Scientists highlight problems with press coverage of climate change

Specialists gathered in São Paulo to debate managing climate extremes express concern over the difficulties journalists face in dealing with this complex theme

By Fábio de Castro

Agência FAPESP – Informing society, including public policy makers, about the discoveries of climate science is fundamental for managing the impacts of climate events appropriately, according to specialists gathered in São Paulo to discuss the management of climate extremes and disasters.

Researchers are concerned about the difficulties in communicating this information. The complexity of climate studies tends to generate distortions in journalistic coverage on the topic, and the results may jeopardize the public’s trust in science.

This assessment is one of the conclusions of the workshop “Risk Management for Extreme Climate and Disasters in Central and South America: What Can We Learn from the IPCC Special Report on SREX Extremes?,” held August 15 – 16 in São Paulo.

The objective of the event was to debate the conclusions of the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), recently released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and to discuss options for managing the effects of climate extremes, especially in South and Central America.

The workshop was sponsored by FAPESP and by the National Institute for Space Research (Inpe) in partnership with the IPCC and the Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), both of the United Kingdom, with support from Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Climate and Pollution Agency.

During the event, the authors of the IPCC-SREX debated the topic of communication with managers and leaders of disaster prevention institutions.

According to Vicente Barros of the Center for Sea and Atmosphere Research (CIMA) at the Universidade de Buenos Aires (UBA), three years ago, the IPCC (of which he is a member) began a restructuring process that included a change to its communication strategy.

“As of 2009, the IPCC began to be violently attacked. We were not prepared for it because our function was to release recently acquired knowledge, not to translate it to the press. Now we have a group of journalists who seek to mediate this area, but we cannot dilute information too much. And the executive committee always has the final say in the formulation of communication because the political weight [of the information] is very significant,” explained Barros.

Language is a major problem, according to Barros. If the language is too complex, the information will not reach the intended audience. If the language is oversimplified, it tends to distort the conclusions and promote the dissemination of views that do not match reality.

“The IPCC deals with very complex issues, and we admit that we cannot disseminate information that reaches everyone. This is a problem. I believe that communication should remain in the hands of journalists, but perhaps we must be invested in training initiatives for these professionals,” Barros said.

Fábio Feldman, from the São Paulo Climate Change Forum (Fórum Paulista de Mudanças Climáticas), expressed concern over the difficulties climate scientists face in communicating with the public. Feldman suggests that these difficulties allow skeptical researchers who deny the human impact on climate change to gain more space in the media and in the public debate.

“I am concerned by the space that denialists are obtaining in the public debate. The press believes that it must always use opposing views, giving equal space and importance to different positions on the debate,” Feldman said.

According to Feldman, scientists – especially those linked to the IPCC – should take a more proactive stance to counter the “skeptics” in public debate.

Different positions

For Reynaldo Luiz Victoria, a member of the coordination team for FAPESP’s Program on Global Climate Change, it is important that the press treats divergent positions more equitably.

“There are specific cases in which the press does not deal with these issues equitably or without sensationalism, but I think that we researchers are not obliged to react. The press should seek us out for counterarguments and to clarify the matter to the public,” Victoria commented in an interview with Agência FAPESP.

However, Victoria highlighted the importance of including “skeptics” in news coverage. “Some are serious scientists and should have equal treatment. They certainly cannot be ignored, but when they make affirmations that can be contested, the press should seek out someone who can offer a counterargument. Journalists need to seek us out, not the opposite,” he said.

In general, press coverage of climate change is satisfactory, according to Victoria. “The good newspapers publish accurate articles, and there are very serious journalists producing high quality material,” he noted.

For Luci Hidalho Nunes, a professor in the Geography Department at Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp), the denialists are gaining space because the controversy has more media appeal than the complex scientific knowledge.

“A scientist could have a well-founded discourse that is considered dull by the general public. Meanwhile, a researcher with weakly structured arguments might have a simplified discourse that seems more attractive and controversial to the public and garners better headlines,” Nunes commented in an interview with Agência FAPESP.

Although good science has the inherent disadvantage of complexity when it comes to public debate, Nunes believes that it is important for the press to continue pluralistic coverage. Nunes has published a study that analyzed climate change coverage in the São Paulo newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo over a one-year period. She says that one of the main positive points was identifying the different positions on climate change identified by the study.

“I’m in favor of the press fulfilling its role and covering all the parameters in order to have a democratic debate. I think this is being done well, and the press is open to giving more space to this issue. But we need to create these opportunities,” she said.

Nunes believes that media coverage of climate change has been satisfactory but irregular. “The issue gains volume at certain times, but it is not a permanent agenda item,” she said.

The subject was especially prominent in 2007 with the publication of the first IPCC report and in 2012 with RIO+20.

“In 2007, coverage was intense, but the popularization of the topic paved the way for distortions and exaggerations. Sensationalism is bad for science because it quickly puts the issue in the headlines, where it stays for a while. But in the medium term, the effect is the opposite: people realize the exaggeration and begin to view scientific results as a whole with disbelief,” she said.