Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts

Climate Change Scientific Facts, Assessment, And Information Sourcing.




Most American journalists have complete control over how they cover a story and whose sources they utilize. 



When sources have established credentials, understand news production standards, are well-known to the public, and have the means to fulfill the media's information requirements on a consistent basis, they are seen as more trustworthy. 


The assertiveness and quotability of a source, as well as his or her knowledge of daily media routines, ability to give reliable information on a timely basis, and availability to contribute opinion or analysis, may all influence how prominent he or she is in news coverage. 

Similarly, the Meyer's Credibility Index evaluates a communication source's credibility based on five factors: fairness, bias, completeness, accuracy, and trust. 



When reporting climate change, news organizations often fail to follow up on sources. 


In selecting science news, specialist journalists in the British national press place a higher value on journalistic professionalism and skill than formal training in their field of specialization, apply traditional news values but emphasize relevance to the reader, and use elaborate routines for obtaining credibility, including actively cultivating mutual trust with sources. 

Prospective interview sources with a variety of interests and objectives compete for control of information flow via media gatekeepers. 



When it comes to reporting climate change, source trustworthiness affects how environmental journalists select interview sources from environmental organizations. 


For example, while covering an international climate conference, the Peruvian media mostly relied on official sources and offered opposing voices such as environmentalists little access. 

When it comes to the battle for public attention via the media, interview sources have a significant impact on how news concerning climate change is presented, and politicians and government officials are major winners. 

Journalists often depend on interviews with a limited number of ‘‘authorities," rather than seeking out a broader variety of viewpoints, particularly when climate change coverage is prompted by an impending or ongoing catastrophe. 



In news coverage of climate change, the public gives political and expert sources the greatest credibility, and this public confidence in authoritative figures may affect climate policy decision-making. 


By gaining momentum for their ideas and shifting public discourse via media coverage, contrarians, environmental organizations, and other nongovernmental claim-makers may have a significant effect on public understanding. 

These claim-makers have gradually supplanted scientists as the primary interview source. 

The results are determined by those who have the ability to define the debate's parameters. 



Climate change deniers and other doubters have often received preferential media access. 


Skeptics' attempts to speak out against the scientific consensus on the reasons of rapid climate change have been emphasized by journalists seeking balance. 

As a consequence of this coverage, the public's perception of uncertainty has grown, as has the view that humans have a little influence in climate change. 

Contrarians with entrenched authority and public legitimacy via the media may widely disseminate the counterclaim that climate change is not a concern. 



Fox News Corporation became ‘‘carbon neutral" in 2007 and supported scientific concerns about global warming in general. 


Rupert Murdoch, the company's CEO, stated not only that the company had a corporate position on climate change, but also that its journalistic coverage will alter. 

From 1997 to 2007, opinion articles published by News Corporation-owned newspapers and television stations mainly rejected climate change research and ridiculed people who were worried about it. 

While the severity of climate change criticism varied among News Corporation's media properties, the company's corporate perspective framed the problem as one of political correctness rather than science. 



Climate doubt was presented as brave dissent, while scientific understanding was depicted as orthodoxy. 


Corporate and special groups have devised a variety of techniques in recent decades to create doubt about climate science because it threatens their economic interests. 

Reporters contribute to the social construction of ignorance in scientific disputes by covering rhetorical assertions about scientific ignorance and uncertainty that actors use to discredit dangerous research. 

Trade organizations have used rhetorical assertions in an attempt to confuse the public about university research that threatened to harm their businesses' operations. 



Journalists' use of these assertions seems to be influenced by their views of their journalistic responsibilities and viewers, but their scientific expertise appears to play a role as well. 


Climate change deniers hacked Michael Mann's e-mails from computers at Britain's University of East Anglia in an attempt to discredit him, according to Michael Mann, the scientist who helped create the well-known "hockey stick" climate change temperature graph. 

Deniers said Mann's e-mails revealed unethical behavior, while scientific groups and academic committees supported Mann and climate science's legitimacy. 

Even though the event seems to have had little impact on popular confidence in climate science, Mann thinks that press coverage of the campaign against him ultimately caused the US Senate to reject to take action on carbon dioxide emission limits. 



Three main counterclaims in media coverage of climate change have been highlighted by scholars: 


  • that global warming has a weak, unclear, 
  • or faulty evidence base, that global warming will have significant long-term advantages,
  • and that climate policy action would do more damage than good. 

They discovered that dissidents work with conservative think tanks, anti-environment organizations, and the carbon-based business to spread ideas that marginalize top climate research in national and international debates over climate change causes. 

In the 1990s, government officials in the United States who referenced skeptics surpassed scientists as the most often mentioned interview sources in elite news stories across the world. 



Environmental pressure groups like Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and Environmental Defense not only help to overcome social inertia and bureaucratic resistance to policy action, but they also have the ability to push media discourse beyond the boundaries of what science can currently claim, framing issues as overly catastrophic or alarmist. 


Because the topic is frequently futuristic, journalists must add speculative remarks in most climate change coverage. 

If the interview sources for these tales followed Gregg Easterbrook's "rule of doom saying," they would forecast disaster no sooner than 5 years from now but no later than 10 years from now, close enough to frighten but far enough away for people to forget if they are incorrect.


~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan


You may also want read more about Global Climate Change here.



Climate Change Risk Perception Coverage By Media



Environmental hazards are seldom mentioned in news articles on environmental problems, and those that are are often dramatic and unclear, with little information to assist the public comprehend the risks. 




The most important facts, as specified by experts or risk assessments, are often overlooked in climate tales. 


In news coverage, political discussion obfuscates risk evaluations. 

Journalists struggled to understand Sen. James Inhofe's claims about poor science and bad reporting when he raged against the climate research "hoax" and the "alarmist" scientific press in 2006. 

Specifically, Inhofe chastised exaggerated doomsday forecasts in press coverage that alternated scientific projections of global warming and cooling throughout the past century. 



Many journalists have linked climate change stories to catastrophes such as hurricane strength, drought, wildfires, crop failure, and other risks, rather than explaining how greenhouse gases cause climate change or providing a skeptic's perspective. 


The public reacted against climate reporters whose articles were too "balanced". 

Nuclear power has been reframed as part of the answer to the demand for low-carbon energy choices in Britain as a result of climate change coverage. 

In the United Kingdom, risk trade-off scenarios are often used to frame nuclear power. 

Citizens show a hesitant acceptance of nuclear power, but when it is juxtaposed with climate change, they reconsider their stance. 



In various methods, many nations have attempted to determine the most logical global economic response to climate change risks. 


In predictions about climate change effects and civilizations' reactions to changing climates, the social sciences, particularly economics, have played a minor role. 

When it comes to the dimensions of risk description and prescription in the media, environmentalist and scientific media tend to be more proactive, while industrial and political media are more reactive. 



The way a story concerning environmental problems is presented in the news may also affect audience perceptions of danger. 


Individual risk perceptions regarding environmental problems may be influenced by societal change or status quo news framing in light of the media's guard-dog viewpoint. 

Those who read news articles with a social change framing are more conscious of danger than people who read stories with a status quo perspective. 

To identify determinants of public awareness of global warming, researchers utilized the risk information seeking and processing model. 



Climate change knowledge is predicted by the amount of media sources utilized, individual information seeking effort, and overall climate change education. 


Most individuals see the advantages of a future focused on sustainable resource usage and social well-being, but scenarios have little effect on individual future decisions. 

Individuals' previous views and confidence in the science presented determine the credibility of climate change predictions. 

The connection between real and perceived danger is influenced by particular physical circumstances and experiences, as shown by geographical data that maps individual physical risk associated with anticipated climate change. 



Individual worry or anxiety about climate change may be elicited by mutually reinforcing processes of media influence and selective attention to the media, which can increase information seeking. 


Individual media usage and global warming beliefs have been demonstrated to have reciprocal effect using the reinforcing spirals paradigm. 

The impacts of age, race, and education on perceived awareness about global warming are mediated by media usage, according to data from the 2006 General Social Survey. 

Future information seeking regarding the polar areas is also predicted by perceived knowledge and worry about global warming. 



Climate change problems in general, and mitigation methods in particular, are often misunderstood by the general population. 


Latin Americans and Europeans were the most informed and worried about climate change, according to a 2007 Nielsen poll, while North Americans were the least aware and concerned. 

People in their teens and twenties seemed to be the least educated about climate change yet the most worried, emphasizing the need to reach out to younger people with correct climate change information. 



Many climate tales are riddled with exaggeration, certainty, and ambiguity. 


Because of the reporting issues, individuals may significantly overestimate scientific predictions for temperature and sea-level increases, leading to confusion between the greenhouse effect and ozone depletion. 

There is often a significant disconnect between scientific reporting and popular understanding of the origins of the greenhouse effect. 



In the end, the public's misunderstanding of climate change research causes them to avoid dealing with the use of fossil fuels. 


Even those who are most worried about climate change are less concerned than they are about other everyday problems. 

People are more inclined to act if they believe they can and should make a difference, and if they have faith in government and other institutions to minimize risks and effect change. 

When compared to other everyday issues, most people do not favor adaptation efforts because they view the costs to be concentrated and the benefits to be dispersed. 



Americans have grown more worried about environmental quality over the past decade, according to the Gallup Organization's annual poll on environmental problems. 


Even if the problem lies in the midst of a dozen other concerns, more than a third of people express concern about the condition of the environment. 

Americans are more concerned about global warming than any other environmental problem, and majority think that human actions, rather than natural processes, are to blame. 

When it comes to climate change policy, Americans think that scientists are more informed and unbiased than leaders in other fields, and that they should have more influence. 

They do, however, see a substantial lack of agreement among experts on this topic. 



When people lose faith in the government to solve climate issues and feel alienated, despondent, or helpless, they lose self-efficacy and become demobilized. 


Worry for the environment declines as public concern about the global economy increases. 

This may indicate a change in public attention toward an impending disaster rather than a possible disaster. 

Levels of acceptance, various cultural meanings of "global warming," and diverse socioeconomic and educational levels of Internet users were highlighted as three constraints that may render answers unrepresentative of broader public knowledge in a big worldwide poll. 

Alarmist audiences in the United States are younger, whereas those who think anthropogenic global warming is little and overhyped are white men who are Republican, individualist, religious, and depend on radio for news. 



Credibility evaluations and perceived bias in climate news are heavily influenced by political ideology and partisanship. 


Articles on climate change that utilize moderate sources or propose solutions or compromise are typically regarded as less biased and more trustworthy than those that use aggressive language and sources with strong opinions. 

According to the hostile media phenomenon, strongly partisan people believe the media is biased against them and in favor of their adversary. 

When it comes to opposing environmental protection, this impact has been greatest among Republicans and conservatives. 



When highly partisan people believe the media is biased against their side and favorable to their opponent's, a hostile media phenomena happens often in the consumption of climate change news. 


Climate change stories with moderate sources and recommendations for compromise, on the other hand, are seen as having less bias and more credibility than those with confrontational language and sources with strong opinions. 

The public's negative view of the media is a significant impediment to generating serious concern about climate change. 



Partisanship may have a big influence in the perception of media bias when it comes to climate change coverage. 


Individual confidence in climate change coverage and selective media usage are predicted by news consumers' anger, which may buffer hostile media perception. 

Conservatives attack the messenger when news stories do not support their chosen policy views, whether it's electoral politics or scientific subjects like global warming. 

The public is divided on whether the media exaggerates climate change risks, with more Americans believing they are underplayed. 

In view of Slovic's risk perception paradigm, the most frequent danger categories in worldwide newspaper coverage of climate change were no risk, severe risk, future risk, imminent risk, catastrophic risk, and harm to nonhuman life. 



When people have directly experienced weather catastrophes, they are more likely to believe that the climate change issue is serious and that they are susceptible to its effects. 


Knowledge decreases uncertainty, which may improve national seriousness evaluations. 

As a result, when attitudes and beliefs about human responsibility assist required reasoning, these evaluations enhance policy support. 

Public views have been swayed by media constructs of scientific climate understanding. 



Climatic feedback loops and climate thresholds are being discussed by non-US news media, particularly in the United Kingdom. 


However, due to self-censorship, US coverage of these issues has been usually inadequate.

The risk management system in the United States, which attempts to establish pockets of isolated knowledge in an effort to counteract unwarranted public concerns via logic, efficiency, and authority, is frequently reflected in media coverage of climate change. 

This, on the other hand, provides little space for or justification for lay involvement. 

Putting too much trust in the objectivity of formal analysis and too little faith in individuals may lead to a breakdown in civic discourse. 



When a contentious scientific event occurs, people and government institutions may suffer a breakdown in communication because there is a mismatch between what government institutions are meant to accomplish for the public and what they really do. 


Citizens' confidence in the United States is often based on formal procedures and reasoning styles intended to guarantee the openness and objectivity of government judgments. 

When people lose faith in government, they seek information and guidance from other sources. 

When there is widespread uncertainty, the gap between citizens and specialists narrows, and the general public is nearly as well-positioned as professionals to make sound risk-reduction choices. 



The most visible manifestation of climate change is melting polar ice, which has been closely linked to bipartisan support for emissions reduction in different countries. 


Support for broad policy action is often unrelated to support for particular measures, such as increasing gas costs, which may reduce global emissions-related behaviors. 

Climate change communications, on the other hand, are most successful when they are customized to the requirements and preferences of specific audiences, either to directly confront basic misunderstandings or to connect with deeply held values. 

Most individuals prefer emission reductions to adaptation measures like as financial aid, and they also prefer to help people in their own nation before helping people in other countries.


~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan


You may also want read more about Global Climate Change here.




Framing Climate Change In The Media.




Climate change as a news subject includes potential story components such as the oil industry and the Earth's climatic equilibrium. 



Leading scientists across the globe now argue that the focus should move from whether or not climate change is occurring to what can be done about it. 


While newspapers in the United States may be ignoring the topic, climate change has been framed in terms of severe weather effects or oil reduction solutions in all areas. 

Individuals "frame" a problem by mentally arranging and sharing the key concepts of the subject with others. 

This framing may have a significant impact on how people perceive the nature of the issue, who or what they believe is to blame for it, and what they believe should be done to solve it. 



News framing is the practice of arranging and packaging information in the same way. 


  • It entails picking and choosing whatever elements of a seen reality to emphasize. 
  • It advocates a specific issue description, blame assignment, causal interpretation, ethical or moral interpretation, or solution recommendation. 



Key phrases and ideas highlighted in tales serve as news frames. 


The majority of news material is either episodic in nature, focusing on particular occurrences, or thematic in nature, focusing on broad or abstract ideas. 

In a news article, for example, using an episodic or thematic frame to describe the effect of climate change on polar bears does not result in individual behavior change. 

The use of a thematic frame, on the other hand, generates higher support for climate-change measures than the use of an episodic frame. 



When the media pays greater attention to ethical concerns, more prominent public dialogue, or scientific-economic issues, it tends to recast a significant scientific dispute. 


Social progress, economic development/competitiveness, morality/ethics, scientific/technical uncertainty, Pandora's box/runaway science, public accountability/governance, middle way/alternative path, and conflict/strategy are eight frames that consistently appear across science-related policy debates, according to Gamson and Modigliani. 

The news media create, analyze, and frame the claims-makers and their problems, while the news media vie for legitimacy. 

While policy and scientific frames were restricted in Peruvian coverage of an international climate meeting, solutions and impacts frames prevailed. 



Between 2001 and 2007, Dirikx and Gelders compared how Dutch and French newspapers covered climate change during the yearly United Nations Conferences of the Parties. 


They found five dominating frames in the coverage: non-pursuit, consequences, responsibility, conflict, and human interest. 

The majority of the tales focused on the repercussions of not taking a particular course of action, as well as potential losses and benefits, which is known as a consequences frame. 

The responsibility framework emphasized the necessity for immediate action and potential solutions, as well as governments' duty for addressing climate change issues. 

The conflict frame was less common than the other four frames, although it was more frequent than the human interest frame. 



Since 2007, the increasing magnitude of problems posed by climate change has reshaped international security in worldwide media coverage. 


In light of credible scientific data, this new norm has designated climate change as a security concern. 

It arose as a result of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which formed an international legal framework. 

Internalizing the security threat standard in treaties, on the other hand, was insufficient to solidify the norm. 

Many municipal and state governments, as well as the business sector, were forced to participate in a significant and complicated change in US domestic policy. 

As a result of the shift, the security implications of climate change received more media attention, giving this part of the discussion tremendous importance. 



The media, in general, frames climate change issues in light of underlying concerns such as capitalism's character, the connection between nature and culture, the social process of identifying problems, and societal transition in reaction to climate change. 


The most frequent frameworks utilized in contentious scientific tales are progress, conflict, general risk, and the interaction between market incentives and regulation. 

These frameworks suggest that science and technology are to blame for social consequences. 

When the news media uses the phrase "climate change" instead of "global warming," citizens are more likely to disassociate themselves from the causes, effects, and responsibilities for addressing climate change. 



People, according to Lakoff, subconsciously reject information that seem to fall outside their worldview. 


A person's frame, which is frequently formed by ideals taught in infancy, causes him or her to perceive just that part of the world that supports his or her beliefs, while ignoring contradictory facts and arguments. 

By portraying manmade climate change as an illogical faith-based religion and its proponents as religious fanatics who are intolerant of criticism, British media articles undercut the scientific standing of climate change. 

Some tales make fun of climate change by referring to ‘‘green" activities as atonement or sacrifice. 

The religious metaphor stifles productive discussion by stressing morality and how climate change is addressed, as well as diverting focus away from scientific facts and hypotheses. 

When news framing of contentious science incorporates a political conflict frame, it may influence perceptions of research ethics, but not when it employs a scientific advancement frame. 



People who think science is ethically neutral see research as being more helpful. 


Individuals with a greater self-reported interest in and exposure to science are more likely to evaluate the study as credible. 

A message must adapt its arguments to fit inside the person's current context to persuade a skeptic that climate change is an issue deserving of attention. 

To better explain how the changing climate negatively impacts America's economic health, national security, and prosperity, the phrase "climate change" should be substituted with "climate security" to better convey climate change concepts and policies to political conservatives. 

The goal of cap-and-trade policies could be emphasized, to ‘‘harness the power of the market." By emphasizing clean ‘‘energy advancement," negative connotations associated with reducing emissions and economic growth could be avoided, and the goal of cap-and-trade policies could be emphasized, to ‘‘harness the power of the market." 



The press plays an important role in educating the public about climate change research and policy. 


Interview source selection, presentation and assessment of competing views, and scientific uncertainty interpretations are all part of the framing of climate change coverage. 

Climate stories have a complex, dynamic, and nonlinear impact on public opinion, politics, public comprehension, and action. 

For many journalists, the subject of climate change is new, complicated, and easy to misunderstand. 

‘‘If we do not have a good understanding of the foundations of the climate issue, we risk providing our viewers with a set of views that is outmoded, driven by spin, or just incorrect," said BBC journalists Richard Black and Roger Harrabin. 



Climate change tales have evolved throughout time to define social, political, and cultural problems in terms of different leaders' political objectives. 


Power mobilization, the public realm, and personal involvement were recognized as three key themes in this coverage by Carvalho and Burgess. 

Political repercussions and scientific frameworks have been the most common frames in climate change reportage. 



Elite Western media often define climate change in terms of regulatory frameworks, political limitations, and economic motivations, rather than questioning or distinguishing existing evidence. 


The media frameworks in this coverage are shaped by intricate interactions among scientists, policymakers, and the general public. 

The way climate change research is presented to the public is heavily influenced by wire service articles. 



‘‘Carbon footprint" and ‘‘carbon finance" are two clusters of ‘‘carbon compounds," popular catchphrases that concentrate on money, lifestyle, and attitudes. 


These expressions are used as communication strategies in the context of climate change mitigation. 

After peaking during the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference sessions in Copenhagen, global news coverage of climate change has drastically decreased. 

This decrease may have happened as a result of news organizations' need to give coverage to a slew of other important topics vying for attention. 



According to the public arenas hypothesis, the general public, political players, and news organizations can only focus on a few issues at a time. 


As one problem becomes more prominent, other others get less attention. 

The carrying capacity of particular media channels limits the number of public venues accessible for coverage on any given day. 

When climate coverage concentrates on a single element of the issue, it attracts greater attention. 

The scientific doubt frame, for example, appeals to those who do not want to change, while the national security frame may motivate personal action among the same people. 

Although animal enthusiasts may be drawn to the polar bear frame, few people have actually seen a polar bear or would notice if it were extinct.



The financial framework portrays climate change as a business opportunity or explains the costs and rewards of mitigation versus inactivity. 



Ones presented in terms of economics and losses, on the other hand, perform no better in promoting the adoption of sustainable practices than messages framed in terms of the environment and benefits. 

While a disaster framing may make individuals feel powerless, a justice or equity frame may empower people. 

Weather and renewable energy are two major elements that often occur in both fearful and inspiring depictions of climate change. 



In the United States, climate change coverage has mainly been limited to particular occurrences, such as extreme weather, rather than continuing problems. 


According to a content study of a decade of nightly news programs on energy and environmental news themes, severe weather is a common theme in both Canada and the United States, with the United States placing a somewhat higher emphasis on severe weather occurrences. 

Climate change news in Canada has taken a more critical tone than similar coverage in the United States. 

Granger causality studies show that catastrophes and other weather occurrences have an impact on coverage of climate change, pollution, and related problems. 



Journalists are more likely to discuss climate change during unusually warm weather than during cold weather. 


Local temperatures in New York and Washington, DC, for example, have been linked to the frequency with which climate problems are discussed. 

Positive frames are more likely than negative frames to encourage active involvement with climate change problems, while negative frames may lead to disengagement or fatalism. 

For example, the iconic picture of the Iwo Jima troops planting a tree instead of a flag appeared on the cover of Time magazine in April 2008, with the title "How to Win the War on Global Warming." In that issue, the framing of climate change by time ‘‘marks a significant change from previous emphasis on dread and looming catastrophe," says the author, ‘‘offering a fresh focus on national unity behind a shared struggle akin to the Great Depression, the Space Race, or World War II." 

Some media critics said the Time article crossed the line from impartiality to advocacy, while others claimed it offered more insight and depth than most climate change reports. 

More TV stations and in more depth have covered negative frames, such as projected climate change effects and scary figures, than positive frames, such as remedies, adaptation, or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 



Only a quarter of all climate change media articles in the United Kingdom have focused on solutions rather than issues. 


The most frequent media frameworks in climate change coverage are alarmism and modest acts, but both narratives may be misleading, inconsistent, and disempower the public. 

The Australian press coverage of climate change-related sea-level rise on the small island of Tuvalu was one example of negative framing. 

The tales often portrayed Tuvaluans as sad victims of environmental displacement, downplayed adaptation discourses for Tuvaluans and other low-lying island residents, and suppressed alternative Tuvaluan identities that emphasized resilience and ingenuity. 

Most Americans are only vaguely aware of the health consequences of climate change, according to a recent British Medical Journal editorial. 



Failure of the world's countries to effectively curb emissions would likely lead to a worldwide health disaster, according to the editorial. 


Most individuals, on the other hand, are more receptive to information on the possible health advantages of particular climate mitigation-related policy measures than to fundamental information about climate change's health hazards. 

By highlighting the health advantages of mitigation, the overall climate change issue may become more personally relevant, important, and comprehensible to the general population. 

The way climate change is covered in the news has an impact on how and if people react to it. 

Recent coverage has been marked by a disaster narrative that disempowers individuals, as well as a lack of relevance for viewers, insufficient attention paid to adaptation and the views of the poor, and a lack of reporting on cost-effective solutions to address climate change. 



Attention-getting variables such as climate issue indicators, high-profile international events, and climate scientific feedback all affect media and legislative attention to climate change. 


These variables boost problem visibility, draw attention to climate change, and encourage cross-agenda collaboration and partisan advantage in agenda formation. 

Individual individuals' political involvement with climate change problems may be shaped by media portrayals, which can shape their attitudes, nurture their dispositions to action or inactivity, and limit their political engagement. 

Climate change coverage, on the other hand, is often framed in terms of specific security or economic concerns by policymakers. 



Natural catastrophes exacerbated by the man-made impacts of climate change, for example, are often seen by policymakers as basic crises needing a clear response in terms of food, housing, and medical supplies. 


They seldom refer to climate-related disasters as man-made, complex crises in which humans are clearly to blame. 

The media has a tendency to confirm rather than alter people's views on climate change. 

The media may sometimes reflect as well as generate cultural concern or viewpoint. 

Coverage may gradually foster a certain way of seeing at the world or how society should prioritize its objectives over time. 



The publication of papers in prominent journals, governmental decisions, political disputes, or public protests are all common triggers for media attention in scientific problems. 


Because of the inherent dramatic appeal of these tales, coverage of these subjects may include sensationalism or scaremongering. 

A story's images and narrative structure are more engaging than the logic or explanations included inside a media piece. 

When media attention, framing, and sourcing shifts at critical stages of scientific, political, and policy development, factors may combine to highlight some aspects of a science dispute over others. 

Political and media attention is thus gained, maintained, or lost on the subject. 



Controlling media attention to a problem while presenting it in positive terms is an important part of effective policymaking. 


These two features of media coverage reflect and influence where, by whom, and with what results an issue is resolved. 

The way an issue is presented and linked to policy choices is determined throughout time by cyclical waves in media attention and historical changes. 

The mediated issue creation model takes into consideration the kind of policy arena in which discussion takes place, strategic players' media lobbying efforts, the journalistic requirement for narrative structure, and the rivalry for attention from other problems across policy and media settings. 

The kind of journalist given coverage and the amount of attention from opinion pages are both related variables. 

The elite US press has reported on climate change in response to spectacular occurrences that have triggered issue-attention cycles. 



Climate change has lost much of its perceived dramatic narrative value, which prompted journalists to cover it in the past. 


Journalists used to be able to create news sagas that they could follow over time because of open political strife, personality conflicts, and disputed assertions about dangers. 

The ups and downs in attention are mostly driven by spectacular political events. 

The audience's reaction is also influenced by how the current phase of the issue is presented. 



The public's attention to a problem usually goes through five phases. 


  • The pre-problem, startled discovery, and euphoric excitement phases of the Downs' issue-attention cycle are followed by slow awareness of the cost, gradual decrease of strong public interest, and post-problem stages. 
  • A issue has not yet grabbed the public's attention in the pre-problem stage. 
  • The dangers are well-known among experts, but the knowledge is not broadly communicated. 
  • Prior to 1988, climate change coverage was at the pre-problem stage. 
  • Dramatic occurrences make the public aware of the issue and concerned about it in the second stage, alarmed discovery and ecstatic excitement. 



When additional news hooks for climate change stories appeared in the late 1980s, the public grew more concerned. 


When claimants recognize the expenses of dealing with the issue in the third stage, they gradually realize the cost. 

In the early 1990s, a unified group of climate skeptics started to question scientific conclusions concerning human climate change. 



When important actors get disillusioned about what would be needed to properly address the issue, the fourth stage begins, and crises are normalized via denial or boredom. 


This scenario may have contributed to the mid-1990s decrease in climate change coverage. 

The subject “moves into a lengthy limbo — a twilight zone of lower attention or spasmodic reoccurrences of interest... [and the topic] once raised to national prominence may intermittently regain popular interest”. 

The issue-attention cycle may not apply to climate change since it has deteriorated, new problems have arisen, and new activist organizations have formed to keep the issue alive.




~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan


You may also want read more about Global Climate Change here.



Media Coverage Of Climate Change In The Past.

 


Since 1988, global climate change has been a significant political issue in the United States. 



In 1896, a forecast that carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning would progressively warm the world sparked the idea that humans could alter the temperature of the whole planet. 


Climate change was initially reported in the American press in the 1930s, but manmade climate change was not covered in the news until the 1950s. 

In 1957, during the International Geophysical Year, a Christian Science Monitor story asked, "Are mankind altering the Earth's weather?" Climate coverage remained limited over the next three decades. 

Small disturbances, according to studies conducted in the 1960s, may cause an abrupt shift in the climate system. 

Some people started to see global warming as an environmental threat, a security threat, a policy issue, an international relations issue, and even a moral one. 



A scientific consensus started to emerge in the late 1970s. 


For the first time in the mid-1980s, the media, scientific, and policy realms collided, resulting in a significant rise in climate change coverage. 

When the topic of global warming first gained traction in the United States and the United Kingdom in the late 1980s, the emphasis was on mitigation. 

The public's interest in chlorofluorocarbons, the ozone hole, and the US presidential election fueled this coverage. 



By the late 1980s, nuclear energy had established itself as a viable alternative to the use of fossil fuels. 


Congress started proposing legislation to limit carbon emissions about the same time. 

Boykoff and Roberts looked examined how climate change was covered in 40 English-language newspapers from 17 nations on five continents. 

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports were released in 1990, 1995, and 2001, during the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, and during the Kyoto Protocol convention in 1997, climate coverage increased globally among 40 of the most influential English-language world newspapers. 

Over time, several stages of climate science policy have been mirrored in media coverage. 



Climate science, the media, and policy were all heavily politicized in the 1990s. 


In the early 1990s, a small number of skeptical spokespeople and scientists acquired notoriety in the press by disputing scientific conclusions regarding human impacts to climate change, several of whom received financing from carbon-based business interests. 

In 1995, more than 2,000 scientists came together to form a solid scientific agreement that people had an impact on global climate. 

By the end of the 1990s, growing media warnings of danger had brought the problem to the attention of the majority of the world's educated population, but skepticism and resistance to regulation remained. 

The majority of the world's population was now worried, but unmotivated to act. 



Between 2003 and 2006, there was a significant rise in coverage of climate change adaptation. 


Climate change news is mainly disseminated via radio in poor nations and rural regions. 

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, news coverage of climate change stressed conflict and urgency framing, which may have hampered public comprehension of climate problems. 



Between 2006 and 2010, news concerning climate change prompted a spike in public interest in stories regarding the environment, energy, and pollution. 


This coverage occurred during the news industry's most turbulent period in history, when journalism employment were dramatically cut, news outlets had very little print and broadcast space, and editors were frequently uninterested in climate problems. 

Editors and reporters were increasingly aware of the ethical line between writing about the environment and writing on behalf of the environment as public interest in ‘‘going green" grew throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century. 

According to a 2007 consensus assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there is a 90% chance that human activities are causing climate change, and that the effects will be rapid and permanent. 

Climate change may be handled at a fair cost if immediate action is done, according to the report. 


In 2007, over 200 countries backed the IPCC's conclusions, which were based on hundreds of peer-reviewed research. 


Because of its fast economic growth, China surpassed the United States as the world's worst emitter of greenhouse gases in the same year. 

Because worldwide attempts to make the world greener are dependent on China's policies, emissions, and activities, most special stories on climate change in news outlets included China. 


‘‘China is the asterisk at the end of every discussion about the environment," Patrick Symmes wrote in Outside magazine in 2007. 


He told his personal experience of whitewater rafting down the Yangtze River, whose valleys may soon be inundated due to hydroelectric dam development. 

Visual storytelling has been utilized in the finest US print news coverage of China's economic development to emphasize the country's severe pollution and environmental deterioration. 



China's dependence on coal, inefficient energy usage, pollution-related mortality toll, and preference for development above environmental preservation were all highlighted in many articles. 


Andrew Revkin, a former New York Times environment writer, founded Dot Earth, an innovative site where he publishes and shares ideas on climate and sustainability problems, in 2007. 

During a 7-minute program the same year, CBS's Katie Couric asked each presidential contender to answer a single question: "Is the danger of climate change overblown?" Some opponents said Couric's sharp question was asked in an irresponsible and meaningless manner, allowing candidates to regurgitate talking points. 



In any event, CBS was the first network to use national prime-time television to bring attention to a new and underrepresented campaign topic. 


By 2008, news coverage has expanded beyond climate change research to include what governments, businesses, and regular people are doing to address the issue. 

Abu Dhabi declared in 2010 that by 2018, it will be the first city in the world to have zero carbon emissions. 


Furthermore, developers want to construct a desert metropolis for 50,000 people that would run entirely on solar and other renewable energy, while the Dutch are working on methods to safeguard vulnerable coasts from rising sea levels.


~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan


You may also want read more about Global Climate Change here.




Climate Change Politics And Diplomacy Outstripped By Geophysics



Global warming is a deceptively backhanded problem in which thermal inertia produces consequences half a century or more after we cause it by burning fossil fuels. 


Our political and diplomatic discussions are triggered by outcomes. 


Political inertia, combined with thermal inertia, offers a challenge to the human species and the planet we govern: design a new energy future before sheer necessity—the hot wind in our faces—compels action. 


Global warming is hazardous because it is a stealthy, slow-moving catastrophe that requires us to recognize a fact decades in the future with a past-tense system of private, legal, and diplomatic response. 


  • Two scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California–San Diego published research in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in September 2008 that showed that even if greenhouse gas emissions were completely eliminated by 2005, the world's average temperature would still rise by 2.4°C (4.3°F) by the end of the twenty-first century. 
  • The latest carbon dioxide statistics and study, according to Richard Moss, vice president and managing director for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund, indicate that “we're already locked into greater heat than we thought” (Eilperin 2008; Ramanathan and Feng 2008). 
  • These estimates have been around for more than a decade. These have been wasted years in terms of global diplomatic reform. 


A second key factor that affects climate change, in addition to thermal inertia, is feedback, which includes albedo (light reflectivity).


  • In the summer, when the sun shines at the top of the globe, melting Arctic ice reveals open ocean. 
  • Because dark ocean water absorbs more heat than lighter ice and snow, it heats up and melts faster. 
  • Meanwhile, permafrost on land surrounding the Arctic Circle melts, releasing even more carbon dioxide and methane, hastening the natural process that feeds on itself. 
  • When you add the trigger of rising human emissions to these natural processes, the situation becomes much worse. 


Climate change is a cumulative phenomenon. 


Many of the feedbacks that contribute to increasing temperatures tend to speed up with time, reinforcing each other. 


  • For example, increasing human-caused emissions cause permafrost to thaw, releasing even more carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Melting ice darkens surfaces, allowing more heat to be absorbed. 
  • Meanwhile, rising seas are soaking coastal soil, destroying crops, and polluting fresh water sources in low-lying island countries like the Marshall Islands. The Marshall Islands' foreign minister, Tony deBrum, stated, "The groundwater that sustains our food crops is being flooded with salt." ‘The green is becoming brown,' says the narrator. (Davenport et al., 2014). 
  • “Runaway growth in the emission of green house gases is swamping all political efforts to deal with the problem, raising the risk of ‘severe, pervasive, and irreversible impacts' over the next decades,” wrote Justin Gillis in The New York Times (2014, August 26). 



Diplomats and climate scientists gather every year in an attempt to arrange a global pact to halt the rise in greenhousegas emissions, despite a growing chorus of warnings that the results will be too little, too late. 


  • As temperatures rise and raging weather becomes a staple of daily headlines, diplomats and climate scientists gather every year in an attempt to arrange a global pact to stall the rise in greenhousegas emissions amid a rising chorus of warnings that the results will be too little, too late.
  • By 2015, global diplomacy's attempts to deal with climate change and its impact on everyday weather had fallen behind. 
  • As wind and solar expanded throughout the globe (Germany, the world's fourth biggest economy, drew one-third of its power from renewable sources by 2016), a renewable energy infrastructure emerged, but it was too sluggish to keep up with the increase in temperatures. 


The fundamental issue is: can mankind alter its energy paradigm fast enough to prevent irreversible environmental damage? 


  • While James Hansen believes the 2°C goal is overly ambitious, some experts believe it will never be met due to the global momentum of greenhouse gas emissions. 
  • In Nature, David Victor (a professor at the University of California–San Diego) and Charles Kennel (of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography) stated, "The objective is essentially unattainable" (Kolbert 2015, 30). To meet the target, global greenhouse gas emissions would have to decrease to almost zero in the second half of the twenty-first century. 
  • Even if all diplomatic recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions made in 2015 were implemented, global warming by the end of the twenty-first century would be restricted to 6.3°F, compared to 8.1°F if emissions remained at current levels (“Climate Scoreboard” 2015). 


If all countries fulfilled their commitments, global emissions would begin to decline within a decade or two, but only slowly and insufficiently to prevent thermal inertia from increasing temperatures, melting glaciers across the globe, raising sea levels, and wreaking havoc on flora and wildlife. 


  • Countries' commitments made before the global climate conference in Paris at the end of 2015 were "a significant step forward, but not enough—not even close," according to John D. Sterman, a management professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Gillis and Sengupta 2015). 
  • In 2014, the US and China signed their first-ever agreement, which included a joint statement that the US will reduce emissions by up to 28% by 2025 and China's emissions would peak by 2030. 
  • The government of India, the world's third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in 2014, does not anticipate emissions to peak until at least 2040. 

As carbon dioxide and methane levels continue to increase, every action to decrease emissions is “on speculation”—in the future. And as long as these levels increase, humanity will lose the fight against global warming.



~ Jai Krishna Ponnappan


You may also want read more about Global Climate Change here.