Framing and Source Credibility in American Political Discourse About Climate Change

Abstract

Climate change represents the greatest threat humanity faces. Despite the widely acceptedscientific basis that climate change is human caused, the United States has largely failed to curb its greenhouse gas emissions, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries. Although there are many potential explanations for this inaction, one must certainly be the ways in which American political leaders present this issue to the public. In this dissertation, I first examined presidential and gubernatorial climate change mentions (n = 3,413) for the presence of national security and public health frames. I found that there were partisan and level of office distinctions in how this discourse was presented. Second, I conducted an experiment (n = 601) to determine what effects, if any, a partisan speaker (i.e., Republican or Democratic governor) and frame (i.e., national security or public health) would have on attitudes. I discovered some interesting findings regarding effects of the national security frame. I conclude by offering some advice for climate change communicators based on the results of this project.