Book Review > Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet:
BOOK REVIEW
Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet, by Johan Rockström and
Owen Gaffney, New York, New York, DK, 2021, 227 pp. ISBN: 978-0-7440-2813-3.
What is our destiny? As we look forward to COP26 (Glasgow) in the fall, this book makes clear what must be achieved. Our planet is in crisis. But we’re not only experiencing a climate emergency, we face massive ecological disasters on many fronts. Breaking Boundaries builds upon collaborative research, specifically highly cited scientific papers (2009, 2009, 2015, 2019) which introduced the novel concept of “planetary boundaries” ̶ irreversible and abrupt tipping points (non-linear changes) in our Earth’s systems. Not only has this ground breaking approach catalyzed a new area of academic research, over recent years, Rockström has clarified this model to a widening audience via TED Talks and other public formats (including a recent Netflix documentary).
Antilla Kellems: Book Review of Media and the Ecological Crisis (Public Understanding of Science):
Book Review: Richard Maxwell, Jon Raundalen and Nina Lager Vestberg (eds), Media and the Ecological Crisis
Public Understanding of Science November 2016 25(8): 1023, doi:10.1177/0963662516670501
A diverse, well informed group of interdisciplinarians collaborate with academic editors based in Norway and the USA to explore an existential question: will we continue with unsound practices relating to communications technology and media production which run counter to balancing human culture with the natural world? Alternatively, are we capable of transforming global information and communication paradigms into more sustainable models?
Public Understanding of Science November 2016 25(8): 1023, doi:10.1177/0963662516670501
A diverse, well informed group of interdisciplinarians collaborate with academic editors based in Norway and the USA to explore an existential question: will we continue with unsound practices relating to communications technology and media production which run counter to balancing human culture with the natural world? Alternatively, are we capable of transforming global information and communication paradigms into more sustainable models?
Antilla Review of Painter's Climate Change in the Media
(Login) Climate Change in the Media: reporting risk & uncertainty
A 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."
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:
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"
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)