As glaciers melt and island populations migrate from shores to escape rising seas, many scientists remain baffled as to why the research consensus on human-induced climate change remains contentious in the U.S. Full Story »
Posted by Harry Lisabeth - via Scientific American, Google News (Climate Change), Jason Samfield (t)
This is a great, enterprising article about American public perceptions of climate change science, pointing to factors in the media that have failed to adequately communicate the scientific consensus.
This story is an example of the problem. It does not include those who are trying to limit efforts to provide good information. There are economic companies that are willing to provide information that is not good, but want to limit changes.
Dispassionate inquiry into American unwillingness to accept the demonstrable effects of climate change. Lloyd's discussion focuses on back-and-forth between media and scientists faulting each other: Media for not conducting vigorous journalistic research, and scientists for doing a poor job explaining issues to the public.
Neither side seems to suggest the public's reluctance to demand better information from either side on critical scientific issues. Perhaps most telling is the link (well-funded campaign) to economic and financial interests behind climate change denial. Rather than pointing fingers at each other, I'd prefer to see journalists and scientists working together to expose groups like Koch Industries' propaganda presented as "news," and even stalwarts like NPR and PBS that "present both ... More »
Excellent piece. Demonstrates that blame for American resistance to climate change lies both with journalists and scientists. Provides scientists with advice on how better to communicate. I was particularly happy to see US attitudes contrasted with those in South Korea, where there hasn't been a huge corporate-funded campaign to deny the science. However, I think the article takes a slightly naive approach in some senses... It mentions that polls show many Americans lack a basic understanding of the fundamental principles of physics and biology, but doesn't tackle the issue of the low quality of our science education in public schools. People would put a lot more faith in science if they understood it.
While I like the way in which the article advises scientists to stand on their own soapboxes and spread the word themselves, I find it hugely frustrating that the most effective way of working with the media on changing American attitudes towards climate change seems to be to work around them. Why must we spend our time justifying scientific consensus, when the act of creating a scientific consensus is in and of itself a massive act of justification? Establishing this kind of ... More »
The article stays away from the science itself, and provides thoughtful looks at the "failure to communicate" that is helped to fail by journalism that has adopted a model of presenting two sides to every question, without investigating the facts or not having the requisite education to evaluate the facts.
In a nation where "all our children are above average," and all are pushed to go to college, many of the nice, smiling, good looking, only-slightly-above-average ones become talking heads on the local TV show. Infotainment triumphs as on air debates become the shouting equivalent of world wrestling matches, in which the loudest and most intimidating win. If Lloyd failed to link in references to articles that tell how climate change deniers have well financed by oil interests and ... More »
It’s a given that an organized and well-funded campaign has led efforts to confuse the public regarding the consensus around anthropogenic climate change. More »
American has a population of highly spoiled people who are isolated from the reality of life by her use of the corprotocracy and her military to extract resources from the rest of the world to prop up her life style. She does this just as Britain did in previous centuries. To many Americans, the world stops at her borders with some consciousness that there might be something in Canada and perhaps some more world in Mexico. Her government based on the best set of principles in the ... More »
Maybe it's because the information is kept from them. Where are the stories explaining the vast number of precipitation enhancement programs now operating in the US? Where are the stories explaining the high altitude reflection programs operating in the world? Aerosol programs affect climate, but they are kept secret, and then when they are finally noticed, nothing the secret keepers say, is believed.
I believe this is only fair journalism. I found some of the statements were not supported. For example, paragraph six states "It's a given that an organized and well-funded campaign has led efforts to confuse the public regarding the consensus around anthropogenic climate chance." While I suspect this is true, I certainly didn't find any evidence for this statement in either this article or the linked article on the Koch email pranksters. What a shame, because if it is true, then this disinformation campaign would be part of the answer to why Americans are so ill-formed on climate change. I think Robin Lloyd missed an opportunity to dig into an important journalism story.
Retrieving Comments
