Blog post

Communicating risk & uncertainty

Nov 15, 2012 by | 11 Comments

How can the risks and uncer­tainty of cli­mate change be better com­mu­nic­ated? This ques­tion – reg­u­larly posed, but seldom answered – was the central issue addressed at a work­shop held at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford University, on 15th November.

Chaired and con­vened by James Painter, the author of ‘Poles Apart’ (a report that ana­lysed the pre­val­ence of scep­tical cli­mate voices in the media), the opening address was given by David Spiegelhalter, a spe­cialist on risk per­cep­tions based at Cambridge University. Spiegelhalter argued that inac­curate reporting of risk in the media was primarily caused by the poor press releases issued by journals and uni­ver­sity press offices – although speaking later in the day, Emily Shuckburgh (also from Cambridge University, and one of the authors of recent report ‘Climate Science & the Media’) sug­gested that the lan­guage sci­ent­ists use in news­paper quotes is often misleading.

Based on her recent invest­ig­a­tion into public views on cli­mate change, Shuckburgh reported that phrases like ‘loading the dice’ (often recom­mended as a com­mu­nic­ative tool to describe the way that cli­mate change influ­ences the chance of extreme weather events) actu­ally led people to infer that cli­mate sci­ent­ists were ‘loading the dice’ in terms of the under­lying sci­ence, attempting to unduly influ­ence the out­come of their research.

Nick Pidgeon – Professor of Environmental Psychology at Cardiff University – pointed out that no recom­mend­a­tions for improving the com­mu­nic­a­tion of cli­mate change will ever amount to much if it is not prop­erly funded. Pidgeon argued that there is an urgent need for a com­mu­nic­a­tions infra­struc­ture to be built into the funding of cli­mate research, such that dis­sem­in­a­tion and public engage­ment is con­sidered the norm.

Echoing Pidgeon’s com­ments, Chris Rapley (ex Director of the Science Museum) pro­posed that cli­mate sci­ent­ists need to have the con­fid­ence to take more active roles in debates about cli­mate change, raising the intriguing pos­sib­ility that models of sci­ence com­mu­nic­a­tion – cur­rently con­strued – are simply not fit for purpose.

In a sen­ti­ment that seemed to be widely shared by the cli­mate sci­ent­ists present, Myles Allen argued that the forth­coming 5th Assessment Report should be the IPCC’s last. Allen’s view was that a mono­lithic state­ment of cli­mate sci­ence know­ledge every five years was no longer the most helpful way to com­mu­nicate cli­mate change. Instead, smaller, more focused reports aimed at spe­cific target audi­ences would make not only a more useful state­ment of cur­rent know­ledge, but a less vul­ner­able target for cli­mate sceptic attacks. One mis­take in the entire doc­u­ment can cur­rently provide a reason for some to doubt the vera­city of the whole cannon of cli­mate know­ledge. If it were not designed to be one, single, defin­itive state­ment, this situ­ation could be avoided.

Speaking from the audi­ence, the IPCC’s com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ector, Jonathan Lynn, defended the struc­ture of the organ­isa­tion, and argued against more par­ti­cip­ative forms of engage­ment like blog­ging. The mood of the room, how­ever, sug­gested this atti­tude was out of step with the way that most people viewed the future of cli­mate change communication.

Completing the day, a panel of journ­al­ists chaired by Tom Sheldon from the Science Media Centre put their per­spective on com­mu­nic­ating risk and uncer­tainty across. Fiona Harvey, the Guardian’s well-regarded Environment cor­res­pondent, was unam­biguous about where she thought most biases and inac­curacies in sci­ence reporting came from: the lobby reporters at the House of Commons, fed polit­ical ‘leaks’ and ‘spin’ from Ministers and their Special Advisors. Although the source of most sci­ence ‘news’ is not politi­cians, it seems a little bit of ‘In the thick of it’ spirit is reserved for sci­ence communication.

11 Comments + Add Comment

  • Sounds like a wide ran­ging and com­pre­hensive dis­cus­sion — encom­passing all shades of opinion on the cli­mate sci­ence debate.

    Did you just forget to men­tion the names of the scep­tical attendees — or was it really just another “anyone who dis­agrees with us is a swivel eyed loony” circle –jerk?

  • The event was by invit­a­tion, to those who are act­ively involved in com­mu­nic­ating risk/uncertainty around cli­mate change and sci­ence in gen­eral. I did not organise it, nor decide who attended. That no ‘scep­tical attendees’ were present says some­thing about either:

    a) the low pre­val­ence of this view among active actors in the com­mu­nic­ating risk and uncer­tainty domain
    b) yet more evid­ence of the covert oper­a­tion to exclude anyone not of this view from the debate.

    My view is a).

  • c) group­think by those involved, and the believe in com­mu­nic­a­tion is a one way process?

  • Speaking from the audi­ence, the IPCC’s com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ector, Jonathan Lynn, defended the struc­ture of the organ­isa­tion, and argued against more par­ti­cip­ative forms of engage­ment like blogging.

    How very pre­dict­able of Lynn — and how very typ­ical of the IPCC’s con­trol the mes­sage modus operandi. But here’s another per­spective on this sem­inar, offered by SciDev’s David Dickson [h/t Tom Nelson], which includes:

    Jonathan Lynn, head of com­mu­nic­a­tions for the IPCC, points out that it is up to the 195 member gov­ern­ment of the inter­gov­ern­mental panel to decide on the type of reports it should pro­duce, and that it already pub­lishes reports on spe­cific topics, in addi­tion to its syn­thesis reports.

    One can well ima­gine that Lynn would have been none too thrilled with the fol­lowing com­ments Dickson attrib­utes to Myles Allen:

    as a result of cri­ti­cisms of earlier reports “IPCC state­ments are becoming so leg­al­istic that their value as a com­mu­nic­a­tion tool is diminishing”.

    We should give up on the ‘Stalinist’ notion of a single inform­a­tion vehicle,” Allen told the meeting, organ­ised by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, part of the Department of Politics and International Relations at Oxford.

    Allen sug­gested that the IPCC pro­cess was partly motiv­ated by a desire “to make a big media splash,” as a way of get­ting key mes­sages through to policymakers.

    But this could back­fire when it came to con­veying the uncer­tain­ties con­tained in cli­mate change predictions.

    It is inter­esting to com­pare Dickson’s take with that of Corner. Kinda makes one wonder if Corner’s sum­mary of Allen’s obser­va­tions — in which he depicts (and seems to attribute to Allen) skeptic views as “attacks” — is not heavily weighted by Corner’s own pre­con­cep­tions and enviro-activist views.

  • I can find no ref­er­ence to this work­shop at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism web­site.
    Can you help?

  • hi Geoff I don’t think there is a page to link to, or I would have included it. I’d sug­gest con­tacting the person who organ­ised it you have questions…

  • […] recently, Corner posted his take on a November 15 sem­inar on “Communicating Risk and Uncertainty”. One of the […]

  • That no ‘scep­tical attendees’ were present says some­thing about either: a) the low pre­val­ence of this view among active actors in the com­mu­nic­ating risk and uncer­tainty domain […]”

    Is it your view that cli­mate scep­tics are *not* active actors com­mu­nic­ating with the public on uncer­tain­ties and risks regarding cli­mate science/policy?

    I have to say, I wouldn’t have thought it was an effort to exclude cli­mate scep­tics from the debate, either. I would have cat­egor­ised it as a strategy plan­ning ses­sion by par­tisans on one side of the debate. They invited people who they expected to be able to con­tribute useful strategies for their own side.

    Even so, having some­body from the other side could actu­ally be useful given the right con­di­tions, as they would be able to advise you on how cli­mate scep­tics would be likely to respond, point out obvious weak­nesses and counter-arguments, and per­haps give examples of scep­tical present­a­tions that you could then figure out how to counter. But seeking out the best opposing argu­ments is a soph­ist­ic­atedly sci­entific Enlightenment-inspired sort of strategy. (You’ll recall Mill’s dis­cus­sion of this point in ‘On Liberty’, for example.) That might there­fore be highly counter-productive for making the ‘global warming cata­strophe’ argument!

  • […] All too often, public debate about cli­mate change hap­pens by acci­dent or when someone works to engineer a news event: when there is a polit­ical scandal – be this “cli­mategate” of cli­mate sci­ent­ists or “energy­gate” exposing politi­cians – or when act­ivist engineer stunts like flash­mobs at the British Museum or living up chim­neys for a week. At a recent dis­cus­sion on com­mu­nic­ating uncer­tainty held at the University of Oxford, cli­mate sci­entist Myles Allen made the inter­esting sug­ges­tion that the IPCC should stop pub­lishing Assessment Reports, as they serve no useful public com­mu­nic­a­tions pur­pose (Adam Corner has a good report on this event). […]

  • […] at how Talking Climate’s Adam Corner explored uncer­tainty versus risk as an aca­demic finding in November 2012. Compare that to his forceful Jan. 31 Guardian piece calling for the framing of risk over […]

  • […] at how Talking Climate’s Adam Corner explored uncer­tainty versus risk as an aca­demic finding in November 2012. Compare that to his forceful Jan. 31 Guardian piece calling for the framing of risk over […]

Make a comment

Creative Commons 2011 - 2015, Talking Climate
A project by COIN & PIRC.
This website is a project of Climate Outreach

This website, a project of Climate Outreach (COIN), has been integrated into the new Climate Outreach website. Any updates since 21 October 2015 have been made to the new website only, not here, and this website will soon be deleted. Please bookmark our new website – we look forward to continuing to share the latest in climate communication research with you. We are now tweeting from @climateoutreach so please follow us there.