Antilla Book Review of Almund et al.

Rethinking Climate Change Research 

Antilla Review of Painter's Climate Change in the Media

(Login) Climate Change in the Media: reporting risk & uncertainty

Liisa Antilla, IECA member, Independent geographer  

Pages 551-553 Published online: 21 Nov 20A clear comprehension of the dual concepts of risk and uncertainty is a highly beneficial attribute held by those pursuing answers to scientific questions—this is certainly the case when we attempt to understand our anthropogenic (human-caused) climate crisis. The promotion of meaningful approaches to communicating such intrinsic facets of climate change is, understandably, a growing topic of research. Emerging from decades of academic analyses in such social research fields as communication studies and public understanding of science, Climate Change in the Media expands our appreciation of the crucial role held by media organizations in public understanding of climate science.

Scholarly literature has explored the substance and treatment of risk and uncertainty with respect to various aspects of climate change. In addition to media coverage, principal spheres such as natural sciences (effects within natural earth systems, etc.) and policy (mitigation practices, etc.) regularly undergo such examination. Painter and colleagues measure (qualitatively and quantitatively) how and to what degree risk and uncertainty are reported in six countries—India, France, Australia, Norway, the UK, and the USA—by investigating coverage of certain climate news events, including findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Prior to examining metrics, this narrative explores various categories of risk, including implicit and explicit as well as certain low probability/high impact events known as “tail risks” (for instance, hurricane damage); what follows is an exploration of newspaper article frames during four relevant time periods.

The term “frame” is applied to the embedded structure which provides context and meaning to a story. Four types of frames are assessed: (1) uncertainty, (2) disaster/implicit risk, (3) explicit risk, and (4) opportunity. For purposes of this research, an implicit risk frame entails a focus upon specific adverse physical impacts, (sea-level rise, flooding, droughts, etc.). Alternatively, an explicit risk frame is applied if the text revolves around numerical probabilities or less defined consequences.

Although these researchers “were particularly interested in … explicit risk,” their analyses found such “was very seldom the dominant tone on its own” (p. 67); however, they encountered consistent presence of both uncertainty and implicit risk frames. A significant number of uncertainty frames—widely considered obstacles to public understanding and engagement—are attributable to the inclusion of skeptical voices. Still, the uncertainty format was not as dominant as implicit risk which was ubiquitous—not only as most salient but also the prevailing timbre of stories.

A major risk faced by all Earth's inhabitants is the tipping of climate thresholds (leading to abrupt climate events)—some, such as a melting Arctic, may have already been pushed beyond the point of no return. Describing such scientific intricacies to lay communities (and policy-makers) requires complex groundwork by reporters, but Painter's group found (as have other academic researchers), such climate fundamentals (including the albedo effect and other physical and ecological dynamics described by the IPCC) have not been well deliberated by the press in most countries. Although, over the last few years, there may now be a greater awareness within the public sphere of the notion of triggering tipping points, a more purposeful conversation—which seems critical to finding real climate solutions—has yet to be fully launched.

Both risk and uncertainty are difficult ideas for correspondents to cover as these terms hold various definitions across disciplines and societies. A key finding here is that, internationally, newspapers are beginning to treat climate mitigation as managing risk. In further comparison of the uncertainty frame to the increasingly deployed risk management format, Alister Doyle, a journalist at Thomson Reuters, has found that people generally understand risk better than uncertainty; therefore, he believes it is helpful if scientific reports are presented as such. But other environmental writers, such as Fiona Harvey of the UK's Guardian, are concerned that such nomenclature in general “is often inadequate and can be easily misunderstood” (p. 37).

As touched upon earlier, another valuable discussion relates to widespread presentation of scientific findings and commentary outside proper context and “in particular the presence of ‘dueling experts’ without [reference to international scientific] consensus” (p. 45). While there may be wide variations in treatment of skeptics by reporters and editors, it is a well-established fact that media-generated controversy and misrepresentation are powerful influencers to public [mis]perception(s).

Painter found that Australian publications generated the highest number of quotes by doubters of global warming, followed by the USA. The UK edged over France, but Norway and India were barely in the running. Apparently, strong nuclear power political links in France leave little media space for fossil fuel industry-affiliated lobby groups so prevalent within the Anglosphere. What is more, France has no equivalent to British tabloids, the locale of the UK's most strident climate denialism. In stark contrast, “climate skepticism has never publicly entered Indian political debates” (p. 99).

Another leading takeaway is that in order to “correct a common [misunderstanding] that uncertainty [equates to] not knowing,” scientists “should … explain that uncertainty [doesn’t] mean ignorance” (p. 136). But perhaps most compelling are Painter's remarks on the unwarranted but excessive exposure of prolific, well-connected climate deniers in the news and opinion pages of broadsheets. We learn, for instance, that although the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has a similar audience and news department as the New York Times, the former is further to the right with an editorial section strikingly heavier on climate skepticism than the latter. In fact, the WSJ—part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. empire—has been a hub for climate dissention for decades “maintaining the sceptic tone of many of Murdoch's other papers, particularly in Australia” (p. 128).

While these researchers succeed in edifying a broad audience on the overall significance of climate communication as well as how media treatment is critical to sociopolitical action, regrettably, Painter perceives “the worst climate change impacts are probably distant in time and space [and] most people in the west have no direct experience of them” (p. 30). Although oft-repeated within the public sphere, this statement becomes (even) less cogent as extreme weather increasingly threatens us all—a rare but crucial bit of context floundering to land upon our daily news plate.

NYT + Denier John Christy:

As I've discussed, e.g. here, here, here, here, and here, US news outlets including the NYT have, for many years, provided climate denier John Christy with completely inappropriate space to spread misinformation. Yet again - as pointed out by Salon ("New York Times’ climate skeptic debacle: How a new profile sets back science ") - Christy is profiled in the NYT: "Though Scorned by Colleagues, a Climate-Change Skeptic Is Unbowed."

Kerry Emanuel:

Tail Risk vs. Alarmism

Antilla Review of Boykoff Book:

Book Review of "Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change," by Maxwell Boykoff

George Will:

 "Can somebody, please, help George Will understand climate?"

More on George Will's climate denial:
RealClimate Wiki: George Will
MediaMatters: Why George Will Is Wrong About Weather And Climate

NYT still quoting denialist Christy:

In "Weather Runs Hot and Cold, So Scientists Look to the Ice" the NYT reaches into their old files and includes rhetoric of climate denialist John Christy to provide some (false) "balance" to this story. 

NYT > More Denialism:

In an example of a falsely balanced climate story, Justin Gillis of the New York Times went to one of the most media saavy denialists in "Rising Sea Levels Seen as Threat to Coastal U.S.." Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has amazing access to top media companies.

Myths from Michaels:

In yet another response to the infamous Wall Street Journal piece, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," Forbes.com has published the delusions of legendary climate crank (and regular Forbes contributor) Patrick Michaels: "What Happens When You Rub Two Climatologists Together?" For background on Patrick Michaels, see:
 DeSmogBlog.com: "Disinformation Database - Patrick Michaels"
 ExxonSecrets.org: "Factsheet: Patrick J. Michaels"
     PRWatch: "The Cato Institute's Generous Funding of Patrick Michaels"
 Climate Science Watch: "Pat Michaels, Virginia 'State Climatologist?' A critical perspective on the issues"

RealClimate.Org Debunks Climate Nonsense:

"RC Wiki" provides an index for debunking climate nonsense

Current Climate >> case studies of US media climate coverage > self-censorship and denial:

After many years of scientific consensus on the reality and critical nature of anthropogenic climate change, there has of late been some improvement in the manner and extent of US press coverage on this issue. Surely, better news reporting has had some role in the documented growth of awareness of climate change by the US citizenry. But US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise even as the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has reached its highest level in human history. In the words of NASA climate expert James Hansen (2008), there is “a wide gap … between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public.”

Antilla Journal Article: Self-censorship and Science

Self-censorship and science: a geographical review of media coverage of climate tipping points, Public Understanding of science, March 2010 (online September 2008) Vol. 19, No. 2, 240-256 DOI: 10.1177/0963662508094099. Abstract: Public perception of global climate change is strongly influenced by media constructions of scientific knowledge. This paper explores recent scientific findings and the press coverage thereof and is based on a content analysis of two years of global reporting on climate related positive feedback mechanisms (climate system responses to global warming which lead to further warming). Results indicate that non-US news organizations, especially in the UK, are at the forefront of the discourse on climate feedback loops. Poor US press coverage on such climate thresholds might be understood not only as self-censorship, but as a "false negative" error.

Antilla speaks in Nairobi at UN Conference on Climate Change Side Panel Event: Communicating Climate Change

Presented by CICERO. 

The Climate Con > media, misinformation & the masters of spin:

[Click on Title for Full Text]
Despite climbing US greenhouse gas emissions and in the face of international consensus, the Bush administration—enabled by industry influence over both Congress and big media—continues to suppress and distort climate science while pushing regressive energy policies. A prime sponsor of the “Bush stance” is ExxonMobil.

The Counterbalance of Climate News:

In a Washington Post op-ed, David Ignatius observed:
Scientists believe that new habitats for butterflies are early effects of global climate change—but that isn’t news, by most people’s measure. Neither is declining rainfall in the Amazon, or thinner ice in the Arctic. We can’t see these changes in our personal lives, and in that sense, they are abstractions. So they don’t grab us the way a plane crash would—even though they may be harbingers of a catastrophe that could, quite literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet.… The failure of the United States to get serious about climate change is unforgivable, a human folly beyond imagining.

Excerpts from Open Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman: climate skeptics as sources

Open Letter to The Washington Post

February 11, 2006

Deborah Howell, Ombudsman
The Washington Post

RE: Coverage of climate change news

Dear Ms. Howell,

I am a reader of the Washington Post and a human geographer with an interest in media coverage of science....

I have just completed a LexisNexis review of seven months of climate change coverage by the Washington Post. While I commend the Post on providing some fine reporting on this vital issue, I believe that there is one aspect of your coverage that should be reviewed. Articles that grant equal space to “climate skeptics” severely limit the understanding of readers by diverting their attention away from the fact that there is international scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change being a dangerous, current reality. I hope that you will share this letter with the science writers and editors at the Post so they might reconsider some of their reporting procedures.

NYT & Denier John Christy > abbreviated versions of 2 open letters to ombudsman:

Open Letter to The New York Times

December 27, 2005

Byron Calame, Public Editor
The New York Times

RE: Coverage of climate science news

Dear Mr. Calame,

I am a reader of the New York Times and a human geographer with research interests in science and the media. As you are aware, our nation presently faces many formidable challenges—not the least of which are the ramifications of our dependence on foreign oil and the well-documented changes in the earth’s climate.... As I present the below case study involving coverage of the issue of climate change by the New York Times, I ask that the same be brought to the attention of your science reporters and editors so that they might reconsider some of their procedures.

Antilla Journal Article > Climate of Scepticism:

Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change
Global Environmental Change 15(4): 338-352 (December 2005) Abstract:This two-part study integrates a quantitative review of one year of US newspaper coverage of climate science with a qualitative, comparative analysis of media-created themes and frames using a social constructivist approach. In addition to an examination of newspaper articles, this paper includes a reflexive comparison with attendant wire stories and scientific texts. Special attention is given to articles constructed with and framed by rhetoric emphasising uncertainty, controversy, and climate scepticism.