Traditionally Brought Together

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=renc20 Environmental Communication ISSN: 1752-4032 (Print) 1752-4040 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/renc20 The US News Media, Polarization on Climate Change, and Pathways to Effective Communication Toby Bolsen & Matthew A. Shapiro To cite this article: Toby Bolsen & Matthew A. Shapiro (2018) The US News Media, Polarization on Climate Change, and Pathways to Effective Communication, Environmental Communication, 12:2, 149-163, DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039 Published online: 07 Dec 2017.Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4036View related articles View Crossmark dataCiting articles: 41 View citing articles ADVANCED REVIEW The US News Media, Polarization on Climate Change, and Pathways to Effective Communication Toby Bolsen aand Matthew A. Shapiro b aDepartment of Political Science, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA; bDepartment of Social Sciences, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA ABSTRACTThe news media are a central source of information about climate change for most people. Through frames, media transmit information that shape how people understand climate change as well as the actions they are ultimately willing to support to address the problem. This article reviews the rise of climate change in the US news media and the emergence of related frames in public discourse. In doing so, it traces the roots of partisan divisions over climate change and highlights the role that events, journalistic practices, technological changes, and individual-level factors such as ideological and partisan identity have played in fostering polarization. The article concludes by identifying the core challenges facing communicators who seek to build consensus for action on climate change and highlights the most viable solutions for achieving success. ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 22 August 2016 Accepted 1 June 2017 KEYWORDSMedia coverage; climate change; polarization; framing The news media are a central source of information about climate change for most people. 1Through frames, media transmit information that shape how people understand climate change as well as the actions they are ultimately willing to support to address the problem. The framing process refers both to the selection of language to communicate information about an issue as well as the effect of such choices on how audiences form opinions. Frames are unavoidable aspects of communication that people rely on to make sense of the political world; however, they are often employed strategi- cally by communicators seeking to persuade an audience to support a particular agenda. This has been the case with respect to frames that have emerged in recent decades in media discourse on cli- mate change. These frames have contributed to polarization among segments of the public in the US and, in turn, increase challenges faced by communicators trying to raise the salience of climate change as a policy priority. Any discussion about the emergence of frames in public discourse regarding climate change must include an assessment of the news media. The specific focus here is on the US case, tracing the roots of partisan divisions over climate change and highlighting the role that events, journalistic practices, technological changes, and individual-level factors such as ideological and partisan identity have played in fostering polarization. We discover that the roots of distortion and imbalance in the news media are associated with a number of identifiable frames. The media is not the sole culprit, however, as we show how interest groups and political leaders most effectively select and convey to the media those frames to employ in public discourse. The article then discusses the challenges facing communicators seeking to foster consensus among the US public necessary for policy action, which include understanding how to: increase the importance of climate change as a priority; © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group CONTACTToby Bolsen [email protected] Department of Political Science, Georgia State University, 38 Peachtree Center Ave., Suite 1005, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION, 2018 VOL. 12, NO. 2, 149–163 https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039 overcome partisan divisions regarding the fundamentals of climate science; effectively combat instances in which actors politicize climate science; and, overcome obstacles posed by selective atten- tion and the perceived distal nature of impacts resulting from climate change. The article concludes by identifying viable avenues for communicators to overcome each of these challenges in order to build greater consensus in the US for policy action on climate change. The US news media’s coverage of climate change Operationalizing“frames” All forms of human communication, including information in news coverage about climate change, involve the necessary and unavoidable selection of frames to shape how audiences understand a social problem, issue or event. The concept of aframe in a communicationrefers to words, symbols, phrases, or images that highlight a subset of the potentially relevant considerations toward any object (e.g. a candidate, a policy, or a political issue) (Druckman,2001). In a news story focusing on the likely effects that will occur due to climate change, a communicator (e.g. a journalist) might empha- size environmental-, economic-, or public health-related implications, as well as a number of other potentially relevant sets of considerations. Frames, in this way,“select some aspects of reality and make them more salient in a communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition”(Entman,1993, p. 52). Importantly,“[they] are never neutral: they define an issue, ident- ify causes, make moral judgments, and shape proposed policy solutions”(O’Neill, Williams, Wiersma, & Boykoff,2015, p. 380). InTable 1, the primary frames that have emerged over time Table 1.Climate change frames in news media. Name Definition Frame in communication Scientific consensus/ Uncertain scienceEmphasis on science of climate change and the degree with which a consensus exists.(+) A consensus of climate scientists (97%) believes in human-caused climate change. () There is disagreement and debate over the fundamental science among scientists. Economic consequencesFocus on the economic effects or impacts of climate change or policy action (e.g. growth, prosperity, investments, costs, competition).(+) Action to address climate change will have positive economic benefits. () Action to address climate change will have negative economic consequences. Environmental consequencesFocus on the environmental effects or impacts of climate change or policy action (e.g. air pollution coastal flooding, extinction of species, droughts, fires).(+) Climate change will have net positive effects. () Climate change will have negative effects. Morality/ethics Focus on the moral/ethical considerations related to action on climate change.(+) Current generations have a moral obligation to future generations to act. Disaster Focus on the catastrophic effects/impacts that will result from climate change; threat appeals.() Climate change will lead to disastrous effects if left unchecked. Political conflict Focus on conflict among elites; who is winning or losing the debate.Stating the political strategy behind policies, the winners/losers, and nature of political debates. National security Focus on a threat to energy, water, food security, or to the nation state (e.g. migration).() Climate change presents a national security threat. Public health Focus on the impact of climate change on human health (e.g. air pollution, malnutrition, disease).() Climate change will have negative effects on the quality of public health. Self-efficacy Focus on the difficulty or ease of making behavioural changes to address climate change.(+) Individuals’actions can make a positive difference. () Individuals’actions are unlikely to matter. External efficacy Focus on the responsiveness of politicians, industry leaders, and elites in taking action.(+) Policy action can make a positive difference. () Policy action is unlikely to matter. Response efficacy Focus on the potential for success from policy action to address climate change.(+) Policy action can make a positive difference. () Policy action is unlikely to matter. Sources: Feldman, Hart, and Milosevic (2017), Nisbet (2009), Nisbet & Fahy (2015), and O’Neill et al., (2015). 150 T. BOLSEN AND M. A. SHAPIRO in media discourse related to the impacts of climate change are summarized. We discuss below the factors giving rise to many of these frames. Hansen’s testimony In the late 1980s, a number of factors contributed to the rise of news coverage of climate change and its attendant frames (Boykoff & Boykoff,2004; Boykoff & Roberts,2007). First, in 1988, NASA scien- tist James Hansen testified to Congress that global temperature increases were directly linked to fossil fuels being burned for energy, resulting in increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmos- phere. His testimony, coupled with an intense heat wave and drought in North America that year, generated substantial news coverage both in newspapers and on television (Ungar,1992). Krosnick, Holbrook, and Visser (2000) explain,“The drought and the fact that 1987 had been the hottest year on record received major news coverage, much of it speculating about whether global warming was responsible for the drought”(p. 240). By September of 1988, 58% of the US public had heard or read about global warming (Nisbet & Myers,2007). In that same year, the United Nations Environmental Program and the World Meteorological Organization created the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli- mate Change (IPCC) to assess the varied impacts of climate change. 2George H. W. Bush also cam- paigned for president then under the pledge to“fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect”(Boykoff & Roberts,2007, p. 6; Peterson,1989, A1). From that point until the early 1990s, much of the press attention related to climate change focused on possible alternatives to carbon- based energy consumption as well as those policies that would promote alternative energy such as nuclear power (Gamson & Modigliani,1989; Weisskopf,1988). The primary frames employed in the US news media during this period thus focused the economic and environmental consequences of climate change, and how technological advances and investments might alleviate the concern (Nisbet,2009). Kyoto and the origins of partisan polarization In terms of quantity, media coverage of climate change peaked in 1988 before declining in the early 1990s (McComas & Shanahan,1999; Trumbo,1996). Nonetheless, by then,“the environmental community in the United States—comprised of members of the environmental movement, sympath- etic climate scientists, and environmental policy-makers—successfully defined climate change, or anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming, as a legitimate social problem”(McCright & Dun- lap,2003, p. 348). At the same time, Republican consultant Frank Luntz recommended in a strategy memo to lobbyists and members of Congress that the climate change issue be framed asscientifically uncertainand that the US be described as bearing an unfaireconomic“burden”in the absence of international coordination. Nisbet (2009) explains,“this framing strategy was effectively incorpor- ated into talking points, speeches, white papers, and advertisements by conservative think tanks and members of Congress to defeat major policy proposals along with the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol”(p. 19). Despite the 1995 IPCC report stating that a consensus had emerged among the scientific community regarding human activity as the likely cause of the observed warming trend in global temperatures (Krosnick et al.,2000; Wilson,2000), 3the inherentuncertainty of science was accentuated during this period via a shared rhetorical tactic by conservative organizations and industry representatives seeking to protect their constituents’interests (McCright & Dunlap, 2003; Oreskes & Conway,2010). To develop an international treaty and framework for countries to respond to the anthropogenic causes of climate change, delegations from over 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. In the US, however, the option to participate in the Kyoto Protocol instigated the media-based ori- gins of partisan polarization about climate change. The campaign for ratification of the Kyoto Pro- tocol in the US Senate and the ensuing rise in news attention to climate change by media more than doubled the newspaper coverage over previous months while increasing television coverage tenfold ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 151 (Krosnick et al.,2000; Nisbet,2011). A majority of the news coverage of climate change during the 1997 debate over ratification of the Kyoto Protocol reflected thescientific consensusviewpoint on the causes and threats of climate change; however, media reports often juxtaposed this with apolitical conflictframe. In the news, statements were presented from leading Democrats supporting the treaty, such as Clinton and Gore, as well as Republican leaders and other opponents. This resulted in hundreds of newspaper, television, magazine, and radio news stories, as well as editorials, editorial cartoons, and letters to the editor. The debate [over ratification] was further amplified in advertisements, paid for by business and other advocacy groups, as well as radio talk shows and numerous World Wide Web sites. (Kros- nick et al.,2000, p. 241) Thepolitical conflictframe was simultaneously supplemented with the continued presence of the uncertain scienceframe. McCright and Dunlap’s(2003) content analysis of hundreds of documents produced by 14 different conservative think tanks between 1990 and 1997 showed that climate skeptics challenged the science of global warming by: (1) framing its supporting evidence as weak or nonexistent; (2) highlighting the potential net benefits that might result if climate change should occur; and, (3) arguing that the policies designed to address climate change would be economically harmful and ineffective (i.e. theresponse efficacyframe). McCright and Dunlap (2003) explain the process through which conservative think tanks“sponsored policy forums, public speeches, and press conferences in 1997 to present their counter-claims on global warming to policy-makers and the general public”(p. 357). In an effort to expand its audience, the media underlined this debate narrative in news reports on climate change (Boykoff,2007; Boykoff & Boykoff,2004,2007), assigning parity between scientific evidence and the arguments of interest groups striving to generate uncertainty to protect their inter- ests and the policy status quo (Boussalis & Coan,2016; Brulle,2014; McCright & Dunlap,2000). The balance in reporting about the climate change“debate”continued through the late 1990s and early 2000s. By giving equal time to thescientific consensusanduncertain scienceframes, media coverage validated—or at least helped enable—the efforts of a minority of contrarian scientific voices. In their analysis of 15 years of climate change coverage in major US newspapers, Boykoff and Boykoff (2004) discovered that the majority of newspaper articles on climate change gave nearly the same amount of attention to those arguing that global warming was due to human activities as compared to those arguing that global warming was due to Earth’s natural fluctuations. From 1990 to 2002,“[c]overage was divergent from the scientific consensus on this issue in a statistically significant way”(Boykoff & Roberts,2007, p. 13). Hollywood and climate“Alarmism” Attention to and increased polarization regarding climate change in the US news media was bol- stered by the US film industry in the early years of the 2000s (Hart & Leiserowitz,2009). In May of 2004, the release ofThe Day After Tomorrow, a movie about climate change that employed adis- asterframe, generated 10 times the amount of news coverage in the US compared to the 2001 IPCC report (Leiserowitz,2004; Nisbet,2011). A defining feature of thedisasterframe commonly found in science-policy debates is that there is a looming catastrophe unless action is taken immediately. An unintended consequence of this frame is that it plays into the hands of climate skeptics who have cast this rhetoric as“alarmism”and motivated by partisan and ideological agendas (Nisbet,2009). None- theless, Al Gore’s release of the similarly framed An Inconvenient Truthin 2006 led to a marked increase in reporting on climate change in the US Popularity for Gore also reached his highest- ever approval rating of 58% in 2007 after he received a Nobel Prize for his involvement with the film. However, as Nisbet (2011) explains, The six years of Gore’s political campaigning on climate change had mobilized a base of concern among Demo- crats but reinforced disbelief among Republicans…. [B]y 2008, Bush’s last year in office, Gore’s efforts had helped boost belief [in climate change] among Democrats to 76% while belief among Republicans remained virtually unchanged at 41%. (p. 65) 152 T. BOLSEN AND M. A. SHAPIRO Ultimately, Gore’s advocacy and efforts to mobilize public action on climate change and the associ- ated media coverage highlightingpolitical conflictframes helped lay the foundation for all sub- sequent and continuing partisan divisions among the American public regarding climate change. Climate coverage from 2007–Present News coverage of climate change increased substantially in the US news media between 2007 and 2010, driven largely by events such as the release of the third IPCC report in 2007, the 2009 UN Cli- mate Change Conference in Copenhagen, and unsuccessful efforts to pass legislation (i.e. cap and trade) to curb greenhouse gas emissions (Feldman et al.,2017). Feldman et al.’s(2017) content analy- sis of a sample of 642 articles appearing inThe New York Times,The Wall Street Journal(WSJ), Washington Post, andUSA Todayon climate change between 2006 and 2011 revealed differences in the frames employed across news sources in substantive news stories (i.e. not editorials or op- eds). Focusing on frames related to climate change’s impacts on theenvironment,public health, national security, andeconomic consequences, as well as frames highlighting the efficacy of taking action, the analysis revealed significant differences in the frequency of the usage of different frames across sources. For instance, with regard to climate change, relative to other news sources, theWSJ employed more negativeeconomic consequencesframes, more negativeresponse efficacyframes (i.e. “solutions are unlikely to be effective”), and morepolitical conflictframes. Hart and Feldman (2014) conducted a parallel study that charted frames employed in US network news—ABC, CBS, and NBC—between 1 January 2005 and 30 June 2011. A content analysis of 440 network news transcripts over this period coded for whether broadcasts included frames highlighting the threat posed by climate change and for whether it included“at least one mitigative or adaptive action that can be taken to address climate change”(p. 334). They also coded for the presence of the following emphasis frames:environment,public health,national security,economic consequences, morality/ethics, andpolitical conflict. The results demonstrate that TV news rarely discussed both the impacts likely to result from climate change alongside frames highlighting actions to address the problem. Positiveefficacyframes, in fact, were largely absent from news coverage, while the most prevalent frame focused on the likely short-term negative environmental impacts. Among cable news sources, coverage of climate change in 2007–2008 was significantly different on Fox News compared to CNN and MSNBC. Fox News coverage included a large number of guests that made statements dismissive of climate change, and a survey of viewers indicates that watching Fox News coverage is associated with a decreased belief that human-induced climate change is real. The research also demonstrates that Republicans who watch CNN and MSNBC are more con- cerned about climate change than other Republicans who regularly watch Fox News (Feldman, Mai- bach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz,2012). The degree to which media outlets portray a scientific consensusamong scientists about the fun- damentals of climate change—that is, the degree to which global warming is occurring as a result of human activity—has varied over time and across sources. Nisbet (2011, Chapter 3) coded a random sample of over 1200 articles inThe Washington Post,The New York Times, theWSJ,CNN.com, and Politicofor whether the article conveyed the“consensus view”that humans are causing climate change, a“false balanced view”that it is uncertain whether climate change is real and if humans are the cause, or a“dismissive view”that climate change is not occurring or humans are not a cause. Keeping in mind that 2009–2010 represented a tumultuous period—cap and trade legislation was being debated, Climategate made news, and the 2009 Copenhagen meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 15) occurred—it was found that, during the first nine months of 2009, 93% of all news and opinion articles presented thescientific consensusframe. However, while the Copenhagen meet- ings and Climategate-related debate occurred in the fall of 2009 and early 2010, theconsensuswas reflected in only 75% of the sample of articles (Nisbet,2011, p. 53). 4Across the two-year period for these various media sources, approximately 8 out of 10 articles reflected theconsensusview over- all. The exception, again, was the dominance of false balanced or dismissive views in theWSJ, where ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 153 “less than half the [editorials] asserted that climate change was real and that humans were a cause” (Nisbet,2011, p. 54). These results, in line with prior work, demonstrate that, even in the prestige press, news attention to climate change is episodic and event-driven (Hart,2011; Iyengar,1991). Indeed, the volume of coverage on climate change leading up to the COP 21, Paris meeting in December, 2015 generated the most intense climate change reporting worldwide over the last 11 years (Luedecke et al.,2016). New media’s role Although there has been a decline in the number of journalists focused on environmental reporting in recent years at traditional news outlets (Bagley,2013), there has been a significant increase in reporting on climate change over time due to the growth of the online sector and new media, where“new media”refers to the various forms of Internet-mediated communication. The Internet and new media provide the public with greater access to traditional media content and also allow the public to contribute to the corpus of information through reposts on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc. (Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook,2012; Matsa & Mitchell,2014). Journalists engaged in online science reporting, as they curate and cull audience contributions, have in fact been redefining the traditional role of reporter and watchdog to also include public intellectual and civic educator (Fahy & Nisbet,2011). In important ways, advances in new media have built upon traditional media to affect the com- munication of climate change. This is not merely a reference to the growth of online news publishing services such as Environment & Energy Publishing,The Huffington Post, ProPublica, InsideClimate News, and the like. The Internet itself offers an entirely new vehicle for news communication (Brai- nard,2015), as traditional media outlets continue to shift away from presenting reports on climate change and rely increasingly more on online blog posters and“advocacy journalists”to present information in a dramatic context and thus distort the climate change risks (Nisbet & Fahy, 2015). This is exemplified by the very different semantics employed in online posts relative to tra- ditional journalism, particularly so with regard to climate change. For example, Hellsten and Vasi- leiadou (2015) show that Climategate hype began in online blogs that prompted a reaction in newspapers. The issue was semantically framed in opposite ways online as compared to newspapers: “for the blogs the issue is about climate sciences withholding temperature data; and for the newspa- pers it is about a smear campaign and inquisition of science”(p. 599). Fortunately, and despite the growth of online sources relating to both sides of the climate change“debate”(Greenberg, Knight, & Westersund,2011), the online community of science and environmental websites is largely domi- nated by verifiable scientists (Brown Jarreau,2015). Challenges and strategies for climate change communicators in a polarized era The challenges Science communicators, journalists, and others who seek to raise awareness, mobilize engagement, and promote policy action to address climate change face a number of hurdles. First, it is not obvious how one can get the public to attend to scientific information about climate change given the number of other priorities competing for an individual’s limited and selective attention (Druckman,2015; Lupia,2013). An abundance of survey research indicates that the public ranks climate change as a less important priority than a host of other political, social, and economic issues (Nisbet & Myers, 2007). Most recently, it was found that liberal Democrats ranked climate change the sixth most important issue facing the US out of a list of 23 problems, while moderate and liberal Republicans ranked climate change twenty-first, and conservative Republicans ranked climate change as the very least (twenty-third) important issue (Lehmann,2016). One challenge facing science communicators thus is how to secure the public’s attention to motivate greater awareness of and bi-partisan interest in the issue of climate change (Druckman,2015). 154 T. BOLSEN AND M. A. SHAPIRO This leads to a second challenge facing climate science communicators: public opinion about the existence and causes of climate change is sharply divided along partisan and ideological lines in the US, which generates protective forms of information acquisition and processing (Bolsen, Druckman, & Cook,2014a; Kahan,2015; McCright & Dunlap,2011). Polarization on the issue contributes to directional motivated reasoning in how scientific arguments and evidence about climate change are acquired, processed, and evaluated (Druckman, Peterson, & Slothuus,2013). Directional motiv- ated reasoning refers to the tendency to seek information that confirms prior beliefs (i.e. a confirmation bias); to view evidence consistent with prior opinions as stronger or more effective (i.e. a prior attitude effect); and to spend more time counter-arguing and dismissing evidence inconsistent with prior opinions, regardless of objective accuracy (i.e. disconfirmation bias). (Druckman,2015, p. 60; also see, Druckman & Bolsen,2011; Taber & Lodge,2006) Druckman (2015) further explains:“the central point is that relaying even ostensibly credible scientific information faces a serious hurdle if individuals reject any evidence that seems to contra- dict their prior opinions”(2015, p. 60). Even more troublingly, as partisans become more factually knowledgeable, or scientifically literate, they become more likely to discount information that chal- lenges their existing identities and values (Bolsen, Druckman, & Cook,2015; Kahan,2015). And media fragmentation associated with the rise of partisan news outlets such as MSNBC and Fox News allows politically aware partisans to consume information that affirms their existing beliefs about climate change, resulting in stronger opinions that are more resistant to opinion change. A third challenge for communicators stems from the aforementioned media fragmentation of partisan news in conjunction with the availability of other media sources. Internet-based infor- mation, in particular, magnifies“media bias, leading to large swings in aggregate behavior made more severe when individuals can select into media outlets”(Siegel,2013, p. 803). In other words, members of the public seek out specific information and individuals online who share similar views about climate change, consistent with the behaviour of individuals that are motivated by con- firmation bias (Del Vicario et al.,2016; Feldman, Myers, Hmielowski, & Leiserowitz,2014; Zhao, 2009). These findings are consistent with recent research that combines aspects of network qualities and distrust of the media. Using a nationally representative sample of the American public, Hart, Feldman, Leiserowitz, and Maibach (2015) established the relationship between the homogeneity of one’s online network and the degree to which the discussion that occurs in that network is polar- izing. Discussions in homogeneous networks are more polarized than in heterogeneous networks, and liberals are less likely to support climate change policies in the latter (Hart, Feldman, et al., 2015). Thus, the unobstructed pursuit of information in new media is likely resulting in the creation of echo chambers, increased polarization, and politicized discussions among the public. Preliminary findings about YouTube content, for example, have shown that the public is mobilized around cli- mate-change-related issues (Porter & Hellsten,2014); yet, the post-video discussions among mem- bers of the YouTube-viewing public tend to debate the science of climate change regardless of its relevance to the content of the videos to which they are attached (Shapiro & Park,2015). In other words, the public is using YouTube—and likely other social media discussion platforms—not to deliberate but rather to campaign for increased activism or skepticism about climate change (Shapiro & Park,2017). The strategies Science communicators, journalists, advocacy groups, and political leaders must develop strategies that shift public support toward a greater consensus for action on climate change. Bernauer and McGrath (2016) argue,“without strong public support, ambitious climate policy is infeasible since mitigation efforts are bound to have important and manifest implications for nearly every citi- zen. Therefore, democratic policy-makers face strong incentives to adopt policies preferred by the majority of voters”(p. 1). In the face of the challenges mentioned immediately above, science com- munication scholars have begun to explore strategies to overcome these hurdles including: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 155 (1) choosing frames that resonate and promote efficacy with target audiences; (2) highlighting the existence of ascientific consensusand widespread agreement among experts over the fundamentals of climate science; (3) promoting accuracy goals (rather than directional goals) among citizens when processing new scientific information; and (4) recruiting credible messengers and spokespersons for diverse audiences. Although we highlight strategies that demonstrate how communicators can more effectively communicate the issue of climate change to diverse audiences, it is important to acknowl- edge that“framing is not an elixir”(Druckman & Lupia,2016, p. 7). In fact, framing efforts have often failed to produce support for policy action on climate change or personal engagement on the issue, or even backfire in some instances (Hart & Nisbet,2012). The key is to recognize what scholars currently know about the most effective communication approaches across different contexts. Employ frames that resonate and engage It is crucial that communicators employ frames that resonate and engage audiences as a way to shift public attitudes (Moser,2010). One line of research focuses on how visual imagery and concomitant frames in media stories depict climate change and thus impact individuals’beliefs and engagement with the issue (O’Neill, Boykoff, Niemeyer, & Day,2013). Images engage an audience at an emotional level and thereby influence cognitive appraisals of risk by drawing upon an experiential learning sys- tem that drives emotions and subsequent cognitions (Leiserowitz,2006). That is,“the use of particu- lar visual framings helps to promote particular ways of conceptualizing climate change, whilst marginalizing others”(O’Neill,2013, p. 12), implying that climate change images commonly included in media stories affect individuals’beliefs about climate change and the efficacy of action to address the problem in the same way as textual frames in news stories (Hart & Feldman,2014). Yet, content analysis of the most prominent visual images included in stories on climate change identifies images that typically contain political figures, highlighting apolitical conflictframe (O’Neill,2013;O’Neill & Smith,2014). A second prominent group of visual images highlights geo- graphically and psychologically distantenvironmentalimpacts of climate change such as“generic images of industrial smokestacks, ice imagery or non-human nature, rather than as an issue with impacts, causes and solutions close to home”(O’Neill,2013, p. 16; also see DiFrancesco & Young, 2011). Although such images can increase the perceived importance of addressing climate change, they often leave people feeling powerless and with lower levels of efficacy about how they can respond to climate change (O’Neill et al.,2013). Consequently, recent work has begun to explore how frames that target the perceivedefficacyof action on climate change shape individuals’beliefs and actions in this domain (Hart & Feldman, 2016a,2016b).“Efficacy refers to the individuals’perception…that they are able to engage in the relevant action needed to address the problem”(Hart & Feldman,2016a, p. 2). Hart and Feldman’s (2016a) experiment manipulated imagery and text by presenting subjects with photographs and text relating to one of the following: solar panels, large-scale flooding, a protest calling for action on cli- mate change, and smoke rising from a power plant. The solar power image was found to significantly increase perceptions of efficacy relative to a control condition. In addition, text emphasizing theeffi- cacyof actions that can be taken to address climate change significantly increased perceptions of per- sonal efficacy, and this belief mediated the effect of theefficacytreatment on behavioural intentions to engage in energy conservation as a way to combat climate change . This suggests that images and frames in communication that generate a sense of positiveself-efficacy will ultimately generate engagement and support for action on climate change. Other work explores messages most likely to effectively engage diverse audiences by highlighting personally relevant and near-term effects. Myers, Nisbet, Maibach, and Leiserowitz (2012) state, “Positive emotions…increase the probability that individuals will choose to engage with [climate change] and adopt beliefs and behaviors consistent with efforts to stem the problem…hope is often aroused as perceptions of efficacy increase”(p. 1107; also see Chadwick,2015). As such, 156 T. BOLSEN AND M. A. SHAPIRO Myerset al. conducted an online experiment using a nationally representative sample to test the impact of various textual frames on different audiences and the emotions that were elicited. Specifi- cally, participants were randomly assigned to read one of three versions of a news article that empha- sized either theenvironmental,public health,ornational securityaspects of climate change. Interestingly, the results showed that the public health frame increased perceptions of hope among subsets of the population mostly likely to be skeptical about climate change, i.e. conservatives who are disengaged, doubtful, or dismissive about the issue. In a series of experiments that focused on individual-level emphasis framing effects on climate change beliefs, Petrovic, Madrigano, and Zaval (2014) found that a frame that focuses on the present public healthbenefits that result from reducing“air pollution”as opposed to a frame implicating the burning of“fossil fuels”causes conservatives to increase their support for mitigation efforts. On the other hand, this frame was less effective at increasing support for mitigation among liberals com- pared to a“climate”frame that mentioned how fossil fuel burning results in“dire environmental consequences.”Conservatives, as they have in previous studies , responded negatively to theenviron- mental/disasterframe. While nationally representative surveys confirm that the majority of Amer- icans have not thought about how global warming might impact people’s health (Maibach et al., 2015), this frame has the potential to affectively engage and resonate with diverse audiences as it becomes more prevalent in public discourse (but see, Hart & Nisbet, 2011) regarding how this frame can backfire among conservatives when identification with the victims, or social distance, is low). More broadly, research on how emotions shape reactions to messages is likely to be one of the several promising avenues for future research (see Lu & Schuldt,2015,2016). Communicate the existence of a scientific consensus Although scientific agreement regarding human-caused climate change has strengthened over the past two decades, a large segment of the US public remains skeptical about the role that human activities play (Cook,2016). A number of studies suggest that communicating the existence of a scientific consensusabout human-caused climate change shifts the public’s belief toward the scientific consensus (Ding, Maibach, Zhao, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz,2011; Lewandowsky et al.,2012; Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Vaughan,2013; Maibach & van der Linden,2016; Myers, Maibach, Peters, & Leiserowitz,2015; van der Linden, Leiserowitz, Feinberg, & Maibach,2014,2015). Using descrip- tive text, pie charts, or metaphorical comparisons in a pre–post design survey experiment to measure perceptions about levels of scientific consensus among respondents, van der Linden et al. (2014) evaluated the effects of communicating the level of scientific consensus about human-caused climate change. Some participants were informed,“97% of climate scientists have concluded that human- caused climate change is happening,”while other respondents were given this same information in the form of a pie chart. Both the textual frame and pie chart that communicated the level of scien- tific consensus significantly increased respondents’perceptions of the level of scientific consensus. Moreover, the treatment effect was strongest among Republican respondents, providing little evi- dence of group-based motivated reasoning in this context. Despite the fact that the consensus infor- mation affected respondents’perceptions about the level of scientific consensus, it had no effect on belief in the existence of human-caused climate change, concern about the issue, or support for pol- icy action. In a similar vein, Myers et al. (2015) conducted two online experiments that examined how best to effectively communicate scientific consensus information to influence individuals’per- ceptions about and their confidence in the level of scientific agreement on climate change. Across both liberals and conservatives, the results indicate that numeric information about the precise level of scientific agreement on climate change had a powerful impact on perceptions of scientific agreement and confidence. Deryugina and Shurchkov (2016) also conducted an experiment to evalu- ate consensus messages that included increased numerical precision about the level of scientific agreement versus more general information about the existence of a consensus on respondents’per- ceptions about the extent of scientific agreement. They found that, particularly for low (climate ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 157 change) knowledge respondents, providing precise information about the beliefs of US scientists who have published in leading journals increases the belief that the effects of climate change are underway and man-made. In line with van der Linden et al. (2014), Deryugina and Shurchkov found little evi- dence that scientific consensus messages influence support for policy action. They also showed that the effects of the consensus messages decay over time, necessitating their repetition. Although communicating the existence of a scientific consensus can lead citizens to shift their opinions in the direction of that information, the precise impact depends on the political context in which that information is encountered (Bolsen & Druckman,Forthcoming; Cook & Lewan- dowsky,2016). Bolsen and Druckman (Forthcoming) conducted an online experiment using a nationally representative sample of US residents to study the effects of communicating scientific con- sensus information about human-caused climate change in competitive information contexts. The consensus stimuli they employed differs from that employed in the studies discussed above insofar as it informed respondents about a recent report produced by over 300 expert scientists and reviewed by the National Academy of Science as well as agencies with representatives from oil companies, “[putting] much of the uncertainty to rest by stating that climate change‘is primarily due to human activities’”(Bolsen & Druckman,Forthcoming, SI, pp. 1–2). Although this information shifts beliefs toward the scientific consensus position regarding whether human activities are primarily responsible for climate change for Democrats and low knowledge Republicans, high knowledge Republicans shift their opinions away from the scientific consensus position relative to high knowl- edge Republicans randomly assigned to a control group. Moreover, the positive impact of commu- nicating the scientific consensus information among low knowledge partisans is eliminated when politicization—i.e. a frame highlighting the inherent uncertainty of science employed to cast doubt on scientific consensus—is introduced into the communicative context. In addition, in line with the results reviewed above, there is no effect of the scientific consensus messages on partisans’ support for policy action relative to a control group. The results demonstrate that consensus climate change messages can be impactful in certain contexts, but that the positive impact may be tempered in the presence of rhetoric that politicizes science, as well as the need to distinguish between mess- ages that may impact beliefs but potentially have little direct effect on behaviour or policy support (Campbell & Kay,2014). Promote accuracy goals To enhance the impact of strategic framing and persuasive messaging efforts that seek to generate support for policy action, it is essential that climate science communicators attend to the information processing mechanisms that divide and leave many Americans largely misinformed with regard to climate change. First, to overcome directional motivated reasoning in science communication more generally, it must first be acknowledged that, when individuals are motivated to form“accurate”opinions such that they need to justify them later, when the information comes from a mix of typically disagreeable groups (e.g. Democrats and Republicans), or when indi- viduals are ambivalent about the source of information, then they tend to view the information in a more “objective”manner. (Druckman,2015, p. 61) Thus,“those passing on the information must try to stimulate their audience to be motivated to form accurate opinions; when this occurs, [directional] motivated reasoning disappears and people spend more time elaborating on and accepting the information”(Druckman,2015, p. 65). For instance, Bolsen, Druckman, and Cook (2014b) conducted an experiment in the context of a nationally repre- sentative survey in the US that varied whether Democrats or Republicans (or both parties) supported aspects of theEnergy Independence and Security Act of2007. Some respondents were also informed that they should view the policy in an evenhanded manner because they would be asked to justify their opinion. The authors found that partisans engage in directional motivated reasoning when they are presented with an in-party or out-party endorsement in support of the policy sans the 158 T. BOLSEN AND M. A. SHAPIRO justification request. However, partisans’evaluation of the policy does not depend on the endorse- ment if they are required to justify their opinions (this inducement stimulated an accuracy motiv- ation). In other words, partisans support or oppose an identical policy based on whether it was endorsed by Democrats or Republicans, but this tendency is eliminated when an accuracy processing motivation is effectively induced. Promoting accuracy is not simply a matter of addressing the partisan nature of climate change as other research demonstrates that frames emphasizing the local impacts of climate change may be another way to promote issue engagement (Ansolabehere & Konisky,2014; Leeper,2012). Scannell and Gifford (2013), for example, found that frames that accentuate the local impacts that will result from climate change cause individuals to become more engaged and seek out information (also see Spence & Pidgeon,2010). As scholarship on this area expands, climate change communicators will learn more about which specific frames and contexts promote accuracy goals for individuals. Actions by scientists and news organizations Complex scientific information has to be effectively communicated for it to contribute to efforts to combat climate change (Druckman & Lupia,2016). Scientists and scientific organizations can do much more to combat efforts to cast doubt on scientific consensus by issuing direct challenges to politicization when it occurs. This can vitiate the uncertainty and anxiety that politicization induces and result in, for example, increased support for cleaner energy alternatives and thus a pathway for- ward to reduce anthropogenic climate change (Bolsen & Druckman,2015). Other recent experimen- tal evidence has shown that efforts to inoculate individuals from frames emphasizingpolitical conflict andscientific uncertaintyabout human-caused climate change are largely ineffective for low knowl- edge partisans, even though, as mentioned already, these groups are positively influenced byscientific consensusframes sans politicization (Bolsen & Druckman,Forthcoming). What is incontrovertible is the need for credibility among those who step forward to reach diverse audiences who may be skeptical about climate change. Only frames from credible sources are likely to be impactful in shaping opinions (Druckman,2001; Lupia,2013), especially in politicized environ- ments where there can be suspicion about the true motives and expertise of a science communicator and whether or not there are shared common interests (Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, & Braman,2011; Lupia,2013). One solution is to bring together scientists and communicators who hold varied sets of values and ideological leanings to communicate consensus about fundamental science when it exists. Given the current partisan divide on the issue of climate change, Hoffman (2015, p. 67) argues that“it is only logical that more climate brokers must emerge from the political Right …[C]limate change must be presented by bona fide conservatives and conservative organizations that see the solutions to climate change as consistent with a conservative ideology.”In other words, conservatives and Republicans are more likely to be persuaded by information provided by credible leaders who they trust (i.e. fellow partisans and ideologies). Nisbet (2014, p. 6) explains, …once community members from differing political backgrounds join together to achieve a broadly inspiring goal like protecting people and a local way of life, then the networks of trust and collaborations formed can be used to move this diverse segment toward cooperation in pursuit of national policy goals. To expand on the previous point, persuasion does not occur unless a listener perceives both expertise and shared interest (Druckman,2015; Lupia,2013), and it is thus crucial to find credible voices that speak to broad segments of the US population. Druckman and Lupia (2016) state, “[c]redibility is an important asset for science communicators, helping draw attention to effectively framed arguments. Yet, many scholars and science communicators have false beliefs about how credibility is built and maintained, particularly in competitive and politicized environments” (p. 17), arguing that credibility is a“perception bestowed by an audience”that represents“the extent to which audience members perceive a communicator as someone whose words or interpretations they would benefit from believing”(p. 18). In that case, relative expertise and perceived common ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 159 interests are thus crucial aspects that individuals use to judge the credibility of a message. Thus, per- haps the most compelling voices are those that represent converted skeptics and those whose research was originally funded by the fossil fuel industry, such as University of California, Berkeley, physics professor Richard A. Muller (Banerjee,2012; Muller,2012). Should the scientific community reinvest in the American public’s civic capacity to discuss, debate, and participate in collective decisions, as Nisbet (2014) and Nisbet and Markowitz (2015) have claimed, it will likely provide a forum for different stakeholders to articulate solutions and build greater consensus over time. Universities, urban areas, and media partners in local regions can develop communication initiatives to challenge how all citizens think and talk about climate change as a way to build consensus through public engagement efforts. As this paper’s final strategy is to shift public support for climate change, engagement by the scientific community is arguably the most important, drawing together individuals from disparate communities and with disparate ideol- ogies and values to create both an entirely new communication medium as well as an elevated level of climate change-related discourse to counter the frequently invokedpolitical conflictand false balance of climate change in the news media. Notes 1. We define the news media as“the publisher, editors, journalists and others who constitute the communications industry and profession, and who disseminate information, largely through newspapers, magazines, television, radio and the Internet”(Boykoff & Roberts,2007, p. 3). 2. The IPCC released reports that received periodic attention in the US press: in 1990, 1995, and 2001 (Boykoff & Roberts,2007). 3. By 2001, the IPCC reinforced this position, concluding that“[h]uman activities…are modifying the concen- tration of atmospheric constituents…that absorb or scatter radiant energy”(Oreskes,2004, p. 1686). 4. Approximately 21% of the 263 news and opinion articles focused on climate change mentioned the leaked/sto- len emails that were the basis for Climategate, and 25% of these articles originated in theWSJ(Nisbet,2011, p. 52). Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. References Ansolabehere, S., & Konisky, D. M. (2014).Cheap and clean: How Americans think about energy in the age of global warming. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bagley, K. (2013, January 17). About a dozen environment reports left at top 5 U.S. papers.Inside Climate News. Retrieved fromhttp://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130114/new-york-times-dismantles-environmental-desk- climate-change-global-warming-journalism-newspapers-hurricane-sandy Banerjee, N. (2012, July 30). Prominent climate change denier now admits he was wrong.Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved fromhttps://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0730/Prominent-climate-change-denier-now-admits- he-was-wrong Bernauer, T., & McGrath, L. F. (2016). Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy.Nature Climate Change,6, 680–683. Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science.Journal of Communication,65(5), 745–769. Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (Forthcoming).Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message on climate change beliefs?Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014a). Communication and collective actions: A survey experiment on motivating energy conservation in the U.S.Journal of Experimental Political Science,1(1), 24–38. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014b). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior,36(2), 235–262. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. C. (2015). Citizens’, scientists’, and policy advisors’beliefs about global warming.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,658(March), 271–295. 160 T. BOLSEN AND M. A. SHAPIRO Boussalis, C., & Coan, T. G. (2016). Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt.Global Environmental Change,36 (January), 89–100. Boykoff, M. T. (2007). From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,32(4), 477–489. Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the U.S. prestige press.Global Environmental Change,14(2), 125–136. Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of U.S. mass-media cov- erage.Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences,38(6), 1190–1204. Boykoff, M. T., & Roberts, J. T. (2007).Media coverage of climate change: Current trends, strengths, weaknesses. Retrieved fromhttp://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/boykoff_maxwell_and_roberts_j._timmons.pdf. Brainard, C. (2015). The changing ecology of news and news organizations: Implications for environmental news. In A. Hansen, & R. Cox (Eds.),The Routledge handbook of environment and communication(pp. 168–175). London: Routledge. Brown Jarreau, P. (2015). Science bloggers’self-perceived communication roles.Journal of Science Communication,14 (4), 1–25. Brulle, R. J. (2014). Institutionalizing delay: Foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter- movement organizations.Climatic Change,122(4), 681–694. Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,107(5), 809–824. Chadwick, A. E. (2015). Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change.Health Communication,7,13–20. Cook, J. (2016). Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus.Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science . Retrieved fromhttp://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/ 9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-314?print=pdf Cook, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). Rational irrationality: Modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks.Topics in Cognitive Science,8(1), 160–179. Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G.,…Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,113(3), 554–559. Deryugina, T., & Shurchkov, O. (2016). The effect of information provision on public consensus about climate change. PloS One,11, e0151469. DiFrancesco, D. A., & Young, N. (2011). Seeing climate change: The visual construction of global warming in Canadian national print media.Cultural Geographies,18(4), 517–536. Ding, D., Maibach, E. W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement.Nature Climate Change,1(9), 462–466. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing.Journal of Politics,63(4), 1041–1066. Druckman, J. N. (2015). Communicating policy-relevant science.Perspectives on Politics,48(1), 58–69. Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication,61(3), 659–688. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2016).Using frames to make scientific communication effective. Unpublished manu- script. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Institute for Policy Research. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review,107(1), 57–79. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.Journal of Communication,43(4), 51 – 58. Fahy, D., & Nisbet, M. C. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices.Journalism,12 (7), 778–793. Feldman, L., Hart, P. S., & Milosevic, T. (2017). Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’coverage of climate change.Public Understanding of Science,26(4), 481–497. Feldman, L., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC.International Journal of Press/Politics,17(1), 3–31. Feldman, L., Myers, T. A., Hmielowski, J. D., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The mutual reinforcement of media selectivity and effects: Testing the reinforcing spirals framework in the context of global warming.Journal of Communication, 64(4), 590–611. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.American Journal of Sociology,95(1), 1–37. Greenberg, J., Knight, G., & Westersund, E. (2011). Spinning climate change: Corporate and NGO public relations strategies in Canada and the United States.International Communication Gazette,73(1–2), 65–82. Hart, P. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change.Science Communication,33(1), 28–51. Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2014). Threat without efficacy? Climate change on U.S. Network news.Science Communication,36, 325–351. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION 161 Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2016a). The impact of climate change—related imagery and text on public opinion and behavior change.Science Communication,38(4), 415–441. Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2016b). The influence of climate change efficacy messages and efficacy beliefs on intended political participation.PloS One,11(8), e0157658. Hart, P. S., Feldman, L., Leiserowitz, A., & Maibach, E. (2015). Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions: Influences on discussion and opinion polarization in context of climate change.Science Communication,37(4), 506–532. Hart, P. S., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2009). Finding the teachable moment: An analysis of information-seeking behavior on global warming related websites during the release ofThe day after tomorrow.Environmental Communication,3(3), 355–366. Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and iden- tity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies.Communication Research,39(1), 701–723. Hellsten, I., & Vasileiadou, E. (2015). The creation of the climategate hype in blogs and newspapers: Mixed methods approach.Internet Research,25(4), 589–609. Hoffman, A. J. (2015).How culture shapes the climate change debate. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Iyengar, S. (1991).Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem.Political Psychology,36(S1), 1– 43. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, J., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.Journal of Risk Research,14(2), 147–174. Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L., & Visser, P. S. (2000). The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion.Public Understanding of Science,9, 239 –260. Leeper, T. J. (2012).Essays on political information and the dynamics of public opinion(PhD Dissertation). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Lehmann, E. (2016, April 27). Many more republicans now believe in climate change: Poll shows a big leap from two years ago.Scientific American. Retrieved fromhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-more- republicans-now-believe-in-climate-change/ Leiserowitz, A. A. (2004). Day after tomorrow: Study of climate change risk perception.Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,46(9), 22–39. Leiserowitz, A. A. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values.Climatic Change,77(1), 45–72. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing.Psychological Science in the Public Interest,13(3), 106–131. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science.Nature Climate Change,2(10), 399–404. Lu, H., & Schuldt, J. P. (2015). Exploring the role of incidental emotions in support for climate change policy.Climatic Change,131, 719–726. Lu, H., & Schuldt, J. P. (2016). Compassion for climate change victims and support for mitigation policy.Journal of Environmental Psychology,45, 192–200. Luedecke, G., McAllister, L., Nacu-Schmidt, A., Andrews, K., Boykoff, M., Daly, M., & Gifford, L. (2016). World news- paper coverage of climate change or global warming, 2004-2015. Retrieved fromhttp://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ media_coverage Lupia, A. (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,110(3), 14048–14054. Maibach, E. W., Kreslake, J. M., Roser-Renouf, C., Rosenthal, S., Feinberg, G., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Do Americans understand that global warming is harmful to human health? Evidence from a national survey. Annals of Global Health,81(3), 396– 409. Maibach, E. W., & van der Linden, S. (2016). The importance of assessing and communicating scientific consensus. Environmental Research Letters,11, 091003. Matsa, K. E., & Mitchell, A. (2014). 8 key takeaways about social media and news.Pew Research Center - Journalism & Media. Retrieved fromhttp://www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/8-key-takeaways-about-social-media-and-news/ McComas, K., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles.Communication Research,26(1), 30–57. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conser- vative movement’s counter-claims.Social Problems,47(4), 499–522. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy.Social Problems,50(3), 348–373. McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American pub- lic’s views of global warming, 2001-2010.Sociological Quarterly,52(2), 155–194. Moser, S. C. (2010). Communicating climate change: History, challenges, process and future directions.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,1(1), 31–53. 162 T. BOLSEN AND M. A. SHAPIRO Muller, R. A. (2012, July 28). The conversion of a climate-change skeptic.New York Times, pp. A19. Myers, T. A., Maibach, E., Peters, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scien- tific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments.PLoS ONE,10(3), e0120985. Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change.Climatic Change,113(3), 1105–1112. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement.Environment,51(2), 12–23. Nisbet, M. C. (2011). Climate shift: Clear vision for the next decade of public debate.ClimateShiftProject.org. Nisbet, M. C. (2014). Engaging in science policy controversies: Insights from the U.S. Debate over climate change. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trech (Eds.),Handbook of the public communication of science and technology(2nd ed, pp. 173– 185). London: Routledge. Nisbet, M. C., & Fahy, D. (2015). The need for knowledge-based journalism in politicized science debates.The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,658(1), 223–235. Nisbet, M. C., & Markowitz, E. M. (2015). Expertise in a