Perhaps only scientists could be such a bunch of media naifs that they would release a pivotally important report--one so significant that it only comes out once every five years--on a Friday.
But that and other failings, combined with well-known pathologies of the media itself, collectively helped to ensure that the latest policymakers' summary from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (PDF) made only a minor blip on the public's radar screen. Matthew Nisbet now has the definitive take on how and why this massive communication breakdown occurred--a breakdown that is all the more troubling in light of the fact that we may have a steadily narrowing window of time left to address global warming before we're committed to irreversible, large-scale changes.
Tonight at my panel discussion here in Vancouver--sponsored by the DeSmogBlog and the University of British Columbia School of Journalism--I, Ross Gelbspan, and others will be talking about the various problematic ways in which the media has covered the climate issue. The well-known tick of false "balance" is one such foible (although I actually think the press isn't as bad today as it once was in this respect). But in any event, phony "balance" represents just one media problem out of many, and following Nisbet's lead, tonight I'll be talking about some other, perhaps less obvious ones.
For instance, it seems to me that the volume of attention that the press devotes to a subject is just as important as how it actually covers that subject. So I'll be presenting some revealing data along these lines that Matt has provided to me. In addition, I'll also introduce some new data that he and I have pulled together and analyzed about how the press has covered an increasingly prominent sub-issue of the global warming debate: the relationship between hurricanes and climate change.
At the end of the day, though, while it's a time-honored pasttime to gripe about the media, this only takes us so far. The press is indeed culpable for failing to communicate the nature of our looming climate problem--but then, so are the scientists, science advocates, environmentalists, and others who care deeply about this issue, but who have failed to discuss it in a way that resonates beyond a relatively small circle of like-minded devotees.
In short: We all have a great deal more to do...and the clock is ticking.
- Log in to post comments
Any thoughts on the new report from the Pentagon suppressed by the Bush admin. saying that the threat of global warming vastly outstrips the threat of terrorism, with grim details on the future that sound straight out of a post-apocalyptic sci-fi novel?
Chris, the link under "(PDF)" after IPCC goes to http://www.desmogblog.com/ not the pdf of the report.
Somebody is behind on their climate science. Britain => Siberian climate shifts have been largely ruled out.
However - with the jet stream over Asia moving north, changing precipitation patterns over Israel, Iran, most of the middle east (see figure SPM-6) - and with the melting of the Asian glaciers Pakistan, India, and China rely on (as natural reservoirs) for stability of water supply, it does not take much to imagine famine and nuclear conflict.
Chris,
One issue not seriously address that, in my opinion, deeply hurt the policymakers' summary from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was that it was presented BEFORE the full report. How can any news organization run with a story when the "executive summary" is presented WITHOUT the supporting documentation of the report itself? Supporters, meanwhile, were left to swing in the wind as detractors could argue that the work was unsupported by any real data...not to mention they could make hay about any perceived delays in the preparation of the final report.
GreenishBlue,
It is not a "new report." The date of the article is Sunday February 22, 2004, and the article seems to be describing the most extreme scenarios.
Perhaps the Pentagon was ask to prepare a worst-case scenario, which is why it sounds "straight out of a post-apocalyptic sci-fi novel."
Of course there was the ACNielsen online poll last year. It pointed out the helpful fact that 13% of American internet users (who presumable can read) haven't even heard of Global Warming.
Charming. Charming.
Yeah, my wife pointed out the 2004 dateline to me about 3 minutes after I posted here. Made me feel about 3" tall. Oh well. :)
Not sure what can be done. It seems like every stakeholder here is tied up in institutional knots.
Scientists - Well, their primary task is to do the science, not report on it. They might be encouraged to be more open and helpful to science journalism, but in the publish or perish world, that takes time away from their career-advancing research.
Science Departments - They could encourage more outreach, maybe even hire some people who combine teaching duties with public outreach. Of course, that would require budget for hiring teachers who are paid more than adjuncts and don't bring in grant money. Trying to count public service stuff toward duties and tenure has the same problem - it takes time and doesn't bring in grant money.
Universities and Labs - Encourage their public relations people to be more science literate? Not sure how you encourage more public engagement without encouraging the kind of self-serving press releases that accompanied the cold fusion fiasco some years ago. Again, they'd probably need more budget to hire people who can serve as resources for the science journalists. And change institutional culture to encourage sciene departments to cooperate with this. But money will remain a problem.
Professional Associations - Like AAAS, American Chemical Society, etc. Maybe they could publish their own journals aimed at a scientifically literate layman audience? Science has some stuff like that, but a good half of it is still awfully dense for anyone not well-versed in the relevant fields. American Physical Society has AJP, but that is aimed more at science teachers than journalists. Then again, you still need to get someone to write those articles, and for a journal that doesn't have the prestige of Science, it won't be particularly attractive to scientists. Unless the societies can hire their own science writers to do it. Where's the money for that? Maybe they can sell enough subscriptions to university libraries?
Science journalists - A lot of attention has been paid to this. I think some work can be done here to identify some of the standard tropes of journalism - crafting a narrative, framing, connecting to the reader's personal concerns, whatever - and how they can be utilized to increase the accuracy and relevancy of the information received by readers. Can we construct some standard ways to frame science stories that focus on the actual science rather than politics and personalities? And still hold the interest of the casual reader?
Media Institutions - Generally these are for-profit corporations, that need to sell ad space and eyeballs to live. Does this create an inherent conflict with good, accurate science reporting? Do the media even care? How do we get them to care? Can we create some alternative way of reaching people beyond the science articles on page A12?
News Consumers - Generally already awash in an information glut. How do science stories rise above the noise? How can consumers distinguish between sense and nonsense when they lack expertise? Is there a way to present key information that can get past people's filters and pre-existing biases? And who exactly do we need to reach, anyway? How do we provide enough information to protect the general public against FUD and disinformation?
Thank god there is now a "grassroots" backlash against the corporate sponsored global warming hysteria.
Yes, conspiracy theorists rejoice! There is something afoot that has nothing to do with continual global warming until a 2080-2100 "meltdown" sparking famine and war (that happens much sooner ;-)
I have some very good information that there is a literal sol-system and solar cycle at work that will result in the usual aftermath of global cooling (mauser minimum like) and mini-ice age state.
Email discussions with MIT 'tempestologists', HSCFA astrophysicists, and SUNY geophysicists have shed some personal light on imminent earth changes.
Simply put, our sun is pouring out more radiant energy since the last solar max in 2001; 3 of 4 largest solar flares have occured since then.
Curious.
Global temps are indeed rising. Our input to global warming does not exceed 1%, if that.
There are many theories, including one that made the AP wire this past week out of the Polkatov Observatory in St. Petersburg, Russia, which supported a cosmic - NOT MANMADE - warming cycle.
Therefore, the inquiring mind asks "Why is the sun revving up?"
Is there an extrinsic or intrinsic reason for this solar activity?
Search the net, or search the oxford translations of the mesopotamian myths for a possible answer...
Solar activity is cyclic, and the natural sequela will be cooling.
Turn off CNN, turn on the blogsphere, and personally seek out notable scientists - their honest responses will amaze you.
Indeed! Great post Phil,
Most of the climate change hysteria has failed to mention the main contributor to change - our sun! We have known this for some time, it's not a new conspiracy against the 'main' view. For example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
(dated 1998)
A book like 'Earth Under Fire' is also good reading, and takes the issue to an even larger scale:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Earth-Under-Fire-Humanitys-Survival/dp/15914305…
Some other points to consider:
"SUN:Â The Sun's magnetic field is over 230 percent stronger now than it was at the beginning of the 1900s, and its overall energetic activity has sizably increased, creating a frenzy of activity that continues to embarrass NASA's official predictions.
 VENUS: Venus is now glowing in the dark, as is Jupiter's moon Io.
 EARTH: In the last 30 years, Earth's icecaps have thinned out by as much as 40 percent. Quite inexplicably, just since 1997 the structure of the Earth has shifted from being slightly more egg-shaped, or elongated at the poles, to more pumpkin-shaped, or flattened at the poles. No one at NASA has even bothered to try to explain this yet.Â
 MARS: The icecaps of Mars noticeably melted just within one year, causing 50-percent changes in surface features. Atmospheric density had risen by 200 percent above previous observations as of 1997.
 JUPITER:  Jupiter has become so highly energized that it is now surrounded by a visibly glowing donut tube of energy in the path of the moon Io. The size of Jupiter's magnetic field has more than doubled since 1992.
 SATURN: Saturn's polar regions have been noticeably brightening, and its magnetic field strength increasing.
 URANUS: According to NASA's Voyager II space probe, Uranus and Neptune both appear to have had recent magnetic pole shifts - 60 degrees for Uranus and 50 for Neptune .
 NEPTUNE : Neptune has become 40 percent brighter in infrared since 1996, and is fully 100-percent brighter in certain areas. Also, Neptune 's moon Triton has had a "very large percentage increase" in atmospheric pressure and temperature, comparable to a 22-degree Fahrenheit increase on Earth.
 PLUTO: As of September 2002, Pluto has experienced a 300-percent increase in its atmospheric pressure in the last 14 years, while also becoming noticeably darker in color. "
Larger cogs are ticking round than just what we humans are doing...