From RealClimate
The fact of the matter is that most of what goes on in the sciences is completely (and usually correctly) well below the radar of the public at large. But when there are discoveries and issues that do have public policy ramifications, getting the public to pay attention often requires finding just these kinds of resonances.Sounds a little like framing, don't you think?
In the interest of full disclosure I have to point out that the sentence that follows the one where I stopped quoting1 is
1And the last one in the article.
2The stories are right that NF3 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but even if the entire global production of NF3 were to be released into the atmosphere, the contribution to climate change would be equivalent to the CO2 emissions of only one coal-fired power plant.
Now if there was only a way to make sure the story underneath was accurate....The article points out that recent headlines screaming "Flat screen TVs cause global warming" didn't get the story right.2 On the other hand, it also points out that
[T]here always needs to be a hook before something gets wide press (the 'tyranny of the news peg' as ably described by Andy Revkin). In the first case, there was a link to a popular consumer item and in the second, there has been a concerted effort to get the ocean acidification issue higher up the agenda."Framing", "a hook", "a news peg", call it what you will, but for the public to become engaged in a scientific issue (or any issue for that matter) you have to get their attention.
1And the last one in the article.
2The stories are right that NF3 is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but even if the entire global production of NF3 were to be released into the atmosphere, the contribution to climate change would be equivalent to the CO2 emissions of only one coal-fired power plant.
Leave a comment