BOLD STATEMENTS in environmental and climate science communication

Karpouzoglou, Theodoros; Muilwijk, Morven; Lauber, Julius; Tsiouvalas, Apostolos; Brehmer-Moltmann, Johanna

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14

Preprints

13 Dec 2022

| 13 Dec 2022

Status: this preprint was under review for the journal GC but the revision was not accepted.

BOLD STATEMENTS in environmental and climate science communication

Theodoros Karpouzoglou, Morven Muilwijk, Julius Lauber, Apostolos Tsiouvalas, and Johanna Brehmer-Moltmann

Abstract. Environmental and climate science communication often results in the production of appealing but, at times, inaccurate statements, i.e. "bold statements". Such statements are common in the media, however, in-cases, are used by scientists alike. We discuss the concept of such statements seeking to identify their origin and purpose, as well as the benefits and threats of such communication methods. By bringing bold statements in context to the paradigm of climate science communication we argue that their use is enforced by the urgent nature of climate change and that bold statements have been proven useful in raising public awareness and mobilizing the public toward positive climate action, as well as in accelerating law-/policy-making processes that follow scientific conclusions. On the other hand, we demonstrate three example cases of bold narratives in climate and environmental science communication, i.e. 1) An upcoming cooling of Europe due to the gulf stream collapsing, 2) a new island made out of garbage in the Pacific Ocean, and 3) an upcoming "apocalypse'' due to bee extinction. Through those cases, we bring up concerns that using bold statements and sacrificing scientific accuracy in the shrine of public mobilization may backfire, as the use of bold statements encompasses risks by spreading misinformation, and can lead the public to confusion and inappropriate action.

Received: 25 Nov 2022 – Discussion started: 13 Dec 2022

Download & links

Theodoros Karpouzoglou, Morven Muilwijk, Julius Lauber, Apostolos Tsiouvalas, and Johanna Brehmer-Moltmann

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on gc-2022-14', Nikos Erinakis, 23 Jan 2023

The main reasons I believe that this paper should be accepted are the following:
The paper is a good fit for the journal. The abstract presents clearly the paper’s main aims, arguments and conclusions. It does make a decent contribution to its discipline, it manifests academic rigour and accuracy and the authors adequately explain the importance of the article in the discipline. The methodology and the main argument used in the paper is both valid and sound. The paper makes a reasonable interpretation of sources, the references cited are assessed fairly by the authors and there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the paper’s claims. The structure is clear and well organised, the language is right and not obscure, the authors introduce and contextualise the aims of the article effectively, as well as they summarise the conclusions effectively.
ps. There are some typos that need to be corrected, e.g. there is an 'e' missing from the word 'none' in tha last sentence of the paper.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thodoris Karpouzoglou, 23 Jan 2023
  
  We Thank Dr. Nikos Erinakis for his possitive comments. We will wait for further instructions from the editor and then proceed to adjustments, as proposed by the reviewers and the comunity.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on gc-2022-14', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Mar 2023
Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
Yes
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
No. There is little that is novel in the paper, and the claim to novelty – the idea of BOLD STATEMENTS – is nowhere precisely defined and ends up meaning too many different things. See below.
Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
No. At the heart of this paper is a problem: there is no clear or operational definition of what is, or is not, a ‘bold statement’. Without such clarity, the analysis become confused, contradictory and not at all helpful. Below, I note 20 different definitions of ‘bold statements’ found in the authors’ text, several of which are directly contradictory. For this reason alone, I would recommend this paper be rejected – unfortunately it adds nothing useful to the literature, and indeed could in fact be very unhelpful. This is such a thing as ‘misinformation’ in climate science communication – whether of the denialist or the alarmist side of things – and such misinformation can indeed be harmful. But this paper is very muddled in its thinking.
According to the authors, ‘bold statements’ can be ….
appealing but, at times, inaccurate statements

appealing but inaccurate statements

bold statements are meant to provoke, shock, and therefore advertise rather than accurately inform

bold statements are also known to convey the so-called "fake news”

bold statements communicate science in terms of marketing and grabbing attention

bold headlines are likely to impress

bold statements fuel alarmistic narratives

bold statements are sensational headlines

bold statements are exaggerations

bold statements can create new … and inaccurate knowledge

bold statement communication can promote fake-science

where a simplification, through the form of a bold statement

bold statements are generalizations

bold statements can still accurately communicate science

hey were perceived as exaggerated and bold

bold statements are false predictions

bold statements may … be accurate

bold statements …. are “click-bait”

bold statements are shocking

bold statements are inaccurate communication

Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
No. Because it is not clear that there are any conclusions to the study. The final paragraph to the study is very vague and consists of platitudes.
Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
No, because meaning of the label “BOLD STATEMENTES” [sic: uppercase] is not clear to the reader
Is the language fluent and precise?
No, the writing at times is very poor, and English grammar is sometimes weak. As an example take this sentence: “The above propositions i.e. to engage the public not only through understanding but through emotions and toward behavioral change, although controversial, consist of advances in climate science communication and it is those advantages that seem to provide an alibi in the use of bold statements.” It is almost impossible to unravel what the authors mean by this. There are many other examples.
Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
No. The literature review is incomplete and some seminal papers are missing. For example, the most highly cited paper on the falsity of the appeal to fear is missing: O’Neill,S.J. and Nicholson-Cole,S. (2009) ‘Fear won’t do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through imagery and icons Science Communication 30(3), 355-379. And for the case study on communicating the science of the AMOC collapse, the first paper published on this question is also missing: Jennings,N. and Hulme,M. (2010) UK newspaper (mis-)representations of the potential for a collapse of the thermohaline circulation Area 42(4), 444-456
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Thodoris Karpouzoglou, 27 Mar 2023
  We thank the anonymous reviewer for his comments, and particularly for his constructive comment that the term “bold statement” is not properly defined. We agree with the reviewer. In the following, we explain the reason and propose a solution that will make this manuscript a better contribution to the existing literature. Furthermore, the reviewer answers negatively on all the following questions:
  
  1)Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? 2) Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? 3) Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? 4) Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? 5) Is the language fluent and precise? 6) Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
  
  According to the reviewer’s argumentation, questions 1, 2, and 4 can be addressed by providing a better definition of a bold statement in environmental and climate science communication. Currently, the following online dictionaries do not include a definition for “bold statement”. Cambridge English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, Google Dictionary. That follows the fact that the term “bold statement” is a figure of speech, mostly used in everyday life and media, thus lacking a strict definition. Indeed, following the above, a bold statement can be many things. That is demonstrated by the Urban dictionary (Urban Dictionary: bold statement) which provides two different definitions. Furthermore, there are several publications that, although using the term “bold statement”, do not provide its definition (eg: Linthorst et al, 2007; Wyman 2007; DeSilvey & Harrison, 2020; Davis & Sinha,2021).
  
  We understand that our manuscript having “bold statements” in its center needs a proper definition, however, there is no such thing in the literature. Given that, we propose that the manuscript should be improved by providing a clear definition of “bold statements” in the context of science communication. Then, every reference to “bold statements” (e.g., three case studies) should be consistent with the definition. We believe that this addition will improve the manuscript and increase its contribution to the literature. We propose the following definition which we believe to be in agreement with all the properties of “bold statements” found in the manuscript and listed by the reviewer.
  
  In the context of science communication, "bold statements” are defined as assertive claims made by scientists or science communicators on controversial topics. Such statements are usually appealing as they are vividly and easily understood, and they are meant to provoke, shock, and therefore advertise. Additionally, “bold statements” are usually inaccurate as they tend to oversimplify reality, neglect uncertainty, or overemphasize certain aspects of a concept.
  
  In question 3 the reviewer suggests that “it is not clear that there are any conclusions to the study. The final paragraph of the study is very vague and consists of platitudes.” We agree with the reviewer that the manuscript seems muddled without taking a clear positioning in favour or against the use of “bolt statements”. We plan to revise it making it clearer that according to our analysis, bold statements can be both helpful and harmful. We will improve the text to make our main conclusions clearer, these are:
  
  Bold statements in environmental and climate science communication can be both helpful and harmful. Thus, each individual case should be considered separately. Nevertheless, scientists and science communicators should be mindful when using such statements and consider possible negative implications.
  
  Bold statements used by scientists or science communicators can serve self-promotion and advertisement purposes, however, are additionally enforced by the urgent nature of climate change as a problem that demands quick reflexes.
  
  Communication efforts shifted attention from providing more information on climate change, to making the issue appealing, emotionally engaging, and seeking behavioural change of the public. These new objectives provide an alibi for inaccurate communication through bold statements which can engage and therefore mobilize.
  
  We discuss three cases of bold statements. The first case is an example of communicating a concept without communicating the involved uncertainty or likelihood, the second case is about promotion through exaggeration, and the third case is about oversimplifying a concept to make it better understood. We show that in all three cases, inaccurate communication has had good impacts by engaging the public and increasing awareness, however, has resulted in confusion, misunderstandings, and inappropriate actions.
  
  Law is criticized for responding slowly, reluctantly, and inconsistently to natural world changes. At times bold statements may speed up formal processes, and, as long as they are accurate enough, they can lead toward preventive and proactive actions.
  
  In question 5 the reviewer suggests that the writing at times is very poor, and English grammar is sometimes weak. We plan to proofread again the manuscript.
  
  In question 6 the reviewer suggests that the literature review is incomplete, and some seminal papers are missing. We thank the reviewer for providing the two references which we will include in the manuscript. Otherwise, we consider our literature review overall complete.
  
  Theodoros Karpouzoglou
  On behalf of co-authors.
  
  References
  Linthorst, Gabor E., Johannes MA Daniels, and David J. Van Westerloo. "The majority of bold statements expressed during grand rounds lack scientific merit." Medical education 41, no. 10 (2007): 965-967
  Charles E. Wyman. What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol, Trends in Biotechnology, Volume 25, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 153-157, ISSN 0167-7799, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.02.009.
  
  Davis, G. F., & Sinha, A. (2021). Varieties of Uberization: How technology and institutions change the organization(s) of late capitalism. Organization Theory, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787721995198
  
  Caitlin DeSilvey & Rodney Harrison (2020) Anticipating loss: rethinking endangerment in heritage futures, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26:1, 1-7, DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2019.1644530
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14-AC2

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on gc-2022-14', Nikos Erinakis, 23 Jan 2023

The main reasons I believe that this paper should be accepted are the following:
The paper is a good fit for the journal. The abstract presents clearly the paper’s main aims, arguments and conclusions. It does make a decent contribution to its discipline, it manifests academic rigour and accuracy and the authors adequately explain the importance of the article in the discipline. The methodology and the main argument used in the paper is both valid and sound. The paper makes a reasonable interpretation of sources, the references cited are assessed fairly by the authors and there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the paper’s claims. The structure is clear and well organised, the language is right and not obscure, the authors introduce and contextualise the aims of the article effectively, as well as they summarise the conclusions effectively.
ps. There are some typos that need to be corrected, e.g. there is an 'e' missing from the word 'none' in tha last sentence of the paper.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thodoris Karpouzoglou, 23 Jan 2023
  
  We Thank Dr. Nikos Erinakis for his possitive comments. We will wait for further instructions from the editor and then proceed to adjustments, as proposed by the reviewers and the comunity.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on gc-2022-14', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Mar 2023
Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of GC?
Yes
Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data?
No. There is little that is novel in the paper, and the claim to novelty – the idea of BOLD STATEMENTS – is nowhere precisely defined and ends up meaning too many different things. See below.
Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined?
No. At the heart of this paper is a problem: there is no clear or operational definition of what is, or is not, a ‘bold statement’. Without such clarity, the analysis become confused, contradictory and not at all helpful. Below, I note 20 different definitions of ‘bold statements’ found in the authors’ text, several of which are directly contradictory. For this reason alone, I would recommend this paper be rejected – unfortunately it adds nothing useful to the literature, and indeed could in fact be very unhelpful. This is such a thing as ‘misinformation’ in climate science communication – whether of the denialist or the alarmist side of things – and such misinformation can indeed be harmful. But this paper is very muddled in its thinking.
According to the authors, ‘bold statements’ can be ….
appealing but, at times, inaccurate statements

appealing but inaccurate statements

bold statements are meant to provoke, shock, and therefore advertise rather than accurately inform

bold statements are also known to convey the so-called "fake news”

bold statements communicate science in terms of marketing and grabbing attention

bold headlines are likely to impress

bold statements fuel alarmistic narratives

bold statements are sensational headlines

bold statements are exaggerations

bold statements can create new … and inaccurate knowledge

bold statement communication can promote fake-science

where a simplification, through the form of a bold statement

bold statements are generalizations

bold statements can still accurately communicate science

hey were perceived as exaggerated and bold

bold statements are false predictions

bold statements may … be accurate

bold statements …. are “click-bait”

bold statements are shocking

bold statements are inaccurate communication

Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions?
No. Because it is not clear that there are any conclusions to the study. The final paragraph to the study is very vague and consists of platitudes.
Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
No, because meaning of the label “BOLD STATEMENTES” [sic: uppercase] is not clear to the reader
Is the language fluent and precise?
No, the writing at times is very poor, and English grammar is sometimes weak. As an example take this sentence: “The above propositions i.e. to engage the public not only through understanding but through emotions and toward behavioral change, although controversial, consist of advances in climate science communication and it is those advantages that seem to provide an alibi in the use of bold statements.” It is almost impossible to unravel what the authors mean by this. There are many other examples.
Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
No. The literature review is incomplete and some seminal papers are missing. For example, the most highly cited paper on the falsity of the appeal to fear is missing: O’Neill,S.J. and Nicholson-Cole,S. (2009) ‘Fear won’t do it’: Promoting positive engagement with climate change through imagery and icons Science Communication 30(3), 355-379. And for the case study on communicating the science of the AMOC collapse, the first paper published on this question is also missing: Jennings,N. and Hulme,M. (2010) UK newspaper (mis-)representations of the potential for a collapse of the thermohaline circulation Area 42(4), 444-456
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14-RC2
- AC2:
  'Reply on RC2', Thodoris Karpouzoglou, 27 Mar 2023
  We thank the anonymous reviewer for his comments, and particularly for his constructive comment that the term “bold statement” is not properly defined. We agree with the reviewer. In the following, we explain the reason and propose a solution that will make this manuscript a better contribution to the existing literature. Furthermore, the reviewer answers negatively on all the following questions:
  
  1)Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? 2) Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? 3) Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? 4) Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper? 5) Is the language fluent and precise? 6) Are the number and quality of references appropriate?
  
  According to the reviewer’s argumentation, questions 1, 2, and 4 can be addressed by providing a better definition of a bold statement in environmental and climate science communication. Currently, the following online dictionaries do not include a definition for “bold statement”. Cambridge English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Learner's Dictionaries, Google Dictionary. That follows the fact that the term “bold statement” is a figure of speech, mostly used in everyday life and media, thus lacking a strict definition. Indeed, following the above, a bold statement can be many things. That is demonstrated by the Urban dictionary (Urban Dictionary: bold statement) which provides two different definitions. Furthermore, there are several publications that, although using the term “bold statement”, do not provide its definition (eg: Linthorst et al, 2007; Wyman 2007; DeSilvey & Harrison, 2020; Davis & Sinha,2021).
  
  We understand that our manuscript having “bold statements” in its center needs a proper definition, however, there is no such thing in the literature. Given that, we propose that the manuscript should be improved by providing a clear definition of “bold statements” in the context of science communication. Then, every reference to “bold statements” (e.g., three case studies) should be consistent with the definition. We believe that this addition will improve the manuscript and increase its contribution to the literature. We propose the following definition which we believe to be in agreement with all the properties of “bold statements” found in the manuscript and listed by the reviewer.
  
  In the context of science communication, "bold statements” are defined as assertive claims made by scientists or science communicators on controversial topics. Such statements are usually appealing as they are vividly and easily understood, and they are meant to provoke, shock, and therefore advertise. Additionally, “bold statements” are usually inaccurate as they tend to oversimplify reality, neglect uncertainty, or overemphasize certain aspects of a concept.
  
  In question 3 the reviewer suggests that “it is not clear that there are any conclusions to the study. The final paragraph of the study is very vague and consists of platitudes.” We agree with the reviewer that the manuscript seems muddled without taking a clear positioning in favour or against the use of “bolt statements”. We plan to revise it making it clearer that according to our analysis, bold statements can be both helpful and harmful. We will improve the text to make our main conclusions clearer, these are:
  
  Bold statements in environmental and climate science communication can be both helpful and harmful. Thus, each individual case should be considered separately. Nevertheless, scientists and science communicators should be mindful when using such statements and consider possible negative implications.
  
  Bold statements used by scientists or science communicators can serve self-promotion and advertisement purposes, however, are additionally enforced by the urgent nature of climate change as a problem that demands quick reflexes.
  
  Communication efforts shifted attention from providing more information on climate change, to making the issue appealing, emotionally engaging, and seeking behavioural change of the public. These new objectives provide an alibi for inaccurate communication through bold statements which can engage and therefore mobilize.
  
  We discuss three cases of bold statements. The first case is an example of communicating a concept without communicating the involved uncertainty or likelihood, the second case is about promotion through exaggeration, and the third case is about oversimplifying a concept to make it better understood. We show that in all three cases, inaccurate communication has had good impacts by engaging the public and increasing awareness, however, has resulted in confusion, misunderstandings, and inappropriate actions.
  
  Law is criticized for responding slowly, reluctantly, and inconsistently to natural world changes. At times bold statements may speed up formal processes, and, as long as they are accurate enough, they can lead toward preventive and proactive actions.
  
  In question 5 the reviewer suggests that the writing at times is very poor, and English grammar is sometimes weak. We plan to proofread again the manuscript.
  
  In question 6 the reviewer suggests that the literature review is incomplete, and some seminal papers are missing. We thank the reviewer for providing the two references which we will include in the manuscript. Otherwise, we consider our literature review overall complete.
  
  Theodoros Karpouzoglou
  On behalf of co-authors.
  
  References
  Linthorst, Gabor E., Johannes MA Daniels, and David J. Van Westerloo. "The majority of bold statements expressed during grand rounds lack scientific merit." Medical education 41, no. 10 (2007): 965-967
  Charles E. Wyman. What is (and is not) vital to advancing cellulosic ethanol, Trends in Biotechnology, Volume 25, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 153-157, ISSN 0167-7799, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2007.02.009.
  
  Davis, G. F., & Sinha, A. (2021). Varieties of Uberization: How technology and institutions change the organization(s) of late capitalism. Organization Theory, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787721995198
  
  Caitlin DeSilvey & Rodney Harrison (2020) Anticipating loss: rethinking endangerment in heritage futures, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 26:1, 1-7, DOI: 10.1080/13527258.2019.1644530
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2022-14-AC2

Theodoros Karpouzoglou, Morven Muilwijk, Julius Lauber, Apostolos Tsiouvalas, and Johanna Brehmer-Moltmann

Viewed

Total article views: 697 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
465	209	23	697	15	16

HTML: 465
PDF: 209
XML: 23
Total: 697
BibTeX: 15
EndNote: 16

Views and downloads (calculated since 13 Dec 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2022	78	36	5	119
Jan 2023	64	23	4	91
Feb 2023	47	15	1	63
Mar 2023	56	17	4	77
Apr 2023	18	10	0	28
May 2023	16	8	1	25
Jun 2023	11	6	0	17
Jul 2023	17	15	1	33
Aug 2023	18	5	0	23
Sep 2023	15	7	1	23
Oct 2023	14	16	1	31
Nov 2023	35	13	0	48
Dec 2023	13	4	1	18
Jan 2024	21	7	1	29
Feb 2024	9	12	1	22
Mar 2024	20	11	0	31
Apr 2024	13	4	2	19

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 13 Dec 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Dec 2022	78	36	5	119
Jan 2023	64	23	4	91
Feb 2023	47	15	1	63
Mar 2023	56	17	4	77
Apr 2023	18	10	0	28
May 2023	16	8	1	25
Jun 2023	11	6	0	17
Jul 2023	17	15	1	33
Aug 2023	18	5	0	23
Sep 2023	15	7	1	23
Oct 2023	14	16	1	31
Nov 2023	35	13	0	48
Dec 2023	13	4	1	18
Jan 2024	21	7	1	29
Feb 2024	9	12	1	22
Mar 2024	20	11	0	31
Apr 2024	13	4	2	19

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 637 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 637 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 25 Apr 2024

Short summary

"Bold statements”, are motivating, easily conceived, but often inaccurate. The study seeks the origin, purpose, and threats of such statements in climate science communication. Bold statement communication is enforced by the urgency of climate change and is useful in raising public awareness and accelerating law-making. However, we demonstrate through three well-known case studies of bold statement communication that such communication strategies encompass risks as misinterpretation lurks.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0