Climate change scepticism and the media

Climate change scep­ti­cism and the media down­load PDF

The media are very important players in cli­mate change com­mu­nic­a­tion – most people do not read sci­entific reports, spe­cialist web­sites and blogs, or the reports of the IPCC. Although in theory, the ‘facts’ of cli­mate change sci­ence should be reported in a straight­for­ward way by news­pa­pers and tele­vi­sion net­works, con­sid­er­able dif­fer­ences exist between the edit­orial lines taken by dif­ferent media organ­isa­tions about the reality and ser­i­ous­ness of cli­mate change.

Perhaps unsur­pris­ingly, there is a strong rela­tion­ship between the polit­ical per­spective of a media organ­isa­tion and its pos­i­tion on cli­mate change (Painter, 2011). The web­site of the left-leaning UK news­paper the Guardian, for example, is known inter­na­tion­ally as a hub of cli­mate change and envir­on­mental reporting and opinion – and scep­tical opin­ions are rarely to be found. In com­par­ison, right leaning media (such as the US Wall Street Journal) are far more likely to carry scep­tical opinion and edit­or­ials. Although it is dif­fi­cult to estab­lish cause and effect, it seems highly likely that the pos­i­tion of right and left-leaning media is one of the key influ­ences on public per­cep­tions (which dis­play a sim­ilar split along ideo­lo­gical lines), and media-generated con­tro­versy is also often cited as a reason for scep­ti­cism about cli­mate change (Poortinga et al., 2011). But inter­est­ingly, media ‘exag­ger­a­tion’ of cli­mate change is also one of the meas­ures that has been used to indicate scep­ti­cism in public atti­tudes – so there is a com­plex rela­tion­ship between public per­cep­tions and media reporting of cli­mate change (Whitmarsh, 2011).

Several ana­lyses of media cov­erage of cli­mate change have con­cluded that a dis­course of uncer­tainty is unsuited to the typ­ic­ally adversarial style of English lan­guage journ­alism (Boykoff, 2007; Ward, 2008). Radio, tele­vi­sion and news­paper reports have been cri­ti­cised for inter­preting too simplist­ic­ally the notion of providing a ‘bal­anced’ set of views (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2004), which can lead to com­peting points of view on a sci­entific issue being presented as equally sup­ported, when in fact they are not (the concept of ‘balance-as-bias’).

In 2011 the BBC Trust com­mis­sioned a report that ana­lysed the way that three sci­entific topics – including cli­mate change – were reported by the BBC. The report – authored by Professor Steve Jones – found that cli­mate change ‘den­iers’ con­tinued to find an often prom­inent place in BBC reporting, des­pite occupying a mar­ginal pos­i­tion in sci­entific debates. Referring to the ‘bal­ance as bias’ concept developed by Boykoff & Boykoff in 2004, the report argued that the BBC – in an attempt to deliver ‘bal­anced’ cov­erage of cli­mate change – were actu­ally biasing their cov­erage by including an excessive amount of scep­tical voices. Because the weight of sci­entific evid­ence on cli­mate change is so heavily against scep­tical pos­i­tions, the reporting of their views should reflect this.

There is some evid­ence that this trend is slowly chan­ging (in the US and the UK – Boykoff, 2007), but Butler and Pidgeon (2009) have shown that people con­tinue to view the media as offering a range of view­points on cli­mate change, cre­ating the impres­sion that the causes of cli­mate change are more con­tro­ver­sial than they actu­ally are.

A report from the Oxford Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (Painter, 2011) looked spe­cific­ally at the reporting of cli­mate change scep­ti­cism in six dif­ferent nations (UK, US, Brazil, China, India and France). Analysing the con­tent of a selec­tion of the news­pa­pers in each of these coun­tries, a remark­able finding emerged: scep­tical voices were much more likely to be reported in the English-speaking UK and US than in Brazil, China, India and France. In fact, more than 80% of the scep­tical voices reported in the study were found in the UK & US papers – sug­gesting that scep­ti­cism about cli­mate change in the media is to some extent an ‘Anglophone’ phe­nomenon. The authors of the report sug­gested that part of the reason for this dis­parity between dif­ferent coun­tries is the pres­ence of organ­ised lob­bying interests in the US and the UK, who act­ively shape the media agenda.

One of the best resources for under­standing the way cli­mate change is reported in the media (espe­cially but not exclus­ively the UK media) is The Carbon Brief, a web­site which fact-checks stories about cli­mate change by cross-referencing them against peer-reviewed lit­er­ature. As their web­site states, dis­tor­tions of cli­mate sci­ence occur reg­u­larly, partly because cli­mate sci­ence is a com­plex area, and partly because various interests, motiv­ated by fin­ance or ideo­logy, have sought to con­fuse the issue. The rapid-responses they post to art­icles that appear about cli­mate change are an essen­tial resource for anyone inter­ested in finding the truth behind media reporting of cli­mate change.

In the UK, the Science Media Centre exists to ensure that accurate and timely sci­entific inform­a­tion reaches the media: they cover all sci­ence (not just cli­mate change), but if you are a journ­alist or press officer looking to write an accurate story (or obtain a quote from a suit­ably qual­i­fied cli­mate sci­entist) they are a good place to start. In the US, the Climate Science ‘rapid response’ team are a group of cli­mate sci­ent­ists who will respond to media enquiries through their website.


Boykoff, M. & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as Bias: Global warming and the US Prestige Press. Global Environmental Change 15 (4) 125–136.

Boykoff, M. (2007). Flogging a Dead Norm? Media Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in United States and United Kingdom, 2003–2006. Area 39(4) 470–481.

Butler, C. & Pidgeon, N. (2009). Media Communications and Public Understanding of Change – Reporting Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Climate Change. In T. Boyce & J. Lewis (Eds). Climate Change and the Media (pp.43–58). Peter Lang: New York, USA.

Painter, J. (2011). Poles Apart: The inter­na­tional reporting of cli­mate change scep­ti­cism. Oxford University, Oxford: RSIJ.

Poortinga, W., Spence, A., Whitmarsh, L., Capstick, S. & Pidgeon, N. (2011). Uncertain cli­mate: An invest­ig­a­tion into public scep­ti­cism about anthro­po­genic cli­mate change. Global Environmental Change 21, 1015–1024.

Ward, B. (2008). A higher standard than ‘bal­ance’ in journ­alism on cli­mate change sci­ence. Climatic Change 86, 13–17.

Whitmarsh, L. (2011). Scepticism and uncer­tainty about cli­mate change: dimen­sions, determ­in­ants and change over time. Global Environmental Change, 21, 690–700.

7 Comments + Add Comment

Make a comment

Creative Commons 2011 - 2015, Talking Climate
A project by COIN & PIRC.
This website is a project of Climate Outreach

This website, a project of Climate Outreach (COIN), has been integrated into the new Climate Outreach website. Any updates since 21 October 2015 have been made to the new website only, not here, and this website will soon be deleted. Please bookmark our new website – we look forward to continuing to share the latest in climate communication research with you. We are now tweeting from @climateoutreach so please follow us there.