There's a new paper out declaring that, "climate change foes [are] winning [the] public opinion war.” At least, that's what the title of the press release states.
Judging by the press release, one might expect the study to involve some sort of survey or poll that tracks public sentiment over time, perhaps showing a decrease in support for action, or an increase in public adoption of denial.
But that’s not what this is. Instead, the study looks at the effect of including denial in stories about climate change. So instead of showing that deniers are winning, it shows that the simple inclusion of denier messages in news coverage makes people more likely to doubt the veracity of climate science as well as less likely to support emissions reductions. The study then finds that pro-climate frames of economic opportunity, national security, public health and Christian stewardship were not particularly effective in changing anyone’s mind. The study authors also included fake news articles as part of the experiment—articles they wrote for control purposes—and these trials confirmed that people, when presented with denial messages (like that the climate threat is exaggerated, or scientists are corrupt, or Democrats just want more regulation) were more likely to doubt climate change.
In other words, the study shows that false balance increases doubt. But this is hardly newsworthy, which is probably why the press release strayed so far from the content of the paper. The deniers, of course, have shown no skepticism towards the press release and have pounced on the study to pat themselves on the back. Fortunately, Chris Mooney, an actual journalist, did see fit to read past the press release and wrote a great story with an accurate title: “This is why sowing doubt about climate change is such an effective strategy.”
In a similar vein, new research from Yale tracking the “network structure and influence of the climate change counter-movement” found that corporate funded individuals are the most tightly connected and have played a role in the debate the longest. The study author also has a second paper finding that organizations that took corporate funding were more likely to be polarizing forces in the debate.
Yet despite all that, public support for clean energy and regulations remains high. As has been pointed out here before, recent polling shows 72% of Americans want the US to sign an international agreement (including 52% of Republicans).
---—
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories:
GOP ex-EPA heads back Obama in climate lawsuit | Ruckelshaus and Reilly said they plan to argue that the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act is completely legal.
Republicans’ Climate Change Denial Denial - We’re looking at a party that has turned its back on science at a time when doing so puts the very future of civilization at risk. That’s the truth, and it needs to be faced head-on.
Rich nations' fossil fuel subsidies exceed climate aid 40 to 1: researchers | "Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could be a massive double win," Alex Doukas, the group's senior campaigner, said in a statement on the research analysis.
The Latest Attack on Climate Science - The re-examination of previous conclusions, which Mr. Smith casts as nefarious, is merely an example of the scientific method at work.
Global warming sparks partisan firestorm on once-sleepy House committee - “I’ve had people tell me it’s worse now than the Benghazi committee [investigating the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya]. It’s just as contentious.”