From the Institute of Physics , a surprising study being published by them, which not only measures the increase, but now has provided labels for type1 through type 3 skeptics. It seems they really don’t understand, but they are trying to quantify it anyway. I had to laugh at the inclusion of Anderegg et al (the 97% of climate scientists nonsense), which tell me they really haven’t a clue as to how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Should any of the authors read this post, be sure to read: What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say? to understand just how badly you’ve been duped. – Anthony
Figure 1. The number of articles containing sceptical voices as a % of the total number of articles covering climate change or global warming, 2009–10.
Climate sceptics more prominent in UK and US media
Climate sceptics are being given a more prominent, and sometimes uncontested, voice in UK and US newspapers in contrast to other countries around the world, new research suggests.
The findings have been published today, 5 October, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, as part of a study looking at how climate scepticism manifested itself in the print media of the US, UK, Brazil, China, India and France during a 3-month period which included ‘Climategate’ in 2009/10 and a second period which covered the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.
In an audit of over 2,064 newspaper articles from the six countries during the first period, the authors, from the University of Oxford and University of London, found that around one in nine articles contained a sceptical voice.
In the US, 34 per cent of all climate change stories appearing in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal during this time had a sceptical voice. Of the 511 climate change articles appearing in the Guardian/Observer and the Daily/Sunday Telegraph during this time, 19 per cent contained a sceptical voice.
Chinese newspapers came next with seven per cent of stories containing sceptical voices. India and France followed with around six per cent each and Brazil was last with three per cent.
The researchers also examined whether there was any correspondence between the political leaning of a newspaper and its tendency to give a voice to climate sceptics. Excluding China – their right and left splits are not relevant – the researchers found that there were slightly more articles containing sceptical voices in the left-leaning newspapers than in the centrist or right-leaning newspapers.
This was surprising considering the strong association of climate scepticism with the political right, especially in the US, and previous studies showing that right-wing newspapers were more inclined to question climate science.
On closer inspection of the figures, however, it was found that in the US and UK, a significant amount of the sceptical voices appeared in opinion pieces and that in the right-leaning newspapers these views were uncontested.
In the UK, the Guardian/Observer ran 14 opinion pieces containing sceptical voices during the two periods, all of which were countered or balanced by mainstream scientists. The Daily/Sunday Telegraph on the other hand ran 34 opinion pieces, more than half of which were not contested. The New York Times ran 14 opinion pieces that included sceptical voices, all of which were contested. In contrast, the Wall Street Journal ran 17 opinion pieces, all but one of which was left uncontested.
The researchers also chose to look at the type of climate sceptics that were being quoted in these stories. The types of sceptics who question whether global temperatures are warming at all appear almost exclusively in the UK and US newspapers. These two countries also give a very strong presence to the type of sceptic who challenges the need for robust action against climate change.
Even though ‘Climategate’ was a UK-based scandal, the researchers picked a period which included this event to sample data as they believed the story was big enough to spark international reporting. A further 1,263 articles were analysed between 1 February and 30 April 2007 at the time when the IPCC released their Fourth Assessment Report as this was a period in which scepticism wasn’t the central issue.
Lead author of the study, James Painter, said: “These results are significant because they do seem to support those who argue that climate scepticism is much stronger in ‘Anglo-Saxon’ countries, such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, as measured by its presence in the media.
“The data would also suggest a lot of the uncontested climate scepticism is found not so much in the news reports but in the opinion pages of right-leaning newspapers in the USA and the UK.”
The newspapers chosen for analysis were Folha de São Paulo and Estado de São Paulo in Brazil, People’s Daily and Beijing Evening News in China, Le Monde and Le Figaro in France, The Hindu and Times of India in India, the Guardian/Observer and the Daily/Sunday Telegraph in the UK, and the New York Times and Wall Street Journal in the USA.
From Friday 5 October, this paper can be downloaded from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044005/article
Abstract
Previous academic research on climate scepticism has tended to focus more on the way it has been organized, its tactics and its impact on policy outputs than on its prevalence in the media. Most of the literature has centred on the USA, where scepticism first appeared in an organized and politically effective form. This letter contrasts the way climate scepticism in its different forms is manifested in the print media in the USA and five other countries (Brazil, China, France, India and the UK), in order to gain insight into how far the US experience of scepticism is replicated in other countries. It finds that news coverage of scepticism is mostly limited to the USA and the UK; that there is a strong correspondence between the political leaning of a newspaper and its willingness to quote or use uncontested sceptical voices in opinion pieces; and that the type of sceptics who question whether global temperatures are warming are almost exclusively found in the US and UK newspapers. Sceptics who challenge the need for robust action to combat climate change also have a much stronger presence in the media of the same two countries.
Figure 3. Types of sceptics by country.
Key: Type 1 sceptics (those who deny temperatures are warming), marked in blue, are almost exclusively found in the US newspapers. Type 2 attribution sceptics in red (who accept the trend, but either question the anthropogenic contribution saying it is overstated, negligent or non-existent compared to other factors like natural variation, or say it is not known with sufficient certainty what the main causes are) and Type 3 impact sceptics in green (who accept human causation, but claim impacts may be benign or beneficial, or that the models are not robust enough) and/or question the need for strong regulatory policies or interventions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The study’s categorization of skeptics into three types is insufficient to capture the breadth of skeptical thought.
Skeptic approaches are as varied as the broad diversity of the skeptics themselves. Free thought is not inherently a uniform phenomena. The uniqueness of individual skeptics is an essential creative source that cannot be categorized in the study’s three types.
John
Only 2009-2010? Too bad they did not include articles from 2011.
I may be a type4. i accept that climate change happens, has always happened. Present trends are within natural variations. The theory upon which the AGW case relies, the beloved GHG theory, is not valid because all the predictions of this theory have [not] been observed and the reason why it is required is covered by another well known process which has been ignored but does follow observation. The theory of adiabatic heating by compression, ie. the input of gravity.
Sorry a few typo’s but you get the drift. My fingers are all thumbs today.
“In the US, 34 per cent of all climate change stories appearing in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal during this time had a sceptical voice. Of the 511 climate change articles appearing in the Guardian/Observer and the Daily/Sunday Telegraph during this time, 19 per cent contained a sceptical voice.”
Wouldn’t that be 100% if they were being truly objective and trying to find the truth? Perhaps objective reporting is mainly an “Anglo-saxon” trait.
Whenever I read any newspaper site on the net my real interest is in the comments under the story. Its actually very reassuring to note how many readers see through the papers agenda on nearly every subject. And thats where the battle will be won – the publishers can be bought – but the readers are much more savvy than the elite give them credit for. Thanks to the net we finally have free exchange of ideas and information and they bloody hate it!
I am faintly heartened by the results, even if the classifications are necessarily a bit dodgy. I think your voice, Anthony, is achieving a certain resonance. Good for you.
This appears like a re-hash of “Poles Apart: The International Reporting of Climate skepticism“ a report written by a team of researchers headed by James Painter for the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) and the British Council. I was at the presentation in October 2011.
And I do hope this is not a case of double-publishing or self-plagiarism!!!
The report has many flaws and I have written a 7-part critique that starts at the following link: The Unknown Skeptic – An Essay On “Poles Apart” – 1of7 – Introduction.
Particularly troublesome the inability by Mr Painter et al to quote any skeptical thought at all. Furthermore:
1. As noted, the authors put a lot of trust in dubious sources
2. They lock themselves in a cage, impervious to any communication with the skeptical voices they claim to be interested to study
3. They refuse to connect very simple dots that would have led them to opposite conclusions
Among my conclusions: It’s like having to follow to a whole season of football from the ManU TV channel, when Chelsea FC wins the Premiership: you know the commentators are professionals and speak with knowledge and expertise, yet you also know there is a lot of the actual story they are going to miss.
OMG! I’m a tri-type skeptic.
Type 1: I don’t doubt the world has warmed since the LIA, but 1) I am skeptical of the claimed accuracy of the various datasets and 2) the semantics of “ing”; warming is something that is happening, even if global warming as defined as an upward TREND is happening now we can’t tell until at least the trend is in.
Type 2: Yep, I’m skeptical the small anthropogenic signal can be accurately gleaned from the enormous natural noise and various cyclic processes. I’m also skeptical that such a tiny contribution to total GHE could have such a large result as purported by the IPCC clan via enhancing positive feedbacks evidenced only by conjecture instead of being dampened by negative feedbacks (thermostats) evidenced by observations.
Type 3: Of course, anyone with any knowledge of history & pre-history knows warmer is net better globally.
I don’t see too much wrong with the divisions. You could introduce more sub-divisions (e.g. I am 2-1 being natural causes, and trend is less than reported observations), or types (1-UHI, 1-Sky), but if you are counting me, don’t group me with the ‘its not physical’ set.
Yes, they may miss the point on why (I’m not media-led), but it’s probably progress that researchers (of various types) are starting to think about more than just the mainstream message.
I have to say right off, that their ‘types’ would and should have Substantial overlaps. Because of that, There is absolutely NO way they could ever develope strategies to deal with any particular ‘type,’ which is what I am guessing many will want to try to do with this information.
The label “Climate Sceptic” is just another way to attempt to marginalize those that disagree or may not be convinced. They know this and will continue to use incorrect labels towards anyone who questions “the cause”.
A person who does not fall into any of the 3 categories believes that (1) the temperature record is correct or understated, (2) that the anthropogenic contribution is significant compared to natural variation,(3) that the impacts will be adverse (4) that the models are robust and (5) they support strong regulatory policies.
Any such non-sceptical person should start reading here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/
and then explain how the models can possibly be robust. And, as the models are clearly not robust, how can they believe predictions contingent on the models’ results?
Sceptics are type AB negative, and proud of it.
I wonder how many members of the IoP are sceptics? Quite a few, probably. Professional bodies seem to ignore their members views nowadays.
Re the UK articles: “they looked at the Guardian/Observer and the Daily/Sunday Telegraph”. Given the result (19% sceptic) I suspect the figure would have risen of late. While the Guardian/Observer will always be 100% dogmatic alarmist, there has been an increasing tendency in right-of-centre papers to question AGW, and certainly the policies pushed on its behalf.
Time was, Christopher Booker was almost a lone voice. Not so much now.
It is interesting how small the number of skeptics who are ‘deniers’ of climate change is (type 1). This does not stop the chicken littles tarring all skeptics as deniers and pointing to the derisory 0.6C temperature rise as proof that they are all right and skeptics are all wrong. I guess I am both 2 and 3 – convinced that changes will not be that great and that they will be more good than bad.
The only type which they will not want to counter is the type 4 above, who cause more trouble for the other 3 types than the entire 97% put together.
So AGW scepticism is highest in those countries whose citizens are being hit with the biggest green taxes and the largest wasted expenditure of government funds. Who’da thunk it?
The authors note from fig 3 that there are many more type 1 skeptics, ie trend skeptics, in the USA than in the UK. They speculate (on page 6) that this is due to the influence of James Inhofe. The real reason is of course that as far as the US is concerned, there hasn’t been much if any warming since the 1930s. I wonder if the authors are ignorant of this basic fact.
Just 3 types! What about the shifty types who’s skepticism is a movable feast? Climbing up and down the tree of denial, sitting on whichever branch supports their current stance.
What about the people who deliberately cherry pick to support completely untenable positions (arctic sea ice rebound anyone)?
What about skeptical authors who ignore papers that they themselves helped write, because it doesn’t fit with their beliefs?
There is really no way to enumerate all of the types of what loosely passes as “skepticsm”, short of just naming all of them.
What a silly choice of dates to observe. Of course there were more sceptic voices heard during the height of Climategate. The consciences of certain editors and writers were pricked by the clearly abysmal behaviour demonstrated by CRU. They felt they had to offer a sop to the public or be accused of being the hopelessly biased gits they are.
There has been a much slower, more genuine rise in sceptic voices that has emerged from non environmental writers and editors. At the same time there has been a rapid decline in pro AGW stories, simply because there’s very little left to say. They resort to lying about weather which is always popular but ultimately a weak position.
The disparity between reporting in different countries (and also public acceptance) of AGW is influenced by two main drivers.
1) What type of normal climate they get. Those who regularly experience severe weather are more likely to fear things are getting worse.
2) Attribution of victim and perpetrator status. Those countries that see themselves as the victims are happy to accept AGW, as a forerunner to receiving compensation. Amongst the perceived perpetrators there are two camps. Those who don’t accept responsibility and those who suffer from what I call ‘white, affluent guilt’.
Friends:
The paper’s Abstract begins by saying
I write to ask where the scepticism exists ” in an organized and politically effective form” because I want to join the organisation.
Any effective organisation for opposing the AGW-scare would deserve all the support it could get.
Richard
Interesting that they didn’t include most of Europe. Germany, Spain, and Russia inclusion may be telling. It seems to me they forgot to follow the money. English speaking people have the most to loose from the reactionary efforts of the CAGW alarmists. I suspect Germany would be up there with the US. Their citizens are starting to notice the adverse effects and are growing more skeptical.
“I write to ask where the scepticism exists ” in an organized and politically effective form” because I want to join the organisation.
Any effective organisation for opposing the AGW-scare would deserve all the support it could get.
Richard”
See http://www.heartland.org
It’s not clear to me by what means would some article be determined to have a “skeptical voice”. In order to do so, there must be some baseline for what constitutes the non-skeptical voice. Is the skeptical voice anything that strays from the absolute and dogmatic? Is this something that can really be determined objectively? I find the whole effort disturbing, and really wonder about the methodology used here.
But in the bigger picture, this is the kind of report that is going to make the warmist fanatics go absolutely nuts. Expect to soon hear about efforts to control and squelch such types of communications through strong-arm tactics and legislative methods.
“These results are significant because they do seem to support those who argue that climate scepticism is much stronger in ‘Anglo-Saxon’ countries, such as the USA, UK, Canada and Australia, as measured by its presence in the media.”
Do they not notice the significance of the fact that these same countries plus New Zealand have resolutely fought against dictatorships and tyrannies over the last 300 years. One is the home of Magna Carta, and the other of the Declaration of Independence, two documents which together commit governments to keep their citizens free from tyranny.
So it’s no coincedence that the Anglosphere is more inclined to resist the tyranny of a Green revolution.