RSS
Ian's first and second post about the challenge of communicating environmental stories got me thinking.
It's my opinion that we -- environmental journalists and bloggers -- are making the transition from convincing, to conveying and sorting information on global warming. And that while we've made great advances, we haven't figured out how to reduce the noise and clarify the message: climate change is real, current, and irrefutable.
Hang in with me for a minute as I sort through some numbers that help set this up.
According to a poll by Yale University, 71% of Americans believe global warming is happening. Lest you cry the influence of limousine liberals, a Fox News poll has this number even higher, at 82%.
The same Fox News poll shows that 79 percent of Americans also believe that human activity is either fully or partially responsible climate change.
This is part of a larger trend, in which concern for global warming continues to rise. Last April, an article in The Washington Post ran an article with this lede: "A third of Americans say global warming ranks as the world's single largest environmental problem, double the number who gave it top ranking last year, a nationwide poll shows."
The scene here is pretty clear. The majority of Americans are convinced that global warming is real, while large, and growing, percentages believe that its happening now, and that we're responsible.
And yet, they don't believe the very people they should: scientists.
The same poll released by Yale also showed that only 48% of the public believes there is a consensus amongst the scientific community on climate change, while 40 percent of Americans still believe there is a lot of disagreement. If you account for a sampling error of ± 4%, these numbers are uncomfortably close.
This despite the fact that that the Nobel Prize awarded to the IPCC, itself a body comprised of more than 1,00 scientists, recognized the overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community on the fundamentals of climate change. And Elizabeth Kolbert's example, cited in Field Notes, of the more than 900 peer reviewed articles published between 1993 and 2003. Of these, she says, "not a single article disputed the premise that anthropogenic climate change is under way."
That a majority of the American public still believes in scientific uncertainty regarding climate change comes as a success, or a failure, depending upon whom you speak to. To the conservative groups, and the energy industry, who worked so hard in creating the illusion of doubt, it undoubtedly comes as a success. But to the environmental community, and to those journalists who have told the story of climate change -- repeatedly, honestly -- I can imagine how frustrating it must be.
More than anything, I think, these numbers -- a growing consensus on the one hand, against an obstinate misconception on the other -- provides a guideline for the transition we need to make.
This is the transition I began talking about. Americans are convinced of the reality of climate change; there, at least, environmental journalists have done their part. But we need to do more to sort and convey better, more compelling information.
And so what, exactly, do we need to do? A few things.
- We need to do a better job of working against the norms of journalism, by not giving equal measure to the "other" side of the debate.
- We need to do a better job as journalists to work against the norms of science, which act as barriers to communication, by using science to say what scientists often won't: the implications beyond their data.
- And we need to -- sometimes, just sometimes -- step back, and look at the beauty of it. Not to hand wring, or leave the reader holding the burden of individual action to save the group. Just show them how beautiful it is. I know this is not a ration argument, but I don't think that makes it a weak one.
I plan to talk more about all of these in my next post.
For now, I'm going to find someone to convince about the science.
Share
Mowing the Lawn