IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/wirecc/v6y2015i2p239-254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review

Author

Listed:
  • Candice C. Howarth
  • Amelia G. Sharman

Abstract

Labels play an important role in opinion formation, helping to actively construct perceptions and reality, and place individuals into context with others. As a highly complex issue, climate change invites a range of different opinions and dialogs about its causes, impacts, and action required. However, the polarized labels used in the climate change debate, such as skeptic or alarmist, are both reflecting and helping to frame the debate as antagonistic and combative. This paper critically reviews the literature on climate opinion labels, and the efforts taken within an academic context to categorize differences, create new taxonomies of more detailed sub‐labels, or create or argue for the use of new labels such as denier or contrarian. By drawing on research on typologies of climate opinions, problems with labeling constructs and discussions around context and the implications for science‐policy dialog, we argue that climate labels, both as constructed in the academic literature, and as applied in science and policy debates, are serving to isolate, exclude, ignore, and dismiss claims‐makers of all types from constructive dialog. It suggests that context has been inadequately considered by the literature and that an emphasis on labels is accentuating division and diverting attention away from a focus on underlying motivations, which may be more conducive toward increasing public understanding and encouraging communication across this polarized debate. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:239–254. doi: 10.1002/wcc.332 This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Communication Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

Suggested Citation

  • Candice C. Howarth & Amelia G. Sharman, 2015. "Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 239-254, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:6:y:2015:i:2:p:239-254
    DOI: 10.1002/wcc.332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.332
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/wcc.332?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mario Bisiada, 2021. "Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge production," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Amelia Sharman & Richard Perkins, 2017. "Post-decisional logics of inaction: The influence of knowledge controversy in climate policy decision-making," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(10), pages 2281-2299, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:wirecc:v:6:y:2015:i:2:p:239-254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1757-7799 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.