Debating Politics and Science

Week 7 – Emily Thibodeau

Fortner examined the public understanding of climate change certainty and willingness to act via media examination and phone interviews. The findings suggest that media articles that make reference to the UNEP’s content statements, an average of 50% of references across all media outlets are hedged statements. The phone interviews suggest that citizens experience stories about climate change in the news about nine times per week, they also trust about half of the media’s claims about climate change. Additionally, the sample agreed with about three quarters of the statements made about climate change and were particularly impacted by questions about economic impact of global climate change. The sample also seemed willing to act to reduce climate change.

Nesbit investigated frames surrounding climate change that reinforce the gridlock in the American climate change debate. The American climate change debate is divided on ideological lines. Climate change in general is dismissed as being not an urgent issue and the fragmented news media lead to communication barriers. Conservative frames often include scientific uncertainty, economic consequences, and the conflict strategy frame. Liberal’s such as Al Gore use the Pandora’s box frame about climate change. Nesbit suggests that climate change should be re-framed around economic development and morality and ethics. He holds journalists responsible for writing powerful, relevant stories. Additionally, the public needs to be engaged through research and outreach.

Both articles focus on the need for public knowledge. In the Fortner study, the public appears to encounter climate change in the media quite frequently and seems fairly willing to change their actions. In Nesbit, the public is engaged by partisan debates about climate change. However, according to Nesbit, the public is divided and educated by frames that limit their understanding and need to be changed. In Fortner, the public is knowledgeable and seems to encounter climate change far more than was found in the limited media study concurrently conducted, which suggests that local stations or newspapers may discuss climate change with some frequently.  My question is: what other frames can be used to unite Americans and educate them about climate change instead of reducing a scientific debate to a political issue?

Week 7: Fortner and Nisbet

In Public Understanding of Climate Change: certainty and willingness to act, 2 studies were conducted from Ohio State: Study 1 examined media portrayals of global warming and the certainty with which it was reported. Study 2 was a telephone survey to assess public knowledge about key topics in global climate change, people’s certainty about their information, trust in the media, and willingness to take action on global warming. The summary includes that about half the references to global warming in the media were found to be hedged, more so in the New York Times than any other outlet. The audience reported trusting their media source more than half the time. Comparing study 1 to study 2, media hedging was not found to be related to uncertainty, as was hypothesized. Background information on the issue includes that the mass media are playing a significant role in establishing public opinion regarding global climate change. Fortner feels they need to do a better job bringing forward the weight of evidence provided by the IPCC, who have a consensus that human-induced global climate change is occuring. Previous surveys revealed that only about half of surveyors felt they understood the global warming issue well, while a majority of Americans believe global warming is a real and serious threat to their life. Also, their willingness to pay more for things like electricity gas, and oil to reduce greenhouse gas emissions decreases as the amount the might pay increases. The results of the study were that TV news on all 3 commercial networks was significantly devoid of content on the Kyoto conference during the study period. Also, national newspapers and professional magazines were found to be more likely to hedge their expressions on global climate change than local newspapers and popular magazines. Study 1 confirmed that global warming coverage is very scarce. Reporters may perceive the cautiousness that scientists reflect when interpreting scientific findings on this issue as unsureness, and report this interpretation. It was also found that individuals’ certainty was related to how much they trust the media on this topic. The researchers conclude that research on the relationship between media’s hedging of climate change issues and people’s certainty of their knowledge of the issue should be expanded. To maximize public perception and behavior, more effective presentation methods are needed to more accurately and fairly present environmental issues.

In Communicating Climate Change: Why frames matter for public engagement, Nisbet discusses the frames used by both skeptics of global climate change as well as by supporters of global climate change. Frames used by skeptics include scientific uncertainty and economic consequences, whereas frames used by supporters include climate crisis, public health, and public accountability. He points out that the U.S. is still “locked in a perpetual divide over climate change,” and that this is along party and ideological lines despite the scientific consensus and “record amounts” of media coverage. In order to bring diverse audiences together on common ground and/or maximize collective action, a deductive set of mental boxes and interpersonal story lines can be used. The Obama Administration and scientific institutions can use the audience research being conducted to target their messages about climate change. If major policy change is to be achieved, news media and messengers are needed. He adds that careful research needs to be funded and translated into collective action.

Fortner and Nisbet agree that it is necessary to create an environment of a well-informed public on this issue so that correct action can be taken. However, Fortner goes more in depth on the level of certainty among the public as well as their trust of the media, whereas Nisbet goes more in depth about the frames used by media on this topic. Both press for a better presentation of the global warming situation by the media though. Fortner says this is possible by reducing media hedging and Nisbet says this is possible by using a deductive set of mental boxes and interpersonal story lines. So, while both deal with public engagement and willingness to act, their suggestions for how to go about this are slightly different yet equally logical.

Potential questions for discussion:

Do you think a well-informed public on the issue of climate change a necessary requirement before collective action can take place?

How can the media present the issue of climate change more objectively?

Do you think party lines and differences in political ideology are driving the debate on global warming? If so, is this hurting future collective action?

Luke Y.

Week 7- Jade Hanson

The first article I read was Why Frames Matter For Public Engagement. This article discusses the importance of how media frames the issue of climate change. The piece argued that respectable public leaders and credible news organizations had to discuss the issue in a factual way in the media for the public to take the issue seriously. Also,  Nisbett discusses how people can easily avoid science news if they are not interested in it because so many media news platforms exist today.

The second piece I read was Public Understanding of Climate Change: Uncertainty and Willingness to act. This study measured the perceptions the public has in regards to climate change and journalistic differences in the coverage of climate change. The study found that coverage of climate change is very scarce and that the issues such as “economics” associated with the climate change story greatly affects an audiences outlook. The relevance of a person’s life to climate change solutions also impacted audience feelings about climate change greatly. Finally different mediums were analyzed. It was found that television determines the public level of interest and print explains the issue further.

While both of these pieces offer a lot of insight to the issue and coverage of climate change, they both fail to discuss in depth the role of scientists in climate change journalism. Scientists are required to have input on the stories but it is not discussed whether their change in attitudes or style to the controversy could effect public opinion. The study performed by OSU may have tapped into something that many people disregard. It is a well assumed fact that relevance to an issue will impact audiences. Researching how scientific style and credibility may have further improved their research.

Question for the week:

If scientists attacked the issue of climate change in the press more abrasively, would more be done by the public to change their daily lives?

AbbyLieberman_Week6

Throughout life we grow to recognize what it means to truly and deeply understand something.  In middle school and, sometimes, highs school, we tend to skim the surface on important issues and concepts; we take in the bare minimum of what we need to know and master that material.  But does taking in the minimum information actually allow us to understand something? Most of us, by the time we reach college, have learned that it takes more than skimming the surface to actually understand; however, sometimes the information available just isn’t enough to fully comprehend its meaning. This tends to happen a lot in the way the media frames a situation. Both, Holly Stocking’s chapter, “How Journalists Deal With Uncertainty” and Mark Schrope’s article, “Consensus Science, or Consensus Politics,” demonstrate that the way the media presents certain scientific issues simply does not provide the public with enough information and, consequently, does not allow media consumers to truly understand scientific uncertainty.

In “How Journalists Deal With Scientific Uncertainty, Holly Stocking discusses the problems involved in what materials people are given to understand science. She, first, outlines all of the areas that researchers and scholars say journalists often miss. Stocking goes over potential reasons for why journalists create these gaps in knowledge and, further, how the public can be better informed. Stocking breaks studies and research into two main concepts on how journalists misinform the public.  The first idea, she says, is, “suggesting that journalists present science as more solid and certain than it, in fact, is” (24). The second idea, she says, is that “journalists on occasion make scientific claims appear more uncertain and baffling than most scientists with relevant experience believe them to be” (28). Although Stocking highlights various studies done in past research, she concludes “considerable work is needed before we can describe with any confidence how journalists deal with (or construct) uncertainty and ignorance in science” (39).  Much of what Stocking alludes to has its foundations in the fact that there isn’t enough information provided to the public to begin with. She discusses a lack of historical context when journalists publish scientific stories and a concern for the product over the process.  They provide the main conclusions of a study or a piece of scientific information, but fail to verse the public in the research’s historical timeline or in the complex, social processes that go into its results.  There just is not enough information out there for the public to be able to fully digest or understand scientific concepts.

Similar to Stocking, Mark Schrope delves into dealing with scientific uncertainty and what it may mean to have scientific consensus. Schrope outlines the creation of the IPCC’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the complex processes that went into it. Although he does not discuss as much as Stocking does, how journalists contribute to the lack of public understanding, he discuss how other factors play into it. Schrope goes  through the process of creating the reports and includes discussions of combining literature and past research; he also explains the types of people involved in the process.  One of the major parts of the report that Schrope goes through is the SPM, or ‘Summary for Policymakers.’ He says, “given its size…few people ever read a full working group report, much less an entire assessment” (112). He adds, “Instead, most rely on the SPM” (112).  This poses a problem in terms of understanding scientific debate because people, like we tend to do in our pre-college years, tend only skim the surface of the argument.  By reading only the SPM, people are failing to see the entire picture and, therefore, failing to understand it. Schrope explains that SPMs do not fully cover scientific uncertainties and, as a result, people may not be aware they exist.

So how do we deal with the lack of knowledge that the public receives on scientific concepts and theories? The public certainly lacks scientific knowledge and understanding, but is it their fault for only skimming the surface of issues or is there just not enough information provided? If the public’s ignorance in understanding science is individuals’ own fault for not reading deeply into things, than how can they be motivated to do so?

Week 6 – Bennett and Schrope

In An Introduction to Journalistic Norms and Representations of Politics, W. Lance Bennett analyzes the standardization process in news organizations, the rules for representing politics in the news, and the social construction of the news. He starts by explaining how competing journalists make thoughtful and personal choices when producing news stories. There are underlying rules for making news judgements as implicit rules decisions are required for the right mix of viewpoints and sources. It is therefore important to question what the underlying rules are that construct familiar patterns of different types of news stories. This article looks at how journalists apply these in making news content decisions. In the section on constructing the news through simplifying complex political environments, he points out that there are more channels with the proliferation of television, but business decisions and audience tastes and economic trends dictate the most efficient and and routine ways of reporting and force less diversity. While guided by the norms of objectivity, presenting political accountability, and reporting efficiently and profitably, “partisanship of politics makes the norm of objectivity all but impossible.” He then points out that when a PAC corrupts a piece of legislation, as long as all officials herald it as a triumph of the public interest, the press is likely to report it as a bipartisan consensus of legislation. In the section on “Rules for Representing Politics in the News”, he points out, “One of the most enduring findings of political communication research is that official sources continue to dominate the viewpoints of political stories.” Journalistic norms regarding political news include the virtues of objectivity and balance, providing democratic accountability to citizens, and the economics of the news business itself. This leads to the “get an official reaction” rule. The first rule of political reporting is to build a story line upon authoritative viewpoints. The second is keying a story to disagreements among officials. Here, he uses the example of the press indexing while strongly suspicious of corruption throughout the Reagan administration’s Nicaragua policies in the 1980s. The third rule is to follow the trail of power. The fourth is to “observe, narrate, and when necessary, adjudicate the themes and customs of the political culture.” Cases of international crisis affecting U.S. security are one of the more dramatic illustrations of journalists as culture brokers. In defining moments in history, journalists tend to speak with more direct interpretive voices. With regard to the social construction of news, he points out that tensions in the normative order may cause journalists to construct news that fails to convince the public of its accuracy and relevance. With regard to the broader contexts within which political reporting occurs, he presents the findings from Patterson and Densbach which show that ideology is not the dominant screening mechanism for news judgements. In the U.S., the  normative balance has tilted away from a responsibility to provide useful information toward applying commercial audiences more entertaining stories. In the conclusion, Bennett claims the “lines between news and entertainment, and between citizens and consumers, are blurring.” The narrative forms that dominate mainstream news are often at the expense of citizen enlightenment. In short, journalists develop stories in terms of who should provide a reaction, where to assign more correspondents, how the action is developing, when the next moves will be made, what is the lead that best summarizes the plot, and why these plot developments are happening. He ends by stating, “…journalists are telling stories, politicians are trying to best write their own scripts, and dwindling audiences react to the spectacle.”

In, Consensus science, or consensus politics, Schrope looks at the IPCC report on climate change and the process it took to make it. While most experts see it as a huge success, critics wonder if the researchers skewed the reports by extending their own environmentalist views. He points out the idea that the report can only work if “perceived to represent a highly credible and unbiased consensus.” This becomes the central issue as many critics of the SPM, summary of policy makers, and how it is interpreted by the media, is the key problem. Every word must be approved on unanimously before entering the SPM. This creates a circus-like atmosphere as it is difficult to agree on the connection between human activity and climate change, among other things. The question then becomes, should the SPM’s be the work of solely scientists? And, do the SPM’s play down its uncertainties in order to force governments to take climate change seriously? Singer states, “It starts with a given conclusion and selects those facts which support that conclusion.” Some critics of IPCC believe they should remove politicians from the process and, “Let scientists tell the world what the scientists said,” as Bailey put it. Nevertheless, Bennett believes a response to climate change would be impossible without the IPCC. As a fourth assessment of the IPCC model is likely to take place, some researchers would like to see the IPCC process in other situations like deforestation and the issue of a lack of fresh suitable water. Whether of not this happens, Bennett claims the fact that the IPCC is accepted as a scientific guide for Kyoto Protocol is proof of its success: “It might look like a circus at times, but a global response to climate change would probably be impossible without it.”

Bennett and Schrope’s articles are similar in that they discuss problems and issues related to presenting unbiased, calculated news in addition to analyzing the reactions of the audience. Although Bennett does not take on the issue of climate change head on per say, he does look at the interpretive power of the press and the reliance on official sources. This is similar to how Schrope analyzes critics viewpoints of how the IPCC is presented. They use scientists and politicians as the authoritative viewpoints which form the basis of the story line regarding climate change and the best response to it. The two authors differ in that Bennett shows more concern for the entertainment value of stories, whereas Schrope does not discuss the enlightenment value to readers of the climate change situation and the press it receives. Bennett also touches on a subject that Schrope does not, which is the distinction, or lack thereof, between the citizen and the consumer.

Questions up for discussion:

Do you think the tendency of journalists to “story tell” is harmful to the public’s informedness?

Should the IPCC be strictly made of scientists, or is it wise to involve politicians in the process?

Would a response to climate change be impossible without the IPCC or a similar process?

Luke Y

Week 6-Zehr and Schrope

In Zehr’s article Public Representations of Scientific Uncertainty, he argues that scientific uncertainty was used to help construct a boundary between the public and climate change scientists. He defines uncertainty as, “Individual or collective claims that scientific knowledge is incomplete about some failures of nature,” and states various purposes of uncertainty such as creating a demand for scientific research and drawing attention to inadequacies of opponents views in debates on issues. The part that I found most interesting was when he discussed the three “Boundary Dimensions”: 1. The public is said to be alarmist and hysterical about global warming in contrast to scientists more measured views and admissions of uncertainty. 2. Public raced to conclusions about global warming as opposed to scientists more measured responses, and 3. Public was careless in talk and opinion, and did not pay sufficient attention to scientific evidences and processes. He says that the boundary excludes the public from holding any legitimate knowledge, values, or opinions on climate change because the public is viewed as misinformed.

In Schrope’s article, he discusses the IPCC Report in relation to how involved politicians are in reviewing the content for the massive report on climate change. He refers to the importance of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which is essentially a synopsis of each working group report and the most consulted portion since few people are willing to read 2,500 pages. Every word must be reviewed and agreed upon before the report is completed. This report is an example of politician’s influence on “scientific” consensus. It reinforces the point that last week’s readings made about how the scientific consensus has become more of a political term in order to create the boundary that Zehr discusses between the public and the scientists.

After reading these articles, it seems evident that the “consensus” is not really a consensus. Having various members of political organizations having to change and approve writing on scientific issues means that not everyone agrees on what is being written so it has to be altered. So they arrive at a “consensus” and then Zehr says that the boundary between scientists and public has to do with the public’s irrational behavior. But if we are being told that the scientific community agrees that there are going to be drastic climate changes, how should we react? Should we ignore what they are saying since it is clearly politically driven? Do you think the consensus really a consensus, and what do you think of how uncertainty is represented in the news?

Stef Manisero – Week 6: Climate Change and Journalism

There has been much debate in regard to ways in which journalists present the public with scientific news. In Stocking’s article, “How Journalists Deal with Scientific Uncertainty,” she evaluates the distortions of science by journalists, the effects these alterations have on the public, and possible reasons behind why such happenings occur. Stocking asserts that journalists lead readers to believe that findings are both more certain than they are in actuality, and less certain than scientists believe such things to be.

Stocking argues that many articles exaggerate scientific claims, or omit some aspects of scientific claims, falsely leading readers to believe the information is more certain than it is in reality. By limiting themselves to one or two sources, as opposed to seeking out numerous sources, journalists minimize scientific uncertainty. Further, journalists neglect to mention references to both prior and future research done on a topic, so even if there were conflicting ideas, readers would not become aware of them. In addition, by only stating the results of studies, with few discussions of the complicated and messy processes it took to get to said results, journalists imply certainty where it may not be scientifically existent. Lastly, many times journalists indicate that, one day, scientists will, indeed, find the answer to many unsettled issues, and in assuring a future outcome, it presents uncertainty as resolvable, even in areas where resolution may never be achieved.

In taking the opposite side, Stocking contends that other times, journalists can make science seem more uncertain that it really is. She argues that the same news organizations will often publish conflicting articles, and such inconsistencies, without explanation, lead to uncertainty. Moreover, journalists give equal weight to scientists versus non-scientists with the intention of remaining objective, yet sometimes non-scientists lack the knowledge to be given such authority. Some journalists pay more attention than others to the concern for scientists’ criteria, and these people have been found more likely to satisfy scientists evaluations. Journalists, additionally, must follow many routines and regulations based on editors and publishers requests, which Stocking argues, may detract from the editorial with the business aspect taking precedence.

With a slightly different topic in the realm of journalism, Bennett focuses on the standardization of news content in his article “An Introduction to Journalism Norms and Representations of Politics.” From the very beginning, Bennett makes his opinion evident in stating, “For all the competition, time pressure, and information diversity in the world of mainstream news organizations, there is also a remarkable standardization of news content across various media outlets.” Bennett discusses the many cable television channels and information sources, and finds it puzzling that with such an abundance of news outlets, the diversity in news content is becoming more and more narrow. He explains this by stating that a the journalistic process is fixed by three norms: 1) the journalism profession 2) the proper role of the press in politics and 3) constraints of the business side of news organizations. While Bennett points out that journalists must inform citizens, they must also do so from a business perspective while maintaining a professional obligation to remain impartial. Furthermore, he claims that “official sources continue to dominate the viewpoints of political stories,” and introduces five rules for journalists based upon political matters. These include building a storyline upon authoritative viewpoints, indexing which viewpoints are considered newsworthy, following a trail of power when developing stories, narrate and judge the themes and customs of the political culture and images that challenge existing policies may become news icons. Bennett argues that there is more of an emphasis on entertainment that information recently in the news that has made it lack its’ purpose, however, these norms are not likely going to change any time soon.

Both articles investigate the importance of journalism in the public sphere. Bennett and Stocking would agree that there are many things that journalists do that need to be changed, yet the way in which these changes should be made are still uncertain. They both consider the business aspect of a journalist, and understand their professional duty to remain objective in reporting. Both authors acknowledge that there are issues in the relationship between science and journalism, but neither one can really give an answer in how to go about bettering this relation.

Questions: Is it possible to fix the relationship between science and journalists? If so, how?

Will there ever be a “healthier” or “better” relation between science and journalism than that which already exists, or will the rules of journalism as a profession prohibit this from happening?

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/10/08/umass_center_to_study_climate_change_in_region/

Week 6 Blog Post: Climate Change

In “Climate Change and Journalistic Norms,” Boykoff takes the stance that media coverage in top newspapers and television sources have misrepresented scientific perspectives to stay aligned with their widely accepted journalistic norms. These journalistic norms have shaped mass-media coverage of human contribution to climate change and for this reason, mass media has become on the key public spheres in which social problems are framed and grow. Since public learns most of what it knows about science from the mass media, the way it portrays the issue of climate change aligned with the norms is problematic. The three journalistic norms are personalization, dramatization, and novelty. With personalization, there is emphasis on individuals and personalities instead of group dynamics or social processes. This is problematic because it tends to put news on a micro instead of macro level. Dramatization emphasizes crisis over continuity and makes something such as global warming less provoking for journalists because to them it does not hold an immediate sense of excitement or controversy. Novelty is the idea that something isn’t newsworthy unless its new. The long term effects of environmental problems can slip out of media view in the case of novelty, because often there is not always something new to report. There is also the problem of informational bias and authority bias in the news. Informational bias leads to episodic framing of news, giving shallower understandings of important issues. When it comes to science, Boykoff argues that scientists usually do not understand the scientific findings they are given and that as a result they focus on giving balance to all sides of the scientific debate. In the case of the authority bias, journalists tend to focus on the main authority figures in the news, such as political leaders. All these factors combined seem to distort the importance of global climate change. A case study was done examining a combination of major Television and major Newspapers coverage on global climate change. The most prominent times that global climate change was focused on were when George Bush spoke out in opposition, because it fit into the journalistic norms. It slowed down in times where new controversial information was not at forefront. Overall, the point Boykoff is arguing is that journalists are putting too much emphasis on the journalistic norms in their coverage of global climate change. If the media focuses on personalization, too much emphasis on authority statements, and only focusing on up to date reporting that has dramatic effect instead of focusing on the broader issue and facts, America will not have the initiative to stand up and change their detrimental actions. Over 140 nations have joined Kyoto Protocol to curb human contributions to global warming, yet the United States has refused to join. Boykoff points out in his article that the media coverage of climate change matters has been too focused on journalistic norms and thus mass media can adversely effected interactions between science, policy and the public.

In the article, “How Journalists Deal with Scientific Uncertainty” Stocking presents a much broader view of journalists cover the scientific news. She holds the view that the media is definitely influenced to report stories in certain ways, but they may not be the only ones. Stocking presents that journalists are often accused of making scientific claims appear more solid and certain than they are and other times they are criticized for making science appear more uncertain and confusing than it already is. Journalists tend to present science with relatively few caveats, few sources, and little historical context. Instead, they appear more interested in carefully crafted results that scientists produce in the messy and often extremely social processes they were made in. Journalists prefer to report science when the future outcome is assured and when scientists have found a certain answer. Stocking mentions that a few studies suggest that journalists can make scientific claims more uncertain and confusing than most scientists with relevant expertise believe them to be. Even if claims of certainty are seen, they are often followed by contradictory ones that exaggerate uncertainty on occasion. In general as Boykoff had also suggested, journalists like to give more attention to visible sources in culture. In the global climate change debate, fringe scientists, many who are funded by an industry with huge stakes in the controversy have been given almost as much weight as the majority scientists. Media routines, no matter if an issue is weighted with more evidence on one side tends to give equal attention to each view to keep reporting objective. One of the key influences on media coverage for science is organization demands influencing journalists to tailor their messages to specific audiences. For instance, a story that is directed towards a business audience might highlight more aspects of scientific uncertainty in the climate change story. There is also pressure from the advertisers to present more uncertainties of scientific theories than others. Concerns about capturing audiences and not alienating advertisers takes precedence over the actual concern of the issue. Stocking points out that scientists can sometimes adjust their claims as well as journalists, to look more certain or uncertain. Scientist “sell” different versions of scientific uncertainty to different people depending on what audience they hope to achieve. Scientist tend to judge their own simplifications as acceptable and those of non-scientists as distorted. Stocking mainly points out in this article that there are a lot of influences that affect how journalists report science from ownership to objectivity, but that reporters may not be the only ones framing stories to appeal to certain audiences.

Boykoff focuses more on the journalistic norms that influence how a media story is constructed, taking a more negative stance against journalists. Boykoff feels that news, with climate change being no exception, is focused too much on the immediate happenings, topics that can be dramatized and personalization, especially when the person being personalized is a major authority figure, such as George Bush. As a result this has not given climate change the coverage it needs, and when coverage is given to global climate change, it often takes too negative of a view, since coverage focuses on views of people, like George Bush, that because of their economic interests, oppose global climate change and the public being proactive about it. Stocking on the other hand takes a more broad view of how scientific news is reported. Stocking holds the view that there are many influences on how a message is tailored in the media. Journalists tend to present all views in the want to be objective, and are frame stories differently depending on who the story is directed to. Two key influences seem to be businesses and ownership, as well as advertisers. While Stocking did point on the problematic reporting of journalists, she doesn’t leave it as a problem of journalists alone. Stocking points out that scientists as well tailor their stories in different ways with different aspects of certainty and uncertainty depending on what audience they are targeting.

This poses the question: If both journalists and scientists have many different audiences to reach and are constantly changing their message, who can we trust? Are there too many outward influences on the media and scientists that science becomes distorted?

-Casey Krutz

My articles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/climate-change-european-citizens-poll_n_1000165.html?ref=climate-change

http://www.towardsrecognition.org/2011/09/blog-post-no-way-out-climate-change-and-immobility/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/11/AR2010121102308.html

Week 5: Climate Change – Oreskes vs. Peterson – Stef Manisero

The realization that climate change could have significant effects on human societies, and similarly, that human activities could lead to these said changes, was first made in the 1970s. Climate science was in its’ early stages and global temperature techniques were still being experimented with. In ”The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus”, Peterson et al discuss climate-related events of the 70s and argue that the general public was torn about what to believe, although there appeared to be scientific consensus. Upon conducting research on the climate and studying data about global temperature, Reid Bryson came up with four principal questions that were crucial in studying climate patterns: 1) How large must a climate change be to be important? 2) How fast can the climate change? 3) What are the causal parameters, and why do they change? and 4) How sensitive is the climate to small changes in the causal parameters?

With scientific data ruling out global cooling in showing warming trends, scientific consensus was in favor of global warming. The myth of the 1970s, however, stated, “Either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent.” Carbon dioxide percentages, aerosol evaluations and global temperature measurements disproved global cooling, but the matter was still being published in regard to a real concern for the earth. Peterson et al argue that, “the 1970s global cooling scare is most often in citations not to scientific literature, but to news media coverage.” Further, they claim that the media is going to draw attention to issues that are dramatic or new, rather than those that create a “nuanced discussion within the scientific community,” and therefore, the news coverage of the time reflects the topics of concern at the time. If there cannot be consensus among scientists, there cannot be consensus among journalists, and consequently, there was equal publicity about global cooling and global warming. One book at the time, for example, was entitled “The Cooling,” while another was, “Hothouse Earth.”

While Peterson et al argue that scientific consensus does not necessarily indicate a consensus of the general public, Oreskes believes that scientific consensus on climate change does exist, but the media makes it seem as if it does not. In “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Oreskes presents data and findings by the Intergovernmental Pannell on Climate Change that demonstrate that there is, in fact, scientific consensus on the issue. It is contended that the atmosphere is harmed by human activities, and this fact can be confirmed from numerous other sources and research from various scientific organizations. According to Oreskes, “Statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.” In providing many examples of agreement among scientists, Oreskes asserts with conviction that climate scientists have reached a consensus on the matter, and that it is up to the general public to start listening.

Both articles play with the matter of scientists versus the public and the intervention of the media. Oreskes states that among scientists there is consensus, due to the abundance of data that matches up in demonstrating human activities leading to a rise in global temperatures. Peterson maintains that there is scientific consensus as well, however, varying presentations in the media, claims both correct and incorrect, lead to a divide among the general public. While Oreskes claims that all we can do is listen to scientists, Peterson holds that the media is interfering with this listening.

So then the question becomes, Why does the media continue to present both sides of the story – global cooling and global warming – when the scientific data aligns in favor of global warming? Why, if theories of global cooling are being disproved, does the media still claim they are occurring? What makes the general public listen to the media, as opposed to listening to the scientists who present the facts?

Week 5-Crichton, Doran & Zimmerman

This week’s readings discussed the scientific consensus and the effect it can have on policy and public opinion. In Michael Crichton’s Aliens Cause Global Warming, he states that there are uneasy relationships between hard science and public policy. According to Crichton, politics elicit feelings of hate and danger, irrational fear/beliefs, and manipulation. Science on the other hand represents international relationships, forging friendships, encouraging thought, and benefits of new technology. He then goes on to discuss several instances where the scientific consensus have made claims about catastrophic events such as extreme climate change that they cannot back up, and which do not even end up happening. However, since there is a scientific consensus people will believe them, and Crichton believes that this consensus is the business of politics. He then asserts that it only takes one person to discover something is true in order for it to be science, and that a consensus is not necessary. He proposes the reasons for this connection between science and political policy, which include specialized advocacy groups, lack of good science education, and decline of the media as an assessor of fact. Lastly, he states that it is essentially pointless to predict the future because we have no idea what it will hold, just as those who lived 100 years before us had no idea what the world would be like today.

I agree with Crichton in that the line between science and politics is blurred, however I think that there is more skepticism in the public than he says. While it is true that the media tends to use certain stories more than others for shock value, the survey done by Doran and Zimmerman shows that there is a discrepancy in the scientific and public consensus. In surveying 3, 146 scientists, 90% responded that there has been a rise in global temperature, and 82% said that this change is influenced by human activity. However, they also say that only 52% of Americans believe there is a scientific consensus on climate change, and 47% say that scientists believe it is influenced by human activity.

So although Crichton says that the public believe whatever the scientific consensus of the moment is, Doran and Zimmerman suggest that not everyone knows whether or not there is a scientific consensus on an issue. Even though they are different in this way, they both still assert that the media is not effectively portraying helpful and accurate stories to keep the public well-informed. I believe that there are definitely improvements that should be made in the communication of science. However, if the consensus rules the media stories like Crichton implies they do, then how can science and politics effectively be separated? How can the education of science improve if science has become part of a political agenda?