Is the media portraying the urgency of climate action?
Explainer • Writing for Civic Engagement • Winter 2016
Climate change is universally understood as the change in average global and regional climate patterns, mainly as a result of human induced fossil fuel consumption. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading group of climate scientists, confirmed with great certainty that human influence through carbon dioxide emissions has been the largest cause of warming in the 20th century. Yet, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is an anthropogenic issue that we must address, some people still believe otherwise. In response, the media continues to use new scientific findings to convince us that climate change is a problem. Yet, the scientific facts being thrown at us don’t seem to be enough of a call to action when it comes to climate change. We need a more relatable method to get everyone on board—a method that will make these facts come to life and illustrate the reality we are facing when it comes to climate change.
According to George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, framing is what allows humans to understand and create what they believe to be reality. Frames shape the way we reason and perceive the world. For this reason, the way an issue is framed in the media can greatly influence how we identify with that issue, what we think about it, and how we choose to act on it. When it comes to climate change, most news sources frame the issue through a scientific lens. Yet, the ability to relate to the readers is often missing in many news articles, creating thus a sense of disengagement, and portraying climate change as a phenomenon that impacts our natural environment, creating a sense of disconnect from our daily lives.
Who are we still trying to convince?
A recent study found that only 16% of Americans believe there is not enough evidence of climate change. Cal Thomas, a writer for Fox News Opinion, is one of those people. In his piece, “Paris Climate Deal: Nothing But Hot Air,” he disagrees with the urgency of climate change and questions the existence of this issue altogether. He explains that there are more pressing issues we need to focus on, and that the idea of climate change is “on par with childhood faith in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.” Yet, Thomas’ article is a bit contradictory. As he denies climate change, he also explains that climate change would be impossible to fight. He quotes Secretary of State John Kerry, “If all industrial nations went down to zero emissions […], it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” Although Thomas argues that climate change in a hoax, he simultaneously tries to explain that it would be impossible to fight, making his argument inconsistent and less believable. Thomas attempts to use science to argue against climate change. He argues, “According to RSS [Remote Sensing Systems], the Earth’s temperature has not increased in the last 18 years and nine months, a record (Thomas, 2015).” Thomas tries to use scientific ideas he gathered to disprove climate change but pairs these findings with his personal opinions as he states that the computer models that predicted global warming were “imperfect.” To help convince the naysayers on climate change, we need a frame that will bring the harsh realities to life, making climate denial impossible to dispute.
How are we convincing people like Thomas?
Luckily, most other news sources don’t see climate change in this light. Instead, they use scientific evidence to disprove people like Thomas. One particular article found in Wired, implores people to “Please stop saying humans aren’t causing climate change.” The article uses evidence from past scientific studies to confirm the existence and urgency of climate change to people that believe otherwise. The author, Damian Carrington, states, “2015 was revealed to have smashed all earlier records on Wednesday, after the new study has been completed, meaning the odds that the record run of heat is a fluke are now even lower.” The author, Damian Carrington, uses studies done by institutions such as UN World Meteorological Organization, the journal of Scientific Reports, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and climate professors at prestigious institutions to increase his credibility to the readers. The only graphic in the article is a map of temperature anomalies in 2015 published by NASA to further prove the naysayers of our exponentially warming earth. Carrington’s article does miss an important point: a call to action. The author ends by saying “The UN’s [IPCC] concluded with 95 percent certainty that humans are the main cause of global warming.” This ending, as well as grappling data presented with no application models, creates a sense of detachment between the readers and the scientific community.
An article found in the Guardian, “World’s oceans warming at increasingly faster rate, new study finds,” implements a similar framing approach that explains the severity of climate change through scientific evidence. The author, Oliver Milman, uses a new study showing that our oceans are warming at a higher rate than we previously predicted to explain that climate change is a big issue. Milman uses scientific terms and technologies, such as “HMS Expedition,” and “Argo floats” to explain how the data was collected and showcase the credibility of the information. To further increase his credibility, he quotes scientists that have worked on this study. One scientist quoted in the piece explains, “Deep water heat content has increased by ‘several tenths of a degree’ since the industrial revolution when averaged out across the globe.” Although informative, the scientific evidence such as this one doesn’t really impact the readers in a meaningful way, as many of us already know that temperatures are warming. The scientific evidence specified leave the readers thinking climate change is a problem handled by scientists, and creates a disengagement when it comes to making change. As a concluding statement, Milman explains, “An analysis of more than 620 studies last year found that the food chains of the world’s oceans are at risk of collapse due to climate change, overfishing, and localized pollution.” With this, he leaves his readers at a standstill and without a sense of power that they can positively influence something as large as the ocean; for this reason, Milton leaves the readers discouraged about being able to make a difference.
The Los Angeles Times also adopts a frame that is centered around scientific evidence to show the effects of climate change on our natural world. In her article, “Climate Change: Greenland Ice Sheet is Shrinking at high rate,” Amina Khan, explains a new scientific study that found that the Greenland ice sheet shrinking at a rate higher than expected could drastically impact sea level rise. Similarly to the previous articles, Khan relies on credible organizations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to increase her credibility to better convince the public about climate change. In addition, she uses the calculations and scientific findings of these organizations to explain ocean warming to the readers. She states, “Scientists found that from 1990 to 1983, the Greenland ice sheet lost about 6,233 gigatonnes of mass.” Although scientifically credible, this statistic, as well as others used by Kahn does not really resonate with the average reader and fails to address what the Greenland ice sheet means for all of us. Kahn does tell us, “because of the ice sheet’s shrinkage from 1900 to 2010, sea levels have risen about 1 inch, the scientists concluded (Kahn, 2015).” It is likely difficult for the reader to get a sense as to what one inch of sea level rise really entails, creating a disconnect between our daily lives and the findings of scientists, and resulting in inactivity from the public.
The frame used in Chery Katz’s article in the National Geographic, “Will Global Warming Heat Us Beyond Our Physical Limits” is more relatable to the readers, as it explains climate change through the impact it has on human life. Although still explained through a scientific lens, the studies show how the climate impact warming in certain inhabited parts of the world. For instance, one of the studies she referenced explains, through climate models and population projections, the amount of people that could face hazardous heat in 2060. She explains, “If we don’t cut greenhouse gases, it’s not just storms and rising seas we’d have to worry about. The heat alone could kill a lot of us (Katz, 2015).” Katz includes examples on the effects of climate change on communities, giving the readers a sense of motivation to become more involved in the debate and more concerned about potential implications that can happen in their own lives; it helps them see the relevance of the issue.
Katz uses images to create a sense of pathos in the readers. The picture of a man suffering a heat stroke in Pakistan, for instance, is more relatable to many readers than the melting glaciers. The image strikes a sense of urgency as they show us effects that are already happening due to climate change. Katz’s article does miss an important point, which is a call to action. The author does mention we must cut greenhouse gas emissions, but fails to address how this can be achieved. At the end of her article, Katz mentions that people who will be affected most will be those with no access to air conditioning and large mammals that are affected the same way as humans. Her concluding thought that “little research has been done” on how wild animals are and will be affected by climate change, leaves the readers to only hope that we will one day know more, but without a sense of being able to contribute.
How should we talk about climate change?
Climate change is a hot issue—and an extremely important one. The media continues to showcase this issue through sharing new scientific evidence, as if to convince the readers this issue is a real one. Yet, the majority of our population has accepted that climate change is a problem, and reiterating what they already know through similar scientific evidence won’t stir a desire to create change. Unfortunately, the few naysayers of climate change, such as Thomas, will likely not be have a change of heart by reading new studies that prove the same idea. Therefore, instead of convincing the public that climate change is a problem through scientific evidence, the media must focus on ways that fuel a desire for change and mobilize readers to action.
The media should implement a new frame for communicating about climate change, from the perspective of the communities that struggle with its consequences. Instead of farming the dialogue through scientific evidence, we should showcase the effects of climate change present in many communities throughout the world—effects such as heat strokes and natural disasters that impact so many global communities—and use these stories as a call to action. By explaining how climate change and natural disasters are interrelated, the readers will realize the negative effects of climate change all over the world, creating a ripple effect on the sense of urgency to take action.
According to George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist, framing is what allows humans to understand and create what they believe to be reality. Frames shape the way we reason and perceive the world. For this reason, the way an issue is framed in the media can greatly influence how we identify with that issue, what we think about it, and how we choose to act on it. When it comes to climate change, most news sources frame the issue through a scientific lens. Yet, the ability to relate to the readers is often missing in many news articles, creating thus a sense of disengagement, and portraying climate change as a phenomenon that impacts our natural environment, creating a sense of disconnect from our daily lives.
Who are we still trying to convince?
A recent study found that only 16% of Americans believe there is not enough evidence of climate change. Cal Thomas, a writer for Fox News Opinion, is one of those people. In his piece, “Paris Climate Deal: Nothing But Hot Air,” he disagrees with the urgency of climate change and questions the existence of this issue altogether. He explains that there are more pressing issues we need to focus on, and that the idea of climate change is “on par with childhood faith in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.” Yet, Thomas’ article is a bit contradictory. As he denies climate change, he also explains that climate change would be impossible to fight. He quotes Secretary of State John Kerry, “If all industrial nations went down to zero emissions […], it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.” Although Thomas argues that climate change in a hoax, he simultaneously tries to explain that it would be impossible to fight, making his argument inconsistent and less believable. Thomas attempts to use science to argue against climate change. He argues, “According to RSS [Remote Sensing Systems], the Earth’s temperature has not increased in the last 18 years and nine months, a record (Thomas, 2015).” Thomas tries to use scientific ideas he gathered to disprove climate change but pairs these findings with his personal opinions as he states that the computer models that predicted global warming were “imperfect.” To help convince the naysayers on climate change, we need a frame that will bring the harsh realities to life, making climate denial impossible to dispute.
How are we convincing people like Thomas?
Luckily, most other news sources don’t see climate change in this light. Instead, they use scientific evidence to disprove people like Thomas. One particular article found in Wired, implores people to “Please stop saying humans aren’t causing climate change.” The article uses evidence from past scientific studies to confirm the existence and urgency of climate change to people that believe otherwise. The author, Damian Carrington, states, “2015 was revealed to have smashed all earlier records on Wednesday, after the new study has been completed, meaning the odds that the record run of heat is a fluke are now even lower.” The author, Damian Carrington, uses studies done by institutions such as UN World Meteorological Organization, the journal of Scientific Reports, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and climate professors at prestigious institutions to increase his credibility to the readers. The only graphic in the article is a map of temperature anomalies in 2015 published by NASA to further prove the naysayers of our exponentially warming earth. Carrington’s article does miss an important point: a call to action. The author ends by saying “The UN’s [IPCC] concluded with 95 percent certainty that humans are the main cause of global warming.” This ending, as well as grappling data presented with no application models, creates a sense of detachment between the readers and the scientific community.
An article found in the Guardian, “World’s oceans warming at increasingly faster rate, new study finds,” implements a similar framing approach that explains the severity of climate change through scientific evidence. The author, Oliver Milman, uses a new study showing that our oceans are warming at a higher rate than we previously predicted to explain that climate change is a big issue. Milman uses scientific terms and technologies, such as “HMS Expedition,” and “Argo floats” to explain how the data was collected and showcase the credibility of the information. To further increase his credibility, he quotes scientists that have worked on this study. One scientist quoted in the piece explains, “Deep water heat content has increased by ‘several tenths of a degree’ since the industrial revolution when averaged out across the globe.” Although informative, the scientific evidence such as this one doesn’t really impact the readers in a meaningful way, as many of us already know that temperatures are warming. The scientific evidence specified leave the readers thinking climate change is a problem handled by scientists, and creates a disengagement when it comes to making change. As a concluding statement, Milman explains, “An analysis of more than 620 studies last year found that the food chains of the world’s oceans are at risk of collapse due to climate change, overfishing, and localized pollution.” With this, he leaves his readers at a standstill and without a sense of power that they can positively influence something as large as the ocean; for this reason, Milton leaves the readers discouraged about being able to make a difference.
The Los Angeles Times also adopts a frame that is centered around scientific evidence to show the effects of climate change on our natural world. In her article, “Climate Change: Greenland Ice Sheet is Shrinking at high rate,” Amina Khan, explains a new scientific study that found that the Greenland ice sheet shrinking at a rate higher than expected could drastically impact sea level rise. Similarly to the previous articles, Khan relies on credible organizations, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to increase her credibility to better convince the public about climate change. In addition, she uses the calculations and scientific findings of these organizations to explain ocean warming to the readers. She states, “Scientists found that from 1990 to 1983, the Greenland ice sheet lost about 6,233 gigatonnes of mass.” Although scientifically credible, this statistic, as well as others used by Kahn does not really resonate with the average reader and fails to address what the Greenland ice sheet means for all of us. Kahn does tell us, “because of the ice sheet’s shrinkage from 1900 to 2010, sea levels have risen about 1 inch, the scientists concluded (Kahn, 2015).” It is likely difficult for the reader to get a sense as to what one inch of sea level rise really entails, creating a disconnect between our daily lives and the findings of scientists, and resulting in inactivity from the public.
The frame used in Chery Katz’s article in the National Geographic, “Will Global Warming Heat Us Beyond Our Physical Limits” is more relatable to the readers, as it explains climate change through the impact it has on human life. Although still explained through a scientific lens, the studies show how the climate impact warming in certain inhabited parts of the world. For instance, one of the studies she referenced explains, through climate models and population projections, the amount of people that could face hazardous heat in 2060. She explains, “If we don’t cut greenhouse gases, it’s not just storms and rising seas we’d have to worry about. The heat alone could kill a lot of us (Katz, 2015).” Katz includes examples on the effects of climate change on communities, giving the readers a sense of motivation to become more involved in the debate and more concerned about potential implications that can happen in their own lives; it helps them see the relevance of the issue.
Katz uses images to create a sense of pathos in the readers. The picture of a man suffering a heat stroke in Pakistan, for instance, is more relatable to many readers than the melting glaciers. The image strikes a sense of urgency as they show us effects that are already happening due to climate change. Katz’s article does miss an important point, which is a call to action. The author does mention we must cut greenhouse gas emissions, but fails to address how this can be achieved. At the end of her article, Katz mentions that people who will be affected most will be those with no access to air conditioning and large mammals that are affected the same way as humans. Her concluding thought that “little research has been done” on how wild animals are and will be affected by climate change, leaves the readers to only hope that we will one day know more, but without a sense of being able to contribute.
How should we talk about climate change?
Climate change is a hot issue—and an extremely important one. The media continues to showcase this issue through sharing new scientific evidence, as if to convince the readers this issue is a real one. Yet, the majority of our population has accepted that climate change is a problem, and reiterating what they already know through similar scientific evidence won’t stir a desire to create change. Unfortunately, the few naysayers of climate change, such as Thomas, will likely not be have a change of heart by reading new studies that prove the same idea. Therefore, instead of convincing the public that climate change is a problem through scientific evidence, the media must focus on ways that fuel a desire for change and mobilize readers to action.
The media should implement a new frame for communicating about climate change, from the perspective of the communities that struggle with its consequences. Instead of farming the dialogue through scientific evidence, we should showcase the effects of climate change present in many communities throughout the world—effects such as heat strokes and natural disasters that impact so many global communities—and use these stories as a call to action. By explaining how climate change and natural disasters are interrelated, the readers will realize the negative effects of climate change all over the world, creating a ripple effect on the sense of urgency to take action.