| dc.description.abstract | This master thesis examines how Norwegian politicians uses risk-related concepts and principles in their communication on climate change from a risk science perspective. The study aims to analyse statements made by politicians and political parties to understand how risk concepts are conveyed to the public, identify any inconsistencies with risk terms and concepts compared to the literature, and discuss the findings in order to draw conclusions. The research reveals some noteworthy findings. Firstly, the precautionary principle is utilized by some politicians to oppose climate-reducing measures; however, their interpretation and application of the principle deviate from established risk science principles. Secondly, cost-benefit analysis, a strategy employed by Norwegian politicians, is found to be misaligned with current risk science due to limitations that undermine its effectiveness. Furthermore, discrepancies in how risk is expressed by politicians in comparison to risk science standards are observed, indicating a potential need for greater precision and transparency in risk communication. Additionally, the thesis highlights the issue of politicians' misuse of scientific sources to support their policies and the avoidance of acknowledging uncertainties and opposing viewpoints, contributing to polarization and hindering constructive discussions. Overall, the study highlights some discrepancies and delves into their underlying causes. | |
