Exportar Publicação

A publicação pode ser exportada nos seguintes formatos: referência da APA (American Psychological Association), referência do IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers), BibTeX e RIS.

Exportar Referência (APA) 
Uzelgun, M. A., Lewinski, M. & Castro, P. (2016). Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations. Science Communication. 38  (6), 699-723
Exportar Referência (IEEE) 
M. A. Uzelgun et al.,  "Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations", in Science Communication, vol. 38 , no. 6, pp. 699-723, 2016
Exportar BibTeX 
@article{uzelgun2016_1732250759996,
	author = "Uzelgun, M. A. and Lewinski, M. and Castro, P.",
	title = "Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations",
	journal = "Science Communication",
	year = "2016",
	volume = "38 ",
	number = "6",
	doi = "10.1177/1075547016676602",
	pages = "699-723",
	url = "http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547016676602"
}
Exportar RIS 
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Favorite battlegrounds of climate action: arguing about scientific consensus, representing science-society relations
T2  - Science Communication
VL  - 38 
IS  - 6
AU  - Uzelgun, M. A.
AU  - Lewinski, M.
AU  - Castro, P.
PY  - 2016
SP  - 699-723
SN  - 1075-5470
DO  - 10.1177/1075547016676602
UR  - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547016676602
AB  - This article examines how two conflicting views regarding science-society relations—science as the arbiter of truth and as a social endeavor—perpetuate a tension in the way scientific consensus and evidence are called upon in climate change debate. In our analysis of interviews with climate change campaigners, we employ argumentation theory and social representations theory to identify and account for three discursive strategies of responding to climate contrarian arguments: direct confrontation by dichotomous arguments, de-dichotomization by addressing background assumptions, and concession to minor scientific uncertainties. We discuss these strategies emphasizing the science-society relations evident in each.
ER  -