Environmental Communication

Week 2 Seminar Instructions (28th September)

Task 1: The (recorded) lecture content on framing and dual process theory will give
you an idea of the nature and importance of cognitive/emotional biases and
heuristics. From the list below you will be allocated 2 to research (see separate list
for the allocation of these).

1. Confirmation bias 2. Narrative fallacy

3. Availability heuristic 4. Commitment and consistency (related to

cognitive dissonance)

5. Affect heuristic 6. Reciprocity bias

7. Authority bias/heuristic 8. Likeability bias/heuristic

With respect to the 2 you have been allocated:

a) Provide an explanation of the bias/heuristic, along with an example.

b) Try to find an example (or examples) of it in An Inconvenient Truth (either in

terms of mistaken beliefs about climate change, or as employed by Al Gore in the
film in order to make it more watchable/convincing).

Task 2: Watch (or re-watch) An Inconvenient Truth*, and start to formulate answers
to the questions below:

General questions:

1. To the extent that it can be seen as successful, what accounts for its success?

2. What are its weaknesses and limitations?

More specific questions/tasks:

1. What values are expressed/promoted?

2. How is expertise employed? (e.g. in what sense is Gore an expert; what other
experts does he reference?)

3. What stylistic features add (or are designed to add) to its persuasiveness (images,
analogies, choice of arguments etc.)?
4. What solutions are recommended or implied?

Some useful reading/articles (all on Moodle) are listed below. If you have the time
read 2 or 3 of these prior to the class (but this isn’t compulsory).

• Environmental Change Institute and the Nielsen Company (2007), News Release:
Global consumers vote Al Gore, Oprah Winfrey and Kofi Annan most influential to
champion Global Warming Cause. (See link on Moodle)

• Sakellari, M. (2015) Cinematic climate change, a promising perspective on climate

change communication. Public Understanding of Science, 24 (7), 827-841.

• Rosteck, T. & Frentz, T. (2009) Myth and multiple readings in environmental

rhetoric: the case of An Inconvenient Truth, Quarterly Journal of Speech. Vol. 95 (1),
1-19.

• Mellor, F. (2009) The politics of accuracy in judging global warming films,

Environmental Communication. Vol.3 (2), 134-50.

• Johnson, L. (2009) (Environmental) Rhetorics of tempered apocalypticism in An

Inconvenient Truth. Rhetoric Review, 28 (1), 29-46.

* You’ll find a link to streaming options for this film on the Moodle site. (Also, if you’ve seen An
Inconvenient Sequel these questions can be applied to this as well.)