Abstract
Metaphors of climate change, as many other scientific metaphors, are often inaccurate, if not in their intended content but in their form and emotional valence. A literal “greenhouse” is an eloquent construction designed to preserve heat, “warmth” is overall a positive notion overall (as opposed to “overheating”). First, we are going to overview how metaphors are comprehended, from their neural processing to their use in communication. Next, we are going to explore how metaphors in science deliver messages and how they spread, focusing on two powerful proposals: an identical replication theory (memetics), and a model ofconstant reformulation through viral spreading (epidemiology). The form-content distinction is particularly relevant to how scientific metaphors frame debates via their spreading: it is the form that is transmitted, but which are the analogous parts of the content that should be carried over? We then turn to the challenges of climate communication: the reasons for climate metaphors not fulfilling their purpose (e.g., due to the implications of their literal reading); the hostile environment the fossil fuel industry has created for climate scientists (e.g., disinformation and defamation campaigns); the strategies climate scientist could adapt as a community to inform the public and decision makers of the greatest dangers (e.g., by finding a unitary voice as a group with privileged access to specialized knowledge). Next, we are going to address the worst-case scenarios of climate destruction, with constantly increasing probability, and present ideas on how metaphors and expressions could be improved to transmit a message appalling enough to prompt action. We conclude by an overview of the cognitive limitations of human reasoning of inferential communication to provide scientists and communicators with tools of persuasive argumentation. Scientists and science journalists should choose their metaphors particularly carefully regarding climate change, as minor misconceptions are leading mankind towards the collapse of technological civilization.
We would like to thank the insightful suggestions of Ferenc Jordán on a previous version of this paper. This work was funded by an NKFIH Young Researcher grant (125417) to Bálint Forgács.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Following notation common in cognitive science, small capitals indicate concepts,while “quotes” mark words and expressions that are mentioned instead of used(the word “ship” expresses the concept ship).
- 2.
Because the issue of climate communication stretches into the public domain and where investigative journalism plays a critical role, we rely on public media outlets occasionally.
- 3.
A comprehensive track record of the lobbying efforts of fossil fuel companies at the US Capitol can be found at https://influencemap.org/report/Climate-Lobbying-by-the-Fossil-Fuel-Sector
- 4.
For example, the so-called ‘climategate’: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/27/climatologist-michael-e-mann-doomism-climate-crisis-interview
References
Aristotle 350 BC. (1968). Poetics (D. W. Lucas, Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, A. K., Krasny, M. E., & Schuldt, J. P. (2019). Using metaphor and analogy in climate change communication. In Communicating climate change (pp. 70–74). Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501730801-013
Biglan, A., & Taylor, T. K. (2000). Why have we been more successful in reducing tobacco use than violent crime? American Journal of Community Psychology, 28(3), 269–302. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005155903801
Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(11), 527–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.10.001
Blasko, D. G., & Connine, C. M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(2), 295–308. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.19.2.295
Bohrn, I. C., Altmann, U., & Jacobs, A. M. (2012). Looking at the brains behind figurative language-A quantitative meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies on metaphor, idiom, and irony processing. Neuropsychologia, 50(11), 2669–2683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.07.021
Bowdle, B. F., & Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychological Review, 112(1), 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193
Bréal, M. (1900). Semantics: Studies in the science of meaning. Henry Holt & Co..
Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Pergamon Press. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GwtKAAAAMAAJ
Brysse, K., Oreskes, N., O’Reilly, J., & Oppenheimer, M. (2013). Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama? Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.008
Burkeman, O. (2003). Memo exposes Bush’s new green strategy | Environment. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
Cameron, L. J. (2007). Patterns of metaphor use in reconciliation talk. Discourse and Society, 18(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507073376
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Raven, P. H. (2020). Vertebrates on the brink as indicators of biological annihilation and the sixth mass extinction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(24), 13596–13602. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922686117
Chancel, L. (2021). Climate change and the global inequality of carbon emissions, 1990–2020. In World Inequality Lab | Paris School of Economics. https://wid.world/news-article/climate-change-the-global-inequality-of-carbon-emissions/
Chen, X. (2012). The greenhouse metaphor and the greenhouse effect: A case study of a flawed analogous model. In Research topics in wind energy (Vol. 2, pp. 105–114). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29928-5_5
Citron, F. M. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(11), 2585–2595. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00654
Clark, A. (1987). From folk psychology to naive psychology. Cognitive Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(87)80002-2
Cooper, G. S., Willcock, S., & Dearing, J. A. (2020). Regime shifts occur disproportionately faster in larger ecosystems. Nature Communications, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15029-x
Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.
De Bolle, M. (2019). Policy Brief 19-15: The Amazon is a carbon bomb: How can Brazil and the world work together to avoid setting it off? Peterson Institute for International Economics, 1–8. https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/amazon-carbon-bomb-how-can-brazil-and-world-work-together-avoid-setting%0Awww.piie.com
Deignan, A., Semino, E., & Paul, S.-A. (2019). Metaphors of climate science in three genres: Research articles, educational texts, and secondary school student talk. Applied Linguistics, 40(2), 379–403. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx035
Diaz, M. T., & Hogstrom, L. J. (2011). The influence of context on hemispheric recruitment during metaphor processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(11), 3586–3597. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00053
Du Marsais, C. C. (1740). Des Tropes. Ou Des différents sens dans lesquels on peut prendre un même mot dans une même langue. Le Philologue, Editions Manucius.
Egenhofer, M. J., & Mark, D. M. (1995). Naive geography. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 988, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-60392-1_1
Eysenck, H. J. (2000). Smoking, health and personality. Transaction Publishers.
Farrell, J. (2016). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509433112
Fisher, R. A. (1958). Cancer and smoking. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/182596a0
Fónagy, I. (1963). Érzelmek kifejező mozgása a gége szintjén. Magyar Pszichológiai Szemle, 20, 206–216.
Fónagy, I. (2001). Languages within language. Benjamins.
Forgács, B. (2014). Figures of language in cognitive science in the light of figurative language (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Budapest University of Technology and Economics. http://hdl.handle.net/10890/1336
Forgács, B. (2020). An electrophysiological abstractness effect for metaphorical meaning making. Eneuro, 7(5), ENEURO.0052-20.2020. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0052-20.2020
Forgács, B. (2022). The pragmatic functions of metaphorical language. In G. Csibra, J. Gervain, & K. Kovács (Eds.), A life in cognition: Studies in Cognitive Science in Honor of Csaba Pléh (pp. 41–57). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_4
Forgács, B., Bardolph, M. D., Amsel, B. D., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Metaphors are physical and abstract: ERPs to metaphorically modified nouns resemble ERPs to abstract language. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 28. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00028
Forgács, B., Bohrn, I., Baudewig, J., Hofmann, M. J., Pléh, C., & Jacobs, A. M. (2012). Neural correlates of combinatorial semantic processing of literal and figurative noun noun compound words. NeuroImage, 63(3), 1432–1442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.029
Forgács, B., Gervain, J., Parise, E., Csibra, G., Gergely, G., Baross, J., & Király, I. (2020). Electrophysiological investigation of infants’ understanding of understanding. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 43, 100783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2020.100783
Forgács, B., Lukács, Á., & Pléh, C. (2014). Lateralized processing of novel metaphors: Disentangling figurativeness and novelty. Neuropsychologia, 56(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.01.003
Forgács, B., & Pléh, C. (2019). What are you thinking about where? Syntactic ambiguity between abstract arguments and concrete adjuncts in Hungarian, modulated by concreteness. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 12(1), 67–78. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2019.0105
Franta, B. (2018). Shell and Exxon’s secret 1980s climate change warnings. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings
Frieling, J., Gebhardt, H., Huber, M., Adekeye, O. A., Akande, S. O., Reichart, G. J., Middelburg, J. J., Schouten, S., & Sluijs, A. (2017). Extreme warmth and heat-stressed plankton in the tropics during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Science Advances, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600891
Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain’s concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3–4), 455–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2006). Sylvia’s recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levenson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and human interaction (pp. 229–255). Berg Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003135517-11
Gigerenzer, G. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “Heuristics and Biases.” In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 83–115). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779143000033
Gigerenzer, G., & Murray, D. J. (1987). Cognition as intuitive statistics. In Cognition as intuitive statistics. Psychology Press.
Gleick, J. (2011). Chaos: Making a new science. Open Road Media. https://books.google.hu/books?id=OoLNzl4XpPUC
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1998). Words, thoughts, and theories. In Words, thoughts, and theories. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7289.001.0001
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech arts (pp. 41–58).
Hall, S. (2015). Exxon knew about climate change almost 40 years ago – Scientific American. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1994). Young children’s naive theory of biology. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90027-2
Hayes, P. J. (1979). The naive physics manifesto. In D. Michie (Ed.), Expert systems in the micro-electronic age. Edinburgh University Press.
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.2307/1416950
Horner, V., & Whiten, A. (2005). Causal knowledge and imitation/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children (Homo sapiens). Animal Cognition, 8(3), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0239-6
Hulac, B. (2016). Tobacco and oil industries used same researchers to sway public. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
Inhoff, A. W., Lima, S. D., & Carroll, P. J. (1984). Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 558–567. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213344
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Style in language (pp. 350–377). MIT Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and thinking slow. Macmillan.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1914185%5Cn, http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=econosoc.%5Cn
Kovács, Á. M., Teglás, E., & Endress, A. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Science, 330(6012), 1830–1834. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1190792
Kuusinen, J. (1969). Affective and denotative structures of personality ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027713
Lacey, S., Stilla, R., & Sathian, K. (2012). Metaphorically feeling: Comprehending textural metaphors activates somatosensory cortex. Brain and Language, 120(3), 416–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.016
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Methapors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Basic Books.
Leary, D. E. (1990). Psyche’s muse: The role of metaphor in the history of psychology. In Metaphors in the history of psychology.
Levine, K. J., Clark, N., Haygood, D. M., & Muenchen, R. A. (2011). Change: How young voters interpreted the messages sent during the 2008 presidential election season. American Behavioral Scientist. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211398075
Liu, S., Brooks, N. B., & Spelke, E. S. (2019). Origins of the concepts cause, cost, and goal in prereaching infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(36), 17747–17752. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904410116
Mann, M. E. (2021). The new climate war: The fight to take back our planet. PublicAffairs.
Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2004). The native mind: Biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychological Review, 111(4), 960–983. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.960
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The enigma of reason. In The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977860
Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. In The perception of causality. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315519050
Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind. Thames and Hudson.
Murphy, B. H., Farley, K. A., & Zachos, J. C. (2010). An extraterrestrial 3He-based timescale for the Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) from Walvis Ridge, IODP Site 1266. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 74(17), 5098–5108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2010.03.039
Murphy, G. L. (1997). Reasons to doubt the present evidence for metaphoric representation. Cognition, 62, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00725-1
Oktay-Gür, N., & Rakoczy, H. (2017). Children’s difficulty with true belief tasks: Competence deficit or performance problem? Cognition, 166, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.002
Ortiz, M., & Jordán, F. (2021). Modelling and conservation of coastal marine ecosystems in Latin America. In M. Ortiz & F. Jordán (Eds.), Marine coastal ecosystems modelling and conservation (pp. 203–207). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58211-1_10
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90283-9
Osgood, C. E. (1962). Studies on the generality of affective meaning systems. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045146
Pinker, S. (2010). The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(Supplement 2), 8993–8999. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914630107
Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., & Lee, J. J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(3), 833–838. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105
Pléh, C. (2000). Modularity and pragmatics. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 10(4), 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.04ple
Pléh, C. (2003). Thoughts on the distribution of thoughts: Memes or epidemies. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 1(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1556/jcep.1.2003.1.3
Pomp, J., Bestgen, A. K., Schulze, P., Müller, C. J., Citron, F. M. M., Suchan, B., & Kuchinke, L. (2018). Lexical olfaction recruits olfactory orbitofrontal cortex in metaphorical and literal contexts. Brain and Language, 179, 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2018.02.001
Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(7), 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1706
Rapp, A. M., Leube, D. T., Erb, M., Grodd, W., & Kircher, T. T. J. (2007). Laterality in metaphor processing: Lack of evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging for the right hemisphere theory. Brain and Language, 100(2), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.04.004
Rapp, A. M., Mutschler, D. E., & Erb, M. (2012). Where in the brain is nonliteral language? A coordinate-based meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. NeuroImage, 63(1), 600–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.022
Rocha, J. C., Peterson, G., Bodin, Ö., & Levin, S. (2018). Cascading regime shifts within and across scales. Science, 362(6421), 1379–1383. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat7850
Russill, C. (2011). Temporal metaphor in abrupt climate change communication: An initial effort at clarification. In W. Leal Filho (Ed.), The economic, social and political elements of climate change (pp. 113–132). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14776-0
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
Sluijs, A., Bijl, P. K., Schouten, S., Röhl, U., Reichart, G. J., & Brinkhuis, H. (2011). Southern ocean warming, sea level and hydrological change during the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum. Climate of the Past, 7(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-7-47-2011
Southgate, V., & Vernetti, A. (2014). Belief-based action prediction in preverbal infants. Cognition, 130(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.008
Sperber, D. (1985). Anthropology and psychology: Towards an epidemiology of representations. Man, 20(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.2307/2802222
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Blackwell Publishers.
Sperber, D. (2001). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In R. Aunger (Ed.), Darwinizing culture: The status of memetics as a science (pp. 163–173). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780192632449.003.0008
Sperber, D. (2010). The Guru effect. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(4), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-010-0025-0
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1998). The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers & J. Boucher (Eds.), Thought and language (pp. 184–200). Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2008). A deflationary account of metaphors. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge University Press.
Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C. P., Barnosky, A. D., Cornell, S. E., Crucifix, M., Donges, J. F., Fetzer, I., Lade, S. J., Scheffer, M., Winkelmann, R., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2018). Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(33), 8252–8259. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115
Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2020). Addendum to ‘Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014)’ Supran and Oreskes (2017 Environ. Res. Lett. 12 084019). Environmental Research Letters, 15(11), 119401. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab89d5
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2015). Measuring effects of metaphor in a dynamic opinion landscape. PLoS One, 10(7), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133939
Tollefson, J. (2021). COVID curbed carbon emissions in 2020: But not by much. Nature, 589(7842), 343. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00090-3
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
United Nations. (2019). Only 11 years left to prevent irreversible damage from climate change, speakers warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting. United Nations General Assembly. https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2006). Does functional neuroimaging solve the questions of neurolinguistics? Brain and Language, 98(3), 276–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2006.05.006
Volmert, A. (2014). Getting to the heart of the matter: Using metaphorical and causal explanation to increase public understanding of climate and ocean change. Assessing Children in the Urban Community, May, pp. 159–164. https://www.frameworksinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/occ_metaphor_report.pdf
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology. Penguin.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2002). Truthfulness and relevance. Mind, 111(July), 583–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583
Winner, E., & Gardner, H. (1977). The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain, 100(4), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/100.4.717
Yang, J. (2014). The role of the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension: A meta-analysis of functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 35(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22160
Yvon-Durocher, G., Allen, A. P., Bastviken, D., Conrad, R., Gudasz, C., St-Pierre, A., Thanh-Duc, N., & Del Giorgio, P. A. (2014). Methane fluxes show consistent temperature dependence across microbial to ecosystem scales. Nature, 507(7493), 488–491. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13164
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Forgács, B., Pléh, C. (2022). The Fluffy Metaphors of Climate Science. In: Wuppuluri, S., Grayling, A.C. (eds) Metaphors and Analogies in Sciences and Humanities. Synthese Library, vol 453. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90688-7_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90688-7_22
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-90687-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-90688-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)