Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics. E-MAIL: [email protected]
Comment Policy
Keep it substantive, serious minded, on topic, and respectful.
Dan Vergano of USA Today has an important column out this weekend. Vergano, I believe, is the first major journalist to call into question the now dominant narrative that "ClimateGate" has powerfully damaged public trust in scientists.
In the column, he quotes Stanford professor Jon Krosnick with the following apt observation. As Vergano writes:
What's really happening, suggests polling expert Jon Krosnick of Stanford University, is "scientists are over-reacting. It's another funny instance of scientists ignoring science."
The science that Krosnick is referring to are the multiple polling indicators relative to public trust in scientists which shows only slight shifts in public trust from a year or two years ago and more generally, principles and theory from the field of political communication research. Here's how I explained these factors at a panel a few weeks back at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government:
...without more formal analysis, it is difficult to say what the impact of ClimateGate has been on American public opinion. There is the question of how much attention Americans paid to news coverage of the controversy, especially in competition with other issues at the time. Also, from what we know from public opinion research generally, for those who did follow the event, the most likely impact is a reinforcement of the views of audiences already deeply dismissive of the issue.
Multiple recent surveys--specifically those from Pew, ABC News, and Yale/George Mason--do show that public concern and acceptance of climate science are down from 2008, even among Democrats. Yet other factors likely influencing public opinion include the performance of the economy; perceptions of cooler weather at the local level; and widespread dissatisfaction and distrust of government and the media [though as the Yale/George Mason survey finds, public trust in climate scientists remains very high at roughly ¾ of Americans].
I will weigh back in with more on this topic next week. It's a topic I think is very important to explore. In the meantime, definitely check out Vergano's column and more of Krosnick's explanation. Much of the misinterpretation of ClimateGate's impact on the public connects more broadly to a paper I am currently working on with my colleague John Besley, that reviews the emerging research on how scientists as a group perceive the public and public communication; journalists and the media; and the policymaking process respectively.
Chris Palmer, director of the Center for Environmental Filmmaking at American University, argues in an op-ed at CNN.com that the tragic accident at SeaWorld Orlando should draw renewed attention to the ethics and safety of keeping Orcas as captive performing animals for spectators. As Palmer, a veteran of more than 25 years of wildlife filmmaking, writes:
Orcas and other large predators should not be held in captivity unless those doing so can make an overpoweringly persuasive case for it -- mainly that the animal's release into the wild, perhaps after an injury, will mean certain, immediate death. One reason behind my conviction: The lesson too many take away from marine park shows is wild animals are like pets. Some can be trained to obey a human's command on occasion, but no matter how much they may learn to tolerate human interaction, these animals are far from tame.
Palmer argues that amusement parks are part of a larger entertainment media industry trend--led by television programming and film--that promotes increasingly violent depictions of wildlife while promoting among audiences a false impression of the nature of animals, especially predators. As Palmer writes of this trend towards violent "wildlife pornography":
Readers in Washington, DC will find this event, open to the public, of strong interest:
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS), and the American Statistical Association (ASA), present:
Climate Policy: Public Perception, Science, and the Political Landscape
Friday, March 12, 2010
11:00 AM to 12:30 PM
Hart Senate Office Building, Room 902
United States Senate
Washington, DC
*To learn more about this event, please visit www.ametsoc.org/cb*
**This event is part of the AMS Climate Briefing Series, which is made possible, in part, by a grant from the National Science Foundation's Paleoclimate Program**
Program Summary: This briefing will explore public perceptions of climate change, scientific understanding, and the current political landscape. Our goal is to identify areas where these three perspectives reinforce each other and where they diverge in order to: 1) better understand the challenges and opportunities policy-makers face, 2) identify remaining needs that, if met, could help society most effectively manage risks, and 3) explore opportunities to improve communication among policy-makers, scientists, and the public.
Speakers:
Norman J. Ornstein, Ph.D. Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Jon A. Krosnick, Ph.D. Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Communication, Stanford University
Moderator:
Paul Higgins, Ph.D. Senior Policy Fellow, American Meteorological Society
At the blog "Global Change: Intersection of Nature and Culture," Phil Camil has an excellent overview and synthesis of research on some of the communication barriers to action on climate change and the strategies for overcoming those barriers. Camil is associate professor and director of the Environmental Studies program at Bowdoin College in Maine.
At the post there are also links to other analyses by Camill on the problem of environmental literacy and engagement generally.
That's the question raised in an American Observerarticle about this week's AU Forum held on the "Climate Change Generation? Youth, Media, and Politics in an Unsustainable World." The Observer is the digital news site run by graduate students in journalism at American University. Here's how reporter Kristen Becker described the issue with reactions from students, Forum moderator Jane Hall, and panelists Juliet Eilperin and Kate Sheppard:
Although a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found the number of Americans who believe climate change is occurring has dropped from 80 percent to 72 percent in the last year, the forum's panel lacked anyone who was skeptical about the existence of global warming.
Jane Hall, a professor at the university's School of Communication, and the forum's moderator, explained the decision was made because "most people agree that climate change is happening," even if they don't agree on the causes. Rather than "reflexively have someone who doesn't believe that climate change exists," she attempted to bring in skepticism through her questions and said she hoped students in the audience would as well. Only one student questioner admitted any skepticism about the science behind the phenomena.
American University student Lauren Linhard commented on the lack of climate change skeptics at the forum, saying, "Obviously, people who came here are interested in support of climate change, whereas, the people who didn't come are the people who don't care, so we didn't get that point of view in this."
Sheppard and The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin addressed how they deal with this issue in their reporting.
Eilperin explained there is a difference between reporting on the science behind climate change and reporting on the political debate. She also cited President Barack Obama's focus on combating climate change as a possible reason why the issue of global warming is becoming more polarized.
"In our articles [in The Washington Post], we write the fact that the science is settled on that question," she said. "I think there's also the question of the political debate, which is different. It's one thing to . . . inform readers about the science concerning climate change, and it's another thing when you're actually covering in real time what's happening, and how there is a divide."
Sheppard noted that the dissenting voices aren't about whether climate change exists, but "how much is happening, how fast, what exactly that means."
Graham, Kerry, Lieberman, and Gore all share the same goal but are moving to differentiate themselves as a way to claim credit for climate action and to appeal to different audience segments.
At The NYTimes.com, Greewire's Darren Samuelsohn examines Senator Lindsey Graham's strategy to define cap and trade legislation as "dead." The Senator's declaration has been most notably quoted in a January article at the New York Times and in an article Saturday at the Washington Post, with his remarks much discussed and debated among other members of Congress, by advocates, in the blogosphere, across various talk media outlets, and even as Samuelsohn reports, by foreign governments.
Here's what Graham tells Samuelsohn is behind his strategy:
Bigger picture, Graham explained his reason for declaring "cap-and-trade is dead" is more about framing the debate for public consumption than anything else.
"This started with the planet is heating up and Iowa is going to become beachfront property," he said. "Now people go around not saying that much. I think they've oversold the consequences to climate change, to global warming. And the momentum around this large cap-and-trade bill to save the planet has been replaced by a business model: How do we create jobs and stay ahead of the Chinese and clean up the air? Once you start changing your perspective from 'Iowa is going to be beachfront property' to 'How do you create jobs and clean up the air?' you have a completely different focus."
He added, "We're going to fundamentally change how we price carbon looking at the economy differently than we have in the past. And the goal of this bill is not only to clean up the air but to create energy independence and jobs. The goal of cap and trade was to solve the Al Gore problem. I'm trying to solve the Lindsey Graham problem."
After interviewing Graham yesterday, Samuelsohn called me this morning, asking what I thought the motives behind this strategy might be and the possible impacts. Here's what I said:
Matt Nisbet, a professor of communications at American University, sees an opportunity for better public debate in the wake of Graham's comments declaring the end to the broad cap-and-trade approach.
"I think what's happening politically is we're moving from a very narrow limited focus on just one option," he said.
In the past, the longtime focus among politicians and reporters was on cap and trade alone, squeezing out other options like a carbon tax or a cap-and-dividend approach.
"Most of the discussion is not on substance, but rather political viability and the game or jockeying in order to win support," Nisbet said.
Nisbet said the single-tracked focus has soured the public's understanding of the legislative debate and all of its complexities. "What you have is a picture for the public of a lot of ideological crossfire from the left and right over a policy that very few members of the public understands, or even cares to understand," he said.
Looking forward, opponents will slap the "cap and tax" title on the bill no matter what sponsors say.
But he predicted that Graham's message about energy independence and jobs may be the right strategy, especially as he speaks to a different constituent group of independents and Southern voters, compared with some of the movement's traditional leaders.
"Even though they might share the same goals, Lindsey Graham, Al Gore and John Kerry, they're also trying to differentiate among themselves and claim credit for achieving those goals," Nisbet said.
Americans under the age of 35 have grown up during an era of ever more certain climate science, increasing news attention, alarming entertainment portrayals, and growing environmental activism, yet on a number of key indicators, this demographic group remains less engaged on the issue than older Americans.
A survey report released today challenges conventional wisdom that younger Americans as a group are more concerned and active on the issue of climate change than their older counterparts. The analysis of nationally representative data collected in January of this year is timed for release with last night's American University Forum event on the "Climate Change Generation: Youth, Media, and Politics in an Unsustainable World."
--->Among the key findings, only 33% under the age of 35 trust the news media as a source of information on climate change, a proportion lower than any other age group. This proportion is also only slightly higher than the 27% of those under 35 who trust Sarah Palin as a source of information. This finding suggests that news organizations and journalists need to take initiatives to increase their credibility and to build stronger relationships with younger audiences.
--->Yet importantly, for those under 35, 82% of respondents trust scientists, 61% trust President Obama, and 54% trust Al Gore, proportions higher than any other age group. The implication is that direct engagement efforts on the part of scientists and the White House, outside of traditional news coverage, are likely to influence perceptions among this group.
--->Moreover, among Evangelicals under 35, for this politically important group, religious leaders are the most trusted source for info on climate change (81%) but nearly just as many young Evangelicals also trust scientists (77%) and a majority trust Obama (52%). If scientists and the White House were to work closely with Evangelical leaders on climate change, it would likely reap benefits relative to this sizable segment of Americans.
These are just a few of the important findings. Readers should check out the PDF of the full report and survey analysis. An executive summary is below. I will be posting about different elements of the report throughout the week so check back for more. The report is a joint collaboration between researchers at AU, Yale University, and George Mason University.
At last night's AU Forum on The Climate Change Generation, one of the students asked what can be done to break public indifference on the issue.
In the YouTube clip above, I answered that Obama as president needs to make climate change a leading communication priority, marshaling the power of the bully pulpit for a long term president-led engagement campaign on the issue. When and if this happens, I suggested one of the first things Obama should do is to personally host a series of Rose Garden summits with religious leaders, business leaders, public health experts, and national security experts and then go on the road with these leaders, speaking to communities across the country.
Fellow panelist Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post followed by saying that the White House has hosted meetings of these groups but Obama has yet to be able to be on hand or to make these meetings a part of his regular bully pulpit efforts.
You can watch the clip of the discussion above. Also the full video of the panel is available here.
More than 200 students turned out tonight for the AU Forum on climate change and youth and approximately 700,000 audience members in the DC area listened in via the live public radio broadcast by WAMU.
There will be much more tomorrow including blog reaction, news coverage, a transcript, a podcast of the WAMU program, and the release of a new survey report on young people and climate change. But for now, you can watch archived video feed of the panel above and you can discuss the panel at the student built social media site for the event. Also check out the twitter feed and discussion.
