After countless studies, investigations, analyses, and conferences, 97% of climate scientists now agree that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, sparked by burning fossil fuels. However, the American public is far from certain; 59% of Americans deny or are unsure of climate change (Marlon, Leiserowitz, and Feinberg). Evidently, essential information has been lost between the scientific community and the general public, creating significant doubt in the public’s eye and preventing action to address climate change. This lack of effective, accurate communication, influenced by the media and climate change denial books, propagates climate change denial in the United States.

Media

Many Americans lack the solid, detailed scientific understanding that is essential to forming independent, educated opinions on complex scientific issues such as climate change. Realizing this, we develop these opinions largely based on how much we trust scientists: if we trust scientists more, we are more likely to accept their conclusions. In turn, the media’s presentation of scientific material influences this trust (Hmielowski).

However, scientific information may not be accurately portrayed when it actually reaches the public due to:

• Mistranslating information: Media may reframe uncertainties as confusion
  Scientists generally describe their findings in terms of probabilities, use cautious language, and discuss uncertainties, even when the results are conclusive; the caution is just inherent to science and the expected presentation technique in science. However, when reporting scientific data or use in communication and decision, the media tend to misinterpret the uncertainty and reframe it as confusion or incompetence. Unfortunately, this paints the scientific community as uncertain, discrediting scientists and their conclusions.
• Different time scales: Media tends to focus on breaking news
  The media have to pick and choose which stories to report to satisfy audience demands, which shapes how the public perceives the news and scientists. Also, scientists tend to operate on longer time scales than the media. This inconsistency can affect how the media portrays long-term scientific issues such as climate change.
• Different environments: Media must meet different economic and logistical requirements
  For any story, a journalist must meet deadlines and follow space guidelines. They must also cater to a particular audience and satisfy editor and publisher preferences. In an effort to stay within all of these constraints, they may oversimplify an issue or rely heavily on only one source, which can ultimately obscure or misrepresent information. For issues as complex as climate change, this can lead to a huge communication gap between the scientific source and the American public (Boykoff).

These factors may decrease the accuracy of climate change information conveyed to the public through the media. However, just the presence or absence of the information, the emphasis the media places on certain stories, etc. can impact the way people view scientists and climate change. Dale Willman, a journalist and correspondent with CNN, CBS, and NPR, said that “the media don’t tell people what to think, but they tell them what to think about.” Essentially, the stories the media choose to portray, as well as how they portray the stories, shapes how the public interprets the news. Since the media tend to amplify conflict and uncertainty in scientific issues (Boykoff), the public may perceive significant disagreement among scientists. In fact, a 2007 ABC poll  found that 40% of Americans think that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists regarding the existence of global warming (Nisbet). Similarly, Hmielowski and colleagues demonstrated that conservative news sources in particular tend to question and critique scientists, which cues the audience not to trust scientists; coincidentally, Americans rather distrust scientists, as shown below in Figure 1 (Nisbet). These views of scientists, as propagated by media, discredit climate change science in general, thus supporting climate change denial.

Books

In order to limit governmental regulations, as is in line with conservative goals and attitudes, Conservative Think Tanks attack scientific evidence for climate change, therefore countering the need for regulations on carbon emissions. One way they accomplish this is by sponsoring climate change denial books. Dunlap and Jacques found that from 1980 to 2010, 72% of published climate change denial books were verifiably linked to conservative think tanks through an author, editor, or publisher. Also, these books seem to have started a ripple effect, as the number of independently published climate change denial books is steadily increasing (Dunlap).

These climate change denial books are particularly effective at keeping climate change denial alive. Books offer a sense of legitimacy, even though 90% of denial books are not peer-reviewed; their authors are often regarded as climate experts, though many do not even have scientific backgrounds (only 39% of these books had an author or editor with relevant scientific credentials). Furthermore, books reach a larger audience and gain more publicity than do peer-reviewed scientific journals, as they are cited in conservative media and politicians (Dunlap).

In sum, climate change denial books reach a wide audience, and their pseudo-credibility increases their impact. Without peer review, they continual recycle scientifically defunct climate change claims. These books are key to the continued existence of climate change denial.

 

Solution to Denial: Increase Communication

Norgaard suggests that one possible way to mitigate climate change denial is to openly discuss climate change issues. Currently, climate change discussions are generally superficial and occur in settings such as small talk, political inspirational speeches, education, and informal gatherings.

However, open discussion would increase the amount and depth of discussion, thus enabling people to generate ideas, start to take action, impact the community, and use local experiences to draw wider attention (Norgaard).

 

Text Sources:

1. Boykoff, Maxwell T. “From Convergence To Contention: United States Mass Media Representations Of Anthropogenic Climate Change Science.” Transactions Of The Institute Of British Geographers 32.4 (2007): 477-489. Academic Search Complete. Web. 4 Apr. 2014.
2. Dunlap, R. E. and Jacques, P. J. “Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection.” American Behavioral Scientist. 57.6 (2013): 699-731.
3. Hmielowski, J., Leiserowitz, A., Myers, T., Maibach, E. & Feldman, L. “An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming.” Public Understanding of Science (2013).
4. Nisbet, M.C., & Myers, T.A. “The polls-trends: Twenty years of public opinion about global warming.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71.3 (2007): 444-470.
5. Norgaard, Kari Marie. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011. 4-10, 82-95,98-106,112-116.

Need some more information? These are some additional resources on the role of communication in climate change denial:

1. Dryzek, John S., Richard B. Norgaard, and David Schlosberg. Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford UP, 2011.
2. Kim, Hak-Soo. “Climate change, science and community.” Public Understanding of Science 21.3 (2012): 268-85.
3. Lever-Tracy, Constance. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. New York: Routledge, 2010.
4. Nisbet, M. C., D. A. Scheufele, J. Shanahan, P. Moy, D. Brossard, and B. V. Lewenstein. “Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise?: A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology.”Communication Research 29.5 (2002): 584-608.
5. Sonnett, J. “Climates of Risk: A Field Analysis of Global Climate Change in US Media Discourse, 1997-2004.” Public Understanding of Science 19.6 (2010): 698-716.