Preface to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication

July 19, 2017 — Because of the complexity and urgency of climate change, efforts to understand the problem’s social, cultural, and political dimensions must stretch beyond the environmental sciences and economics to be truly multi-disciplinary. To this end, over the past two decades, a growing community of scholars have focused on the factors that influence public understanding, perceptions, and behaviors relative to climate change; the nature of journalistic, media, and cultural portrayals and their effects; and the role that public communication, outreach and advocacy play in shaping societal decisions. This research has taken place across disciplines, countries and continents, generating broad-based interest and discussion.

A version of this article appears as the Preface to the Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication.

There have also been well resourced and highly visible efforts to apply this research to the communication activities of experts, professionals, and advocates as they work to influence societal decisions related to climate change. Most notably, research in this area has been a central focus of the global environmental movement and climate science community, the public engagement with science movement in the UK and Europe, the science of science communication movement in the U.S., the climate change communication movements in Australia and Canada, and the still nascent climate change communication efforts in India and China, to name a few leading examples.

Until now, however, there has not existed a leading scholarly outlet where the broad range of climate change communication, media and public opinion research is reviewed, synthesized, and critiqued; or translated in relation to other disciplines and professions. To address this gap, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication is a curated series of 115 original peer-reviewed articles published in print and digital format, and by way of the web-based Oxford Research Encyclopedia (ORE) Climate Science. The collected articles comprehensively review research on climate change communication, advocacy, media and cultural portrayals, and their relationship to societal decisions, public knowledge, perceptions, and behavior. Co-authored by more than 250 experts representing more than a dozen disciplines and twenty countries, the commissioned articles reflect five main areas of scholarship and research. These include:

Communication and Social Change

Collectively, the articles in this volume reveal a deep knowledge base about the barriers to public engagement with climate change, and the social and political obstacles to effectively managing the many risks involved. Scholars across countries have examined how values, social identity, mental models, discourses, social ties, culture, media, interest groups, economic conditions, geography, and weather shape individual judgments and collective decisions. They have also tracked the evolution of climate change as a social problem in relation to specific media systems and political arenas, describing the factors that drive the framing of debate. Yet not surprisingly, given the complexities involved, even after more than twenty years of research, easy answers on how to mobilize the political will needed to meaningfully address the problem are not readily apparent.

In regards to such solutions, researchers tend to conform to one of four different camps of thinking that map to slightly differing theories of social change. A first school of thought, comprised mostly of social psychologists, communication researchers, and decision scientists, views the challenge as a matter of persuasion: How can climate change be reframed in a way that resonates with the identities, priorities, and interests of different publics and be communicated about by trusted opinion-leaders? Through such strategies, public opinion will eventually pass a certain threshold of perceived urgency and importance, creating the political conditions for national and international policymakers to take aggressive action. A second group, comprised mostly of political scientists and sociologists, views the issue as a matter of power-based politics, requiring strategies and tactics that mobilize social movements and interest groups that pressure elected officials and industry leaders to ratchet up their efforts to address the problem.

A third group, comprised of more humanistic and critical scholars, views the issue as one of dialogue and deliberation: the challenge is to facilitate the opportunities for different publics to learn about, debate, and participate in collective decisions about climate change, and to co-produce knowledge about risks and solutions alongside the expert community. By building a stronger, more democratic public sphere at the local and national levels, the issue will eventually be better managed. Finally, a fourth group of scholars approach their research far less instrumentally. For them, the social dimensions of climate change are the ultimate puzzle worthy of study and inquiry. Their research is not intended to inform communication campaigns or political strategy. Rather their goal is to understand what climate change tells us about human psychology, society, culture, politics, or media systems. As scholars, they serve in an interrogatory role, exploring questions but not offering advice on how society can move forward to solve the pressing problems involved.

For many readers of the Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication, one of these schools of thought is likely to be the principal lens by which they approach the collected articles, guiding their choices about what to pay attention to and what to accept as valid. I encourage readers, however, to engage in a more flexible and critical reading of the volume, seeking to engage with the multiple assumptions and perspectives offered by the more than 250 co-authors. Their conclusions frequently counter conventional assumptions and narratives about the roots of societal inaction on climate change and effective directions forward. By considering these differing perspectives, as readers we can come to hold our own assumptions and biases more lightly, and it is only as a product of such critical self-reflection that new insights are likely to emerge.


Nisbet, M.C. (2018). Preface. In M.C. Nisbet (Ed), Ho, S., Markowitz, E., O’Neill, S., Schafer, M., Thaker, J.T. (Assoc. Editors). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. New York: Oxford University Press.


The superbug crisis: False beliefs about antibiotics are a global threat

January 1, 2017 — As millions of Americans visit their health care providers this winter complaining of a cold, surveys suggest that one in four will be expecting their provider to prescribe them an antibiotic, falsely believing that the antibiotic will help them recover more quickly from the virus (Watkins et al. 2015). The demand for antibiotics by patients is not surprising, considering other survey findings. Only about half of Americans know correctly that antibiotics kill bacteria but not viruses, a proportion that has remained relatively stable for more than a decade (Hwang et al. 2015).

In recent decades, similarly false beliefs across countries have contributed to a dangerous rise in antibiotic use. Between 2000 and 2010, worldwide sales of antibiotics by pharmacies and hospitals increased 36 percent. Overall, India, China, and the United States use the most antibiotics, though Americans are by far the highest per capita consumers (Van Boeckel et al. 2014). In fact, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (2013) estimates that 50 percent of all antibiotics prescribed in the United States are not warranted.

This article appeared in the Jan/Feb 2017 issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

The overuse of antibiotics in the United States and other countries combined with the rapid growth in the use of antibiotics to grow livestock has led to the evolution of lethal “superbugs,” bacteria that are resistant to most antibiotics. When people overuse antibiotics, they are more likely to kill off “good” bacteria in their bodies that protect them from infection. Drug-resistant bacteria are then more likely to take over, festering in places such as the gut. These superbugs can spread to other people at home and at work or in a hospital.

The rise of superbugs and the loss of antibiotic effectiveness not only makes it more difficult to combat common threats, such as urinary tract infections or pneumonia, but those patients undergoing joint replacements, dental surgery, cancer therapy, and other procedures—who often depend on antibiotics to recover—are also put at high risk.

Each year at least 2 million Americans battle serious bacterial infections that are resistant to one or more antibiotics, and at least 23,000 die annually as a direct result of those infections (Centers for Disease Control 2013). In a recent report, the World Bank (2016) warned that by 2050 the growth in drug-resistant infections, if not contained, would cause a level of global economic damage equivalent to, if not worse than, the 2008 financial crisis.

Responding to the threat, in 2015 the Obama administration set a goal of by 2020 cutting inappropriate use of antibiotics in hospitals by 20 percent and in other health care settings by 50 percent. Recognizing that antibiotic resistance is an international problem that cannot be solved by the actions of a single country, a United Kingdom report last year called for a “massive global public awareness campaign” so that patients no longer demand—and health care providers do not prescribe—unnecessary anti­biotics (Review on Antimicrobial Resistance 2016).

Communicating in the Dark

To be sure, more than just public education is needed. The widespread and unnecessary use of antibiotics in agriculture must be ended; sanitation and clean water systems must be built in poorer countries; drug companies must step up to develop new antibiotics; and health agencies need funding for the early detection of emerging superbugs, concludes the recent U.K. report.

But changing the beliefs of the public is also essential. Health care providers are under immense pressure from patients to provide antibiotics for treatment of colds and other viral illnesses. A 2012 survey found that half of U.S. health care providers say that their patients expect an antibiotic when visiting for a viral infection. Research shows that a health care provider’s perceptions of patient expectations are important, since they tend to be a reliable predictor of over-prescribing. Patients also report other means by which they obtain antibiotics, using prescriptions left over from past visits or using those obtained by a family member or friend (Watkins et al. 2015).

The problem in mounting a public education campaign is that only a handful of quality studies and surveys exist that evaluate public attitudes and beliefs, providing little basis by which to design and target messages or to plan other persuasion strategies. Those few studies available reveal a variety of substantial communication challenges and barriers.

In the United States and Europe, members of the public still do not see antibiotic resistance as a personally relevant problem that poses risks to their health or that is a function of their own choices as a health consumer. Instead, they tend to blame doctors, hospitals, and the government. They also believe that science is likely to find a solution in the form of new antibiotics and, as of yet, do not see the need for major changes in individual behavior, health care practice, or policy (McCullough et al. 2016; Wiklund et al. 2015).

The 2016 U.K. report estimates the budget for a global public education campaign at $100 million, an absurdly low figure. The research costs of adequately mapping and evaluating the views of different segments of the public across countries, identifying the types of messages that are likely to be persuasive, the sources that they trust for information, and the local channels by which to reach people would alone easily exceed that figure. The budget for the actual advertising and campaign efforts would be much greater.

In September 2016, all 193 member countries of the United Nations signed a declaration committing to a process that sets goals and timelines for reducing the use of antibiotics in medicine and agriculture. The model for the process reflects past UN efforts on climate change.

However, for decades on the topic of climate change, world governments and scientific bodies were slow to recognize the need to invest in social science-based research to inform public communication efforts, and they continue to underfund initiatives aimed at engaging the public on actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hopefully we have learned a lesson. In combating the superbug threat, we cannot afford to delay investing in the communication research and activities needed to decrease the overuse of antibiotics.


Nisbet, M.C. (2017). The Superbug Crisis: False Beliefs about Antibiotics Are a Global Threat. Skeptical Inquirer, 41 (1).


  • Centers for Disease Control. 2013. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at
  • Hwang, T.J., K.A. Gibbs, S.H. Podolsky, et al. 2015. Antimicrobial stewardship and public knowledge of antibiotics. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 15(9): 1000–1001.
  • McCullough, A.R., S. Parekh, J. Rathbone, et al. 2016. A systematic review of the public’s knowledge and beliefs about antibiotic resistance. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 71(1): 27–33.
  • Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. 2016. Tackling Drug-Resistant Infections Globally: Final Report and Recommendations. Available online at
  • Van Boeckel, T.P., S. Gandra, A. Ashok, et al. 2014. Global antibiotic consumption 2000 to 2010: An analysis of national pharmaceutical sales data. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 14(8): 742–750.
  • Watkins, L.K.F., G.V. Sanchez, A.P. Albert, et al. 2015. Knowledge and attitudes regarding antibiotic use among adult consumers, adult Hispanic consumers, and health care providers—United States, 2012–2013. MMWR-Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 64(28): 767–770.
  • Wiklund, S., I. Fagerberg, Å Örtqvist., et al. 2015. Knowledge and understanding of antibiotic resistance and the risk of becoming a carrier when travelling abroad: A qualitative study of Swedish travellers. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health43(3): 302–308.
  • World Bank. 2016. Drug-Resistant Infections: A Threat to Our Economic Future (Discussion Draft). Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at

Climate change communication, energy politics, and journalism: Syllabus and schedule

September 1, 2016--In this advanced seminar, students apply research and best practices to communicating about and reporting on climate change and energy issues. Course work prepares students for careers in journalism, advocacy, government, and strategic communication. Students analyze major debates over the environment, climate change, and related technologies; assessing how they are portrayed by experts, advocates, and the media; and the implications for effective journalism, communication, and policymaker engagement.  Students gain an integrated understanding of the different roles they can play as professionals, advocates, citizens, and consumers. In doing so, they will have improved their ability to find, discuss, evaluate, and use expert sources of information; assess competing media claims and narratives; think strategically and critically; and write impactful, evidence-based news stories, analyses, and commentaries. Stories are published at the New England Climate Change Review, a website covering climate and energy in New England and beyond.


  • Reading Familiarity Quizzes (10%): Each Tuesday class will begin with a short quiz testing your familiarity with the assigned readings and the previous week’s major news stories.
  • News Article on New Study or Report (15%): You will choose a recently published peer-reviewed study or expert report along with their accompanying news releases, where possible. These studies should relate to a New England-related issue; or be authored by a New England-based expert or organization. For this assignment, chose one that you can develop into a 700-word news story relevant to New England readership. Take care to advance the story beyond the information provided in the paper and news release by using at least one additional interview source, who you must interview in person or by phone, or by email, and one additional piece of documentary evidence. Documentary evidence includes: a report from an official organization or institution; scientific paper; speech; policy paper; research report; or book. Please note that a media statement or press release or published news item in a newspaper, magazine, online or broadcast news item does not constitute a documentary source.  You must pitch the idea and story to me by email and I must agree to it.
  • Trend or Backgrounder Article (15%): For this assignment, you must find, develop and produce an original 800-word science news trend or background story on a topic of your choice, aimed at New England readership. The story should have at least three sources. One source must be a paper published in a scientific journal. One source must be an interview. You can write the story in a hard news format; or in a format that reflects evolving online approaches to trend and backgrounder stories such as a story. You must pitch the idea and the format to me by email, and I must agree to it.
  • News Analysis Article (15%): Choosing among the weekly thematic topics, you must write a 1,000-word news analysis article building on, synthesizing, and evaluating the research and arguments posed, pegging the issues discussed to recent events or developments with a focus that is relevant to a New England readership. You must pitch the idea and the format to me by email, and I must agree to it. You should aim to make the news analysis a well-written and seamless discussion that combines your analysis of recent news items with references to points raised in relevant course readings.
  • Commentary / Op-Ed (15%): Choosing among the weekly thematic topics, you must write a 800 word op-ed building on, synthesizing, and evaluating the research and arguments posed, pegging the issues discussed to recent events or developments with a focus that is relevant to a New England readership. Your op-ed must have a clear point of view and distinctive voice. You must pitch the idea and the format to me by email and I must agree to it. You should aim to make your commentary a well-written and seamless argument that combines your analysis of recent news items with references to points raised in relevant course readings.
  • In Depth Report or Analysis (30%): Choosing a climate change or energy topic, you must write a 2,000-word article aimed at New England readers. Choose the topic yourselves, but you must first pitch it to me by email, and I must agree to it, before you can proceed. Stories must contain at least two original interviews and at least three documentary sources: a report from an official organization or institution; scientific paper; speech; policy paper; research report; or book. Please note that a media statement or press release or published news item in a newspaper, magazine, online or broadcast news item does not constitute a documentary source. As part of this assignment, you must present in class on your story, describing how you came up with the idea, how you reported it and why you decided to report in the style and format that you chose. Crucially, you must also reflect on how the readings and class shaped your understanding of how you reported this story.


  1. Represent yourself accurately to sources. You must always let people know you are a reporter and that your story could potentially be published at the Northeastern Climate Change Review. You must make this clear to sources. All submissions for this class could potentially be published.
  2. Do not use unnamed or anonymous sources without prior approval. Occasionally you will encounter sources who do not want to give their names, but unless there is a serious risk to the source of going on the record, you should do your best to convince them to speak on the record. You must clear any use of an unnamed or anonymous source with me before you turn in the assignment.
  3. Use proper attribution. Only live interviews may be quoted directly. Anything off a press release, Web site, statement, another article must be attributed as such.
  4. Include a source appendix. As an appendix to each assignment, please provide:
  • A list of sources that you interviewed personally for the article, the interview method (by phone, in person, via email), the interview dates, and contact details for the source (phone and email);
  • Full references to any documentary sources cited;
  • Full references to the sources of secondary information (previous articles, quotations taken from previously published material, such as previous news reports, books, etc) used in the article;
  • A list of sources of background information not cited in the article. 


                   There are no required texts to purchase for this course. All of the assigned readings are either freely available online, by way of the Northeastern University library; or by way of major news organizations. However, you are strongly advised for purposes of this course to purchase a digital monthly subscription to the Boston Globe. Your subscription will be needed to access several assigned readings; but more importantly to research your stories and articles.


As part of this course, you are expected to be a voracious reader and evaluator of climate change and energy news coverage. Specifically, on a daily and weekly basis, you are expected to read the following sources and journalists. Your familiarity with their coverage will be tested as part of your weekly quizzes:


 Fri. Sept 9 – Class Overview and Introductions


Tues. Sept 13 & Fri. Sept 16 – Our Climate Change Future

  • Climate Ready Boston (2016, Spring). Climate Projections Consensus. [Read Summary Document]
  • Abel, D. (2016, June 22). Climate Change Could Be Worse for Boston than Thought. Boston Globe. [HTML]
  • Gillis, J. (2016, Sept. 3). Flooding of Coast Caused by Climate Change Has Already Begun. The New York Times. [HTML]
  • Belluz, J. (2015, Nov. 30). Why climate change is increasingly seen as an urgent health issue. [HTML]
  • Fernandez, I.J., C.V. Schmitt, S.D. Birkel, E. Stancioff, A.J. Pershing, J.T. Kelley, J.A. Runge, G.L. Jacobson, & P.A. Mayewski. 2015. Maine’s Climate Future: 2015 Update. Orono, ME: University of Maine. [PDF]
  • Abel, D. (2014, Sept. 21). In Maine, Scientists See Signs of Climate Change. Boston Globe [HTML]
  • Woodward, C. (2015, Oct. 25). MayDay: Gulf of Maine in Distress. Portland Press Herald. 6 part series [HTML]

Tues. Sept 20 — Our Energy Future

  • Fitzgerald, J. (2016, March 12). Clean energy industry goes mainstream amid investments. Boston Globe [HTML]
  • Gillis, J. (2016, Aug. 22). America’s First Offshore Wind Farm May Power Up a New Industry. The New York Times. [HTML]
  • Turkel, T. (2016, July 10). Risky choices paying off for UMaine’s wind project. Portland Press Herald. [HTML]
  • Abel, D. (2016, May 16).  Carbon emissions rising at New England power plants. The Boston Globe [HTML]
  • Mooney, C. (2016, Aug. 11). Turns out wind and solar have a secret friend: Natural gas. Washington Post. [HTML]
  • (2016, July 29). We Must Preserve Nuclear Power Plants. Commonwealth Magazine. [HTML]
  • Mohl, B. (2016, July 31). Lawmakers give late-night OK to energy bill. Commonwealth Magazine [HTML]
  • Berwick, A. (2016, Aug. 3). Energy Bill a Solid Step Forward. Commonwealth Magazine. [HTML]
  • Gerwatowski, R. (2016, Aug. 3). The inconvenient truth of energy policy. Commonwealth Magazine. [HTML]
  • Turkel, T. (2016, July 30). Expect your electric bill to go up for the next few years. Portland Press Herald. [HTML]

Fri. Sept. 23 — NO CLASS 


Tues. Sept. 27 — Reporting on Scientific Studies and Reports

  • Siegfried, T. (2005). “Reporting from science journals”. In Blum, D., Knudson, M., & Marantz Henig, R. (Eds). A Field Guide for Science Writers: The Official Guide of the National Association of Science Writers (pp 11-17). New York: Oxford University Press. [Distributed to Class]
  • Journalist’s Resource (2011, Sept. 27)  Research chat: Andrew Revkin on covering and using scholarship. [HTML]
  • Journalist’s Resource (2016, June 1). Interviewing a source: Rules of the road; talking with officials and experts. [HTML]
  • Journalist’s Resource (2015, March 26). Eight questions to ask when interpreting academic studies: A primer for media. [HTML]
  • Borenstein, S. (2016, Sept. 7). NOAA: Global warming increased odds for Louisiana downpour. Associated Press. [HTML]
  • Kintisch, E. (2016, June 9). Is wacky weather helping melt Greenland? Science magazine [HTML]
  • Revkin, A. (2013, March 12). Can Wind, Water and Sunlight Power New York by 2050? Dot Earth blog, The New York Times [HTML]

 Friday, Sept. 30 — Trend Stories, News Analysis, and Commentary

  • Abel, D. (2016, Aug 27). Drought’s effects mount as dry weather continues. The Boston Globe [HTML]
  • Jackson, D.Z. (2016, July 22). San Diego sets an example for Mass. on renewable energy. The Boston Globe [HTML]
  • Jackson, D.Z. (2016, May 13). With Obama cuts, Mass. should rethink its reliance on natural gas. The Boston Globe [HTML]
  • Porter, E. (2016, July 19). How Renewable Energy Is Blowing Climate Change Efforts Off Course. The New York Times [HTML]
  • Porter, E. (2016, April 19). Liberal Biases, Too, May Block Progress on Climate Change. The New York Times [HTML]
  • Plumer, B. (2014, April 22). Two degrees: The world set a simple goal for climate change. We’re likely to miss it. [HTML]
  • Merchant, E.F. (2016, March 18). Is it Game Over for Coal? The New Republic. [HTML]

Friday, Oct. 7 —  Story Angles, Frames, and Visuals

  • Nisbet, M.C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter to Public Engagement.Environment, 51 (2), 514-518. [HTML]
  • Journalist Resource (2016, Apr 18). Localizing the climate change mitigation story in your state and region: Some data tools to use. [HTML]
  • Climate Outreach (2016). Climate Visuals – 7 Key Visuals for Climate Change Communication. (Skim Report and Visuals Web Site) [HTML]
  • Journalist Resource (2016, Apr 1). Getting started with data visualization: A quick primer to jump-start the process. [HTML]


Tues. Oct. 4 – What Kind of Problem is Climate Change?

  • Nisbet, M. C. (2014). Disruptive ideas: public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(6), 809-823. [HTML] [PDF]
  • McKibben, B. (2016, Aug. 15). A World at War: We’re under attack from climate change—and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII. New Republic. [HTML]
  • Rayner, S. (2016, Aug. 31). A Climate Movement at War. The Breakthrough [HTML]

Tues. Oct. 18 & Fri. Oct. 21 — Climate Communication Challenges & Strategies

  • Nisbet, M.C. & Markowitz, E. (2016, March). Americans’ Attitudes About Science and Technology: The Social Context for Public Communication. AAAS Leshner Leadership Institute. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. [PDF] [Read through climate change section]
  • Geiling, N. (2014, May 7). Why doesn’t anyone know how to talk about global warming? The Smithsonian magazine. [HTML]
  • Voosen, P. (2014, Nov 3). Seeking a Climate Change. Chronicle of Higher Education. [HTML]
  • Hoffman, A. (2012). Climate Science as Culture War. Stanford Social Innovation Review. [HTML]
  • Nisbet, M.C. & Markowitz, E. (2016). Strategic Science Communication on Environmental Issues. AAAS Leshner Leadership Institute. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. [PDF]

Tues. Oct 25 & Fri. Oct. 28 —Journalistic Challenges & Shifting Roles

  • Gibson, T. A., Craig, R. T., Harper, A. C., & Alpert, J. M. (2015). Covering global warming in dubious times: Environmental reporters in the new media ecosystem. Journalism. [Library Gateway]
  • Brainard, C. (2015). The changing ecology of news and news organizations: Implications for environmental news. In A. Hansen and R. Cox (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Environment and Communication (pp.168-185). London: Routledge. [Distributed to Class]
  • Revkin, A. 2007. “Climate change as news: Challenges in communicating environmental science”. In J.C. DiMento & P.M. Doughman (Eds.).Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Boston, MA: MIT Press, pp. 139-160. [PDF]
  • Fahy, D. & Nisbet, M.C. (2011). The Science Journalist Online: Shifting Roles and Emerging Practices. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 12: 778-793. [HTML]
  • Nisbet, M.C. & Fahy, D. (2015). The Need for Knowledge-based Journalism in Politicized Science Debates. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 223-234. [PDF]


Tues. Nov. 1 & Fri. Nov. 4 — Journalism and the “Climate Change Denial” Movement

  • Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, 144-160. [Google Books]
  • Feldman, L. (2016). The Effects of Network and Cable TV News Viewing on Climate Change Opinion, Knowledge, and Behavior. ORE Climate Science. [Distributed to Class]
  • Mayer, J. (2016). Dark money: The hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right. Doubleday, pgs 198-225 [Distributed to Class]
  • Jerving, S. et al (2015, Oct. 9). What Exxon knew about the Earth’s melting Arctic. The Los Angeles Times [HTML]
  • Lewandowsky, S., Oreskes, N., Risbey, J. S., Newell, B. R., & Smithson, M. (2015). Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community. Global Environmental Change, 33, 1-13. [HTML]
  • Howarth, C. C., & Sharman, A. G. (2015). Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(2), 239-254. [Library Gateway]
  • Colford, P. (2015, Sept. 22). An addition to AP Stylebook entry on global warming. Associated Press. [HTML]

Tues. Nov. 15  The Election: What Happened and What’s Next?

  • Guillen, A. et al (2016, Nov. 12). Trump’s win upends climate fight. Politico. [HTML]
  • Revkin, A. (2016, Nov. 9). Prospects for the Climate, and Environmentalism, Under President Trump. New York Times [HTML]
  • Plumer B. (2016, Nov. 9). There’s no way around it: Donald Trump looks like a disaster for the planet. [HTML]
  • Brooks, D. (2016, Nov. 11). The View from Trump Tower. The New York Times [HTML]
  • Greenwald, G. (2016, Nov. 9). Democrats, Trump, and the Ongoing, Dangerous Refusal to Learn the Lesson of Brexit. The Intercept. [HTML]

Friday Nov. 19 — Sicence, Journalism and Advocacy in Turbulent Times

  • Donner, S. D. (2014). Finding your place on the science–advocacy continuum: an editorial essay. Climatic change, 124(1-2), 1-8. [PDF]
  • Stephenson, W. (2012, Nov. 5). A Convenient Excuse. The Boston Phoenix [HTML]
  • Nisbet, M.C. (2015, Oct. 23). MIT rejects fossil fuel divestment but is still a leader on climate change. The Conversation. [HTML]



Tues. Nov. 29 – Tues. Dec. 6


Partisan pandemics: Political divisions likely to impact U.S. perceptions of Zika threat

August 1, 2016 —In the lead up to the 2016 Olympics in Brazil, global news attention has focused on the impact of the Zika virus in the country, including efforts to halt the spread of the mosquito-borne virus across Latin America, the Caribbean, and other regions.

People who contract Zika are unlikely to experience symptoms. Those who do develop signs of infection experience a few days of body aches, rash, and fever, though in some cases there are more severe neurological and autoimmune effects. For many experts, this makes the Zika virus a potentially less serious public health problem than the lethal mosquito-transmitted pandemics of malaria and dengue.

Yet it is the special risk to infants that has galvanized worldwide attention. Among pregnant women, contracting Zika increases the risk of birth defects, including microcephaly, in which an infant’s head and brain do not fully develop. In Brazil, there have been more than 5,000 confirmed cases of microcephaly associated with Zika.

Summertime temperatures are likely to bring to the United States the first non–travel-related cases of Zika. The mosquito species that is the primary carrier of the virus ranges across the South and Southwest and stretches into states including Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, New Jersey, and parts of New York. But outbreaks in the United States are likely to be limited compared to other countries. Better housing, window screens, and air conditioning are far more common than in poorer countries, and the states that are most likely to be affected have substantial experience in preventing and containing such diseases.

Still, the public opinion dynamics surrounding the past pandemics of swine flu and Ebola suggest that worry among Americans is likely to escalate, intensifying across summer months and into the fall. Concern will be driven not only by saturation news coverage of the Olympics and a possible outbreak in the United States but also by a highly polarized presidential election campaign.

Doubts about a Swine Flu Vaccine

In spring 2009, the first cases of swine flu were reported in Mexico with other cases soon identified in the United States and around the world. By June 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced that the swine flu outbreak was the first worldwide pandemic in forty years. When, several months later, an emergency vaccine was made available to the American public, whether or not an individual said they planned to be vaccinated depended strongly on their partisan outlook and their trust in government.

At the outset of the pandemic, surveys indicated that swine flu had quickly come to dominate Americans’ attention, as 82 percent of Americans said they were following the story, making the pandemic one of the most followed news stories of the year. At the time, it was also the most followed story about infectious disease in history, topping SARS, West Nile Virus, and mad cow disease, though swine flu would soon be eclipsed in 2014 by Ebola virus (see figure 1) (Pew 2009a).


The amount of public attention to swine flu during spring 2009 was not surprising given that a third of total news coverage across media outlets focused on the virus. No other issue came close. Even the still-faltering economy captured only 10 percent of total news coverage. Later that year in October, public attention spiked again as news coverage focused on the public availability of a vaccine (Pew 2009a; 2009b). But efforts to offer the vaccine to the public soon became politically controversial, as misleading claims about safety spread by way of talk radio and social media, leading many Americans to say they would forego vaccinations (Steinhauer 2009).

In the context of these false claims, there were strong differences in public perceptions. Half of Republicans said news reports were overstating swine flu’s danger, compared to 35 percent of Democrats (Pew 2009a). More troubling, only 41 percent of Republicans said they would get vaccinated, compared to 60 percent of Democrats (Pew 2009a). Further analysis showed that trust in government was ultimately the key driver of decisions to be vaccinated. In contrast to their Democratic counterparts, Republicans were less likely to believe that the Obama administration could handle the swine flu problem, and as a consequence, were less likely to say that they were willing to take the vaccine (Mesch and Schwirian 2015).

The Ebola Outbreak and Election Politics

In December 2013, the first Ebola epidemic in history broke out in West Africa. By mid-2014, the epidemic had dramatically intensified. From July 2014 to October 2014, monthly reported cases in Guinea and Sierra Leone increased from 500 in each country to a peak of nearly 3,000. By January 2016, when the WHO declared the epidemic officially over, there had been more than 28,000 reported cases in West Africa and 11,300 confirmed deaths.

In the United States, there were a total of four confirmed Ebola cases and one related death. Yet by early October 2014, despite little to no risk of contracting the disease, 32 percent of the U.S. public said they were very or somewhat worried about Ebola. Two weeks later, as media attention to the epidemic intensified, worry had spread to 41 percent of the public. At the start of the month, Americans regardless of partisan identity expressed similar levels of worry. But two weeks later, worry among self-identified Republicans had grown from 33 percent to 49 percent. In comparison, worry among self-identified Democrats had shifted more modestly from 30 percent to 36 percent (see Figure 2) (Pew 2014).

In mid-October 2014, at the peak of concern, a review of polls shows that about half of the public (45 percent) said they were either very or somewhat worried that they or their family would become sick with Ebola. Fears of infection subsequently declined as no other U.S. cases were reported. Still, by November 2014, Americans ranked Ebola as the third most urgent health problem facing the country, just below cost and access to health care and ahead of cancer and heart disease (which combined to account for nearly half of all U.S. deaths annually; see SteelFisher et al. 2015).

A review of polling evidence suggests several key factors that led to a public fear over Ebola that was substantially out of proportion to the actual nature of the threat. First, surveys indicate that false beliefs about Ebola were widespread. For example, Ebola is not airborne and is not contagious until someone shows symptoms. Yet 85 percent of Americans believed that if sneezed or coughed on by a symptomatic individual, a person is either very likely or somewhat likely to get Ebola (SteelFisher et al. 2015).

A second factor was the saturation nature of news coverage particularly on network TV and cable news. By one tally, CNN, NBC, and CBS aired nearly 1,000 evening news segments about Ebola between mid-October and early November. The personalization of coverage around the two American nurses and one doctor who were infected with Ebola at the expense of more contextual, thematic coverage likely helped intensify public concern (SteelFisher et al. 2015). Cable news and talk radio also framed the U.S. government’s response to Ebola in strongly political and partisan terms, making it easy for Republicans and others who disliked the Obama administration to discount reassurances from health officials that there was little need to worry.

Like in the case of swine flu, a third related factor was public confidence in the government. Although 57 percent of the public said they had a great deal or fair amount of confidence in the government to prevent an Ebola outbreak, there were predictably strong partisan differences in opinion. By mid-October, 67 percent of Democrats said they had confidence in the government compared to only 41 percent of Republicans who said the same (Pew 2014; SteelFisher et al. 2015).

Preparing for the Zika Controversy

As of spring 2016, similar public opinion dynamics to swine flu and Ebola were already observable in the case of Zika. Public attention quickly spiked in reaction to news of the threat. Nearly 60 percent of Americans in February 2016 said they were following news about Zika either very closely or fairly closely (DiJulio et al. 2016).

At the same time, public knowledge was low. Though nine out of ten Americans knew that the virus spread by mosquitoes, 40 percent did not know the virus could be sexually transmitted, and 31 percent incorrectly believed that the virus could be transmitted through coughing and sneezing (Joseph 2016). By March 2016, 68 percent said they were familiar with news reports of the issue and 50 percent said that the issue concerned them. Much of this concern, however, was likely rooted in false beliefs, as 42 percent thought incorrectly that it was likely someone would die from Zika if infected, and that the mosquito that carries the disease could be found in every state (Annenberg 2016).

As news coverage of Zika increases leading up to the Olympics and as the first cases are reported in the United States, the presidential election campaign is likely to intensify political conflict over Federal funding for prevention and possible limits on immigration. In this context, false claims and misinformation are likely to rapidly spread, and partisan messaging is likely to be strong. It would not be surprising, then, for Democrats and Republicans to start to split in their perceptions of the threat, in their trust in the response of government agencies, and in their support for different types of policy actions.

In this new era of partisan pandemics, public health officials need to expand their investment in localized and regional communication strategies that can effectively reach the public below the level of national political debate. This includes building relationships with local media and opinion leaders, and the capacity to rapidly respond to misinformation. The expert community should also continue to cultivate strong relationships with leaders across the political spectrum, including respected nonpartisan voices such as military and faith-based leaders who can affirm expert consensus on the nature of the risks and what is needed in response (see SteelFisher et al. 2015).

–This article originally appeared in the July/August 2016 issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.


Nisbet, M.C. (2016). Partisan Pandemics. Skeptical Inquirer, 40 (4), 21-23.


Don’t fear a Franken public: The surprising reasons why we should label genetically modified foods

May 1, 2016—In January 2016, Campbell Soup generated headlines by announcing that it would voluntarily label its products containing genetically modified (GM) corn, soy, beets, and other crops. Like most food industry leaders, about three quarters of Campbell Soup products contain such ingredients.

The company’s announcement came in advance of a summer deadline set by Vermont requiring the labeling of GM foods sold in the state. Legislatures in more than twenty states have considered similar requirements. Food industry groups have lobbied for congressional legislation preempting any state requirements, encouraging voluntary disclosure. But Campbell Soup is notable for breaking with this strategy, calling instead for mandatory labeling (Strom 2016).

Contrary to the claims of “Frankenfood” opponents, research shows that Americans have not turned against the promising technology. Most remain unaware of the debate. If asked directly, Americans voice support for labeling, but these opinions are neither deeply held nor top of mind.

In this context, Campbell Soup’s strategy is a shrewd gamble that could lead to several counterintuitive yet welcome outcomes. If Americans were to encounter GM labels on almost all processed foods, the ubiquity and apparent safety of such foods may actually bolster public trust and confidence, quelling controversy and opening the door to a next generation of GM food products that offer enormous benefits.

Science vs. Movement Politics

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and other expert organizations, GM foods in comparison to other food products do not pose substantial risks to human health. Thus, federal regulators, experts, and industry members argue that there is no scientific or legal justification for special labeling.

Yet a few discredited studies provide just enough rhetorical fodder for activists to falsely claim that the technology poses a health threat. In the face of such uncertainty, they argue that precaution should be the rule. Therefore, consumers have a “right to know” if they are consuming GM ingredients.

For these activists, the debate over the scientific justification for labeling is a smokescreen that clouds deeper-rooted grievances. In this sense, no amount of scientific evidence will soften their opposition. The origin of these grievances can be traced to the rise of America’s local food movement.

During the early 2000s, looking across survey findings, researchers concluded that most Americans were unaware of GM food products, lacked basic knowledge of the science or policy specifics involved, and had yet to form strong opinions about the issue (Shanahan et al. 2001).

But among a smaller segment of consumers, the issue was emerging as a chief concern, correlated with a cluster of other food-related attitudes. Those few Americans who said they actively looked to buy GM-free food also said that they preferred their food to be organic, vegetarian, natural, locally produced, not processed, and without artificial colors or flavors (Bellows et al. 2010).

These consumers were early adopters of many of the beliefs and preferences that constitute today’s local food movement. The origins of the movement date back to the 1980s and a series of food safety controversies. Since then influential activists, food writers, and documentary filmmakers have argued the connections between industrial food production, agricultural policy, and problems such as obesity, income inequality, food-borne illness, and the decline of community life (Pollan 2010). In doing so, they have contributed to a new food politics, helping a diversity of groups unify behind a movement pushing for food system reforms.

From Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, many regions have rebuilt their economies and identities around locally owned, mostly organic farms, restaurants, and artisanal foods. These local efforts are complemented by the popularity of well-known national organic brands such as Stonyfield Farms and Horizon. In 2014, U.S. consumption of organic fruits, vegetables, dairy, breads, meat, and other foods generated an estimated $35 billion in sales, more than triple the amount from a decade ago (USDA n.d.).

The growth in the organics industry and local food economies has created a formidable alliance of farmers, entrepreneurs, and activists who bring considerable money, influence, and voice to the debate over labeling. For this alliance, corporate controlled, “unnaturally” produced GM food is perceived as a direct threat to their livelihood and preferred way of life.

Labeling: Not a Big Deal?

Simmering at the grassroots level for years, in 2012 the labeling of GM food exploded into prominence as a hotly debated political issue. In successive years, California, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado residents considered and eventually voted down proposals to label GM food products. In these battles, the food industry is estimated to have spent more than $100 million to block labeling efforts, while activists and organic industry members spent tens of millions promoting the measures.

These battles across Western states generated considerable national media coverage. Yet despite the attention, carefully designed survey research suggests that broader public awareness remains remarkably low. For at least a decade, the great majority of processed foods sold in grocery stores have contained ingredients from GM crops. But when asked in a 2013 Rutgers University survey about the matter, only 44 percent of Americans said they were aware of such foods, and only 26 percent believed that they had ever eaten any food with GM ingredients (Hallman et al. 2013).

A majority of Americans in 2013 said they know very little or nothing at all about GM foods, and 25 percent said they had never heard of them. Even among those who answered they were aware of the issue, a majority mistakenly believed that GM tomatoes, wheat, and chicken products were being sold in supermarkets (Hallman et al. 2013). Specific to labeling, if asked directly, 80 percent of the public said that it was either “very important” or “somewhat important” to know whether a product contains GM food. Yet these labeling preferences are weakly held. In the 2013 Rutgers survey, when respondents were asked in an unprompted way “What information would you like to see on food labels that is not already on there?” only 7 percent said GM food labeling. Moreover, only one in four Americans knew that federal regulations do not currently require such labels (Hallman et al. 2013).

Given the public’s ambivalence about labeling, economists have long questioned claims that labeling would deter the great majority of consumers from purchasing GM food products. For most Americans, cost and brand preference rather than labeling drives their food choices. To the extent that most organic foods today cost 50 to 100 percent more than their GM counterparts, this price difference is likely to override any impact of labels.

To test these assumptions, economists Marco Costanigro and Jayson Lusk designed a series of experiments that asked a sample of American adults to choose among apples and Cheerios that were either labeled as genetically modified or were unlabeled. To simulate the price differences for these products, those marked as genetically modified were priced at half the cost of their unlabeled counterparts. Across conditions, the economists did not observe any significant impact of labeling on risk perceptions or concern. Subjects rated GM apples and Cheerios just as safe as their non-modified counterparts. The economists, however, did find that a GM label made consumers somewhat more willing to pay a premium for unlabeled apples and Cheerios. In other words, though GM labels are unlikely to raise undue alarm among consumers, such labels may indirectly help boost sales of organic food products (Costanigro and Lusk 2014).

Citing this research and other evidence that labels are not likely to scare the public, some experts have argued that if the food industry were to follow the lead of Campbell Soup and support a mandatory labeling law, the strategy would help to restore public trust in the food industry while defusing controversy. “People are getting increasingly scared of [GM food] precisely because the industry is fighting a rearguard battle not to tell people which foodstuffs contain them,” argues author and writer Mark Lynas (2013). “This has to be the worst PR strategy ever: can you think of a single analogy where an industry uses every media tool, every electoral and legal avenue possible to stop people knowing where their own products are used?”

As David Ropeik (2013), a risk communication consultant, argued in an open letter to the food industry: “Even if you win the vote, you will lose the war … because the war isn’t about labeling. It’s about the public’s lack of trust in you, and therefore their opposition to the technology that is so important to your success. Your company’s opposition to labeling is hurting you far more than it’s helping. It is time for a new approach.”

Defusing Controversy

Certainly if the food industry were to support mandatory GM labeling, the precise impact on consumers remains unkown. But to continue to battle against labeling rules is also risky business, lending credibility to claims by activists that the industry has an undue, corrupting influence on the political process. In contrast, the labeling of GM food may have only a limited impact on consumer buying habits, while doing little to alarm the public about the safety of the technology. Putting an end to the labeling controversy is also likely to benefit public debate over the next generation of genetically engineered foods, ensuring that scientists, universities, and companies have the freedom to pursue breakthrough technologies.

These innovations are aimed directly at helping the world meet a 70 percent increase in food demand by 2050. Some crops have been engineered to counter deficiencies in vitamin A and iron among populations in developing countries. Other GM crops are able to survive under conditions of drought, extreme heat, or unfavorable soil conditions (Wohlers 2013). After many years of evaluation, in 2015 a genetically engineered salmon became the first modified animal approved for human consumption by the U.S. government. The small company that pioneered the high-tech salmon says that they can be grown in half the time and using 25 percent less small wild fish as feed. The system recycles 95 percent of the water used and reduces harmful waste. The all-female sterile fish are raised in landlocked tanks, making escape into the wild unlikely. Currently produced in Panama, the plan is for the fish to be grown close to large U.S. urban areas, reducing the energy costs associated with transportation (Saletan 2015).

Activists have moved quickly to oppose such “Frankenfish,” pressuring major grocery store chains and restaurants to refuse to sell the sustainability-friendly product. Apart from unsupported claims about environmental and health risks, their chief complaint is that the fish would not be labeled. As the case of engineered salmon suggests, as important high-tech crops and farming practices are brought to market in coming years, the chief strategy of GM food opponents to appeal to the public’s “right to know” can be removed from the table by pushing for a smart, mandatory labeling policy.

–This article originally appeared in the May/June 2016 issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine.


Nisbet, M.C. (2016, May/June). Don’t Fear a Franken Public: The surprising reasons why we should label genetically modified food. Skeptical Inquirer magazine, 18-21.


Bellows, A.C., G. Alcaraz, and W.K. Hallman. 2010. Gender and food, a study of attitudes in the USA towards organic, local, US grown, and GM-free foods. Appetite 55(3): 540–550.
Costanigro, M., and J.L. Lusk. 2014. The signaling effect of mandatory labels on genetically engineered food. Food Policy 49: 259–267.
Hallman, W.K., C.L. Cuite, and X.K. Morin. 2013. Public perceptions of labeling genetically modified foods. Working Paper 2013-01. Rutgers Uni-
versity. Available online at
  • Lynas, M. 2013. It’s time to label GMOs: Why we need to move biotech out of the shadows. The (October 23). Available online at
Pollan, M. 2010. The food movement, rising. New York Review of Books (June). Available online at
Ropeik, D. 2013. GMO labeling: An open letter to BigAgTech CEOs. The Huffington Post (November 6). Available online at
Saletan, W. 2015. Don’t fear the Frankenfish. (November 20). Available online at
Shanahan, J., D. Scheufele, and E. Lee. 2001. Trends: Attitudes about agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified organisms. The Public Opinion Quarterly 65(2): 267–281.
Strom, S. 2016. Campbell labels will disclose G.M.O. ingredients. The New York Times (January 7). Available online at
USDA n.d. Organic market overview. United States Department of Agriculture. Available online at
Wohlers, A.E. 2013. Labeling of genetically modified food: Closer to reality in the United States? Politics & Life Sciences 32(1): 73–84.

Will the health dangers of climate change get people to care? The science says: maybe

April 7, 2016 —Climate change is a major public health threat, already making existing problems like asthma, exposure to extreme heat, food poisoning, and infectious disease more severe, and posing new risks from climate change-related disasters, including death or injury.

Those were the alarming conclusions of a new scientific assessment report released by the Obama administration this week, drawing on input from eight federal agencies and more than 100 relevant experts.

“As far as history is concerned this is a new kind of threat that we are facing,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy at a White House event. Pregnant women, children, low-income people and communities of color are among the most at risk.

Despite ever more urgent warnings of scientists, Americans still tend to view climate change as a scientific or environmental issue, but not as a problem that currently affects them personally, or one that connects to issues that they already perceive as important.

Yet research suggests that as federal agencies, experts, and societal leaders increasingly focus on the public health risks of climate change, this reframing may be able to overcome longstanding public indifference on the issue. The new communication strategy, however, faces several hurdles and uncertainties.

Putting a public health focus to the test

In a series of studies that I conducted with several colleagues in 2010 and 2011, we examined how Americans respond to information about climate change when the issue is reframed as a public health problem.

In line with the findings of the recent Obama administration report, the messages we tested with Americans stressed scientific findings that link climate change to an increase in the incidence of infectious diseases, asthma, allergies, heat stroke and other health problems – risks that particularly impact children, the elderly and the poor.

We evaluated not only story lines that highlighted these risks, but also the presentations that focused on the benefits to public health if actions were taken to curb greenhouse emissions.

In an initial study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 70 respondents from 29 states, recruiting subjects from six previously defined audience segments. These segments ranged on a continuum from those individuals deeply alarmed by climate change to those who were deeply dismissive of the problem.

Across all six audience segments, when asked to read a short essay that framed climate change in terms of public health, individuals said that the information was both useful and compelling, particularly at the end of the essay when locally focused policy actions were presented with specific benefits to public health.

In a follow-up study, we conducted a nationally representative online survey. Respondents from each of the six audience segments were randomly assigned to three different experimental conditions in which they read brief essays about climate change discussed as either an environmental problem, a public health problem or a national security problem. This allowed us to evaluate their emotional reactions to strategically framed messages about the issue.

In comparison to messages that defined climate change in terms of either the environment or national security, talking about climate change as a public health problem generated greater feelings of hope among subjects. Research suggests that fostering a sense of hope, specifically a belief that actions to combat climate change will be successful, is likely to promote greater public involvement and participation on the issue.

Among subjects who tended to doubt or dismiss climate change as a problem, the public health focus also helped diffuse anger in reaction to information about the issue, creating the opportunity for opinion change.

A recent study by researchers at Cornell University built on our findings to examine how to effectively reframe the connections between climate change and ocean health.

In this study involving 500 subjects recruited from among passengers on a Seattle-area ferry boat, participants were randomly assigned to two frame conditions in which they read presentations that defined the impact of climate change on oceans.

For a first group of subjects, the consequences of climate change were framed in terms of their risks to marine species such as oysters. For the second group, climate change was framed in terms of risks to humans who may eat contaminated oysters.

The framing of ocean impacts in terms of risks to human health appeared to depoliticize perceptions. In this case, the human health framing condition had no discernible impact on the views of Democrats and independents, but it did influence the outlook of Republicans. Right-leaning people, when information emphasized the human health risks, were significantly more likely to support various proposed regulations of the fossil fuel industry.

In two other recent studies, the Cornell team of researchers have found that communications about climate change are more persuasive among political conservatives when framed in terms of localized, near-term impacts and if they feature compassion appeals for the victims of climate change disasters, such as drought.

Challenges to reframing climate change

To date, a common weakness in studies testing different framing approaches to climate change is that they do not evaluate the effects of the tested messages in the context of competing arguments.

In real life, most people hear about climate change by way of national news outlets, local TV news, conversations, social media and political advertisements. In these contexts, people are likely to also encounter arguments by those opposed to policy action who misleadingly emphasize scientific uncertainty or who exaggerate the economic costs of action.

Thus our studies and others may overestimate framing effects on attitude change, since they do not correspond to how most members of the public encounter information about climate change in the real world.

The two studies that have examined the effects of novel frames in the presence of competing messages have found mixed results. A third recent study finds no influence on attitudes when reframing action on climate change in terms of benefits to health or the economy, even in the absence of competing frames. In light of their findings, the authors recommend that communication efforts remain focused on emphasizing the environmental risks of inaction.

Communicating about climate change as a public health problem also faces barriers from how messages are shared and spread online, suggests another recent study.

In past research on Facebook sharing, messages that are perceived to be conventional are more likely to be passed on than those that are considered unconventional. Scholars theorize that this property of Facebook sharing relates closely to how cultures typically tend to reinforce status quo understandings of social problems and to marginalize unconventional perspectives.

In an experiment designed like a game of three-way telephone in which subjects were asked to select and pass on Facebook messages about climate change, the authors found that a conventional framing of climate change in terms of environmental risks was more likely to be shared, compared to less conventional messages emphasizing the public health and economic benefits to action.

In all, these results suggest that efforts to employ novel framing strategies on climate change that involve an emphasis on public health will require sustained, well-resourced, and highly coordinated activities in which such messages are repeated and emphasized by a diversity of trusted messengers and opinion leaders.

That’s why the new federal scientific assessment, which was promoted via the White House media and engagement offices, is so important. As these efforts continue, they will also need to be localized and tailored to specific regions, cities, or states and periodically evaluated to gauge success and refine strategy.

–This article originally appeared at The Conversation US.


Nisbet, M.C. (2016, April 7). Will the health dangers of climate change get people to care? The science says: maybe. The Conversation US.


Myers, T., Nisbet, M.C., Maibach, E.W., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). A Public Health Frame Arouses Hopeful Emotions about Climate Change.  Climatic Change Research Letters, 1105-1121.

Maibach, E., Nisbet, M.C. et al. (2010). Reframing Climate Change as a Public Health Issue: An Exploratory Study of Public Reactions. BMC Public Health 10: 299