Search

Climate change is one of the most significant science issues facing humanity; yet, teaching students about climate change is challenging: not only is it multidisciplinary, but also it is contentious and debated in political, social and media forums. Students need to be equipped with an understanding of climate change science to be able to participate in this discourse. The purpose of this study was to examine Western Australian high school students’ understanding of climate change and the greenhouse effect, in order to identify their alternative conceptions about climate change science and provide a baseline for more effective teaching. A questionnaire designed to elicit students’ understanding and alternative conceptions was completed by 438 Year 10 students (14–15 years old). A further 20 students were interviewed. Results showed that students know different features of both climate change and the greenhouse effect, however not necessarily all of them and the relationships between. Five categories of alternative conceptions were identified. The categories were (1) the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer; (2) types of greenhouse gases; (3) types of radiation; (4) weather and climate and (5) air pollution. These findings provide science educators a basis upon which to develop strategies and curriculum resources to improve their students’ understanding and decision-making skills about the socioscientific issue, climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Global climate change modelling has identified south-east Australia as a ‘hot spot’ for more frequent climatic extremes. Rural landholders may be vulnerable to the risks climate change presents. Australia''s rural landholders are considered highly adaptable, with a history of responding to climatic uncertainty and variability. Yet it is possible that some of their adaptations will not be effective in reducing vulnerability, and may have downstream impacts. Rural landholder decision making is complex, and this is one of a limited number of papers examining rural landholder responses to climate change and the factors influencing their decisions. Data were gathered using semi-structured interviews and a mail survey of rural landholders in two districts. Established socio-psychological scales were employed to measure beliefs, values and attitudes that are expected to shape landholder behaviour. Most of the rural landholders surveyed were not climate change ‘deniers’ with 70% agreeing that the climate is changing and that human activity is a major influence. Climate change was nominated as an influence on six adaptive behaviours by 50% or more of survey respondents. However, there were no significant relationships between belief in climate change and adaptive actions. Personal values and worldviews were found to be the most frequent factors linked to adaptive behaviour. These findings illustrate the complex nature of rural landholder decision making: suggesting that many rural landholders do not need convincing of the existence of climate change; and that efforts to motivate rural landholders to respond to climate change risks should be based on sound knowledge of their values and worldviews. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Despite the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and its implications, there is considerably less certainty or strength of belief among the general public in some industrialised countries. One explanation for the lack of consensus is the partisan nature of political debate about climate change. A survey of Australian politicians demonstrates that political party affiliation and ideology have a powerful influence on climate change beliefs. Politicians from Labor and Green parties (centre-left and progressive parties) exhibited beliefs that were more consistent with scientific consensus about climate change than non-aligned or conservative leaders. Moreover, political ideology (left–right) emerged as the most important predictor of politicians’ climate change beliefs. These findings highlight the role of political partisanship and ideology in undermining consensus around climate change and suggest the need to build consensus through constructing climate change messages that appeal to closely held values and which advance the discussion of solutions along non-partisan lines. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]