Cover not available
Part of
Science Communication in Times of Crisis
Edited by Pascal Hohaus
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 96] 2022
► pp. 41–64

Chapter 3
Letters to power

Authority appeals in the communication of scientific consensus

| Fitchburg State University
This study explores the rhetorical strategies used by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy organization, as they appeal to political actors and the public on behalf of the integrity of science. Comparative analysis focuses on two open letters written by the UCS during the George W. Bush and Donald Trump administrations, in differing contexts of environmental and credibility crises. As these letters reflect the collective voice of many scientists and often relay collective understandings of climate science and epistemological integrity, they are a form of consensus appeal and elevated positionality. The authors and signatories of these letters cultivate scientific ethos and phronesis to reaffirm the importance of measured action and call upon political actors to restore the influence of science in policymaking. Evidence is provided for how this rhetorical genre and set of appeals is interpreted by nonscientists largely along party lines.
Keywords: rhetoric of science, science communication, climate change, public address, open letters
Article outline
  • Letters to power
  • Scientist Statement on Restoring Scientific Integrity to Federal Policy Making, 2004
  • Science and the Public Interest, 2016
  • Power in letters?
  • References
Published online: 10 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.96.03syf
References (47)
References
Anderegg, William R. L., James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider. 2010. “Expert Credibility in Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences – PNAS 107 (27): 12107–12109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angelo, Chris. 2016. “2,300 Leading Scientists Send Trump A Clear Warning: We’re Watching You.” The Huffington Post. December 1, 2016. [URL]
Besel, Richard. 2013. “Accommodating Climate Change Science: James Hansen and the Rhetorical/Political Emergence of Global Warming.” Science in Context 26 (1): 137–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bricker, Brett J. 2014. “Scientific Counterpublics: In Defense of the Environmental Scientist as Public Intellectual.” Topoi 38 (4): 1–12.Google Scholar
Browne, Stephen H. 1988. “Edmund Burke’s Letter to a Noble Lord: A Textual Study in Political Philosophy and Rhetorical Action.” Communication Monographs 55 (3): 215–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. “The Pastoral Voice in John Dickinson’s First Letter From a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (1): 46–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. “Close Textual Analysis: Approaches and Applications.” In Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action, ed. by Jim A. Kuypers, 63–76. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Castagnetti, Giuseppe, Hubert Goenner, Jürgen Renn, Tilman Sauer, and Britta Scheideler. 1997. Foundations in Disarray: Essays on Einstein’s Science and Politics in the Berlin Years. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.Google Scholar
Casteel, Chris. 2013. “Lawsuits by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, others Challenge Obamacare Subsidies.” NewsOK. December 5, 2013. [URL]
Connor, Steve. 2007. “Hawking Warns: We Must Recognize the Catastrophic Dangers of Climate Change.” The Independent. January 18, 2007.Google Scholar
Cook, John. 2016. “Consensus Confirmed: Over 90% of Climate Scientists Believe We’re Causing Global Warming.” The Conversation. April 14, 2016. [URL]
Cook, John, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A. Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs, and Andrew Skuce. 2013. “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature.” Environmental Research Letters 8 (2): 24024. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cook, John, Naomi Oreskes, Peter T. Doran, William R. L. Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed W. Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, Stephan Lewandowsky, Andrew G. Skuce, and Sarah A. Green. 2016. “Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters 11 (4): 48002. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doran, Peter, and Maggie Zimmerman. 2009. “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Eos 90 (3): 22–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eilperin, Juliet and Chris Mooney. 2016. “Over 2,000 Scientists Urge Trump to Respect Scientific Integrity and Independence.” The Washington Post. November 30, 2016. [URL]
Favret, Mary A. 1993. Romantic Correspondence: Women, Politics, and the Fiction of Letters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Federation of American Scientists. 1949. “Preamble to the Constitution, F.A.S.” FAS. [URL]
Foerstel, Herbert N. 2010. Toxic Mix? A Handbook of Science and Politics. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Frumhoff, Peter. 2016. “How the Trump Administration and Congress Should Use Science to Govern,” Union of Concerned Scientists. November 30, 2016. [URL]
Gleick, Peter. 2016. “From Nuclear War to Climate Change: Letters from Scientists to Policymakers.” The Huffington Post. December 1, 2016. [URL]
Goodwin, Jean. 2009. “The Authority of the IPCC First Assessment Report and the Manufacture of Consensus.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 95th Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, November 2009.
Goodwin, Jean, and Lee Honeycutt. 2009. “When Science Goes Public: From Technical Arguments to Appeals to Authority.” Studies in Communication Sciences 9 (2): 19–30.Google Scholar
Harris, Tom. 2016. “Conservatives Must Strongly Support Trump On Climate Change.” The Heartlander. December 14, 2016. [URL]
Idso, Craig D., Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer. 2013. “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.” The Heartland Institute. October 2013. [URL]
Iyengar, Shanton and Kyu S. Hahn. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use.” Journal of Communication 59 (1): 19–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jasinski, James. 2001. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kousser, Thad and Bruce Tranter. 2018. “The Influence of Political Leaders on Climate Change Attitudes.” Global Environmental Change 50: 100–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leff, Michael C. 1980. “Interpretation and the Art of the Rhetorical Critic.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 44 (4): 337–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Faculty. 1968. “Founding Document: 1968 MIT Faculty Statement.” Union of Concerned Scientists. [URL]
Merkley, Eric and Dominik Stecula. 2018. “Party Elites or Manufactured Doubt? The Informational Context of Climate Change Polarization.” Science Communication 40 (2): 258–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1973. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mooney, Chris. 2006. The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Morello, Lauren. 2011. “Lobbying: Award-winning Scientists ask Congress to take a ‘Fresh Look’ at Climate Change.” Conservation Now. February 2011. [URL]
Mulkern, Anne C. 2004. “When Advocates Become Regulators.” The Denver Post. May 23, 2004. [URL]
Nathan, Otto, and Heinz Norden. 1975. Albert Einstein über den Frieden: Weltordnung oder Weltuntergang? Pieterlen, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Newton, David E. 2014. Science and Political Controversy: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi. 2004. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Science 7 (5) [corrected January 21, 2005]): 369–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Revkin, Andrew C. “Bush’s Science Aide Rejects Claims of Distorted Facts.” The New York Times. April 3, 2004. [URL]
The Globe and Mail. 2004 “Don’t Skew the Science.” The Globe and Mail, February 23, 2004. [URL]
Union of Concerned Scientists. “2004 Scientist Statement on Restoring Scientific Integrity to Federal Policy Making.” [URL]. February 2004. [URL]
. “Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: Further Investigation of the Bush Administration’s Misuses of Science.” [URL]. July 2004. [URL]
. “Science and the Public Interest: An Open Letter to President-Elect Trump and the 115th Congress.” [URL]. November 2016. [URL]
Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity Program. “Abuses of Science: Case Studies.” [URL]. n.d. [URL]
van der Linden, Sander, Anthony Leiserowitz, and Edward Maibach. 2017. “Gateway Illusion or Cultural Cognition Confusion?” Journal of Science Communication 16 (5): A04. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Kenny C., and Lynda Walsh. 2012. “‘No One Yet Knows What the Ultimate Consequences May Be’: How Rachel Carson Transformed Scientific Uncertainty Into a Site for Public Participation in Silent Spring.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 26 (1): 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, Michael. 1990. The Letters of the Republic: Publication and the Public Sphere in Eighteenth-Century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, Rick. 2004. “Bush Adviser Defends Role of Science in Setting Policy – Rebuttal Issued to Researchers’ Earlier Charges.” The Seattle Times. April 4, 2004.Google Scholar