Christel van Eck

How did a high-stakes meeting between Trump, Vance& Zelenskyy turn from diplomacy to open confrontation?
Lotte van Burgsteden, @christelvaneck.bsky.social &I unpack conversational polarisation as it unfolded live in the Oval Office. @polcommjournal.bsky.social contains link to transcript #openaccess

🌿 PhD Opportunity in Environmental Psychology: We would like to invite students to apply for the student-led 2026 WGSSS PhD Studentship Competition at Cardiff University. (1/3)

🗓️ Deadline: 11 Dec 2025

🔗 wgsss.ac.uk/student-led-general-competition

Title, authors’ names, abstract, and keywords from a paper about the effect of communication strategies by climate scientists on their credibility

Scientists are changing their normal #communication practice of only giving facts, esp. re climate change. @christelvaneck.bsky.social‬ & @tonivdmeer.bsky.social‬ tested whether stories & affective expression affect scientists’ credibility & found context & consistency matter doi.org/10.1177/0963...

New in Social Media + Society:
How do (non-)disruptive #climate #protests shape social media debates?
We analyzed ~5M Twitter/X posts on #FFF & #LetzteGeneration: Disruptive protests generate more engagement—but also more polarization, driven by right-wing/conservative users: doi.org/10.1177/2056...

A screen capture of the science article on the CBC homepage today, which features a picture of me and a title reading “prominent climate scientist argues it’s time to ditch the myth of neutrality in science.”

Was not expecting to open the main CBC page this morning and see this!

In today’s climate, I feel our message is even more relevant than even just a few months ago when the interview was recorded.

www.cbc.ca

@christelvaneck.bsky.social @lydiamessling.bsky.social

Thanks so much for the warm welcome! 🙏

Thanks for this summary Aaron! Sad that I couldn’t join. @anne-urai.bsky.social were you there? This is relevant input to our Academic Green Deal 🙏

Sage Journals: Discover world-class research Subscription and open access journals from Sage, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

4️⃣🤩 Together with @tonivdmeer.bsky.social. Read our study, open access, in Public Understanding of Science: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

3️⃣
✅ When sharing facts, a neutral tone is most effective.
✅ When sharing personal stories, expressing emotion—whether optimistic or pessimistic—resonates best.

2️⃣ Our results suggest when climate scientists incorporate emotion or personal anecdotes into their messaging, their credibility remains largely intact. But message consistency is key...

1️⃣ More and more, we see scientists openly expressing emotions—moving away from the traditional norm of "rational", "neutral" communication. But what are the consequences of this shift? Does showing emotion compromise a scientist’s credibility? In our latest publication, we explored this question 🧵👇

Gefeliciteerd!! 🤩🤩🤩

Thanks so much, Lydia—you know this is genuinely mutual! I think it's about time we meet up! 😊🎉

8️⃣Let’s keep the conversation going—what are your thoughts on the role of scientists in advocacy? 🌍

7️⃣👏 Also, a big thanks to @yuyaolu.bsky.social, whose work on analyzing the results made this research (and her first published article!) a great achievement.

6️⃣🤩 Huge shoutout to Dr. Lydia Messling for inviting me into this project—it’s been an amazing experience. Our discussions were invaluable, as she challenged my thinking & brought clarity to this complex debate.

5️⃣I invite you to read the article 📖, published open access in Public Understanding of Science, and explore all the fascinating quotes! 👉 lnkd.in/gZhMuQDW

4️⃣In essence, protecting the integrity of science is used as an argument both for and against advocacy. But there’s a caveat! Scientists often hold multiple, sometimes conflicting views—so this framework should not be seen as a binary tool.

3️⃣At the same time, preserving scientific integrity was also an argument in favor of advocacy. Many scientists saw it as their responsibility to defend science from misinterpretation (F1) 🛡️ and to ‘sound the alarm’ as experts & citizens (F2) 📢.

2️⃣Our framework reveals key reasoning. Advocacy was seen as a threat to scientific integrity, either by creating (or raising suspicion of) biased science (A1) 🤔—where political values shape research—or by scientists overstepping their expertise & misusing authority (A2) 🤐.

1️⃣ There’s much debate about the role of scientists in climate advocacy, but we often overlook the core concerns behind their arguments.

In our latest publication 🔍, we map these concerns based on interviews with 47 climate scientists! journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

📣NEW PAPER: ‘Advocacy - defending science or destroying it?’ Our interviews with 47 climate scientists provide detailed explanations on all the good things about policy advocacy and the legitimate concerns with threats to the integrity and credibility of science. journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

I used to think science was completely objective, free from human values and biases.

Obviously, that is bollocks. We are humans who make value informed decisions every day!

So I ❤️ this from @christelvaneck.bsky.social @katharinehayhoe.com @lydiamessling.bsky.social www.nature.com/articles/s44...

Open access link to article: www.nature.com/articles/s44...

Excited to see our recent commentary featured on CBC! In this piece, our co-author @katharinehayhoe.com brilliantly unpacks why climate science communication cannot be and should not be neutral 👏 👇

Our global study on the state of trust in scientists is now out in Nature Human Behaviour! 🥳

With a team of 241 researchers, we surveyed 71,922 people in 68 countries, providing the largest dataset on trust in scientists post-pandemic 👇🧵https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5

In changing their opinion, most participants' experiences followed a general process of (1) distancing from their ideological community, (2) a desire to seek out information, leading to (3) a gradual or epiphanic realization that solidified their shift in opinion.

Super fascinating climate-communication study making the rounds today, thanks to @katharinehayhoe.com.

Skeptics who changed their minds went through a three-step process, which began with a "distancing from their ideological community." 👇

🧵

preview of the title and abstract of the article discussed

Good to see this. At the time, I called out Büntgen assertions as "superficial" and "naive" (www.varsity.co.uk/news/27665) and "mendacious" (www.thetimes.com/uk/environme...).
van Eck et al unpack that nicely here:
www.nature.com/articles/s44...

🎁 A little holiday treat 🎁
We have a new paper on climate action communication on #Twitter 🌍 We analyzed over 6.4 million tweets from 2021, including tweets from the general public and tweets from 'climate' scientists on @katharinehayhoe.com's "Scientists who do climate" list🧵
osf.io/preprints/os...

While this approach fosters mutual respect, it may also risk creating conversational deadlock—potentially slowing the deeper changes needed to address climate change. 3/3

Together with Henrik Pröpper and @bnbakker.bsky.social ⭐