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.
Ah, yes, Stephen but could I say UHI is in the range 0.25-0.5 , No, I think I will leave that to the worlds foremost expert on the topic of weather station siting and resulting trend biasses, Anthony Watts. He has calculated that one himself.
On the other hand, ask me what the upper bound limit is on CO2 warming for a 100% CO2 atmosphere (at 1 atm pressure) then I am happy to answer 5.2 degrees, give or take, Because I actually calculated that myself. Far cry from +3 deg for a mere 0.4% rise though…
Ask me what the negative feedback due to the conversion of thermal energy to kinetic inherent in the fall of rainfall to the surface (not included in climate models is), and I could answer, because I calculated that too 1-6W / square meter, larger error range due to terminal velocity effects however probably at the top of the range since the potential energy must go somewhere (probably not back to heat)
Ask me what is the climate sensitivity to Money (delta $)/(delta T) using the Australian Gillard Government carbon tax, cost and aims as a metric and I can answer – About 1/2 a quadrillion dollars per annum per degree C because I calculated that too!
Any question demanding a conclusion related to something a reader does not have first hand experience in is merely collating hearsay. A trap for young players, I contend that many of the Sceptics here, do not fall readily into traps for young players
The problem is that Alarmist faith conversion is one way. By definition a person can only remain a non-sceptic until one takes sufficient interest to do some math. By definition then one becomes an evil sceptic merely by committing the sin of objectively checking the veracity of doctrine handed down from the high priests of climate change. Once one takes a scientific viewpoint and does a few simple calculations, CAGW is shown to be a shell, and scepticism is the result. Such is the story of my own rescue from “the faith”. The reverse is not true, there is no way back (well except for Muller of course) , what is now learned cannot be unlearned, only refuted by a sceptic to that new position – Ahh, Scepticism at work – science happening. The shift from faith (CAGW) to scepticism is one way – you are doomed to failure, the moment for the Alarmists has passed and gone forever, sceptic ranks are almost guaranteed mathematically to rise monotonically from here.
I find interesting how Muller got trotted out across the media as a convert from Scepticism to “The Faith” whereas the millions like my self converted from “the Faith” to scientific reasoning is never mentioned. I hypothesize occasionally it is because Muller is truly unique in the world, the worlds only example of a sceptic to believer convert.
Here is a typical interchange from Fox News Radio on this subject. The moderator (Alan) seems to be winning this debate here against Senator Inhofe.
The Global Warming Debate
Date: Feb 28, 2012; Duration 13:19 min
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) tells Alan why be believes man-made global warming is a hoax.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1478040333001/the-global-warming-debate
I believe that massive, activist ‘noble cause corruption’ of news media and science is a better explanation of this situation than any deliberate hoax. But the final effect may be the same.
Mosher, you do take a rather univariate view of climate. You seem to define climate as “temperature” (…the whole temperature and nothing but the temperature!)
We certainly are a diverse, multicultural bunch. We don’t even agree on what the objective is (!) in discussing climate.
Note to Alarmists: You’ll have to personalize the propaganda for each individual.
In my case, I ask for local lifelong secure funding + pension to appreciate & explore nature. Nothing else will do…
Solar Driven Geomagnetic Jerks:
http://i48.tinypic.com/4na4n.png
Personally, I get a bit frightened when they start categorizing “skeptics” in the media. That sounds like they are getting ready to go door-to-door and collect names or something.
I’m a Type X = a highly-trained and educated scientist who questions many of the techniques, data, and results of the climate science community and insists upon better data (per Anthony Watts), advanced application of high-level statistics (McIntyre’s approach), less hysteria (per Dr. Richard Lindzen), and open discussion of the subject in society vs. ramming regulations down our throats.
Of course, many scientists agree with CAGW, but many of these are rent-seeking parasites. Ask me, I’m surrounded by ’em. I have no problem with the “AGW” and think it is a matter of degree, but the “catastrophic” part is a bit hysterical (“new religion” as Lindzen calls it).
I’m a level 65 Night Elf Skeptic. I’m convinced the climate is warming, that man has little to do with it and even less ability to control it and that my Enchanted Azsharite Felbane Sword does 50-93 damage.
thanks
The problem I have with the methodology is that it is based on a false assumption. The results are, therefore, meaningless.
There is a tiny percentage of genuine scientific charlatans and ideologically-driven perverters of climate science. Similarly, there is a small proportion of science reporters, writers and bloggers who deliberately misrepresent climate science. We all know who they are.
The false assumption in the study is that only a small proportion of scientists are sceptics. This is clearly nonsense. The overwhelming majority of scientists as sceptics by profession. Therefore, if the newspaper articles accurately reflected the output of most scientists, then nearly all of the articles would have been sceptical. Instead, they found that, at best, only a third of the articles were sceptical.
Apart from that, a general perusal of newspapers in languages such as english, french and dutch enables me to confirm, anecdotally, that the authors may well be onto something: anglosphere newspapers do tend to give proportionately more space to those who do not support global warming theory than do their non-anglosphere counterparts. I have seen no research of any kind at all that would question this general view.
Does this mean that anglo scientists are much smarter than scientists from other cultures? Or could it mean that newspaper owners, science writers and editors in other languages are dopier than their anglo counterparts?