London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
Anglia Ruskin University, UK.
Public Underst Sci. 2017 Oct;26(7):826-842. doi: 10.1177/0963662516632453. Epub 2016 Mar 11.
Public perceptions of the climate debate predominantly frame the key actors as climate scientists versus sceptical voices; however, it is unclear why climate scientists and sceptical voices choose to participate in this antagonistic and polarised public battle. A narrative interview approach is used to better understand the underlying rationales behind 22 climate scientists' and sceptical voices' engagement in the climate debate, potential commonalities, as well as each actor's ability to be critically self-reflexive. Several overlapping rationales are identified including a sense of duty to publicly engage, agreement that complete certainty about the complex assemblage of climate change is unattainable and that political factors are central to the climate debate. We argue that a focus on potential overlaps in perceptions and rationales as well as the ability to be critically self-reflexive may encourage constructive discussion among actors previously engaged in purposefully antagonistic exchange on climate change.
公众对气候辩论的看法主要将主要角色框定为气候科学家与持怀疑态度的声音之间的对立；然而，不清楚为什么气候科学家和持怀疑态度的声音选择参与这种对抗性和两极化的公众辩论。采用叙事访谈方法，以更好地理解 22 位气候科学家和持怀疑态度的声音参与气候辩论的背后基本原理、潜在共性，以及每个行为者进行批判性自我反思的能力。确定了几个重叠的理由，包括公开参与的责任感、对气候变化这一复杂组合完全确定的不可达成性的共识，以及政治因素是气候辩论的核心。我们认为，关注观念和动机上的潜在重叠，以及批判性自我反思的能力，可能会鼓励以前在气候变化问题上有意对抗的行为者之间进行建设性的讨论。
