The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus
Open accessAbstract
Climate change has been the subject of increasing efforts by scientists to understand its causes and implications; it has been of growing interest to policymakers, international bodies, and a variety of nongovernment organizations; and it has attracted varied amounts of attention from traditional and, increasingly, online media. These developments have been aligned with shifts in the nature of climate change communication, with changes in how researchers study it and how a variety of actors try to influence it. This article situates the theory and practice of climate change communication within developments that have taken place since we first reviewed the field in 2009. These include the rise of new social media conduits for communication, research, and practice aimed at fine tuning communication content, and the rise to prominence of scientific consensus as part of that content. We focus in particular on continuing tensions between a focus on the part of communicators to inform the public and more dialogic strategies of public engagement. We also consider the tension between efforts to promote consensus and certainty in climate science and approaches that attempt to engage with uncertainty more fully. We explore the lessons to be learnt from climate communication since 2009, highlighting how the field remains haunted by the deficit model of science communication. Finally, we point to more fruitful future directions for climate change communication, including more participatory models that acknowledge, rather than ignore, residual uncertainties in climate science in order to stimulate debate and deliberation. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:613–626. doi: 10.1002/wcc.366 This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Communication
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics
Pielke, Jr. (2007) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818110 · Cited by 2,020
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Oreskes, N. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1103618 · Cited by 1,814
Schmidt, A., Ivanova, A., & Schäfer, M. S. (2013) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.020 · Cited by 753
The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1720 · Cited by 527
Whitmarsh, L. (2009) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662506073088 · Cited by 448 · cited 1×
“New ways of thinking about politics, power, and social structure are afforded by discussions of climate change.(129,130) Darier and Schüle(131) found that awareness of global environmental issues is always contextualized in broader perspectives and is not exclusively ’environmental’ and may be informed by features of…”
BackgroundSupport for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement
Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1295 · Cited by 441
Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers
Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., & Jeffries, C. (2012) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1532 · Cited by 397
Jang, S. M., & Hart, P. S. (2015) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.010 · Cited by 334
Myers, T. A., Maibach, E., Peters, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120985 · Cited by 102
Cited by
The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries
Pearce, W., Niederer, S., Özkula, S. M., & Sánchez Querubín, N. (2019) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.569 · Cited by 334
Self-citationThe IPCC and the new map of science and politics
Beck, S., & Mahony, M. (2018) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.547 · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N.
- Venue
- WIREs Climate Change
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-09-24
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 613-626
- ISSN
- 1757-7780 (ISSN-L)
- 1757-7799
- OpenAlex
- W2101319329
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 43.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/wcc.366
- The paper
- Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2015). Communicating climate change: conduits, content, and consensus. WIREs Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.366
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.