Why Are Americans So Ill-Informed on the Topic of Climate Change?

[G1njas]

Scientists and journalists debate why Americans still resist the consensus among research organizations that humans are warming the globe

 

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.

 

The frustration revealed itself during a handful of sessions at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., this past weekend, and it came to a peak during a Friday session, “Science without borders and media unbounded.”

 

Near the session’s conclusion, Massachusetts Institute of Technology climate scientist Kerry Emanuel asked a panel of journalists why the media continues to cover anthropogenic climate change as a controversy or debate, when in fact it is a consensus among such organizations as the American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Association, National Research Council and the national academies of more than two dozen countries.

 

"You haven't persuaded the public," replied Elizabeth Shogren of National Public Radio. Emanuel immediately countered, smiling and pointing at Shogren, "No, YOU haven't." Scattered applause followed in the audience of mostly scientists, with one heckler saying, "That's right. Kerry said it."

 

A tone of searching bewilderment was typical of a handful of sessions that dealt with the struggle to motivate Americans on the topic of climate change. Only 35 percent of Americans see climate change as a serious problem, according to a 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

 

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.

 

And in the absence of such a campaign, as in South Korea, there is no doubt about the findings of climate science, said Sun-Jin Yun of Seoul National University. All three of the nation's major newspapers—representing conservative, progressive and business perspectives—accept climate change with little unjustified skepticism.

 

Still, it is hard to explain the intransigence of the U.S. public and policy-makers on the issue.

 

Explanations: the media, under-education or denialism

Tom Rosensteil of the Project for Excellence in Journalism pointed the finger at the media, focusing on its overall contraction in the past two decades. Shrinking budgets have led to a proliferation of quick, cheap reporting, as well as discussion and commentary formats that rarely provide informative discussions of actual science results.

 

"What is shrinking is the reportorial component of our culture in which people go out and find things and verify things," he said. Truth has little chance to make itself known in the new narrow and shallow public square.

 

Poll after poll, and even late night TV, seems to revel in Americans’ ignorance of basic scientific facts, including the fundamentals of physics and biology.

 

Is this "deficit model" then the reason for our failure to accept climate change? Naomi Oreskes, a University of California, San Diego, science historian rejected that hypothesis that during a session on climate change denialism. "It's quite clear there are many highly educated people who do not accept global warming," she said. Still, scientists "must communicate climate science as clearly and effectively and robustly as we can," she added.

 

The current political and cultural context drive the nation's denialism around climate change, evolution and vaccines, said Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, during a session. Education and scientific literacy and general intelligence levels are not causing the problem.

 

Meanwhile, most Americans in fact are ignorant of the facts of climate science and even "confuse climate change with the ozone hole," Schmidt remarked. The processes around the latter's disappearance are related to global warming but "how is that a basis for having any sensible conversation?" he asked.

 

Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery

Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question-and-answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.

 

Scientists must engage with the public and be vigilant against projecting stereotypes of their profession—such as the elitist, arrogant scientist, Schmidt said.

 

Rosensteil echoed this advice and further urged scientists to bypass the media, who are no longer critical intermediaries for reaching the public given the growth of the blogosphere and the general fragmentation of the industry.

 

He advised scientists similarly to make sure their points are very clear and to avoid giving climate deniers an opportunity to extract a phrase from ones communications or answers to questions that fits an anti-science theme.

 

In fact, Thomas Lessl of the University of Georgia called science communications "naïve" and said the entire enterprise of communicating science about climate change needed to be reformed. More information will not help. "Personal knowledge always trumps technical knowledge in public communication," he said.

 

Some of Rosensteil's advice echoed that as he reminded the audience that interviews are entirely on the record and that they are not conversations.

 

"One way of doing that is to be like a politician and answer what you want to answer and not answer fully what they have asked," he advised. Also, "if you feel thee question is loaded, give them the answer that you would have given if the question were not loaded."

 

Schmidt suggested that further public engagement to fill in the gaps in understanding between the soundbites and the scientific literature would be useful, but that there are no guarantees.

 

Emanuel offered the familiar explanation for why some scientists are allergic to public forums: "There's an attitude in our culture that if we're doing outreach...we may be engaging in a kind of advocacy that is poisonous to science."

 

Optimism prevailed regarding the role of journalists and scientists in better communicating climate change in the future. There will be more reporting and it will be more accurate in the future, but the current media landscape may be the ultimate decider, Emanuel said.

 

"Fourth estate reporting will get better," he said. "The fact that we're here today is an indicator of that. At the same time, the availability of the Internet soapbox will ensure that the amount of background noise will go up. I don't see any way of preventing that."

 

Fonte: Scientific American

[whatever]

Nós estamos a falar de um país onde uma estação líder de audiências, FOX, tem uma linha editorial que proíbe os jornalistas de fazerem uma cobertura imparcial dos temas relativos ao aquecimento do global. Os serviços noticiosos não fazem um trabalho informativo, fazem trabalho político. Tudo é política. E se a estação está lado dos senhores que acham positivo contribuir-se para o aquecimento do planeta por forma a continuar a facturar biliões, então tem mais é que bloquear, desmentir, desvirtuar, aldrabar notícias que demonstrem a influência humana no aquecimento global e fazer um grande alarido sempre que as temperaturas médias do planeta não aumentam como em 1998 e 2005 e a massa das calotes polares aumenta.

 

Nós estamos a falar de um canal que tinha um comentador que fazia bandeira da luta pela descredibilização do aquecimento global e dos perigos do tabagismo passivo e que recebeu em nome de uma organização sem fins lucrativos sediada em sua casa dezenas de milhares de dólares da ExxonMobil e da Philip Morris.

 

Nós estamos a falar de um país onde uma jornalista foi despedida por ir contra a linha editorial, que passava por aldrabar notícias e ser parcial, e quando processou a estação o supremo tribunal foi contra decisão de primeira instância e deu razão ao canal sob o argumento de que a estação não tem a obrigação de ser imparcial e honesta.

 

Este país não é livre e transparente, é uma selva de gente mal informada.

[jonnyslb]

Tendo em conta que muitos pensam que Portugal é uma provincia espanhola, até é uma boa percentagem

[Che]

Tendo em conta que muitos pensam que Portugal é uma provincia espanhola, até é uma boa percentagem

Ri-me.