Lyell Collection
Geological Society, London, Special Publications
Lyell Centre  |   Lyell Collection  |   Subscriptions   |   Geological Society  |   Email alerts  |   Online bookshop  |   Help

Keywords:
Author:
Advanced search>>
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ward, R. E. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Geological Society, London, Special Publications; 2008; v. 305; p. 19-37;
DOI: 10.1144/SP305.4
© 2008 Geological Society of London

Articles

Good and bad practice in the communication of uncertainties associated with the relationship between climate change and weather-related natural disasters

Robert E. T. Ward

Risk Management Solutions, Peninsular House, 30 Monument Street, London EC3R 8NB, UK (e-mail: bob.ward{at}rms.com)

There is evidence that climate change is affecting the frequency, intensity and geographical distribution of weather-related natural disasters. However, the exact details of this relationship are subject to varying degrees of uncertainty. Scientists, policy-makers and others have recognized how this connection could influence public support for decisions and policies around climate change, such as measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This has led to a number of cases in which stakeholders in the public policy debate about climate change have overstated or understated uncertainties, relative to the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Although such distortions in the expression of uncertainties are motivated by a desire to justify particular policy positions, they could instead undermine the credibility of, and trust in, information sources and diminish public support.