Dominant Frames in Legacy and Social Media Coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Saffron O’Neill1*, Hywel Williams2, Tim Kurz3, Bouke Wiersma1 and Maxwell Boykoff4

1 Geography, College of Life & Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, EX4 4RJ, UK. 2 Biosciences, College of Life & Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, EX4 4QE, UK. 3 Psychology, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Washington Singer Laboratories, Exeter, EX4 4QG, UK. 4 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado-Boulder, 80309, USA. * e-mail:

s.o’neill@exeter.ac.uk. Supp. Info. 1. Developing the coding schema The frame coding schema was developed qualitatively and inductively using a number of interlinked processes, in order to ensure the integrity of the coding instrument1. First, a literature review was undertaken of previous research examining media communication of climate change. In order to keep consistency and rigour in the use of the framing concept, we only included studies that explicitly defined their theoretical approach and analytic method, and those that examined the ‘issue framing’ of climate change. Seven such studies were compiled in a meta-analysis of climate change issue framing (Table S12-8). Second, the frames circulated by elite actors (both individuals and institutions) were considered. For example, the Health frame is observed when health impacts of climate change are highlighted by elite institutions such as the WHO, US EPA and Public Health England; there have been several prominent medical journal Special Issues on climate change and health9; and social science academics have tested the efficacy of the health frame for communicating about climate change10. Similarly, the Security frame has been in evidence when institutional actors such as the CIA11, the Pentagon12-13 and political leaders such as former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton14 discuss climate change as a threat to national security. Last, coverage of elite frames and previous mass media issue frames was complimented by previous research with public audiences, asking people for the first thoughts which spring to mind when thinking about climate change15 as a basis for frames circulating in non-elite spheres. This analysis produced the issue frame schema outline. Subsequently, these frames became fully defined in the frame schema structure by carrying out an inductive thematic coding16 on the media dataset, building upon Entman’s17 definition of issue frames (as distinct cultural entities which propose a problem definition, moral judgement and remedy), which can be detected through examination of texts for their key cultural currency (main actors and voices; themes or storylines; language, metaphors and phrases; and visual imagery) which together ‘convey thematically consonant meanings across different media and time’18. This rigorous approach to frame selection ensured that all ‘culturally available frames’19:144 were represented and fully defined within the frame schema (Table S2). The frame schema was developed to analyse IPCC reportage (and so the examples are related to IPCC coverage), but it is applicable across climate change media studies.

Dominant frames in legacy and social mediacoverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONDOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1

Antilla (2005)

Doulton and Brown (2009)

Olausson (2009) Nisbet (2009) Shehata and Hopkins (2012)

Painter (2013) O’Neill (2013) stu

dy

att

rib

ute

s

location

USA UK Sweden US-based work theorising from common frames occuring in other science-policy debates (inc. nuclear energy, biotechnology, evolution ).

Sweden and USA Australia, France, India, Norway, UK, USA

Australia, UK, USA

media

93 newspapers, newswires and scientific texts

4 newspapers 3 newspapers 4 newspapers 18 newspapers (3 per country)

13 newspapers (5 UK, 5 Australian, 5 USA)

time period

1 Mar 2003 – 29 Feb 2004

30 Jun 1997 - 30 June 2007

1 Sep 2004 – 6 Sep 2005 1 Dec 1997 – 31 Dec 2007, with intensive sampling 1-14 Dec 1997 and 3-16 Dec 2007

4 days around 2 Feb 2007, 6 Apr 2007, 18 Nov 2011, 28 Mar 2012. Also Jan 2010 (UK start Jan 2011) – 30 Sept 2012

1 Jan 2010 – 31 Dec 2010

Issue, event or theme focused?

theme: how 32 climate science stories became media items that year

theme: climate change and development

issue (climate change) event: COP Summits in Kyoto (1997) and Bali (2007)

event: IPCC AR4 WG1 and WG 2 Report releases; IPCC SREX Report release; Arctic sea ice melt

total items analysed

298 articles; plus newswires, scientific texts

158 articles 141 articles 1,785 articles 344 articles 1,603 images

analytic method (cited papers)

framing (citing Entman 2004), but not explicitly defined

discourse analysis (Dryzek 2005; Carvalho 2000)

Critical Discourse Analysis (van Dijk 1988)

content analysis (e.g. Bennett and Livingston 2003); frame analysis (e.g. Mermin 1999)

content analysis of presence, salience, and dominance of four frames

Visual content analysis (e.g. Smith and Joffe 2009); visual framing (Dyer 1982)

components analysed

text text text text text visuals

fram

e

settled science valid science: no evidence of scepticism, tend to engage scientists directly

potential catastrophe: science predicts future dire impacts, rich must act soon, but no need for upheaval disaster strikes: terrible consequences already, something must be done crisis: drastic consequences clear, new model of social progress required

certainty: humans responsible, dramatic impacts, happening now. Two subframes: a) collective international mitigative action b) collective local/ national adaptive action

climate change: global warming is a big problem caused by humans

disaster Pandora's box: possible catastrophe, or fatalism

disaster or 'implicit risk': adverse impacts

distant threat: climate impacts are severe but occur elsewhere, little mention of potential mitigative or adaptive solutions

economic rationalism: more

economic development: an investment, market benefit or risk, or way of increasing competitiveness

economic consequences: mentioned either in general economic terms or in terms of numbers

uncertainty uncertainty: uncertain science, little agreement debate ambiguous cause and effect: scientific findings de-emphasised

efficient to develop now and adapt later, more pressing development issues science uncertain,

scientific / technological uncertainty: a matter of expert understanding, peer review v hype

scientific uncertainty: human influence on climate questioned, mentions natural variability, or science inconclusive

uncertainty: ranges of projections, sceptics quoted, use of words like 'may', 'possible' or 'uncertain', duelling experts

politicised conflict

controversy: controversial science, features climate sceptics

Optimism: proponents are doom-mongers, sceptical of climate science, climate change will be beneficial Opportunity: overcoming climate change can help the poor

conflict and strategy: a conflict or battle between competing elites or personaliites middle way: a third way between polarised views

contested and politicised: political leaders feature heavily, focus on controversy and battle

opportunity (for social change)

social progress: a means of improving quality of life or solving problems

opportunity: either from GHG emissions leading to beneficial impacts, or of mitigating early

morality and ethics

Ethical mitigation: the West must lead, negotiations should be based on ‘contraction and convergence’, USA is selfish Self-righteous mitigation: China and India are stalling, the West is stymied from undertaking mitigation

morality and ethics: a matter or right or wrong, or of respect for limits or thresholds

role of science public accountability and governance: debate over place of science / policy

risk explicit risk: uses term 'risk', discusses probabilities or odds of adverse impacts, precautionary principle

health public health: specific health impacts, esp. for most vulnerable. Impacts brought closer to home.

Table S1. Identifying culturally available climate change frames, based on the academic literature. Studies were only included if they explicitly defined their theoretical approach and

analytic method, and they examined the ‘issue framing’ of climate change2-8. In some cases, frames from individual studies may straddle two frames in our classification.

Supp. Info. 2. Instructions for coders Data should be collected over a fortnight for each Working Group, centred on the day of the IPCC press release. This period allows capture of media build-up before the press release, and diminution of interest afterwards. It also ensures capturing at least one weekend after the press release, when print media may publish longer or more reflective pieces. Media sources should be selected based on influence (circulation, audience) and ideology. Selecting media items Media items should be selected based on keywords. For print and TV media, search for the keywords “climate change” or “global warming”, as well as either “IPCC” or “Intergovernmental Panel”. Pre-reading of TV and print items should only select those for final analysis where reports are substantively about the IPCC. For Twitter, collect all tweets including hashtag #IPCC. (Hashtags are used by Twitter users to indicate tweet topic or draw attention to an issue. The Twitter feed can be searched by hashtag, so hashtags can be seen as user-directed keywords. In addition, use of hashtags relates to influence on social media; for example, hashtagged tweets are much more likely to be shared through retweets). From each WG dataset, create a secondary dataset of all retweets. (A retweet is a re-broadcast of a received message. Retweets are used to spread content and are likely to imply endorsement). Create a social network of users based on the retweet data, creating directed links where link A-B indicates user B retweeted a message by user A. Use this social network to measure user influence as their Katz centrality in the social network. (Katz centrality assigns a score to every node based on connectivity. Here it gives high scores to users who are retweeted by many other users, with increased weight given to retweets by users who are themselves often retweeted. Thus Katz centrality identifies users whose original content is most widely shared). Randomly select 100 original (non-retweet) tweets from the set of all original tweets by the top-50 users ranked by Katz centrality. These tweets should form the sample used for the frame analysis. Metadata collection The following data should be collected for all media items, including:

WG reference period (WG1, WG2, WG3) Country (US, UK) Type (print, TV, Twitter) Date Source (individual media source, e.g. The Guardian, The BBC, an individual Twitter user) Title of the item (for print, TV) or full tweet (for Twitter)

For TV items, also collect the following data:

Segment duration Segment place order in the news broadcast Format

o Anchor only (reading content of report) (1) o Anchor and reporter (in the studio) (2) o Anchor and reporter (in Stockholm) (3) o Anchor and reporter (on location) (4) o Anchor, reporter plus interviewee(s) in Stockholm (5) o Anchor, plus reporter and interviewee(s) on location (6) o Studio interview (e.g. anchor and expert in studio) (7) o Other (8)

Time of broadcast For print items, also collect the following data:

Word count

Names of all authors Position of author(s) (e.g. ‘Environment Correspondent’) Page number within the newspaper Section of newspaper (News Front page; News, Business, Opinion) Visual imagery presence (yes/no) Visual image count Infographic imagery presence (yes/no) Infographic imagery count

Assigning a frame to a media item All media items (broadcasts, articles, tweets) should be coded using the frame schema (Table S2). Coders should pay particular attention to the presence (or absence) of:

narrative theme (how the problem is defined, any moral judgement, proposed remedies) quoted sources themes or storylines stock phrases, keywords and metaphors visual imagery narrative themes

Table S2 gives a comprehensive account of illustrative examples of all of the above for each of the frames found in the IPCC dataset. Individual tweets are short (maximum 140 characters). Therefore, for Twitter items, pay particular attention to:

hashtags: used to draw attention to an issue (e.g. #debateisover, #cdnpoli, #hunger; #IPCC will be present in all tweets due to sampling method)

mentions: used to alert a Twitter user to the tweet (e.g. @WaxmanClimate, @UNClimateTalks) user profiles: may contain information that help position the tweet (e.g. ‘CO2 isn't the climate

control knob’) URLs: used in different ways – it may be to elaborate on a tweet, to point to further information, or

to ridicule. All URL-linked resources should be read in full and their content taken into account alongside the tweet itself.

Note that for some tweets (e.g. where the tweet is very short, ambiguous and has no linking URL), assigning a frame is not possible. This tweets should be assigned ‘n/a’ in the coding datasheet.

frame socio-political

context of frame problem definition,

moral judgement, remedy typical

sources themes or storylines

language, metaphors, phrases

visual imagery

Settled Science (SS)

A generic frame that exists for other techno-scientific issues

20 . Historic and

persistent for climate change. Assumes a linear model of science into policymaking. Political actors may use frame to focus attention onto the climate science, away from addressing political realities

21.

Increasing general scientific knowledge unlikely to alter engagement

22.

Emphasis on the science of climate change (across any WG). There is broad expert scientific consensus, and considerable evidence of the need for action. Science has spoken; others (usually politicians) must act (usually in terms of global agreements). Any mention of uncertainty or scepticism quashed (if uncertainty is unchallenged, it is US frame).

Scientists, especially IPCC chair and co-chairs. Sceptics absent or very much minority voices. Politicians (e.g. John Kerry, John P Holdren, US; William Hague, UK) emphasise the scientific consensus and the need to act now.

Exhaustive IPCC report produced by thousands of expert scientists

Unprecedented rate of change compared to palaeo records

Carbon budget (emissions ‘allowance’ in order to meet 2°C policy target)

Listing impacts; mention of severe and irreversible impacts

Urges trust in climate scientists and dismisses sceptic voices

‘settled science’

‘unequivocal’ nature of anthropogenic climate change

‘landmark report’ (by IPCC)

‘the balance of evidence’; ‘what more proof do we need’

‘greatest challenge of our time’

sceptics ‘wishful thinking’ or ‘malpractice’

scientists undertaking fieldwork or in IPCC event

climate impacts e.g. flooding, or places threatened by climate change e.g. Kiribati

graphs and figures of climate science

Uncertain (and contested) Science (US)

Like Settled Science, this frame assumes a linear relationship between scientific evidence and policymaking – but here there is (still) a lack of scientific evidence to justify action. Newsroom routines may lead to this frame, through journalists seeking to create a ‘balanced’ news report

6.

The focus for this frame is on uncertainty - in climate science, impacts or solutions. May question anthropogenic nature of climate change, or discuss natural variability. Science has been wrong before, and still lacks knowledge. We cannot, should not, or will struggle, to act.

May be ‘duelling experts’, but often sceptics are unchallenged. Typical voices countering climate scientists include Myron Ebell (US), Bob Carter (Australia), Benny Peisner (UK).

unexplained pause in global mean temperature warming ~2000-present

CRU stolen emails or ‘Climategate’

Errors in IPCC (e.g. Himalayan glacier)

Where climate scientists are present, they attempt to counter the above by making appeals to expertise, evidence and observations.

‘pause’ in warming or ‘slowdown’

‘we cannot be sure [of…] despite scientists’ best efforts’

‘errors’ or ‘mistakes’ by scientists

emotive language concerning behaviour of scientists e.g. ‘hysteria’ or ‘silliness’; ‘admit’or ‘insist’ or are ‘puzzled’; they attempt to ’prove’ climate change’

‘Global warming believers’

hackyned, clichéd images e.g. polar/glacial scenes, especially images of polar bears

scientists debating with sceptics

Political or Ideological Struggle (PIS)

A generic frame20

. In the context of the climate change issue, it comments on (rather than doing ‘straight up and down’ reporting) of the IPCC (IPCC mandate is to be ‘policy-relevant, never policy-prescriptive’). Can lead to polarisation of audiences if highly partisan

23.

A political or ideological conflict over the way the world should work. Conflict over solutions or strategy to address climate change (above disagreements over science). A battle for power between nations, groups or personalities.

Political figures e.g. Al Gore (US), Ed Davey, Baroness Worthington (UK); thinktank and non-profit actors e.g. Nigel Lawson (UK),Bjorn Lomborg (Denmark).

detail of specific policies (e.g. Green Deal or 2008 Climate Change Act, UK)

disagreement over policies and policy detail

questioning the motives or funding of opponents

A ‘battle’ (e.g. ‘a battle of ideas’) or ‘war’; ‘fierce debate’

talk of government strategy e.g. described as ‘confused’

reference to ‘scientific truths’ (implying, how can the other side ignore these and not act?)

Nations given personalities (e.g. the USA as the ‘bad boy’ of the climate debate)

political figures

images of climate protest

political cartoons

Disaster (D)

Appeals to journalistic values, especially in terms of personalisation

24 (by linking to

impacts of extremes on people), and because of the availability of compelling visual imagery to accompany narratives

25. Such fearful

narratives can lead to denial or apathy

26.

Predicted impacts are dire, with severe consequences. The most vulnerable are impacted already. Impacts are numerous, discussed in detail, and threaten all aspects of life. Precautionary action emphasised: impacts will get worse, we are not well prepared.

Scientists, NGO officials, local people affected by climate impacts

Unprecedented rise in global average surface temperature

Lists and details of severe impacts (sea level rise, snow and ice decline, decline in coral reefs; extreme weather including droughts, heatwaves, floods; migration, food security)

scale of the challenge (ecologically, socially, temporally, financially) almost overwhelming

frightening language: ‘immense risk’, ‘huge disruption’, ‘positively frightening’,

science has served a ‘bombshell report’, ‘brutally detailed’

unnatural weather: ‘weather on steroids’, violent’ or ‘extreme’ weather, ‘runaway climate change’

‘huge challenge’, ‘life […] unsustainable’

climate impacts of all types

threatened species or ecosystems

disaster-stricken people

scientific figures (maps, graphs, infographics) of climate impacts

Opportunity (O1 and O2)

O1: A generic frame for techno-scientific issues (‘social progress’

20) but only

recently emerging for climate change. Used by academics

27-

28 and left-leaning politicians

29.

Climate change poses opportunities. Either: 1) Addressing climate change

can be a way to re-imagine how we live: to further human development, or to

O1: Chris Field (IPCC co-chair WG2). O2: Industries

O1: Climate change has provided an opportunity to improve lives now as well as in the future

O2: Melting Arctic will lead to opening up of shipping routes and new trade

O1: ‘Climate change rich with opportunity’. Time for ‘innovation or ‘creativity’. ‘Improve lives now and in the future’.

O2: opportunity to ‘transform trade’. Opportunities e.g. in

no key images yet present in media coverage

O2: The counterpart to O1. A key storyline is of CO2 fertilisation for agriculture, gaining traction through Rep. John Shimkus and Christopher Monckton 2009 ‘plant food’ hearing

30.

invest in co-benefits. 2) If climate is changing

(which may be uncertain), there will be beneficial impacts. Negative impacts ignored or dismissed. No intervention needed.

opportunities; increased agricultural productivity through increasing atmospheric CO2 fertilisation

‘increased resource extraction’.

Economic (E1 and E2)

E1: Given impetus through UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown’s call for an economic analysis of climate change, and the resulting Stern Review

31.

Frame reinvigorated by recent campaigning for divestment from the fossil fuel industry. E2: The counterpart to E1. An early proponent of this frame was Bjorn Lomborg, in the Copenhagen Consensus

32.

Frame used by conservative politicians to justify no action on climate

33.

Discusses economic growth, prosperity, investments, markets. A key indicator of this frame is giving monetary costs of in/action. Either: 1) The economic case

provides a strong argument for action now. Details how this might be achieved (e.g. divestment).

2) Economics is a strong argument for no action. Action is hugely expensive, or simply too costly in the context of other priorities. Likely to mention scientific uncertainty.

Government experts and economic advisors. A key voice for E1 Nicholas Stern (UK).

E1: Cost of mitigating climate change is high, but cost will be higher if we don’t act now. Action now can create ‘green jobs’. Divestment from fossil fuels.

E2: UN is proposing climate plans which will damage economic growth. US/UK-based media may argue that action at home now is unfair as annex II countries will gain economic advantage.

mentions of ‘economic growth’, ‘prosperity’. Lists of costs/economic estimates.

E1: ‘billions of pounds/dollars of damage; (in the future if no action is taken now); ‘it won’t cost the world to save the planet’

E2: ‘action will damage economic growth’, ‘it’s no time for panicky rearranging of the global economy’; ‘killing’ industry, ‘imposing costly energy efficiency requirements’

no key images yet present in media coverage

Morality and Ethics (ME1 and ME2)

ME1: A generic frame. Can be used in the climate change context to attempt to reach non-engaged groups

34-35. Can

be problematic politically (if there is a perceived ‘credibility gap’ between rhetoric and action

36).

ME2: The counterpart to ME1. Not found in this dataset.

An explicit and urgent moral, religious, or ethical call: 1) For action: strong

mitigation, and protection of the most vulnerable.

2) For no action. Likely to discuss scientific uncertainty.

A key sign of this frame in use is mention of God(s), ethics, morals or morality.

Religious, moral, ethical leaders and thinkers e.g. Rowan Williams, UK (ME1). ME2 not found in this dataset.

Mention of God(s), ethics, morality.

ME1: links made between climate change and poverty, ending world hunger, MDGs

ME2: Not found in this dataset.

ME1: ‘exert moral pressure’; ‘degradation’ or ‘ruining’ the planet or creation; people or nations at the ‘front line’ of climate change (the most vulnerable, already exposed)

Religious, moral or ethical leaders

Role of Science (ROS)

This frame gained particular cultural currency in 2009 after the stolen CRU emails were reported (‘Climategate’), when much media reporting focussed on the process of conducting climate science. Often used to support, critique or highlight the nature of the IPCC process.

This frame is about the process, or role, of science in society (rather than focus on scientific evidence itself) – for example, how the IPCC works, or doesn’t. Debate over transparency, funding or awareness of science. Focus on institutions involving scientists (e.g. IPCC). May discuss public opinion, understanding and knowledge. Journalists may act as knowledge arbiters. (If ideology present, likely PIS not ROS).

Journalists e.g. Daily Mail journalist David Rose, BBC head of editorial standards David Jordan. Diplomats e.g. John Ashton. Academics e.g. Roger Pielke. Government bodies e.g. UK’s Science and Technology Select Committee

Bias in media sources. E.g. BBC for either giving contrarians a voice, or for not broadcasting diverse views

Role of the IPCC - either as a leading institution, or as a critique of the politicisation of science. May critique the IPCC as too conservative/alarmist. May detail how IPCC process works.

amount of space/time given to contrarians or sceptics in the media

threats to ‘free speech’

‘false balance’, ‘balance as bias’

‘sexed up science’ (IPCC report)

‘belief in scientists as a new priesthood of the truth’

climate contrarians or sceptics

scientific figures

beautiful ‘natural’ scenes (e.g. rainforest animals)

Security (S)

Gained traction in 2003 when a US Defence study was leaked to the press

13.

Increasing use by governments and senior politicians

14,37. This frame can

Climate change threatens human security (so crop failure is D, but S would detail impacts on food supply). Could be energy, water or food security, or detail threats to the nation

Pentagon, CIA (US), (ex)-military leaders e.g. Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti. Academics e.g. Neil Adger, David Lobell. NGO voices.

conflicts may occur between: developed and developing countries; nature and humans; different stakeholders in developed nations (e.g. farmers v householders over water)

climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’

‘increase in instability, volatility and tension’

water security: ‘fighting for every

military leaders

impacts on security (usually related to food, drought or migration)

militarise the climate change debate, with implications for state-society relations

38.

state, especially over migration. Conflict might be local, but could be larger in scale and endanger many.

drop’

‘a danger to world peace’

Health (H)

The health impacts of climate change are highlighted by elite institutions such as the WHO, US EPA and Public Health England. The Lancet has published Special Issues on climate change and health

9. Holds power for

connecting individuals to an abstract global issue

10.

Climate change poses severe danger to human health e.g. malnutrition, insect-borne diseases or air quality. Urgent mitigation and adaptation required.

NGO voices, e.g. UNICEF, Oxfam. Academics e.g. Jason West.

Vulnerability of particular nations (e.g. Annex II countries) or groups (e.g. children) to health impacts

Details of health impacts from climate change.

‘health, wellbeing, livelihoods and survival are compromised’

health impacts (e.g. people wearing facemasks to protect against air pollution)

Table S2. The coding schema used to identify climate change frames, based on the definition of framing by Entman (1993).

Supp. Info. 3. Newsworthiness of the IPCC reports We evaluated newsworthiness of the IPCC reports in the media sources by examining issue attention and prominence6,39 (see Method) across both countries and all WGs. Figure S1 illustrates frame coverage over time for legacy media, centred on the press release day for each of the three WGs. Figure S2 details the number of unique twitter users using the hashtag #IPCC during the fortnight centred on the press release for each WG.

Fig. S1a-c. Coverage over time for (a.) print and broadcast (b.) print only and (c.) broadcast only for all WGs, centred on each WG’s press release day.

Fig. S2. Coverage over time for IPCC specific hashtags #IPCC and #AR5 (solid lines) and generic hashtags #climatechange and

#globalwarming (dashed lines). The first shaded areas indicates the fortnight of data collection around WG1, the second indicates the data collection period for WG2 and WG3.

Fig. S3. Euler diagram showing numbers of Twitter users using hashtag #IPCC across all three WGs. Overlaps indicate counts of

users tweeting in more than WG. Supplementary information references 1 Philo, G. News content studies, media group methods and discourse analysis: a comparison of approaches. In: Devereux, E. (ed.) Media studies: key issues and debates 101-133 (Sage, 2007). 2 Antilla, L. Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change Glob. Environ. Change 15, 338-352 3 Doulton, H. & Brown, K. Ten years to prevent catastrophe? Discourses of climate change and international development in the UK press Glob. Environ. Change 19 191-202 4 Olausson, U. Global warming – global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty Public Underst. Sci.18, 421-436 5 O’Neill, S.J. Image matters: Climate change imagery in US, UK and Australian newspapers Geoforum 49 10-19. 6 Painter, J. Climate change in the media: reporting risk and uncertainty (I.B.Tauris, 2013). 7 Nisbet, M.C. Communicating Climate Change: Why frames matter to public engagement. Environment 51, 514-518 (2009). 8 Shehata, A. and Hopmann, D.N. Framing climate change: a study of US and Swedish press coverage of global warming. Journalism Studies 13, 175-192 9 Lancet. Series on health and climate change. http://www.thelancet.com/series/health-and-climate-change (London, 2010) 10 Maibach, E.W., Nisbet, M., Baldwin, P., Akerlof, K. & Diao, G. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10, 299 (2010). 11 CIA (2009) CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security. September 25, 2009 https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html 12 Schwartz, P., Randall, D. (2003) An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security. http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf 13 Scheffran, J., Brzoska, M., Brauch, H.G., Link, P.M. & Schilling, J. (eds). Climate change, human security and violent conflict: challenges for societal stability (Springer, 2012). 14 Clinton, H. Energy and climate change speech. http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/hillary-clintons-speech-energy-climate-change/p14715 (Cedar Rapids IA, Nov 5 2007). 15

O’Neill, S., Boykoff, M., Day, S. & Niemeyer, S. On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 413–421 (2013). 16 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol., 3(2), 77-101 17 Entman, R.M. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun. 43, 51-58 (1993) 18 Entman, R.M. Framing U.S. coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. J. Commun. 41, 6–27 (1991). 19 Gamson, W.A., Modigliani, A. The changing culture of affirmative action. In: Braungart, R.G, Braungart, M.M. (eds.) Research in Political Sociology 137-177 (Emerald, 1987).

20 Nisbet, M.C. Communicating Climate Change: Why frames matter to public engagement. Environment 51, 514-518 (2009). 21 Machin, A. Negotiating Climate Change: Radical Democracy and the Illusion of Consensus (Zed Books, 2013). 22 Kahan, D. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change 2, 732–735 (2012) 23 Hart P.S. & Nisbet, E.C. Boomerang effects in science communication: how motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Comm. Research 39, 701-723 (2012). 24 Bennet, W.L. News: The politics of illusion (Pearson Longman, 2011). 25 O’Neill, S., Boykoff, M., Day, S. & Niemeyer, S. On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 413–421 (2013). 26 O’Neill, S. & Nicholson-Cole, S. Fear won’t do it: promoting positive engagement with climate change through imagery and icons. Sci. Commun. 30, 355-379 (2009). 27 Hulme, M. Why we disagree about climate change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009)

28 Field, C. "There are huge opportunities for growth in renewables". http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/ipcc-co-chair-chris-field-there-are-huge-opportunities-for-growth-in-renewables/ (The Climate Group, 22 Apr 2014).

29 Lucas, C. “David Cameron, it's time to show leadership on climate change and energy”. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/apr/30/david-cameron-environment-leadership (The Guardian, 30 Apr 2012). 30 US House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdHjhJTf6RE&feature=PlayList&p=E314D0C43AE8953A&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=28 (Washington D.C., Mar 25 2009). 31 Stern, N. Stern review: the economics of climate change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006). 32 Lomborg, B. The skeptical environmentalist (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2001). 33 Taylor, L. Tony Abbott's next policy vow: anything but a 'great big new tax' (The Australian, Dec 02 2009). 34 Bingham, S. Climate change: a moral issue. In: Moser, S.C. & Dilling, L. (eds.) Creating a climate for change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change 153-166 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007), 35 Smith, N. & Leiserowitz, A. American evangelicals and global warming. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1009-1017 (2013). 36 Widmaier, W., Grube, D. (2014) Presidents, prime ministers and policy rhetoric: the ‘credibility gaps’ of Woodrow Wilson and Kevin Rudd in the League of Nations and climate change debates. Polit. Stud. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.12093 37 Foresight. International Dimensions of Climate Change Final Project Report. (The Government Office for Science, London, 2011). 38 O’Brien, K., St. Clair, A.L. & Kristoffersen, B. (eds.) Climate Change, ethics and human security (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014). 39 Kiousis, S. Explicating Media Salience: A Factor Analysis of New York Times Issue Coverage During the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election J. Commun. 54 71-87.