The American Psychological Association begins its 116th annual convention today in Boston. Writing in USA Today, Sharon Jayson reports that among the findings to be discussed are these:
- Walking outside rather than inside -- even for just 15 minutes -- makes you feel happier, more energetic and more protective of the environment.
- Negative feedback can backfire. In two studies, psychologist Amara Brook of California's Santa Clara University and colleague Jennifer Crocker of the University of Michigan asked 212 undergraduates about their ecological footprint. For those not heavily invested in the environment, negative feedback about their ecological footprint actually undermines their environmental behavior.
- News stories that provided a balanced view of climate change reduced people's beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduced the number of people who thought climate change would be bad.
Jon Krosnick, a social psychologist at Stanford took news stories from CNN and PBS, edited them so that climate change denialists1 were either included or excluded from the stories. Including the denialist in the video caused the proportion of study participants who believed that there is a scientific consensus on climate change to drop from 58% to 47%. As Andy Revkin points out
1In fairness, Jayson's article refers to them as "climate skeptics".
2The quotes are from the "Summary for Policymakers" accompanying the IPCC synthesis report.
As a kind of crutch and shorthand, journalism has long relied on the age-old method of finding a yeah-sayer and nay-sayer to frame any issue, from abortion to zoning. It is a quick easy way for reporters to show they have no bias. But it is also an easy way, when dealing with a complicated environmental issue, to perpetuate confusion in readers' minds and simply turn them off to the idea that media serve a valuable purpose.
When this form is overused, it also inevitably tends to highlight the opinions of people at the edges of a debate instead of in the much grayer middle ground, where consensus most likely lies.Jayson's article is, inadvertantly, an illustration of the crutch Revkin describes. The scientific consensus is clear, and it's in the IPCC synthesis report and the supporting reports that preceeded it. The "balance" Jayson refers to is "highlight[ing] the opinions of people at the edges of a debate", and Krosnik shows that when news outlets strive for "balance" like that they make it less likely that the public will understand that2
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
- Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).
- Continued GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century.
1In fairness, Jayson's article refers to them as "climate skeptics".
2The quotes are from the "Summary for Policymakers" accompanying the IPCC synthesis report.
Leave a comment