Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy

Think tanks and climate obstruction: Atlas affiliates in Canada

This paper provides a longitudinal social network and content analysis of Canadian think tanks affiliated with the Atlas network, analyzing their efforts to obstruct climate action over the last two decades. Network analysis reveals extensive and deepening board interlocks and joint memberships between these think tanks and the fossil fuel industry, other policy-planning organizations within and beyond Canada, and academic institutions. Consistent with and rooted in network ties, Atlas members produce a large and growing volume of climate-related content, including content that denies the reality and impacts of climate change, promotes and defends the fossil fuel sector, and opposes climate policy and action. Atlas affiliates are argued to be at the core of a reactionary segment of Canada's elite policy-planning network opposed to virtually all forms of climate action, while the frames and campaigns they deploy are seen as a force obstructing progress on climate change.

Counteracting climate denial: A systematic review

Despite scientific consensus on climate change, climate denial is still widespread. While much research has characterised climate denial, comparatively fewer studies have systematically examined how to counteract it. This review fills this gap by exploring the research about counteracting climate denial, the effectiveness and the intentions behind intervention. Through a systematic selection and analysis of 65 scientific articles, this review finds multiple intervention forms, including education, message framing and inoculation. The intentions of intervening range from changing understanding of climate science, science advocacy, influencing mitigation attitudes and counteracting vested industry. A number of divergent findings emerge: whether to separate science from policy; the disputed effects of emotions and the longitudinal impacts of interventions. The review offers guiding questions for those interested in counteracting denialism, the answers to which indicate particular strategies: identify the form of climate denial; consider the purpose of intervention and recognise one's relationship to their audiences.

The next generation of climate scientists as science communicators

Climate scientists face many challenges when it comes to communicating their work to the public, yet it is largely unknown how junior climate scientists give meaning to their role as science communicators. Therefore, the current research conducted five focus group discussions with Dutch junior climate scientists, which were structured around the following themes: (a) common barriers; (b) climate advocacy; (c) message content; and (d) climate skepticism, misinformation, and incivility. The results reveal the motivations and barriers for junior climate scientists to do science communication. New barriers were identified relating to participants' lack of seniority, meaning a self-attributed lack of expertise and not having established their scientific credentials yet, providing evidence for the imposter syndrome. Furthermore, many participants alluded to the information-deficit model and indicated they do not know where to start with science communication. Overall, the findings show uncertainty, which could be mitigated by media training and institutionalized incentives.

The diversity principle and the evaluation of evidence

The diversity principle-the intuitive notion that diverse evidence is, all else equal, more persuasive, suggestive, confirmatory, or otherwise better than less varied sets of evidence-is a clear component of scientific practice and endorsed by scientists and philosophers alike. A great body of psychological research on people's understanding and application of the diversity principle exists, yet it remains divided into multiple, distinct research communities, which often come to conflicting conclusions. One reason for this is that the range of tasks and domains investigated is appropriately wide. Without a common understanding of what it means for evidence to be diverse, however, it is hard to compare what are at times diverging results. To address this, I review three perspectives from philosophy on what makes diverse evidence valuable. I will use the perspectives to frame results from psychology and assess whether people understand the value of diverse evidence on both an intuitive and explicit level. My conclusions have a leveled optimism: While people are generally aware of the value of diverse evidence, they often struggle to apply what they know. I argue this is because people do not assess the diversity of their evidence as a matter of course but rely on its intuitive diversity as a cue to its evidential diversity. When this cue is absent, people can overlook otherwise obvious problems with their evidence. This has potential consequences for how people seek out, evaluate, and understand evidence from a variety of domains, but leaves open the possibility that various interventions-such as education or reminders to attend to the quality of evidence-may increase people's application of what they know.'

Getting to the source of the illusion of consensus

Consensus between informants is a valuable cue to a claim's epistemic value, when informants' beliefs are developed independently of each other. Recent work (Yousif et al., 2019) described an illusion of consensus such that people did not generally discriminate between the epistemic warrant of true consensus, where a majority claim is supported by multiple independent sources, and false consensus arising from repetition of a single source's claim. Four experiments tested a novel account of the illusion of consensus; that it arises when people are unsure about the independence of the primary sources on which informant claims are based. When this independence relationship was ambiguous we found evidence for the illusion. However, when steps were taken to highlight the independence between data sources in the true consensus conditions, and confidence in a claim was measured against a no consensus baseline (where there was an equal number of reports supporting and opposing a claim), more weight was given to claims based on true consensus than false consensus. These findings show that although the illusion of consensus is prevalent, people do have the capacity to distinguish between true and false consensus.

Climate Change Disinformation and How to Combat It

Climate change presents a challenge at multiple levels: It challenges our cognitive abilities because the effect of the accumulation of emissions is difficult to understand. Climate change also challenges many people's worldview because any climate mitigation regime will have economic and political implications that are incompatible with libertarian ideals of unregulated free markets. These political implications have created an environment of rhetorical adversity in which disinformation abounds, thus compounding the challenges for climate communicators. The existing literature on how to communicate climate change and dispel misinformation converges on several conclusions: First, providing information about climate change, in particular explanations of why it occurs, can enhance people's acceptance of science. Second, highlighting the scientific consensus can be an effective means to counter misinformation and raise public acceptance. Third, culturally aligned messages and messengers are more likely to be successful. Finally, climate misinformation is best defanged, through a process known as inoculation, before it is encountered, although debunking techniques can also be successful.

Decision-making under the deep uncertainty of climate change: The psychological and political agency of narratives

Fossil fuel-based development has resulted in climate change and biodiversity loss, threatening the ability of the biosphere to sustain civilization. However, despite the transformative change needed to address climate change, the complexity inherent in dynamic, coupled social-ecological systems can create challenges that stifle mitigation and adaptation efforts. For example, increasing urbanization can mask information about the local and distal ecological impacts of unsustainable consumption patterns. Diverse actors, powerful vested interests in the status quo, and differential impacts of climate change create inevitable tradeoffs and conflicts among stakeholders. The multitude of plausible future scenarios and their dependence on actions taken today create challenges for planning, governance, and collective action. While there is a long history in psychology and economics of studying decision-making under uncertainty, we argue that the deep uncertainty inherent in climate change cannot be easily understood using these same paradigms. In this context, narratives-stories about how the world works, what the future will look like, and our own role in this process-can extend cognition, creating shared knowledge across space and time, and shape our beliefs, values and actions in the face of tremendous uncertainty. Narratives thus have political and psychological agency and can reinforce or challenge existing power relations and trajectories. Here, we review some of this literature in the context of climate change.

Understanding and avoiding misplaced efforts in conservation

Conservation relies on cooperation among different interest groups and appropriate use of evidence to make decisions that benefit people and biodiversity. However, misplaced conservation occurs when cooperation and evidence are impeded by polarization and misinformation. This impedance influences actions that directly harm biodiversity, alienate partners and disrupt partnerships, waste resources, misinform the public, and (or) delegitimize evidence. As a result of these actions, misplaced conservation outcomes emerge, making it more difficult to have positive outcomes for biodiversity. Here we describe cases where a failed appreciation for cooperation, evidence, or both have eroded efforts to conserve biodiversity. Generally, these case studies illustrate that averting misplaced conservation requires greater adherence to processes that elevate the role of evidence in decision-making and that place collective, long-term benefits for biodiversity over the short-term gains of individuals or groups. Efforts to integrate human dimensions, cooperation, and evidence into conservation will increase the efficacy and success of efforts to conserve global biodiversity while benefiting humanity.

Adding Types, But Not Tokens, Affects Property Induction

The extent to which we generalize a novel property from a sample of familiar instances to novel instances depends on the sample composition. Previous property induction experiments have only used samples consisting of novel types (unique entities). Because real-world evidence samples often contain redundant tokens (repetitions of the same entity), we studied the effects on property induction of adding types and tokens to an observed sample. In Experiments 1-3, we presented participants with a sample of birds or flowers known to have a novel property and probed whether this property generalized to novel items varying in similarity to the initial sample. Increasing the number of novel types (e.g., new birds with the target property) in a sample produced tightening, promoting property generalization to highly similar stimuli but decreasing generalization to less similar stimuli. On the other hand, increasing the number of tokens (e.g., repeated presentations of the same bird with the target property) had little effect on generalization. Experiment 4 showed that repeated tokens are encoded and can benefit recognition, but appear to be given little weight when inferring property generalization. We modified an existing Bayesian model of induction (Navarro, Dry, & Lee, 2012) to account for both the information added by new types and the discounting of information conveyed by tokens.

Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary

The transformation of a power supply, a social-technical system suffering from a heavy lock-ins, requires structural adaptations which are extremely complex. All actors in social acceptance processes have either strong vested interests in the current system or are challenging these. In strategies developed by those actors, so-called ‘frames’ play a key role. These are biased problem definitions and mental shortcuts, tools to affect the course of decision-making processes. Examples are “clean coal”, “smart grid”, “base-load”, or “decentralized”. Framing is fundamental to political processes, including those of decision making on renewables. This review presents a glossary of significant frames used in social acceptance processes of renewables’ innovation in power supply systems. The identified frames are classified and presented with, in each entry, one significant frame discussed and analyzed in relation to its most associated frames. Overall, the contrast comes to the fore between the paradigm of the current heavy centralized and hierarchically managed power supply system, on the one hand, and the newly emerging concepts around distributed generation on the other hand. Within these two clusters and in between, certain frames are focused on issues of ownership and control of infrastructures, while others concern allocation of space for establishing infrastructure.

Vaccination Discussion among Parents on Social Media: A Content Analysis of Comments on Parenting Blogs

Despite the effectiveness of vaccines, parents are increasingly opting for non-medical exemption. For health advice on such topics, many parents are now more likely to look to online communities than rely on medical expertise. There is scant literature outlining how parents contribute to online discussion of vaccination. The purpose of this study was to analyze parent vaccination opinions expressed online. Using a codebook adapted from previous research, content analysis was conducted to evaluate comments on parenting blog posts related to vaccination. Variables included stance, argument rhetoric, and accuracy of information. Comments recognized as aggressive or accusatory were recorded into an "attack" category. Descriptive statistics were used to assess trends in comment content. Nine blogs were included, from which 244 comments were analyzed. The most common argument rhetoric was providing, requesting, or evaluating source credibility for both pro- and anti-vaccine comments (24% and 36%). 25% of comments were considered inaccurate health information; 27% fell into the "attack" category, of which 60% were pro-vaccination. The high percentage of "attack" comments and inaccurate information is evidence that blog comments may not be reliable for information-seeking parents. Clinicians should use this data to understand anti-vaccination arguments in efforts to improve vaccine communication.

The Illusion of Consensus: A Failure to Distinguish Between True and False Consensus

When evaluating information, we cannot always rely on what has been presented as truth: Different sources might disagree with each other, and sometimes there may be no underlying truth. Accordingly, we must use other cues to evaluate information-perhaps the most salient of which is consensus. But what counts as consensus? Do we attend only to surface-level indications of consensus, or do we also probe deeper and consider why sources agree? Four experiments demonstrated that individuals evaluate consensus only superficially: Participants were equally confident in conclusions drawn from a true consensus (derived from independent primary sources) and a false consensus (derived from only one primary source). This phenomenon was robust, occurring even immediately after participants explicitly stated that a true consensus was more believable than a false consensus. This illusion of consensus reveals a powerful means by which misinformation may spread.

Tracking arctic marine mammal resilience in an era of rapid ecosystem alteration

Global warming is significantly altering arctic marine ecosystems. Specifically, the precipitous loss of sea ice is creating a dichotomy between ice-dependent polar bears and pinnipeds that are losing habitat and some cetaceans that are gaining habitat. While final outcomes are hard to predict for the many and varied marine mammal populations that rely on arctic habitats, we suggest a simplified framework to assess status, based upon ranking a population's size, range, behavior, and health. This basic approach is proposed as a means to prioritize and expedite conservation and management efforts in an era of rapid ecosystem alteration.

Climate communication for biologists: When a picture can tell a thousand words

Pictures often tell a story better than the proverbial 1,000 words. However, in connection with climate change, many pictures can be highly misleading, for example, when a snowball is used to ridicule the notion of global warming or when a picture of a dead crop is supposed to alert people to climate change. We differentiate between such inappropriate pictures and those that can be used legitimately because they capture long-term trends. For example, photos of a glacier's retreat are legitimate indicators of the long-term mass balance loss that is observed for the vast majority of glaciers around the world.