“Criticallyreview the insights of research into public attitudes and perceptions of globalwarming and their value for climate change communications”.Anthropogenic climate change is a global issue around the world, to the extent that a culture of consumption – induced from a carbon-based economy – has contributed towards an average increase in temperatures for both developed and underdeveloped countries (Schmidt et al. 2013). The true scale of human influence on climate change has created different attitudes, perceptions and values towards the issue (Chakrabarty 2017). At an international level, the main problem is trying to mitigate climate change, but discrepancies in public attitudes from countries (e.g. USA) will have a global impact on the level of adaptation and mitigation that can take place (Schmidt et al. 2013). The media however, are sources of information for climate change, and can help develop social representations that are communicated to an audience. Depending on how the information can be perceived or expressed, it can promote mitigation in a positive manner; but different types of media will not have the same effect (Schmidt et al. 2013, Jaspal et al. 2014).  Therefore, this essay will research into the insights of public attitudes from numerous different mediators, while assessing the impact on how climate change communications from the media can help mitigate the impacts that are created from climate change.Figure 1.0 The Information-motivation-behavioral skills model (IMB) is based on an individual’s own behaviour and motivation (WHO 2003). With an information deficit (from the IDT), it prevents the individual from being motivated to change their behaivour. In relation to climate change, a lack of information will prevent a person from taking steps to reduce their impact, because they don’t believe or are skeptic about the concept (Olson 2011).It is understood that how climate change isperceived is more likely to be considered in countries that are affected by thenegative consequences (Schmidt et al. 2013). These perceptions are dependent ona country’s geographical location; for example, Australia is a developedcountry that is very exposed to impacts created by climate change (Chakrabarty2017). However, despite the geographical location having an influence,scientists will still face challenges when trying to communicate the risks andconsequences of climate change to a wider audience (Yale Forum 2014). Thereason for this is that there is great uncertainty about the full complexitiesof the climate change concept, thus the audience that is being targeted needsto be educated more effectively (Yale Forum 2014, Kirilenko et al. 2015). As aconsequence, knowledge that has been discussed from findings that have beenineffectively communicated to the public can be interpreted in different ways(Yale Forum 2014). This failure of communication results in part of thepopulation rejecting or misunderstanding the scientific concept that isproposed, which is known as Information deficit theory (IDT) (Figure 1.0).  (Yale Forum 2014, Olson 2011). When governments goto Global conferences (like the Paris 2015 agreement), they are not as equallyas resourced with public discussions in their own nation due the degree ofuncertainty (Chakrabarty 2017). The debates remain primarily focused on theexperience, values and desires of developed nations in relation to climatechange, particularly with the USA.Addressing climate change in the USA is dependent on the mitigationand adaptation policies at all levels, whether this is at a local, state or anational scale (Howe et al. 2015). The public perceptions and attitudes in theUSA have large variations, with only 47% of the respondents from nationalsurveys believing that climate change is human caused, which is reinforced byFigure 1.1 (Howe et al. 2015, Lee et al. 2015). The American efforts toinitiate climate change policies at a national level have been weakened, due tothe rise of the Tea Party Movement from 2009-2010 and the election of presidentialelectorate Donald Trump, allowing a new Republican majority in the US House ofRepresentatives (Maibach 2012). The extreme weather events that act as anindicator for climate change are geographically detached from most Americans,which reinforces the skepticism of climate change for the majority of partiesinvolved in its discussion (Weber and Stern 2011). Clearly, sociodemographic andideological characteristics will also divide opinions and perceptions of howclimate change is perceived amongst the uncertainty (Smith and Leiserowitz 2013).  In theory, when there are high levels ofuncertainty around a subject, individuals will look towards other groups tounderstand the appropriate context of what is discussed (Spartz et al. 2015).In order to understand complex scientific issues like Climate change, some Americanswill rely more on the media to understand the norms and values of pro-environmentalmitigation as well as the exchange of environmental information (Spartz et al.2015).Figure 1.1 The diagram shows the geographical patterns from the climate change opinion polls at an international level during 2007 to 2008. The results were based on the level of awareness (a) and risk perception (b). Despite the awareness of the American majority being well over 75%, there is a smaller majority in comparison that believe Climate Change was not a serious threat. (Lee et al. 2015)Originally,anthropogenic climate change became a public issue during the 1980s, thescientific findings founded by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPPC) was focused by the media (Moser 2010). This nonstop coverage was centralfor the discussion and legitimation of climate change (Schmidt et al. 2013),but it also caused problems due to perceptions and awareness of audiences fluctuatingin relation to media attention cycles (Moser 2010). At the current day, climatechange is beyond what it used to be, as information is communicated through anumber of different forms that includes social media (Moser 2010, Whitmarsh etal. 2013). Social media is becoming furtherly integrated into how stories arecovered and represented, which is important to understand as different mediatypes can socially represent climate change to specific contexts (Jaspal et al.2014, Olteanu et al. 2015). For example, Leonardo DiCaprio’s 2016 Oscar Speech quotingclimate change had increased coverage from the traditional mainstream media,but tweets including the terms: ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ hadreached new records to a much greater audience (Leas et al. 2016). This isevidence to suggest that the way the information is expressed, can alsodetermine an individual’s motivation and how they can help to mitigate towardsclimate change in a positive manner. However, despitethese successes from the media, ideological factors and demographical factorswill still remain the same for some individuals. Therefore, climate change willalways be represented as a false concept in some way, which means that thepotential for mitigation to take place won’t be as successful as it should(Jaspal et al. 2014). In order to facilitate changes, Leiserowitz (2007) arguedthat the local and regional impact of climate change needs to be expressed, ashighlighting impacts may help to increase the level of public engagement withissues related to climate change mitigation and adaptation (Taylor et al.2014). Climate change is evidently a well-known issue, but the level of how itis communicated effectively across from mediators worldwide cannot be known(Schmidt et al. 2013).ReferencesChakrabarty, D. (2017). The politics of climate change is more thanthe politics of capitalism. Theory, Culture & Society,p.0263276417690236.Howe et al. (2015). Geographic variation in opinions on climatechange at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Climate Change, 5(6),pp.596-603. Available from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2bz0416w[Accessed 03/03/2017]Jaspal et al. (2014). Human responses to climate change: Socialrepresentation, identity and socio-psychological action. EnvironmentalCommunication, 8 (1), pp.110-130. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2013.846270[Accessed 28/02/2017].Kirilenko et al. (2015). People as sensors: Mass media and localtemperature influence climate change discussion on Twitter. GlobalEnvironmental Change, 30, pp.92-100. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014001952[Accessed 28/02/2017]Leas et al. (2016) . Big datasensors of organic advocacy: The case of Leonardo DiCaprio and climate change.PloS one, 11(8), p.e0159885. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159885[Accessed 03/03/2017]Lee et al. (2015). Predictors of public climate changeawareness and risk perception around the world. Nature climate change,5(11), pp.1014-1020. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n11/full/nclimate2728.html[Accessed 03/03/2017]Leiserowitz, A. (2007). Communicating the risks of global warming:American risk perceptions, affective images and interpretive communities.In S.C. Moser & L. Dilling (eds.), Creating a climate for change (pp.44-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Maibach et al. (2012). The legacy of climategate: undermining orrevitalizing climate science and policy?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change, 3(3), pp.289-295.Moser, S. (2010). Communicating climate change: history,challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change, 1 (1), pp.31-53.Olson, D. (2011). What is “Information deficit theory?”. Availablefrom: https://www.quora.com/What-is-Information-deficit-theory[Accessed 01/03/2017]Olteanu et al. (2015). Comparing Events Coverage in Online News andSocial Media: The Case of Climate Change. ICWSM, 15, pp.288-297. Availablefrom: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM15/paper/download/10583/10512/[Accessed 28/02/2017]Schmidt et al. (2013). Media attention for climate change aroundthe world: A comparative analysis of newspaper coverage in 27 countries.Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), pp.1233-1248. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801300126X[Accessed 28/02/2017]Smith, N. & Leiserowitz, A.(2013). American evangelicals and globalwarming. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), pp.1009-1017. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378013000599[Accessed 03/03/2017]Spartz et al. (2015). YouTube, social norms and perceived salienceof climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication,pp.1-16. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17524032.2015.1047887[Accessed 28/02/2017]Taylor et al. (2014). Climate change beliefs and perceptions ofweather?related changes in the United Kingdom. Risk Analysis, 34(11),pp.1995-2004. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/risa.12234/full[Accessed 03/03/2017].Weber, E.U. & Stern, P.C. (2011).Public understanding of climate change in the United States. AmericanPsychologist, 66(4), p.315. Available from: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/66/4/315/[Accessed 01/03/2017]Whitmarsh et al. (2013). Public engagement with climate change: Whatdo we know and where do we go from here?. International Journal of Media& Cultural Politics, 9(1), pp.7-25. Available from: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/intellect/mcp/2013/00000009/00000001/art00002[Accessed 03/03/2017].WHO (2003). Adherence to Long-Term Therapies – Evidencefor Action. Available from: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4883e/9.1.4.html#Js4883e.9.1.4[Accessed 03/03/2017].Yale Forum (2014). The Challenges of Climate ChangeCommunication Webinar [VIDEO]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l44s0jWHBdU[Accessed 28/02/2017].Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more