Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Keepitsimple

A stormy Forecast for Climate Change Reporting

Recommended Posts

While die-hard believers continue to argue the minutiae of Antropogenic Global Warming (AKA Climate Change), the public has increasingly decided to turn the dial. Here's an article that delves into the reasoning behind recent journalistic apathy.

Fresh from a sabbatical studying climate change reporting at the University of Oxford, the ABC's Margot O'Neill considers whether or not the media has done a good job.

WHATEVER HAPPENED to climate change? This time last year climate change was a hot topic regularly appearing in news bulletins and on front pages. Phrases such as "the future of humanity could be at stake" were quoted, celebrities marshalled and 4,000 journalists prepared to descend on the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. Apparently humanity's future is now secure... or so it might seem given the paucity of journalism devoted to the issue in the mainstream media.

Where did all the climate change stories go? "The [programmers] are against it because it loses ratings," says a senior BBC journalist. "The wave [of public interest] has gone. There is climate change fatigue. That is why I am not [reporting] it now."

Other journalists agree. Even reporters at The Guardian, which especially targets environmental reporting, complain that it's difficult to get a run. Another UK broadcast journalist said he was warned that putting climate change on prime time would risk losing a million viewers.

In a series of interviews with some of the UK's top specialist environment and science correspondents, I explored the changing climate for reporters covering global warming - as part of the ABC's Donald McDonald research fellowship at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. Most of the journalists rated the media poorly on communicating what some have dubbed the epic news story of the century. "We have failed to engage the public," said a broadcast journalist.

The key problems? The list is long but includes a cold winter in Europe, the distant impacts, the failure of the December 2009 UN climate change Copenhagen summit to produce a binding international agreement, public confusion about whether there is a reliable scientific consensus, and alarmist media coverage with Hollywood-horror headlines like "Be Scared; Be Very Scared!" that are more likely to induce the purchase of popcorn than solar panels.

.....and much more here: http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2010/11/03/3056199.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple... this does not bode well for deniers getting their distortions, lies and fabrications into the lamestream media - oh my! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is climate change fatigue...

...Then there's the actual climate. If the scientists and insurance companies are right, it will produce increasing horror temperature, drought and precipitation events as well as more natural catastrophes. How we adapt to a dramatically changing climate, if or when it emerges, could, sadly, become the most compelling story of all.

Ten bucks says people will adapt by looking for someone to blame. Scientists and actuaries will probably be as good a target as anyone but I suspect the default consensus position will be that it was them damn lefties as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It`s too bad the public is so misinformed.
Why do you constantly insist that people are "misinformed" if they do not share your obsession with what might happen 100 years from now?

People can agree on the facts and still decide that carbon control policies are a dumb idea. Their opinion is as valid as yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you constantly insist that people are "misinformed" if they do not share your obsession with what might happen 100 years from now?

I don't.

People can agree on the facts and still decide that carbon control policies are a dumb idea. Their opinion is as valid as yours.

Sure. I read this story as them not being convinced that it's happening, but reading again... I see how it's about whether editors play it as a story.

These things cycle through highs and lows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read this story as them not being convinced that it's happening.
People tend to simplify complex ideas. Especially people who have no interest in complex discussions. On the alarmist side you have people believe we have to 'save the planet' - a nonsense statement because the planet will do just fine even if there are a few billion fewer humans on it. What they really mean is 'ensure the ecosystem can continue to support the humans alive today'. On the skeptic side there are people who say AGW is 'not happening or hoax' - an equally silly statement that really means 'the risk is being exaggerated and there is no need to do anything'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s too bad the public is so misinformed.

But, the price of democracy is that everyone`s opinion counts, right or wrong.

or...the debate is over the general public accepts CC, it's old news...once the issue is settled how many of us care about the details...who cares about news out of Haiti anymore...

how many of us still question the earth orbits the sun(other than 20% of americans) do we care about the scientific details of it?..any chance the media running a headline story of the earth orbiting the sun?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

or...the debate is over the general public accepts CC, it's old news...once the issue is settled how many of us care about the details...who cares about news out of Haiti anymore...

how many of us still question the earth orbits the sun(other than 20% of americans) do we care about the scientific details of it?..any chance the media running a headline story of the earth orbiting the sun?...

It's like once it was agreed that the earth was a sphere no one care that it's technically not. It's a oblate spheroid. (and even that definition may be off) Sphere is close enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People tend to simplify complex ideas. Especially people who have no interest in complex discussions. On the alarmist side you have people believe we have to 'save the planet' - a nonsense statement because the planet will do just fine even if there are a few billion fewer humans on it. What they really mean is 'ensure the ecosystem can continue to support the humans alive today'. On the skeptic side there are people who say AGW is 'not happening or hoax' - an equally silly statement that really means 'the risk is being exaggerated and there is no need to do anything'.

Then there are people who don't worry about climactic events that are predicted will happen in the future if they think they'll die beforehand. This is especially true of impoverished people who are freezing in the dark in winter. They tend to think of the here and now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like once it was agreed that the earth was a sphere no one care that it's technically not. It's a oblate spheroid. (and even that definition may be off) Sphere is close enough.

precisely...I find space and all the spacey facts like new planets, black holes and gamma bursts interesting but not enough to get into all the detailed math behind it, just the interesting highlights and the logic leading to the discoveries is enough for me...and I suspect most people are the same, a new planet is discovered orbiting some far off sun it makes the news maybe even a headline or two and that's all people want to know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there are people who don't worry about climactic events that are predicted will happen in the future if they think they'll die beforehand. This is especially true of impoverished people who are freezing in the dark in winter. They tend to think of the here and now.

yes there are those as well...and those who shrug their shoulders and think there's bugger all I can do about it and continue on with their lives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or...the debate is over the general public accepts CC, it's old news...once the issue is settled how many of us care about the details...who cares about news out of Haiti anymore...

how many of us still question the earth orbits the sun(other than 20% of americans) do we care about the scientific details of it?..any chance the media running a headline story of the earth orbiting the sun?...

And what about that gaping hole in the ozone? It seems the media has slacked off reporting how it will impact human life. Of course, anyone interested can keep track of the ozone hole thanks to NASA.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what about that gaping hole in the ozone? It seems the media has slacked off reporting how it will impact human life. Of course, anyone interested can keep track of the ozone hole thanks to NASA.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

that's the perfect example...we know about it, we've adjusted our behaviour banning CFC's and the latest reports are the damage will be repaired by mid century, hard to stay excited about an event let alone keep it newsworthy and relevant when it's 40-50 years off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s too bad the public is so misinformed.

But, the price of democracy is that everyone`s opinion counts, right or wrong.

The public, misinformed or not, has the right to just not give a damn about climate change. Calling them "deniers" is also irrelevant. There are more important short term exigencies to be concerned with. The arrogance of the AGW priests and their loyal devotees is best met by such wholesale indifference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People tend to simplify complex ideas. Especially people who have no interest in complex discussions.

-
On the
alarmist
consensus side, you have people believe we have to 'save the planet'

- a nonsense statement because the planet will do just fine
even if there are a few billion fewer humans on it
. What they really mean is 'ensure the ecosystem can continue to support the humans alive today'.

-
On the
skeptic
denier side, there are people who say AGW is 'not happening or hoax'

- an equally silly statement that really means 'the risk is being exaggerated and there is no need to do anything'.

I took the liberty of a couple of adjustments - strikeouts clearly noted. Should one be inclined to accept your summation, it's one that clearly identifies the gap between your consensus vs. denier side breakouts... what's a few billion fewer humans, here or there - hey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I took the liberty of a couple of adjustments - strikeouts clearly noted.
You missed the entire point. The issue is sloppy language used to express an opinion. People who say we have the "save the planet" are as wrong as people who say "AGW is hoax". In both case, the true opinion they have is more nuanced by harder to communicate.

Sceptics, for the most part, agree that there is a human component the warming but reject the notion that carbon control policies are an effective way to deal with whatever problems might occur. Many also support government funding for R&D into new energy sources.

Alarmists, for the most part, obsess about implausible outcomes and are incapable of rationally examining the cost of actions vs. the likely benefit. For an alarmist, something has to be "done" to assuage their feelings of fear. It does not make a difference if the action is expensive, useless and ultimately futile. Alarmists have deep seated emotional need to see others be forced to make sacrifices (it is always others - never themselves) and anyone who opposes them is branded as "evil" or "ignorant".

In this debate, the rational ones are the so called "deniers".

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to the dearth of reporting on Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption......is the absence in the news of the decision made by the Chicago Climate Exchange (Carbon Trading) to cease emission-trading this year.

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on October 21, 2010 that it will cease carbon trading this year. However, Steve Milloy reporting on Pajamasmedia.com (November 6, 2010) finds this huge story strangely unreported by the mainstream media.

To some key analysts the collapse of the CCX appears to show that international carbon trading is dying a quiet death. Yet Milloy finds that such a major business failure has drawn no interest at all from the mainstream media. Milloy noted that a Nexis search conducted a week after CCXs announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise.

Not until November 02, 2010 had the story even been picked up briefly and that was by Chicagobusiness.com (Crains). Reporter, Paul Merrion appeared to find some comfort that while CCX will cease all trading of new emission allowances at the end of the year, it will continue trading carbon offsets generated by projects that consume greenhouse gases, such as planting trees.

Link: http://www.suite101.com/content/carbon-trade-ends-on-quiet-death-of-chicago-climate-exchange-a305704#ixzz14cMLxCNs

Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further to the dearth of reporting on Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption......is the absence in the news of the decision made by the Chicago Climate Exchange (Carbon Trading) to cease emission-trading this year.

Simple, I already noted your difficulty with having your favoured denier lies, fabrications and distortions hitting the mainstream media. That there will be less emphasis on one of your other favoured bogeymen, a U.S. cap™ exchange, truly has you scrambling - hey? But really, nothing to see hear... in line with the long standing projections over the U.S. 2010 election - see U.S. Republican "War on Science". In any case, you should get up to speed - see 'fee & dividend'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People tend to simplify complex ideas. Especially people who have no interest in complex discussions.

-
On the
alarmist
consensus side, you have people believe we have to 'save the planet'

- a nonsense statement because the planet will do just fine
even if there are a few billion fewer humans on it
. What they really mean is 'ensure the ecosystem can continue to support the humans alive today'.

-
On the
skeptic
denier side, there are people who say AGW is 'not happening or hoax'

- an equally silly statement that really means 'the risk is being exaggerated and there is no need to do anything'.

I took the liberty of a couple of adjustments - strikeouts clearly noted. Should one be inclined to accept your summation, it's one that clearly identifies the gap between your consensus vs. denier side breakouts... what's a few billion fewer humans, here or there - hey?

You missed the entire point. The issue is sloppy language used to express an opinion. People who say we have the "save the planet" are as wrong as people who say "AGW is hoax". In both case, the true opinion they have is more nuanced by harder to communicate.

nuance? Is that what your stated, "what's a few billion fewer humans, here or there", was? Nuance?

Sceptics, for the most part, agree that there is a human component the warming but reject the notion that carbon control policies are an effective way to deal with whatever problems might occur. Many also support government funding for R&D into new energy sources.

although you're forever inconsistent, at least with this statement, you've highlighted commonality on the R&D and attribution side... and you've brought the entire debate down to the intricacies over policy. Of course, when one skirts both sides of the skeptic versus denier dichotomy, (as you repeatedly do), it's tough to give this summary assessment of yours any real weight.

For an alarmist, something has to be "done" to assuage their feelings of fear.

what is this "fear" you speak to... certainly, the bulk of projected worst case scenarios aren't lining up to the lifetimes of those living today. What fear... specifically?

Alarmists have deep seated emotional need to see others be forced to make sacrifices (it is always others - never themselves) and anyone who opposes them is branded as "evil" or "ignorant".

first fear! Now you're on about "emotional need"? Have you branched off into psychotherapy? Whatever you perceive those "sacrifices" to actually be, I'm somewhat curious as to how they would be selectively applied in your, "always others - never themselves" breakout... just how is/will that selective sacrifice application occur... specifically?

In this debate, the rational ones are the so called "deniers".

I thought you were a self-proclaimed skeptic (albeit, one that conveniently plays the science as it suits your purpose, one that repeatedly skirts both sides of the skeptic versus denier dichotomy). Is this your full blown coming out as a registered denier?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nuance? Is that what your stated, "what's a few billion fewer humans, here or there", was? Nuance?
I was critizing people who claim we need to "save the planet" when the planet does not need any saving.
what is this "fear" you speak to... certainly, the bulk of projected worst case scenarios aren't lining up to the lifetimes of those living today. What fear... specifically?
People can be afraid of many things. The demand for "action" no matter what the cost is driven by fear.
just how is/will that selective sacrifice application occur... specifically?
Most alarmists expect the government to make "evil corporations and rich people pay" while allowing the middle class to keep on doing what they are doing.
Is this your full blown coming out as a registered denier?
My position has not changed. I think the basic premise of CO2 induced warming is sound but the effects and consequences have been greatly exagerrated by activists with a political agenda. I think reducing CO2 emissions is futile and a pointless waste of resources. If climate ends up being a problem we should adapt as required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think reducing CO2 emissions is futile and a pointless waste of resources. If climate ends up being a problem we should adapt as required.

a two degree rise will be bad, five degrees a catastrophe, 10 degrees adios humanity...there is no adaptation to ecological collapse only extinction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a two degree rise will be bad, five degrees a catastrophe, 10 degrees adios humanity...there is no adaptation to ecological collapse only extinction...
A 5-10 degC rise is pure fantasy that does not deserve any serious consideration. A 2-3 degC rise may be likely but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that such a rise will be a catastrophe. More likely it will be a combination of benefits and harms where the benefits partially offset the harms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest TrueMetis

A 5-10 degC rise is pure fantasy that does not deserve any serious consideration. A 2-3 degC rise may be likely but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that such a rise will be a catastrophe. More likely it will be a combination of benefits and harms where the benefits partially offset the harms.

What you think that the earth's temperature will just stop rising? If we keep pumping CO2 into the air the earth average temperature will continue to rise indefinitely. At the current rate it will take about 500 years for the earth temperature to rise 10 degrees, that's the geological blink of an eye. Humans may be able to adapt to that nothing else will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 5-10 degC rise is pure fantasy that does not deserve any serious consideration. A 2-3 degC rise may be likely but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that such a rise will be a catastrophe. More likely it will be a combination of benefits and harms where the benefits partially offset the harms.

your knowledge/understanding of the big picture (environment) is apparently very limited... Edited by wyly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...