Moving (The Focus) from Denial to Dialogue: The Recommended Directions for Communicating Climate Change to Non-Expert Audiences Based on the Analysis of Climate Scientists’ Communicative Experiences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Anderegg W.R., Prall J.W., Harold J., Schneider S.H., 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(27): 12107–12109. dOI 10.1073/pnas.100318710.AndereggW.RPrallJ.WHaroldJSchneiderS.H.,2010.Expert credibility in climate change.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences107(27):12107–12109. DOI10.1073/pnas.100318710.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Bayes R., Bolsen T., druckman J.N., 2023. A research agenda for climate change communication and public opinion: The role of scientific consensus messaging and beyond. Environmental Communication 17(1): 16–34. dOI 10.1080/17524032.2020.1805343.BayesRBolsenTDruckmanJ.N.,2023.A research agenda for climate change communication and public opinion: The role of scientific consensus messaging and beyond.Environmental Communication17(1):16–34. DOI10.1080/17524032.2020.1805343.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Bucchi M., Trench B., 2014. Science communication research: Themes and challenges. In: Bucchi M., Trench B. (eds), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology. 2nd edn. Routledge, London, U.K. and New york, U.S.A: 1–14. dOI 10.4324/9780203483794.BucchiMTrenchB.,2014.Science communication research: Themes and challenges. In:BucchiMTrenchB. (eds),Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology.2ndedn.Routledge,London U.K. and New york U.S.A:1–14. DOI10.4324/9780203483794.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Burgess R.G. (eds), 1982. Field research: A sourcebook and field manual. 1st edn. Routledge, London, U.K. dOI 10.4324/9780203379998.BurgessR.G. (eds),1982.Field research: A sourcebook and field manual.1stedn.RoutledgeLondonU.K.DOI10.4324/9780203379998.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Carlton J.S., Perry-Hill R., Huber M., Prokopy L.S., 2015. The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists. Environmental Research Letters 10(9): 094025. dOI 10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025.CarltonJ.SPerry-HillRHuberMProkopyL.S.,2015.The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists.Environmental Research Letters10(9):094025. DOI10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/094025.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Chaptman d., 2013. Communicating science in the digital age. Grow. University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agri-cultural and Life Sciences (CALS). Online: https://grow. cals.wisc.edu/departments/features/communicating-science-in-the-digital-age (accessed 20 August 2023).ChaptmanD.,2013.Communicating science in the digital age. Grow.University of Wisconsin-Madison College of Agri-cultural and Life Sciences (CALS).Online: https://grow. cals.wisc.edu/departments/features/communicating-science-in-the-digital-age(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Cologna V., Knutti R., Oreskes N., Siegrist M., 2021. Majority of German citizens, U.S. citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement. Environmental Research Letters 16(2): 024011. dOI 10.1088/1748-9326/abd4ac.ColognaVKnuttiROreskesNSiegristM.,2021.Majority of German citizens U.S. citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement.Environmental Research Letters16(2):024011. DOI10.1088/1748-9326/abd4ac.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Cook B.R., Overpeck J.T., 2019. Relationship-building between climate scientists and publics as an alternative to information transfer. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10(2): e570. dOI 10.1002/wcc.570.CookB.ROverpeckJ.T.,2019.Relationship-building between climate scientists and publics as an alternative to information transfer.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change10(2): e570. DOI10.1002/wcc.570.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Cook J., 2016. Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Online: https://oxfordre.com/climatescience (accessed 20 August 2023).CookJ.,2016.Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science.Online: https://oxfordre.com/climatescience(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Cook J., Nuccitelli d., Green S.A., Richardson M., Winkler B., Painting R., Way R., Jacobs P., Skuce A., 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8(2) 024024.CookJNuccitelliDGreenS.ARichardsonMWinklerBPaintingRWayRJacobsPSkuceA.,2013.Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.Environmental Research Letters8(2)024024.Search in Google Scholar
Cook J., Oreskes N., doran P.T., Anderegg W.R., Verheggen B., Maibach E.W., et al., 2016. Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters 11(4): 048002. dOI 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.CookJOreskesNDoranP.TAndereggW.RVerheggenBMaibachE.W.,2016.Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming.Environmental Research Letters11(4):048002. DOI10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Diethelm P., McKee M., 2009. denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? The European Journal of Public Health 19(1): 2–4. dOI 10.1093/eurpub/ckn139.DiethelmPMcKeeM.,2009.Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? The European Journal of Public Health19(1):2–4. DOI10.1093/eurpub/ckn139.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Doran P.T., Zimmerman M.K., 2009. Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 90(3): 22–23. dOI 10.1029/2009EO030002.DoranP.TZimmermanM.K.,2009.Examining the scientific consensus on climate change.Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union90(3):22–23. DOI10.1029/2009EO030002.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Druckman J.N., 2017. The crisis of politicisation within and beyond science. Nature Human Behaviour 1(9): 615–617. dOI 10.1038/s41562-017-0183-5.DruckmanJ.N.,2017.The crisis of politicisation within and beyond science.Nature Human Behaviour1(9):615–617. DOI10.1038/s41562-017-0183-5.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Dunlap R.E., McCright A.M., 2010. Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies. In: Routledge handbook of climate change and society, Routledge, London: 240-259.DunlapR.EMcCrightA.M.,2010.Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies. In:Routledge handbook of climate change and society,Routledge,London:240-259.Search in Google Scholar
Dunlap R.E., McCright A.M., 2011. Organised climate change denial. In: The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (1 vol), Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K: 144–160.DunlapR.EMcCrightA.M.,2011.Organised climate change denial. In:The Oxford handbook of climate change and society(1vol),Oxford University Press,Oxford, U.K:144–160.Search in Google Scholar
Dunlap R.E., McCright A.M., 2015. Challenging climate change. In: Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives, Oxford University Press, New york, U.K: 300-332.DunlapR.EMcCrightA.M.,2015.Challenging climate change. In:Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives,Oxford University Press,New York, U.K:300-332.Search in Google Scholar
Farmer G.T., Cook J., 2013a. Climate change science: A modern synthesis: (Vol 1: The physical climate). Springer, Netherlands. dOI 10.1007/978-94-007-5757-8.FarmerG.TCookJ.,2013a.Climate change science: A modern synthesis: (Vol 1: The physical climate).Springer,Netherlands. DOI10.1007/978-94-007-5757-8.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Farmer G.T., Cook J., 2013b. Understanding climate change denial. In: Climate change science: A modern synthesis. (Vol. 1: The physical climate), Springer Science & Business Media, dordrecht : 445–466.FarmerG.TCookJ.,2013b.Understanding climate change denial. In:Climate change science: A modern synthesis. (Vol. 1: The physical climate),Springer Science & Business Media,dordrecht:445–466.Search in Google Scholar
Hansen J., Fung I., Lacis A., Rind d., Lebedeff S., Ruedy R., et al., 1988. Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 93(d8): 9341–9364.HansenJFungILacisARindDLebedeffSRuedyR.,1988.Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model.Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres93(d8):9341–9364.Search in Google Scholar
Hartz J., Chappell R., 1997. Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. First Amendment Center, Nashville, TN.HartzJChappellR.,1997.Worlds apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future.First Amendment Center,Nashville, TN.Search in Google Scholar
Hornsey M.J., Fielding K.S., 2020. Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Social Issues and Policy Review 14(1): 3–35. dOI 10.1111/sipr.12058.HornseyM.JFieldingK.S.,2020.Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change.Social Issues and Policy Review14(1):3–35. DOI10.1111/sipr.12058.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
House of Lords. 2000. Science and Technology Select. Committee. Science and Society 3rd Report. Stationary Office, Great Britain.House of Lords.2000.Science and Technology Select. Committee.Science and Society 3rd Report.Stationary Office,Great Britain.Search in Google Scholar
Hulme M., 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. dOI 10.1017/CBO9780511841200.HulmeM.,2009.Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, U.K. DOI10.1017/CBO9780511841200.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Hunter P., 2016. The communications gap between scientists and public: More scientists and their institutions feel a need to communicate the results and nature of research with the public. EMBO Rep 17(11): 1513–1515. dOI 10.15252/embr.201643379.HunterP.,2016.The communications gap between scientists and public: More scientists and their institutions feel a need to communicate the results and nature of research with the public.EMBO Rep17(11):1513–1515. DOI10.15252/embr.201643379.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Imundo M.N., Rapp D.N., 2022. When fairness is flawed: Effects of false balance reporting and weight-of-evidence statements on beliefs and perceptions of climate change. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 11(2): 258. dOI 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.002.ImundoM.NRappD.N.,2022.When fairness is flawed: Effects of false balance reporting and weight-of-evidence statements on beliefs and perceptions of climate change.Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition11(2):258. DOI10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.002.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Kennedy B., Funk C., Tyson A., 2022. Americans Value U.S. Role as Scientific Leader, but 38% Say Country Is Losing Ground Globally. Pew Research Center. Online: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2022/10/Trust-in-science-final.pdf (accessed 20 August 2023).KennedyBFunkCTysonA.,2022.Americans Value U.S. Role as Scientific Leader, but 38% Say Country Is Losing Ground Globally.Pew Research Center.Online: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2022/10/Trust-in-science-final.pdf(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Knutti R., 2019. Closing the knowledge-action gap in climate change. One Earth 1(1): 21–23. dOI 10.1016/j. oneear.2019.09.001.KnuttiR.,2019.Closing the knowledge-action gap in climate change.One Earth1(1):21–23. DOI10.1016/j. oneear.2019.09.001.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Lewandowsky S., Gigna, G.E., Vaughan S., 2013. The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change 3(4): 399–404. dOI 10.1038/NCLIMATE1720.LewandowskySGignaG.E.VaughanS.,2013.The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science.Nature Climate Change3(4):399–404. DOI10.1038/NCLIMATE1720.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Lynas M., Houlton B.Z., Perry S., 2021. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 16(11): 114005. dOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.LynasMHoultonB.ZPerryS.,2021.Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.Environmental Research Letters16(11): 114005. DOI10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Maibach, E., Myers, T., & Leiserowitz, A., 2014. Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening. Earth’s Future 2(5): 295-298.MaibachE.MyersT.LeiserowitzA.,2014.Climate scientists need to set the record straight: There is a scientific consensus that human-caused climate change is happening.Earth’s Future2(5):295-298.Search in Google Scholar
Malinowski Sz., 2015. Czy leci z nami klimatolog? Nauka o klimacie. Online: https://naukaoklimacie.pl/aktualnosci/czy-leci-z-nami-klimatolog-98/ (accessed 20 August 2023).MalinowskiSz.,2015.Czy leci z nami klimatolog? Nauka o klimacie.Online: https://naukaoklimacie.pl/aktualnos-ci/czy-leci-z-nami-klimatolog-98/(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Mann M., 2021. On the climate crisis, delay has become the new form of denial. Online: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-10-31/climate-crisis-delay-has-become-the-new-form-of-denial (accessed 20 August 2023).MannM.,2021.On the climate crisis, delay has become the new form of denial.Online: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-10-31/climate-crisis-delay-has-become-the-new-form-of-denial(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Milam O., Harvey R., 2019. US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds, Guardian. Online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll (accessed 10 december 2023).MilamOHarveyR.,2019.US is hotbed of climate change denial, major global survey finds, Guardian.Online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll(accessed 10 December 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Miller S., 2001. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science 10(1): 115–120. dOI 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308.MillerS.,2001.Public understanding of science at the cross-roads.Public Understanding of Science10(1):115–120. DOI10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Moser S.C., dilling L., 2007. Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.MoserS.CDillingL.,2007.Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, U.K.Search in Google Scholar
Moser S.C., dilling L., 2011. Communicating change science: closing action climate. In: John S.d., Richard B.N., Schlosberg d. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K: 161–174.MoserS.CDillingL.,2011.Communicating change science: closing action climate. In:JohnS.DRichardB.NSchlosbergd. (eds),The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society,Oxford University Press,Oxford, U.K:161–174.Search in Google Scholar
Myers F.K., doran P.T., Cook J., Kotcher J.E., Myers T.A., 2021. Consensus revisited: Quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among earth scientists 10 years later. Environmental Research Letters 16: 104030. dOI 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774.MyersF.KDoranP.TCookJKotcherJ.EMyersT.A.,2021.Consensus revisited: Quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among earth scientists 10 years later.Environmental Research Letters16:104030. DOI10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Nelkin d., 1995. Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. (Rev edn). W.H. Freeman, New york.NelkinD.,1995.Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. (Revedn).W.H. Freeman,New York.Search in Google Scholar
Newton S., 2015. Who Counts as a Climate Scientist? NCSE. Online: https://ncse.ngo/who-counts-climate-scientist (accessed 20 August 2023).NewtonS.,2015.Who Counts as a Climate Scientist?NCSE.Online: https://ncse.ngo/who-counts-climate-scientist(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Oreskes N., 2004. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306(5702): 1686–1686. dOI 10.1126/science.1103618.OreskesN.,2004.The scientific consensus on climate change.Science306(5702):1686–1686. DOI10.1126/science.1103618.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Oreskes N., 2007. The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong? In: diMento J.F.C., doughman P. (eds), Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren. MIT Press., Cam-bridge, USA: 65–99.OreskesN.,2007.The scientific consensus on climate change: How do we know we’re not wrong?In:DiMentoJ.F.CDoughmanP. (eds),Climate change: What it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren.MIT Press.,Cam-bridge, USA:65–99.Search in Google Scholar
Oreskes N., Conway E.M., 2010. Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, New York.OreskesNConwayE.M.,2010.Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming.Bloomsbury Publishing USA,New York.Search in Google Scholar
PAN [Polska Akademia Nauk], 2022. Polacy pozytywnie oceniają naukowców, a krytycznie rządzących. Pierwszy raport z międzynarodowego badania. Online: https://pan.pl/polacy-pozytywnie-oceniaja-naukowcow-a-krytycznie-rzadzacych-pierwszy-raport-z-miedzynarodowego-badania/ (accessed 20 August 2023).PAN [Polska Akademia Nauk],2022.Polacy pozytywnie oceniają naukowców, a krytycznie rządzących. Pierwszy raport z międzynarodowego badania.Online: https://pan.pl/polacy-pozytywnie-oceniaja-naukowcow-a-krytycznie-rzadzacych-pierwszy-raport-z-miedzynarodowego-badania/(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
PERITIA, 2022. PERITIA – policy, expertise and trust. Online: https://ncse.ngo/sites/default/files/NCSE%20 Annual%20Report%202016 – final.pdf (accessed 20 August 2023).PERITIA,2022.PERITIA – policy, expertise and trust.Online: https://ncse.ngo/sites/default/files/NCSE%20 Annual%20Report%202016 – final.pdf(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Racimo F., Valentini E., Rijo de León G., Santos T.L., Norberg A., Atmore L.M., Murray M., Hakala S.M., Olsen F.A., Gardner C.J., Halder J.B., 2022. The biospheric emergency calls for scientists to change tactics. Elife 7(11): e83292. dOI 10.7554/eLife.83292.RacimoFValentiniERijo De LeónGSantosT.LNorbergAAtmoreL.MMurrayMHakalaS.MOlsenF.AGardnerC.JHalderJ.B.,2022.The biospheric emergency calls for scientists to change tactics.Elife7(11):e83292. DOI10.7554/eLife.83292.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Rittel H.W.J., Webber M.M., 1973. dilemmas IN a general theory of planning. Policy Science 4: 155–169. dOI 10.1007/BF01405730.RittelH.W.JWebberM.M.,1973.Dilemmas IN a general theory of planning.Policy Science4:155–169. DOI10.1007/BF01405730.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Sadura P., European Climate Foundation, Fundacja Pole dialogu, 2023. New climate negationism. How populism in Poland influences our thinking about climate change. Online: https://poledialogu.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/New-climate-negationism_report_ENG. pdf (accessed 10 december 2023).SaduraP.,European Climate Foundation, Fundacja Pole dialogu, 2023. New climate negationism.How populism in Poland influences our thinking about climate change.Online: https://poledialogu.org.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/New-climate-negationism_report_ENG.pdf(accessed 10 december 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Schäfer, M. S., 2012. Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review. Wiley In-terdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3(6): 527-543.SchäferM. S.,2012.Online communication on climate change and climate politics: a literature review.Wiley In-terdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change3(6):527-543.Search in Google Scholar
Schipper E.L.F., dubash N.K., Mulugetta y., 2021. Climate change research and the search for solutions: Rethinking interdisciplinarity. Climatic Change 168(3–4): 18.SchipperE.L.FDubashN.KMulugettay.,2021.Climate change research and the search for solutions: Rethinking interdisciplinarity.Climatic Change168(3–4):18.Search in Google Scholar
State of Science Index 2022 Global Report, 2022. Online: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/2183175O/3m-state-of-science-index-sosi-2022-global-report.pdf (accessed 20 August 2023).State of Science Index 2022 Global Report,2022.Online: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/2183175O/3m-state-of-science-index-sosi-2022-global-report.pdf(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Treise d., Weigold, M.F., 2002. Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators. Science Communication 23(3): 310–322. dOI 10.1177/107554700202300306.TreiseDWeigoldM.F.,2002.Advancing science communication: A survey of science communicators.Science Communication23(3):310–322. DOI10.1177/107554700202300306.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Van der Linden S., Leiserowitz A., Maibach E.W., 2016. Communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is an effective and depolarising public engagement strategy: Experimental evidence from a large national replication study. Online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2733956 (accessed 20 August 2023). dOI 10.2139/ssrn.2733956.van der LindenSLeiserowitzAMaibachE.W.,2016.Communicating the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is an effective and depolarising public engagement strategy: Experimental evidence from a large national replication study.Online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2733956(accessed 20 August 202310.2139/ssrn.2733956.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Van der Linden S., Leiserowitz A., Maibach E., 2019. The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology 62: 49–58. dOI 10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009.van der LindenSLeiserowitzAMaibachE.,2019.The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication.Journal of Environmental Psychology62:49–58. DOI10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Vernon J.L., Woolley M., 2019. Visibility may be the key to increasing support for science. American Scientist. Online: https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/macroscope/visibility-may-be-the-key-to-increasing-support-for-science (accessed 20 August 2023).VernonJ.LWoolleyM.,2019.Visibility may be the key to increasing support for science.American Scientist.Online: https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/macroscope/visibility-may-be-the-key-to-increasing-support-for-science(accessed 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Weart S., 2011. Global warming: How skepticism became denial. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67(1): 41–50.WeartS.,2011.Global warming: How skepticism became denial.Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists67(1):41–50.Search in Google Scholar
Webb S., Webb B., 1932. Methods of social study. Longmans Green, London.WebbSWebbB.,1932.Methods of social study.Longmans Green,London.Search in Google Scholar
World Public Opinion, 2009. Public attitudes toward climate change: Findings from a multi-country poll. Online: https://worldpublicopinion.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ClimateChange_dec09_rpt.pdf (accessed: 20 August 2023).World Public Opinion,2009.Public attitudes toward climate change: Findings from a multi-country poll.Online: https://worldpublicopinion.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ClimateChange_Dec09_rpt.pdf(accessed: 20 August 2023).Search in Google Scholar
Xifra J., 2016. Climate change deniers and advocacy: A situational theory of publics approach. American Behavioral Scientist 60(3): 276–287. dOI 10.1177/00027642156134.XifraJ.,2016.Climate change deniers and advocacy: A situational theory of publics approach.American Behavioral Scientist60(3):276–287. DOI10.1177/00027642156134.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
Ziman J., 1991. Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 16(1): 99–105. dOI 10.1177/016224399101600106.ZimanJ.,1991.Public understanding of science.Science, Technology, & Human Values16(1):99–105. DOI10.1177/016224399101600106.Open DOISearch in Google Scholar