Climate change: seeking balance in media reports

摘要

Boykoff and Mansfield (2008), in a recent paper in this journal, provide a detailed analysis of the representation of climate change in the UK tabloid newspapers. They conclude that the representation of this issue in these papers 'diverged from the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change'. That is, portrayal of climate change in tabloid newspapers contradicts the conclusions of the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment (IPCC 2007). Is it healthy to have the scientific consensus challenged so frequently? But should we worry about systematic misrepresentation of scientific consensus? We believe the answer to both of these questions is yes. To present regular updates on climate change issues in the popular press is important because the changes in behaviour needed to achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions require a broad understanding of the basic facts. However, if the majority of readers receive misleading information, it will be difficult to achieve the level of public understanding necessary to make such reductions needed to avoid dangerous climate change (Schellnhuber et al 2006 and references therein). Boykoff and Mansfield (2008) identify a gulf in presentation of the scientific facts and their interpretation on the subject of 'global warming' in tabloid newspapers, when compared to the scientific consensus. What is really sobering is the huge circulation of these papers (see table 1 of Boykoff and Mansfield—many millions per day); even the most important 'landmark' research papers very rarely achieve five hundred plus citations. We find it heartening, therefore, that the area of climate change research does at least have the umbrella of the IPCC. This provides an additional channel through which current research associated with the effects of burning fossil fuels can be presented, and in our personal experience at least, we have found the non-tabloid UK newspapers to report accurately any IPCC statements. As this perspective article is being written, the UK (and worldwide) is facing almost unprecedented increases in the cost of petrol and diesel, and with the transport sector lobbying hard for tax incentives/rebates to reduce fuel costs. In the middle of this, some government ministers are suggesting that from the climate change angle, lower dependence on fossil fuels (forced on the population by such higher prices) might be a good thing. But their voices are drowned by other ministers saying that such an approach is deeply unpopular with the electorate—to what extent, therefore, is the tabloid press responsible for the lack of urgency related to potential future damage to the planet? How else are people informed about the climate change debate? Aside from TV and radio, popular science books are usually a good source of information. However a viewing of the environmental sciences department in any bookshop at present will reveal how remarkably polarized the climate change debate is becoming. Some books have very alarming titles; for instance Pearce (2007) is titled 'The Last Generation: How Nature will take her Revenge for Climate Change'. Meanwhile other books are appearing with titles suggesting that the entire issue is given far too much emphasis, is used as a means for politicians to keep society fearful (and presumably, therefore, more controllable), or present a view that the IPCC system is scientifically deeply flawed. Examples of these include Spencer (2008) titled 'Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor', Booker and North (2007) titled 'Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares are Costing us the Earth' and two books by Michaels—Michaels (2004) 'Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media' and Michaels (2005) 'Shattered Consensus: The True state of Global Warming'. Both polarized view