien- tales; sin embargo, la proyección pública del mensaje ambiental sí es objeto de las ciencias sociales y, en concreto, de la investigación y las estrategias en comunicación. Se analiza en este trabajo la ruptura simbólica del consenso científico en los medios de comunicación norteamericanos y la estrategia in- terdisciplinar en las políticas ambientales.

Palabras clave: Cambio climático, medios, polarización política, Estados Unidos.

1 7-8 2012 8 5 bases from different areas of cial, health, and engineering cial, health,andengineering policy, better linksbetween of Sciences (NAS) states that of Sciences(NAS)states that people andtheecosystems [2] time, research“Through critical tocritical promoting better on whichwe depend” (NAS to this spectrum of changes ofchanges to thisspectrum and environmental systems climate andpolicy” needs to beintegrative and reporting onclimate chan- reporting interdisciplinary”, andadds: tanding climate change, its international environmen - new era ofclimate change face hasdemostrated that the physical, biological, so tal governance onclimate impacts, andpotentialimpacts, res- ponses inherently requires understanding therole of the mediaandimproving is likewisecomplex. Given [1] The National Academy sciences” (NAS2010:151). policy-media triple-inter policy-media ge science and policy are ge science andpolicy climate change, itisclear integration ofknowledge poses significantrisks for research. Although there “climate changeresearch “The response of human response ofhuman “The to human activities, and to and humanactivities, occurring, islargely due this complexity, unders- are some are someuncertainties [3] “We have entered a at theclimate science- in thedetailsoffuture that climate changeis (Boykoff 2010: 402). (Boykoff 2010:402). 7-8 2012 2010: 180). - -

6 8 1 ICR dia” interface (2010: 397) (2010: interface dia” Maxwell mediation”. “honest Boykoff raises the need as to operate through a triple “science-politics-me - defines (2007) Pielke what ethics, is and culture which democratic to closer come to has also science ver, rather action and science the communicate “to social which repeatedly asserts that the change is taking place and that it is mainly duetohumanactivity it that and place taking is change the that asserts repeatedly which report comprehensive a presented NAS the of Council Research tional Na- the this, after Shortly change. climate of nature anthropogenic the about conviction their declare which of cent per 97 researchers, mental climate change-based on scientific papers published by the key environ- -Expert credibilityin study a published NAS the 2010, April In change. climate of issue the of state the on analysis an (NAS) Sciences of demy Aca- National the from requested Congress States United the 2008, In Scientific consensus which leaveasocialsedimentinthemediumandlongrun. 2010), Selbi & Kagawa 2009; Ingalls & Sethi Basow, 2011; Blumstein & Saylan 645; 2009: Langer & Krosnick (Malka, education as such aspects I B ve measures, (NAS 2010: 151) 2010: (NAS measures, ve of the problem, social awareness-raising and the application of correcti- diagnosis the integrates which vision multidisciplinary a adopt to will a is there inefficient, proved has alert scientific the of communication more relevant and have more scientific impact than those who ignore who those than impact scientific more have and relevant more according to this study, those who are part of the general consensus are Also, altogether. it deny or change climate about skeptical are cent 3 per papers, 20 over published have who ma- scientists the 908 with the of disagree Out five jority. 200, top the of out and majority, the with disagree three scientists, renowned most 100 the of Out consensus. the about skeptical is States United the in scientists renowned most 50 the of out one only that show results The journals. scientific in published had they articles the through relevance, and experience of terms in fied deregg of theproblem(Irwin2010;Nanda2010). dimension ethical the to related closely are and opinion, of creation the in and processes cognitive in role decisive a play all values These 66). 2010: (O’Brien research.” change climate in attention receive to ginning be- just only is worldviews and values, culture, of role the and garded, disre- been often most have individuals in development psychological of lines various and motivations “Human approach. the of part comes Nisbet 2008:54). y (Roser-Renouf mechanisms mediation social includes which problem the to approach integral more a attempt and – own their on population past shortcomings – environmental scientists confronting the rest of the (Schneider tive n ernardo

line The work of the NAS, coordinated at the University of Stanford (An- niomna eprs ut ate wt pyhlgss and psychologists with partner must experts Environmental be- problem the of dimension human the this, with accordance In

D with . 2010), analysed the production of 1,372 researchers, quali- researchers, 1,372 of production the analysed 2010), et al. íaz N

those osty . 2010; Dyle 2011; Gross 2010) in order to overcome to order in 2010) Gross 2011; Dyle 2010; et al. than denial and despair” (Sterman 2008: 533). Howe- 533). 2008: (Sterman despair” and denial than

approaches 2 , whereas other authors insist on also tackling also on insist authors other whereas , 3 1 that try to overcome a period in which . . Social sciences share the same perspec- same the share sciences Social . in ways that foster hope foster that ways in other I CR The symbolic rupture of scientific consensus: An interdisciplinary approach to climate change the evidence of climate change and its origins4. This article, as well as the research which underlies it5, relies on relative evidence which is also established in broader terms in the results of the Intergovernmental Pa- nel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Questioning consensus This questioning of scientific consensus is born and is mainly found in the United States, although its persuasive arguments have reached the rest of the world. It is there that the media and the politicians have defined very polarised positions, thus hindering an agreement between scientific consensus and social consensus. (Hetherington & Weiler 2009: 203). Even if the positions of the Democrat and Republican parties are clearly differentiated, the Democrat administrations have not assumed a leading role in international fora in order to tackle the issue efficiently. Neither Clintor nor Al Gore, as vice-president, managed to sign the Pro- tocol of Kyoto, neither has Obama made any significant progress with respect to what he stated in his electoral program. The application of the necessary measures to restore a certain degree of ecologic balance in the number one industrial and economic power, which is also the most polluting, would have a direct impact on the whole of its productive-industrial-financial system. But also on the so- cio-cultural habits associated with the American way of , which is the image that has been portrayed as a success model and even as a feature of national identity. The IPCC reports are often seen as foreign indica- tions, which allows the more conservative and ethnocentric positions to reduce the credibility of international scientists to that of quack doctors and shamans. This line often interprets scientific discourse as a political message coming from abroad which threatens the freedom of United [4] “We show that exper- States citizens, or even as a manifestation of dark forces that lead to the tise and prominence, two “suicide of a superpower” (Buchanan 2011). integral components of overall expert credibility, The exploitation of scientific consensus in such polarised terms as it of climate researchers makes its way through economic and political filters keep it far remo- convinced by the evidence ved from social consensus. The fact that a prominent Democrat figure, of ACC [anthropogenic Al Gore, stood up to denounce climate change was interpreted nega- climate change] vastly overshadows that of the tively. He managed to attract the international public opinion thanks climate change skeptics to his public relevance, but his political image became associated with and contrarians” (Andere- scientific consensus. Thus, the criticism directed at the many weaknes- gg et al. 2010: 12.108). ses in Al Gore’s discourse was also directed at scientists themselves. [5] Research Project of the National R+D Plan Skepticism and the denial of the climate phenomenon are associated to of the Spanish Govern- the conservative position of the Republican Party, but the substratum ment CSO2010-19725 of interests that underlie this discourse is very complex from a strategic (Comunicación y Cambio point of view, and communication factors become more important than Climático: estrategias de traslación mediática del scientific response. consenso científico a la Academic literature has striven to prove the evidence of consensus, opinión pública). This rather than analyse the different ways in which is constructed, project is motivated by through disinformation, manipulation and propaganda processes. Stu- previous studies on the difficulty to communicate dies which reveal the inductive role of think tanks, underlying economic the scientific message to interests and the role of communicative structures in large corporations the public opinion. See (communication managers, public relations, publicity...) tend to come Díaz Nosty, B. (2009). from authors involved with environmental political commitment. The- 1 7-8 2012 8 7 7-8 2012

8 8 1 ICR wing expression of the Republican Party. Even its ideological radica- ideological its Even Party. Republican the of expression right- wing the with associated as be can such blogs, media, and websites accessible journals, books, easily through opinion public the reaches 2011, 2010;PewRC2009). (Leiserowitz States United the public opinion believed less in 2011, global warming than five years earlier of middle the Towards warming. global of have voters origin and nature the about opinions past their changed significantly conservative that reveal Surveys 165). 2008: Rosenthal & Poole (McCarty, right the towards Party Republican the of shift a to due polarisation, asymmetrical an is This change. climate regards with awareness social decreased about brings polarisation Political Chart1:Interactionsinthetransmissionofscientificconsensustopublicopinion. 1]. [Chart magnifies theunsolvedweaknessesofexperts’work time same the at and argument scientific the to opposition in presented are which and documented always not are which opinions and sitions po- political incorporates usually questioning This frame. sensationalist the when Also, a within urgent. presented frequently is it media, the in or expressed is agreement necessary so perception, public of view of itself. In this way, corrective and palliative actions are not, from the point consensus scientific about even, and, origin its change, climate of reach the about uncertainties into turns consensus of The argument. narrative a as consensus scientific of disappearance the is (pre-agenda), (Hulme 2009). undistorted society reach to trying in encounters latter the difficulties counte- strategies ract, in terms narrative of public and opinion, the complex rhetorical scientific discourse, and how the out point analyses se B ernardo That discourse which is critical with scientific consensus and which and consensus scientific with critical is which discourse That media the by pre-filtering content of consequences first the of One D íaz N osty . 2011b), in line with other recent surveys (Gallup surveys recent other with line in 2011b), et al. dent Obama presi- of time political the during tolerance democratic of limit the on verging is and 192) 2008: Michaels 224; 2005: (Mooney Administration (McCarty, Poole seventies & Rosenthal 2008: 165), the became tenser during the of Bush middle the since progressively place taking been has States United the in rupture civil The environment. polarised very a by generated frameworks narrative the by promoted was it and change, climate on consensus of rupture symbolic the for driver important an Michaels 2009; McKee 2008; Rampton & & Stauber 2001; Stauber & Rampton 2002). This result is Diethelm 2011; Conway & tothe (Oresker health harmful being tobacco against discourse supported pseudo-scientific which the those as such reality, of distortions interest-driven previous of that to similar is techniques persuasion and gumentation ar- of of use The form positions. the skeptical than in rather approaches unfolds negationist 2008) Rosenthal & Poole (McCarthy, lisation leaders and inducers. In scientific discourse, persuasive aspects focus aspects persuasive discourse, scientific In inducers. and leaders opinion of logic constructive the of aspect guiding the is which tation, argumen - persuasive on based not are which validation and rification ve- undergoes discourse scientific rhetoric, of view of point the From goals. and techniques construction different own their have narrative media the and narrative scientific the both that true is it if even much, aspects rhetorical the on focused not far so has media, the to discourse scientific the conveying in encountered difficulties the of analysis The The rhetoricinthediscourse doubt isbred(Badley2011;Cox2009;Oresker& Conway 2010). mechanisms thatfosterastateoftensionanduncertainty uponwhich the feeds financially group industrial The 2010). (Buettner information to right the and ethics democratic for disdain with together comes this (think argumentation creative (pre-agenda), all Sometimes, relations). (public image positive a projecting and tanks) media the on pressure putting includes which strategy a deploys representation, political of (Dinan & Miller 2007). The industrial group, with its natural extensions are determinant in shaping the financial accompaniment of the response which are not always evident in interlocution, despite the fact that they interests industrial underlying with implicitly, or explicitly either de, coinci- convictions These convictions. religious and political on based secularism andscience,forChristianity. lligent Design, which are trying to rescue American society, diseased by covery Institute “for the renovation of science and culture” and of Inte- case, amongst the others, of the neo-creationist movement supported is by the Dis- This dictatorship”. “scientific and science” of “abuses the condemn to tends discourse whose 12) 2003: (Parsons associations nal denominatio- and groups religious with concomitances are there pole conservative the In 2007). Petterger 340; 2008: (Sinclair consensus so- cial and consensus scientific between dissonance generating moured, ar- politically is and controversy, ideological of points other includes which 2009), Manheim 2011b; 2011a, Dunlap & McCright 2008; Cright However, the confrontation against scientific consensus is not only not is consensus scientific against confrontation the However, Mc- & (Dunlap agenda polarisation the of part is change Climate The symbolicrupture ofscientific approachconsensus: An interdisciplinary to climate change 6 .

9 8 1 ICR (Mooney 2005:224). (Mooney “antiscientific president” with George Bushthe followed andparticularly can administrations that throughout- theRepubli later gainedmomentum the “abuses ofscience”. It referred to what hecalled with President Nixon, who the middleofseventies, [6] process beganin “This 7-8 2012 7-8 2012

0 9 1 ICR of scientific discrepancies, these have to go through political and media tely alien to the scientific world as relevant. Regardless of the real scope absolu - or removed far personalities or facts portray they when media the by produced effect glass magnifying the of means by explained be sensus (Cox2009:151). demn scientists, public figures, authors and media that endorse the con- con - radically to tend which and blogs and webs of range wide a offer which costumes environmental in clad initiatives of means by Internet most elemental statements. Fourth, the global irradiation action through the with readers educated least the feed which and novelties graphical profile low the literature: popular Third, Party. Republican the of figures public on mainly relies which aspect, political the is there Second, 2010). Conway & (Oresker doubt and congres- breeds and coverage, media wide and get which ses conferences in activity constant by generated is nature, pseudo-scientific of is first The discourse. the of projection social the in aspects clear four least at are there 2009), Weiler & (Hetherington tion and valuesatstake. data the silencing or magnifying decontextualising, and focus, interest the displacing in succeed usually they media, the reach sources these When at. aimed is strategy denial the which audiences different the at sources with which to reply, which are also ongoing and diverse, aimed conti- A Gore. Al as nuous information such flow is created, soscience, that it is difficultof to deploy any re- world the to belong andagents not do heads that more visible the by ridiculing consensus, scientific discredit to employed also are tactics emotional and Appealing values. irrefutable as presented are that intuitions and nuances ideological of use the through generated is which authority of air . an creates or this All reality alternative an of construction the and attributes opponent’s the of denial the defeated, be to needs that target or enemy an of creation the confrontation, on based tools rhetorical employ tion expression of forms on which are characteristic of takes disinformation. Propaganda and disinforma- alliance this of structure discourse The trial interests (Schreuder 2009; Pooley 2010; Hoggan & Littelmore 2009). indus- and arguments political with beliefs religious together bringing tion of scientific consensus. Synergies become evident in this endeavour, percep- social the with interfere to managed have which those are gies tion anddisinformation. Malka, 2010; Krosnick & Langer 2009; Borick Cox 2009) and its oscillation between informa- & Rabe 2011; (Hoffman discourse the of the rhetoric on much that focus not does it but orientations, discourse mental last ten years, tends to merely quantify information flows and some ele- content, the in literature media academic Anglo-Saxon in present very been has which on out carried analysis The disinformation. on based plainly is or propaganda on borders discourse political of construction which promotestheevolutionofpreviousknowledge. and , on and methodologies by afforded opportunity the on B ernardo The gap between scientific agreement and the social reaction to it can ac- ideological conservative of manifestations multiple the Amongst strate- efficient and persistent defined, most the terms, rhetorical In the information, scientific of relative the to opposed As D íaz N osty which are always amongst biblio - amongst always are which best sellers drops to 31 per cent amongst Republicans. These values are between are values These Republicans. amongst cent per 31 to drops Democrats, amongst cent per 72 to amounts which warming, global of the surveyresults[Table 1]. in up come does point this although polarisation, political of problem the to refer not do explanations Gallup’s Republicans. the than better problem the of care take will they that assumed is it because sidents”, pre- Democratic have they when environment the about worried less diverted attention from the issue, but it is also possible that citizens “are have could crisis economic The 2011). (Gallup opinion its changed has society States United which in way the about hypotheses different are hinders theapplicationofpublicpolicies(Pooley 2010). seriously circumstance This 2011). Lichter & (Fransworth warming bal glo- of origin anthropogenic the about convictions its reinforced has ty doubt in the public opinion, despite the fact that the scientific communi- growing with coincided has House White the to him with brought has It seems a paradox that the change in environmental policy that Obama Polarisation andmediaagenda refers toasthe“tyrannyofbalance”(2007:151). lified individuals on a level with key scientists, a practice which Revklin information balancing techniques (Díaz Nosty 2009), which put unqua- come under the umbrella of consensus. Furthermore, there is the influence of who scientists” “bad the to attributed finally is charge alarmist their that way a such in uncertainty increase that expressions tionalist Lowe 2009; RC (Pew inefficient more even opinion public the to transmitted is which message the render which practices journalism with together come also 2010) 2011, Boykoff 2009; Lewis & (Boyce States United the of system media the of features tural science”. 2011: 132); what Powell (2011) describes as “the inquisition on climate eroding their credibility (Oresker & Conway 2010: 169 and ff.; Bradley specific voice of environmental science with their persuasive capacity, morethe and universities the of voice majority the counter and tegies andthink Foundations tanks, opinion. supported by the industry, public develop ongoing dissemination stra- the to consensus no is there that idea the conveying thus scientists, skeptical of group small a of proposals totackleclimatechange. underlying arguments the demolish to seem statements striking their whenever particularly profusely, spread therefore can and validation, and review scientific to subjected generally not are texts Their prolific. and those who take on academic assignments from industry are all very tific authors, authors who do not even try to conceal their opportunism Pseudo-scien- 339-343). 2006: (Sinclair production bibliographical ping envelo- an and Internet through disseminated arguments the of basis where dissent becomes publicly relevant. These expressions become the filters which respond to a long chain of very structured interests. That is The ideological component is extremely strong, so that the perception there warming, global of perception the on survey a to According struc- these discourse, scientific the communicate to attempt the In The magnifying glass effect is enhanced by amplifying the opinions The symbolicrupture ofscientific approachconsensus: An interdisciplinary to climate change . 2006). These are sensa- are These 2006). et al.

1 9 1 ICR 7-8 2012 7-8 2012

2 9 1 ICR sensus reaches 77 per cent amongst Democrats and 72 per cent amongst Demo- Republicans, con- scientific with agreement and – – Party Tea and Independents crats, segments four into divided is population The the USA(2011). in change climate of perception social the regarding opinion and Ideology Chart2: consensus inAmericansociety[Chart2]. of construction the affects polarisation that concludes Communication Change Climate on Project Yale the by out carried survey A larisation. po- political in gap, party the in lies difference key The dramatic. less is fall the but nations other to ranking applies also the priorities opinion in public of positions lost has change climate that hypothesis The to 22percentofDemocrats[Table1]. opposed as exaggerated, is problem the Republicans of seriousness the of that believe cent per 67 hand, other the On problem. the of origin anthropogenic the regarding respectively, cent, per 36 and cent per 71 B ernardo D íaz N osty 35 percentamongsttheTeaPartygroup only and Republicans amongst cent per 53 to drops but Independents, the last fifteen years (Gallup 2011, 2010; Leiserowitz tration, concern for climate change has decreased to the lowest levels in mocrats advocate,isrefutedbytheRepublicans. De- the which change, climate of origin the about trends. consensus Scientific main two into mind collective the of values core the parating se- gap deep a is there agenda, media the in like just agenda, political pectively, inUnitedStatesitwasonlyratedat4.71 res- 7.57, and 8.03 8.20, at rated was 10, to 1 from scale a on wish, that Germany and France Kingdom, United the in Whereas countries. 19 of total a of out change climate regarding intervention in interested least the was population States United the that showed 2009 in out carried that the American nation plays with regards the whole world. A survey from that of most countries (Manheim 2009), despite the influential role ween 2008and2010(Gallup2011). bet- points 13 of drop a with fall, the on also is consensus scientific of perception social the Furthermore, waning. is causes anthropogenic in climate belief the as widespread, more becoming is origin natural a has change that perception The serious. that not is it that belief a is there say, to is that proportion; of out blown been has problem the pulation, their wellbeing[Chart3]. population thinks that the problem is not going to influence their life or the of cent per 67 2011). Brulle & (Antonio concerned too not is nment Gover- the that and agreement an reach not can scientists that serious, that not is problem the that impression the create might circumstances These discourse. environmental its on less and crisis the by generated lly, Obama’s Fina- political administration has focused opinion. more on the public problems American in groups main two the between gap deep a opening intensified, has polarisation Political 2010). Boykoff & (O’Neill activism online with case the is as unprecedented, is 2011 and 2009 between published been have that change” climate of fraud “the against books of number The Presidency. Democratic the during tense in- more become have they as influence, stronger a had have policies the economic crisis, but it is likely that messages against environmental of result a as priorities citizens’ States United of rearrangement the be to seems change this for reason One 2009). Nisbet 2010; Borick & Rabe cent ofUnitedStatescitizens acceptthatthiscrisisisafact. per 58 only change, climate of evidence the in believe who Canadians of cent per 80 to opposed As environment. the regarding dissent social hypothesis of political polarisation as the circumstance which catalyses the reinforces which 2011:3), Rabe & Lachapelle (Borick, change mate cli- of perception social the in difference the with contrasts proximity States and Canada is even more striking [Table 2], as their geographical issue, but also one of “morality and ethics” (Nisbet 2009: 18) 2009: (Nisbet ethics” and “morality of one also but issue, communication a only not is this and polarisation, political and tations As has been seen, the surveys show that during the Obama Adminis- A state of opinion has been created in the United States which differs po- the of half almost represents which percentage, growing a For oee, h cnrs bten h pbi oiin o te United the of opinions public the between contrast the However, There is a clear correlation between different environmental orien- environmental different between correlation clear a is There The symbolicrupture ofscientific approachconsensus: An interdisciplinary to climate change 7 (Leiserowitzetal.2011a). 9 et al. 2011; Pew 2009; . 8 . Inthe

3 9 1 ICR nication problem” (Ibid.). order to “solve thiscommu- and cognitive sciences in onto social shifts Nisbet 2009: 22).Aproblem which of climate change” (Nisbet results ina Americas”“two that med mediaportrayals frasanship andselectively - - interaction between parti and ideological lines. The alongpartisan particularly divide over climate change, locked inaperceptual United States stillappears of news coverage, the sensus andrecord amounts ever-stronger scientific con- [8] “Despite two decadesof 7-8 2012 2009. Maryland), nion.org poll(University of [9] Anew WorldPublicOpi- . of cent deny thetheory Movement, Party 52per [7] Amongst the Tea

dollars to authors of articles dollars to authorsofarticles Bush Administration 10,000 [10] The scientific journalist ( The Guardian, London, 02- proved that theAmerican discrediting IPCC experts discrediting IPCC experts Enterprise Institute (AEI), (AEI), Enterprise Institute ExxonMobil, hadoffered a think tank financed by a thinktankfinanced by during the years of the theyearsduring ofthe Ian Sample published published Ian Sample in 2007 leaks which in 2007leakswhich 7-8 2012 02-2007).

4 9 1 ICR ves areaction invol- action every scenario, polarised a in that, given counteract, to which 2010) ruptures Conway consensus uncertaintyby means of a & strategic pressure which is an difficult Oreskes 313; of 2009: Cox merchants 132; are 2011: (Bradley they and – 3-11) product” 2008: their (Michaels is “doubt – doubt manufacture They 2011). Cook & (Washington problem the refutes that idea nonsensical or statement warming discredit scientists’ arguments, but they accept any opinion, global of origin anthropogenic the of denial the magnify who Those Beyond dissent:propagandaanddisinformation Chart 3:PerceptionofglobalwarminginAmericansociety(Gallup2010). B ernardo D íaz N osty 10 . 2; Michaels2008:173). affect it as a whole in a fragmented fashion (Diethelm & McKee 2009: which actions persecution this to responding is Science issue. the of which scientists, all shows with another of the weaknesses of case a non-interdisciplinary approach the not is this However, concerned. experts academic and researchers the mobilised has them amongst ve contribution of their work and even of the existence of a consensus jungle” ofsorts(Gavin2009:134). “online an foster to seem which 2010), Romm 14-15; 2009: (Manheim generates a multiplier effect of very much unchartered consequences liticians (Kahan their proposals and personal denunciations against scientists and po- have access to thanks to their exaggerated postulates, the audacity ofthey which change, climate on agenda media the in relevance nary Pub., 2007). Elgar Edgard Cheltenham, rruption ofvirtualenvironmentalscience, Kellow, J. (Aynsley corrupt science of expression the 2009), Pub. Moon the at Howling kland, Auc- Air Con:Theseriouslyinconvenienttruthaboutglobalwarming, Wishart, (Ian mafia” “global the of fraud The 2010). Pub. ylorTrade Ta- Plymouth, The climatecaper:factsandfallaciesofglobalwarming, Paltridge,W. (Garth opinion public the manipulate that sects by ted the United Nations, (Ralph B. Alexander, of how misleading bad scientists can be. False science distorts reality v. bluefamilies. book their of title the in graphically so describe (2011) bone one of the dividing issues generating that civil clash that Cahn and Car- is evolution, human of theory the or health public marriage, gay migra- tion, cells, stem with together change, Climate 2006). Sinclair 2008; Rosenthal & Poole McCarty, 2010; Gold Baumery 2011; (Abramowitz text thatdividesthecountryintotwomainaxesofpoliticalagenda These are expressions that can not be isolated from a confrontation con- The nature of the attacks against scientists, the denial of the positi- extraordi- gathers arguments accumulative of mass critical This Global warming is presented, from the conservative side, as proof A lot of literature lacking scientific backing denies the problem denies backing scientific lacking literature of lot A The symbolicrupture ofscientific approachconsensus: An interdisciplinary to climate change et al. 2011). Besides, their powerful Internet presence Michigan, Canterbury Publishing, 2009), suppor- 2009), Publishing, Canterbury Michigan, Global warmingfalsealarm:Thebadsciencebehind Science andpublicpolicy:Thevirtuousco- Red families 11 .

5 9 1 ICR Spain, 18-01-2012. Congress, Tarragona,nal States”, IIIAI-ECInternatio media agendaintheUnited “Political polarisationand 7-8 2012 [11] Díaz Nosty, B. (2012), (2012), - 7-8 2012

6 9 1 ICR B (Olausson 2009: 426). A difficult and complex goal, if public opinion in opinion public if goal, complex and difficult A 426). 2009: (Olausson responsibility” “global demands dealt and responses local of be means by with hardly can change, climate as such scope, global of problem A opinions. public other to spread can or spreads which tension dia- lectic a creates polarised becomes society American which in way The As aconclusion despicable”. is it as successful “as is which result a to leads that “crusade” mation disinfor- environmental the of core the at States, United the in sionals profes- talented most the employ which relations, public place (2009) Littlemore and Hoggan 2007). Miller & Dinan 2010; (Pooley relations percent points. thus, in terms of scientific consensus, the differences are as high as 30 channel; this watch never they declare who people of those to rison list conservativechannel,express more polarised opinionsincompa- sources ontelevision[Table3]. information different of audiences amongst perceptions contrasted clearly shows and opinion, of states and media the of consumption between relationships causal the exposes 2010) (Ramsay society tes Sta- United in disinformation about study A 2010). (Specter answers irrational to lead which inductions with combined 2010), shenbaum Kir- and (Mooney population the of illiteracy” “scientific the of and disinformation of result a as it see analyses other opinion, public the seriousness oftheproblem. the for appropriate be would that policies intervention environmental ning reducestheriskfacedbyindustrialinterestsineventof questio- This opinion. public the for uncertainties become sensus disappears as a narrative argument in the media, and scientific quently influences global policies. For all these reasons, scientific con- conse- and agreement, prevents which gap ideological an by divided ernardo This situation is also the result of the professional action of public of action professional the of result the also is situation This sensationa- the News, Fox watch usually they declare who Those of behaviour the explains partly polarisation that fact the Despite As the number one world power, the United States shows a society D íaz N osty Bibliography communication ofscientificconsensus. action to face the different types of resistance which hinder or delay the also according to the National Academy of Sciences, as the right kind of appears, opinion, public access to formulas the and psychology social disciplinary strategy, integrating, amongst other vectors, knowledge of inter- This change. climate about policies integral of favour in argue to played by communication in a multidisciplinary strategy which intends a changeofparadigm,newthoughtandsocialpracticemodel. in integrated be warming global controlling at aimed actions that plies approach that describes major current problems as a systemic crisis im- An time. its of problems the of aware be would which Blum- 72), 2011: & stein (Saylan citizenship” “active an stimulate could policies blic as expressions of opacity, from prevailing over transparency. Thus, pu- disinformation, and falsehood prevent to actions legal and regulations suggest reorienting the transmission of scientific consensus by means of even ethics political and responsibility to appeal that ideas The rency. in terms of reception and is unpolluted by interests opposed to transpa- tion which is delivered taking into account the audiences’ requirements order to face a problem that must be approached with truthful informa- tegy for climate change, which requires both responsibility and ethics in threatens toexportthisdissenttherestofworld. the most powerful nation in the world is so divided and confronted and The analysis of the United States experience warns us about the role the about us warns experience States United the of analysis The stra- international an redefining in central becomes Communication agenda”, SociologyCompass3/2,pp.166–182. Peter LangVerlagsgruppe. Public Policy,UniversityofMichigan. climate changeintheUnitedStates&Canada,AnnArbor:GeraldR.FordSchoolof Climate changescienceandpolicy , Washington:IslandPress. ―― (2010),“Carbonundrums:The roleofthemedia”,inSchneider,S.S.etal(eds.): climate change,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Communication, 4,pp.78-93. munication: interdisciplinaryapproaches”,InternationalJournalofSustainability B B B B B A A A A States, Boulder:ParadigmPublishers. American democracy,NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress. pp. 195–202. Climate changedenialandpoliticalpolarization”,TheSociologicalQuarterly,52, 10(27), pp.12107-12109. aumer asow oykoff orick oyce nderson nderegg bramowitz nton The symbolicrupture ofscientific approachconsensus: An interdisciplinary to climate change , , , R..,S , C.,L i T o , D. , M. . . , , , W.RL , A. and R . J. J. . and , A.I. (2011), Whospeaksfortheclimate?Making senseofmediareportingon achapelle (2009),“Media,politicsandclimatechange:Towardsanewresearch J imran and ust H (2011),Thedisappearingcenter:Engagedcitizens,polarization,and oward i

n (et al)(2010),“Expertcredibilityinclimatechange”,PNAS,vol. R S.

obert L B. ., ., and (eds.) (2009),Climatechangeandthemedia.NewYork: J.G. and J. J. S tephen B (2010),Parties,polarization,anddemocracyintheUnited R . (2011),“Theunbearablelightnessofpolitics: abe B. A.I.(2009) (2011), Climatecompared:Publicopinionon , “Teachingclimatechangecom-

7 9 1 ICR 7-8 2012 7-8 2012

8 9 1 ICR B ernardo novation: Buildingclimatechangeinthemedia”,Infoamérica-ICR,vol.1,pp.91-115. down onscientistsastheEarthheatedup,Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress. Lewis (eds.),ClimatechangeandtheMedia,NewYork:PeterLang,pp.129-142. American politics,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. consulted: 18-09-2011). climate change”,InternationalPublicOpinionResearch.(doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr033; challenges, Berlín:Springer. transnational risks,Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan. 10.1093/eurpub/ckn139; consulted:03-09-2011). tists respond?”,EuropeanJournalofPublicHealth,Vol.19,Núm.1,pp.2–4(doi: warming, Vancouver:GreystoneBooks. G F D D D D D D D D C C C B B B G G G pp. 3–33.(doi:10.1177/1086026611404336; lastconsult:02-09-2011). convinced logicsintheclimate changedebate”,Organization&Environment,24(1): H H H H guide tothedebate,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. pp. 34yff. ideologies, andhumanresponsetoclimatechange”,EcologySociety,vol.14(1): Publications (2ªed.). (doi:10.2471/BLT.10.077362; consulted:28-09-2011). ception: implicationsforclimateandhealthpolicies”,BullWorldHealthOrgan perspectives andtheoreticalfoundation,Berlín:Springer. gate Publishing. creation ofculture,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress(USA). mocratic viewsonclimatechange”,EnvironmentMagazine(septiembre-octubre). the assaultondemocracy,London:PlutoPress. York: St.Martin’sPress. +No.+1; consulted:12-10-2011). 79–97 (http://www.nzmediastudies.org.nz/issues.php?issue=7&title=Volume+12 the stagingofpublicdebate”,NewZelandJournalMediaStudies,vol.12(1),pp. ransworth uettner uchanan radley ahn ampbell ox ross odemann avin allup unlap inan iethelm icknson íaz essler e oyle ansen oggan offman etherington C , J. J. , N hiara D , N. , M. , N.T , J. , , W. osty (2011), R , A.E íaz , R.E , , R.S , J. A (2011),Mediatingclimatechange(Environmentalsociology),London:Ash- . , A. , A.J. , P. -L (2009),Environmentalcommunicationandthepublicsphere,London:Sage (2010),Environmentalsociology:Europeanperspectivesandinterdisciplinary and , J.L.(2009), N , P.J. , F. . , J. and (2009),Environment,mediaandcommunication,Abingdon:Routledge. and , B. endrum , S.J. (2009),“Thewebandclimatechangepolitics”.TammyBoyce yJustin osty (2010),“Climatechangeinthemedia:Climatedenial,IanPlimer,and and J and and , M.J. and and (2011), Globalwarmingandpoliticalintimidation:Howpoliticianscracked (2009),“Movingtowardcommunicationsolutionsforsustainablein- GallupSocialSeriesEnvironmentPoll(2000-2011). (2011),“Talkingpasteachother? Culturalframingofskepticaland M une L (2011),Suicideofsuperpower:WillAmericasurviveto2025?New M ittlemore and iller M P M M C. , D. c arson and ichelsen K c eyer (2011),Redfamiliesv.bluefamilies:Legalpolarizationandthe C L , D. ee “The peopleparadox:Self-esteemstriving,immortality and ichter right , M. W , C.O( , E.(2010),Thescienceandpoliticsofglobalclimatechange.A (eds.) (2007),Thinker,faker,spinner,spy:CorporatePRand , R.D B eiler (2009),“:whatisitandhowshouldscien- , A.M ertollin , R.S G. , J.D. eds.) (2011),Forecasting,warningandrespondingto (2011), (2009),Climatecover-up:thecrusadeto denyglobal (2008),“Awideninggap:RepublicanandDe- (2011),“Thestructureofscientificopinionon (2009),Authoritarianismandpolarizationin , R. Sustainability communication: Interdisciplinary (2010),“Science,mediaandpublicper-

inaction andopportunity,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. ―― and pollution, Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. rowitz_anthony.pdf; consulted:03-09-2011). UNDP (http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/papers/leise- Current patterns,trendsandlimitations”,HumanDevelopmentReport2007/2008, ―― (2008),“Publicperception,opinionandunderstandingofclimatechange: Yale ProjectonClimateChangeCommunication. attitudes inMay2011,YaleUniversityandGeorgeMasonUniversity,NewHaven, ―― (2011),ClimatechangeintheAmericanmind:Americans’globalwarmingbeliefsand Haven: YaleProjectonClimateChangeCommunication. pendents, andtheTeaParty.YaleUniversityGeorgeMasonUniversity,New consensus”. JournalofRiskResearch,vol.14,pp.147-174.(SSRN: 22-09-2011). abstract=1549444 (UK): Polity. Origins, outcomes, and comparisonswith the EU and other regions, New York: Springer. ideology andunequalriches,Cambridge:MITPress. Working PaperNúm.89.(SSRN: re conflict,rationalityandclimatechange”,CulturalCognitionProject, climate changeandfacilitingsocial change,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. our future,NewYork:BasicBooks. L ―― J K K I H M M M M L L New York:Continuum. M M M M your health,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. 6924.2009.01220.x; consulted:11-09-2011). blic thinking”,RiskAnalysis,Vol.29,Num.5,pp.633-647.(doi:10.1111/j.1539- with concernaboutglobalwarming:Trustedinformationsourcesshapepu- interesting times,NewYork:Routledge. 155–194. public’s viewsofglobalwarming,2001-2010”,TheSociologicalQuarterly , 52,pp. ―― (2011b):“Thepoliticizationofclimatechangeandpolarization intheAmerican 21(4), pp.1.167-1.172.(doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003; consulted: 01-10-2011). among conservativewhitemalesintheUnitedStates”,GlobalEnvironChange , vol. perceptions ofclimatechange”,PublicUnderstandingScience15,pp.435-457. rwin owe ester eiserowtz ahan agawa ulme c ooney ichaels c arkowitz anheim alka oser C C enkins The symbolicrupture ofscientific approachconsensus: An interdisciplinary to climate change r arty , T., , R. i , L. , S.C ght , M. , A.,K , D.M., , C. , F. K , F.T (ed.) (2010),Climatechangeandphilosophy:transformationalpossibilities, , D. , N.,P (2010),Mediaandenvironment:Conflict,politicsthenews,Cambridge et al.(2006),“Doestomorrowevercome?Disasternarrativeandpublic , irshenbaum (2009),Whywedisagreeaboutclimatechange:Understandingcontroversy, -S , G. A , A., (2005),Therepublicanwaronscience , NewYork:BasicBooks. and and (2008),Doubtistheirproduct: . mith rosnick M (2009),TheconflictoverenvironmentalregulationintheUnitedStates: et al.(2011),“Thetragedyoftherisk-perceptioncommons:Cultu- and oole et al.(2011),Politics&globalwarming:Democrats,republicans,inde- . S D and , H. elby ; consulted:18-09-2011). illng R , K.T , J.A. osner , S. , D. and D unlap (2010),UnscientificAmerica:Howscientific illiteracythreatens , L. (2010),Educationandclimatechange:livinglearningin B and and , D. raman (coord.) (2008),Creatingaclimatechange:Communicating , (2003),Deceitanddenial:thedeadlypoliticsofindustrial R R L . anger (2011a): “Cool dudes: The denial of climate change (2011a):“Cooldudes:Thedenialofclimatechange osenthal http://ssrn.com/abstract=1871503 , D. (2011), “Culturalcognitionofscientific , G. , H. (2009),”Theassociationofknowledge How industry’sassaultonsciencethreatens (2008),PolarizedAmerica:Thedanceof http://ssrn.com/ ; lastconsult:

9 9 1 ICR 7-8 2012 7-8 2012

0 0 2 ICR B ernardo public sphere, ―― and University ofNewYorkPress,pp.65-79. approach”, inEsbjörn-Hargens,S.(ed.),IntegralTheoryAction,Albany:State grass-roots engagement?”,ScienceCommunication,Vol.30(3),pp.305-327. communication foreffectivemitigation.Forcingpeopletobegreenorfostering ge, norms,discourses,Aldershot:AshgatePublishing. Cambridge UniversityPress. ―― (2007),Thehonestbroker:Makingsenseofscienceinpolicyandpolitics , Cambridge: global warming,NewYork:BasicBooks. Campaigns onClimateChange”,ScienceCommunication,Vol.30(3),pp.328-354. versity Press. Jersey: TransactionPub. Integral TheoryandPractice,vol.5(1),pp.89-102. New York:PrometheusBooks. P P O O O’N N N NAS (N N M tanding andengagementonclimatechange”,inBoykoff,M.(ed.), ―― (2009),“Costlyknowledge.Unaffordabledenial:Thepoliticsofpublicunders- P P P P O O’B search Center. ago. Publicpraisesscience;scientistsfaultpublic,media,Washington:ThePewRe - can, pp.233-251. the publicwithclimatechange:Communicationandbehaviourchange,London:Earths- with climatechange”,enWhitmarsh,L.,O’Neill,S.J.,andI.Lorenzoni,Engaging Washington: NationalAcademyPress. ―― and pp. 12-23. blic engagement”,Environment:ScienceandPolicyforSustainableDevelopment,51(2), sbury Press. obscured thetruthonissuesfromtobaccosmoketoglobalwarming,NewYork:Bloom- Cambridge, MA:MITPress. climate change pp. 421–436. collective actionandscientificcertainty”,PublicUnderstandingofScience,Vol.18, Earth, NewYork:Hyperion. ooley ielke ew etterger arsons owell resker ckwell lausson orgaard isbet anda osley rien R eill D , R. esearch , M.C , E.(2010), , V -J , J. J. , íaz , K. , S. K , N. , K. ational H , D.,W ensen (2010),Theclimatefix:Whatscientistsandpoliticianswon’ttellyou about , M.E( ed , , N otcher , K.M ochachka L U (2010),“Respondingtoclimatechange:Theneedforanintegral and (ed.) (2003),Thesciencewars:debatingscientificknowledgeandtechnology, , (ed.)(2010),ClimatechangeandenvironmentalethicsPiscataway,New . and osty (2011),Theinquisitionofclimatescience , NewYork:ColumbiaUni- . ( . (2009),“Communicatingclimatechange:Whyframesmatterforpu- Saarbrücken: C , Oxford:Routledge,pp.161-187. , W. 2009), “Globalwarming—globalresponsibility?Mediaframesof M hitmarsh A enter C , J.E. (2011),Livingindenial:climatechange,,andeverydaylife, ed.) (2007),Thesocialconstructionofclimatechange:power,knowled - The climatewar:Truebelievers, power brokers,andthefighttosave axwell cademy onway (2011),Theclimatechangecontroversy:Atechnicaldebateinthe , G.(2010),“ , T (2009),“ATwo-StepFlowofInfluence?Opinion-Leader he , L. , E. B.(2010)

of

(2009), Scientificachievementslessprominentthanadecade VDM. (2010),Marchantsofdoubt.Howahandfulscientists S and ciences O’N Integral adaptationtoclimatechange”,Journalof , “Theroleofnewmediainengagingthepublic ) eill (2011),Advancingthescienceofclimatechange, , S. (2009),“Reorientingclimatechange The politicsof children, andourgrandchildren J. C.DiMentoandP.M.Doughman(eds.),Climatechange:Whatitmeansforus,our Institution. nion onclimatechange”,GovernanceStudies,Num.31,Washington:Brookings Island Press. Public Relationsindustry,Monroe,ME:CommonCouragePress. science andgambleswithyourfuture,NewYork:Penguin-Putnam. climate change:Behaviourchangeandcommunication,London:Earthscan. in achangingclimate,Washington:WRI. S S S R R R R W W S S Norman: UniversityofOklahoma. Earthscan Publishing. W S S R consulted: 29-08-2011). to fixit),Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. world, NewYork:ZedBooks. ted: 20-10-2011). balance”, Science,vol.322(5681),pp.532-533(doi:10.1126/science.1162574;consul- Communication, 3:pp.37-95. science constructsinclimatechangeresearch”,InternationalJournalofSustainability ( torate. WorldPublicOpinion.orgyKnowledgeNetworks.UniversityofMaryland our ,London:Penguin. www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf terman tauber pecter inclar chreuder aylan chneider oser evkin amsay ampton abe old hitmarsh ashigton The symbolicrupture ofscientific approachconsensus: An interdisciplinary to climate change , , -R R B , A.C , C. , M.(2010 , C., . . , J. esources enouf , B. , J.D.( G , S. , S.H , Y. . . and and , H. , L.,O’N (2006), and et al.(2010),Misinformationandthe2010election.AstudyofUSelec- and (2007),“Climatechangeasnews:Challengesincommunicating”, , C. (2009), Thecorporategreenhouse:Climatechangepolicyinaglobalizing 2008), “Riskcommunicationonclimate:Mentalmodelsandmass R and B

I B et al.(eds.)(2010),Climatechangescienceandpolicy,Washington: ampton S lumstein ), Denialism:HowirrationalthinkingharmsthePlanetandthreatens nstitute and or tauber Party wars:Polarizationandthepoliticsofnationalpolicymaking, C eill i ck ook N , , , S. isbet , S. C , J. . J. , D.T( (2011),WorldResourcesReport2010–2011:Decisionmaking . P and (2002),Toxicsludgeisgoodforyou:Lies,damnliesandthe (2001),Trustuswe’reexperts:Howindustrymanipulates (2011),Climatechangedenial:Headsinthesand,London: . , M.C (2010),“Theclimateofbelief:Americanpublicopi- , Boston:MITPress,pp.139–160. L orenzoni 2011), Thefailureofenvironmentaleducation(andhow (2008),“Themeasurementofkeybehavioral , E.( eds.) (2010),Engagingthepublicwith

;

1 0 2 ICR 7-8 2012