53

The present study explores the challenges posed when those within the scientific establishment itself publicly undermine scientific theories of political, social and environmental significance. Drawing from the Theory of Social Representations (Moscovici, 1984), and Discursive Psychology (Edwards &Potter, 1992) we analyse interviews with a well-known climate change sceptic and a leading Australian climate scientist, in addition to newspaper articles written by other prominent Australian scientists holding competing views about anthropogenic climate change (ACC) to examine their respective modes of communication. We demonstrate how the two competing sides of the debate draw from different constructions of science to argue their positions on ACC in the public sphere. In particular, the consensus scientists adhere to a reified view of science and communicate using a one-way flow of information, much in line with the deficit model of science communication. They construct the public as largely deficient in knowledge, and make extensive use of facts and figures to relay information about ACC. In contrast, the sceptical scientists communicate using an interactive style, using inclusive and colloquial language to elevate common sense knowledge, intuitive feelings and the political and economic interests of the average citizen. Our study demonstrates that competing constructions of science are not simply abstract ideas but are used as rhetorical resources deployed in concrete ways to construct problematic identities for scientists, the public, and science itself.