Browse
Engage
Research
This week, at COP17, an Oxford University-based Reuters Institute research team shed light on the connection between media and climate skeptics.
The U.S. has, by significant margin, the greatest and most vocal share of skeptics. The U.K. has the second greatest share. Coincidentally, the media in these two countries give climate deniers more bandwidth.
Over 80 percent of international climate skeptical coverage was found in the U.S. or U.K. press. The research found that conservative newspapers in the U.S. and U.K. carried significantly more skeptical voices than left-leaning papers. Most skeptical views were available in the opinion and editorial pages of mainstream newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal.
The study, Poles Apart, by James Painter, further explains why the U.S. and U.K. press has such abundant coverage of skeptics compared to other countries.
The skeptic reporting has cultivated and catered to a large audience in the U.S.. Yet year-to-year, that audience appears to be shrinking. A November 2011 Pew survey found that climate believers are gaining ground in the U.S.: 63 percent of Americans now say "there is solid evidence in global warming."
For scientists and American believers, the slight uptick (from 57 percent) over the past two years is modestly encouraging.
"I guess I should be cheered by this opinion shift, but somehow I am not," shared Liam Moriarty, a U.S.-based believer.
In the context of COP17 negotiations, delegations and attendees are often baffled that there is continued debate in the U.S. about climate change science. This report helps believers decode the skeptics. It also sheds light on the U.S. negotiating position.
Photo montage includes a cloud photo and a television photo via Shutterstock.
OK, a report finds that
OK, a report finds that freedom of speech is more prevalent in the US and the UK than in China or Brazil - and that is a problem for the US and the UK?
Also, your article contains an amazing example of 'cherry-picking'... The Pew Opinion Survey shown in the graphic has every indicator showing an increase in skepticism between 2006 and 2011. So you choose a 'slight uptick' in one indicator since 2009 to argue that the skeptical audience is decreasing!
This is interesting research
This is interesting research and helping in understanding this dynamic. I suppose I'll have to look to the report for the specifics on the sample size, margin of error and other technical details. I do wish to take issue how the dynamic is characterized in the article, because I am convinced that poor chosen language in talking about climate change science is part of the problem. How is the use of "climate change believer" justified here? In my view, the word "belief" encourages people to understand that one cannot be convinced that climate change is real, is happening now, and is being driven by human activity on the basis of empirical observations, analysis, in short, the scientific method. When I "believe" something, I'm suggesting that there is an element of faith, of something akin to religion, involved. Indeed, climate change sceptics on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal regularly deride advocates of the view that anthropogenic climate change is occurring as adherents of "climate change religion." Please don't use a word that plays into the hands of the climate change deniers and worse still, misrepresents what science is all about.