tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/selling-climate-uncertainty-1233/articlesSelling climate uncertainty – The Conversation2014-04-10T20:40:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/254812014-04-10T20:40:50Z2014-04-10T20:40:50ZUncertainty isn’t cause for climate complacency – quite the opposite<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46090/original/45qbk2bw-1397110292.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C14%2C3102%2C2060&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New research shows how a climate of uncertainty pushes us towards worse outcomes.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukiyanova Natalia/frenta/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>If we’re not certain that the problem’s there, then … we shouldn’t take actions which have a high severity the other way.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This was the response from David Murray – then chairman of Australia’s Future Fund, now head of the government’s financial system inquiry – when asked about climate change in an <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3378644.htm">ABC interview</a> in November 2011.</p>
<p>On the face of it, his rationale might sound reasonable, and Murray is certainly not alone in voicing this kind of opinion. But our research shows that his logic isn’t right.</p>
<p>Our analysis shows why greater uncertainty about climate change increases the likelihood that the real-world effects will be at the more severe end of the scale.</p>
<p>In other words, uncertainty should not be a reason for doing nothing. It should be an even stronger call to action.</p>
<h2>The dangers of uncertainty</h2>
<p>Let’s briefly leave aside the fact that the case for action on climate change has grown <a href="https://theconversation.com/ipcc-expert-wrap-costs-of-climate-change-mounting-time-to-adapt-24939">significantly stronger</a> in the two-and-a-half years since Murray made his remarks. Despite the growing urgency, the idea that we should wait for more certainty is still a popular one.</p>
<p>Should we wait for more certainty? Our analysis says no.</p>
<p>In two papers published in the journal Climatic Change (see <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1082-7">here</a> and <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1083-6">here</a>), we and our colleagues present an analysis of climate uncertainty and what it means for how the climate system might evolve over the coming decades. </p>
<p>Our analysis focused on uncertainty about <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-climate-sensitivity-18815">“climate sensitivity”</a>: the warming ultimately expected in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide levels relative to pre-industrial times. </p>
<p>The table below summarises the potential consequences of different amounts of warming, given different policy responses (for simplicity, climate sensitivity is divided into values of “below 1C” and “2C or above”). Weak warming would create only limited adverse consequences, whereas stronger warming would have serious impacts.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46100/original/mxzqd32c-1397116067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46100/original/mxzqd32c-1397116067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46100/original/mxzqd32c-1397116067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46100/original/mxzqd32c-1397116067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46100/original/mxzqd32c-1397116067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=260&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46100/original/mxzqd32c-1397116067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46100/original/mxzqd32c-1397116067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46100/original/mxzqd32c-1397116067.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=327&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Consequences of different policy choices under different climate impacts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lewandowsky et al. 2014</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Current estimates of climate sensitivity converge on 3C, with a range of about 1.5C to 4.5C. The key question is: what is the implication of this uncertainty? What would happen if the range of uncertainty were bigger or smaller? The figure below (which involves simulated data) gives us an idea.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46098/original/vxxg37xp-1397113948.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46098/original/vxxg37xp-1397113948.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/46098/original/vxxg37xp-1397113948.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46098/original/vxxg37xp-1397113948.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46098/original/vxxg37xp-1397113948.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46098/original/vxxg37xp-1397113948.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46098/original/vxxg37xp-1397113948.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/46098/original/vxxg37xp-1397113948.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chances of 5C warming (red line) in response to distributions of estimates centred on 3C warming but with differing uncertainties.The top left panel shows the least uncertainty, and least chance of exceeding 5C, the bottom right shows most uncertainty and most chance of exceeding 5C.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the simulation shows, growing levels of uncertainty would make extreme outcomes more likely, even if all the forecasts are centred on an estimate of 3C temperature rise.</p>
<p>So more uncertainty means a higher chance of seriously adverse outcomes. But that’s not all – a wider spread of probability also makes it more difficult to prepare for an outcome that is slap in the middle of that spread.</p>
<h2>Why does it work this way?</h2>
<p>Perhaps the simplest way to think about it is to realise that uncertainty cuts both ways. One cannot only focus on the lower end of predictions about the impacts of increasing temperature; one has to consider the whole range. </p>
<p>For instance, if you can predict with absolute certainty that sea levels will rise by 50 centimetres, then it is a simple matter to build a levee that can cope with this. </p>
<p>But as soon as there is uncertainty about that estimate, it has a knock-on effect for mitigating action. We have found (also discussed <a href="http://staff.acecrc.org.au/%7Ejohunter/hunter_2012_author_created_version_merged.pdf">here</a>) that only a relatively small amount of uncertainty in estimates of sea level rise means building a levee almost twice as high as the one in the no-uncertainty scenario, to cope with the wide spread of possible outcomes. Ignoring the implication of this uncertainty means that a town or city’s flood risk will necessarily grow.</p>
<p>If we take the same attitude to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then we can see how the problem of uncertainty necessarily drives the world towards more serious warming. Our ultimate conclusion is this: the more uncertainty there is about the evolution of the climate, the more urgently we should act.</p>
<h2>Why people dislike uncertainty</h2>
<p>Decision theorists have long been fascinated by how people react to uncertainty or ambiguity when facing choices. </p>
<p>In 1961, a decade before he found fame by making the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/23/weekinreview/25-years-later-lessons-from-the-pentagon-papers.html?ref=pentagonpapers">Pentagon Papers</a> public, US military analyst Daniel Ellsberg demonstrated the <a href="http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/75/4/643.full.pdf+html">famous paradox</a> that people dislike choosing options when they are not sure about the probabilities involved. In contrast, they are far more likely to take a risk when the exact odds of success are known – even if those odds are low. </p>
<p>This “ambiguity aversion” might therefore explain why Murray and others resist action to address the climate problem (although it might also be noted that risk is far more readily embraced in other spheres of public life, such as business and foreign policy). </p>
<p>Science, of course, is beset with ambiguity and uncertainty. Indeed, it might be said that anyone who demands certainty of scientists doesn’t really understand how science works. </p>
<p>This problem crucially applies to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As Fordham University psychologist David Budescu and his colleagues <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/3/299.short">have shown</a>, people struggle to interpret correctly the language of uncertainty used in IPCC reports. For example, readers regularly underestimate what the IPCC means by the words “virtually certain”, and overestimate the meaning of “unlikely”.</p>
<p>These difficulties of interpretation and aversion to ambiguity are significant challenges to those trying to communicate climate change, because they reinforce another barrier to action on climate change: the idea of <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00055564">“status quo bias”</a>. People overwhelmingly prefer the status quo to any alternatives, especially if those alternatives are unfamiliar or uncertain.</p>
<h2>No excuse to do nothing</h2>
<p>Overcoming these issues is incredibly important. As we have shown, ambiguity aversion is not an excuse to do nothing or to delay action. In fact, our analysis shows that if we are uncertain, there is even more reason to act.</p>
<p>More worrying is the active promotion of uncertainty as a means of spreading this aversion more widely. In his <a href="http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/bad-news-murdochs-australian-and-shaping-nation">2011 Quarterly Essay</a>, La Trobe University politics professor Robert Manne took aim at elements of the media he said were deliberately sowing doubt:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In failing to see or refusing to admit the simple distinction between the basic theory of the science of climate change that is consensual (which of course does not mean unanimous) and those parts that are necessarily uncertain and subject to vigorous debate, great mischief and public confusion has occurred, either through calculated deception or an incapacity for clear thought.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>To disregard the warnings and hide behind uncertainty is to buy into a false sense of security. Indeed, it is because of these “necessary uncertainties” that the time for clear thought and, more importantly, urgent action is now upon us – without a shadow of doubt.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/25481/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Newell receives funding from the Australian Research Council, including an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant partnered with the Department of the Environment.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Smithson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If we’re not certain that the problem’s there, then … we shouldn’t take actions which have a high severity the other way. This was the response from David Murray – then chairman of Australia’s Future Fund…Ben Newell, Associate Professor of Cognitive Psychology, UNSW SydneyMichael Smithson, Professor, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/222582014-01-27T19:40:36Z2014-01-27T19:40:36ZClimate and vaccine deniers are the same: beyond persuasion<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/39758/original/p6v9h9v7-1390459506.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C7%2C4920%2C3253&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's no vaccine against persistent attacks on scientific evidence.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Governments are worried. Vaccination rates are <a href="https://ama.com.au/ausmed/child-vaccination-rates-alarmingly-low">falling</a> under the influence of a campaign of misinformation by a small minority of fanatics.</p>
<p>Scientifically there is no debate about immunisation, with every relevant health authority strongly endorsing vaccination. But anti-vaccination activists refuse to accept the evidence, claiming that “every issue has two sides”. </p>
<p>They believe vaccination is ineffective and unnecessary and that vaccines contain toxins and cause autism. They seize on the occasional dissenting study and exploit it for all it’s worth even after it has been discredited. They go hunting for instances of apparent adverse responses among children and advertise them as proof that jabs are dangerous and should be abandoned. </p>
<p>Anecdotes that seem to confirm their opinions trump mountains of carefully collected scientific evidence.</p>
<p>They spread theories about cover-ups, information-suppression and conspiracies among medical experts. They claim to be protecting our freedom and talk darkly about the government trying to take away our liberty. They portray themselves as David bravely fighting Goliath.</p>
<p>The anti-vaccinators attempt to hide their fanaticism behind a façade of respectability, adopting misleading names for their organisations and promoting the views of “experts” who look credible, but who cannot seem to convert their expertise into publications in peer-reviewed journals. While claiming to have better access to scientific truth, the anti-vaccinators show no respect for best scientific practice and dismiss the established experts as frauds. </p>
<p>These tactics are common knowledge. But every one of them is also used by climate science deniers. And yet the same kind of unhinged repudiation of an overwhelming body of scientific facts is treated not as the private obsession of a handful of nutcases, but as a legitimate part of the “debate” over global warming. </p>
<p>The media treat the anti-vaccinators with the disdain they deserve, but sections of the media see no contradiction in actively promoting the same type of anti-science fanaticism when it comes to climate. </p>
<p>The Australian recently supported attacks on “political correctness” in the school curriculum, giving voice to a teacher who argued that <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/theres-no-asian-way-of-looking-at-physics-says-perth-teacher-marko-vojkovic/story-fn59nlz9-1226799413751">“there’s no Asian way of looking at physics”</a>. Quite so; yet it routinely warns its readers about “left-wing” climate science.</p>
<h2>Unhealthy advice</h2>
<p>What would we think if Prime Minister Tony Abbott declared “immunization science is crap”? Or if he appointed Meryl Dorey, who runs the Australian Vaccination Network (which was recently ordered to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-25/anti-vaccination-group-loses-appeal-against-name-change-order/5115220">change its misleading name</a>), as chair of the National Preventive Health Agency’s Advisory Council?</p>
<p>Yet Mr Abbott has appointed climate denier Maurice Newman to be chair of his Business Advisory Council. In 2010, while chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Newman told journalists they should present both sides of the debate. Back then he felt the need to restrain himself. Now unleashed, Newman is in full flight mimicking the anti-vaccinators. Writing last month in <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/crowds-go-cold-on-climate-cost/story-e6frgd0x-1226792154483">The Australian</a> (where else?) he declared that the evidence for human-induced climate change is a “scientific delusion”. </p>
<p>Newman professes to believe that the scientific establishment is engaged in “mass psychology” because it is “intent on exploiting the masses and extracting more money” (to what purpose he did not say). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the main global body that reports the scientific evidence on the issue – allegedly “resorts to dishonesty and deceit” and promotes “the religion behind the climate crusade”. Newman insists there are “credible” scientists who say the Earth is cooling rather than warming. </p>
<p>He says that governments that promote renewable energy are engaged in a “cover-up”, while state health departments are “hiding” evidence on the health dangers of wind farms. He declares that unless someone soon puts a stop to this “climate change madness” most of us will “descend to serfdom”.</p>
<h2>Bizarre understanding</h2>
<p>In a sane world this kind of fulmination would disqualify anyone from public office. But not today. The same ravings now issue from the mouths of many politicians who ought to know better.</p>
<p>One wonders how a man with Newman’s bizarre understanding of the state of the world can provide the government with sound advice about Australia’s business future, particularly when his claims about how climate policies have “decimated” our manufacturing industry have been rebuffed time and time again by systematic economic analysis.</p>
<p>If a private corporation appoints to its board someone with Newman’s views then that is of no public concern. But to have such a man in a senior public advisory role ought to worry every citizen.</p>
<p>I’m guessing that Newman supports immunisation and would not recognise in himself the kind of primitive thinking noted by The Lancet way back in 1927. In an article titled <a href="http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0140673601277927/1-s2.0-S0140673601277927-main.pdf?_tid=0a92eebe-83cf-11e3-a267-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1390441281_6e4323c0d5586e6b7076eccd2091bcd9">“The Psychology of Antivaccination”</a> the prestigious medical journal commented on the passion of anti-vaccinators in terms that apply with eerie resonance to modern climate science denial. </p>
<p>It noted that the value and limitations of vaccination against smallpox had been thoroughly researched and understood by scientific medicine, and yet it went on to add: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“We still meet the belief … that vaccination is a gigantic fraud deliberately perpetuated for the sake of gain… The opposition to vaccination … still retains the ‘all or none’ quality of primitive behaviour and, like many emotional reactions, is supported by a wealth of argument which the person reacting honestly believes to be the logical foundation of his behaviour.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The anti-immunisation brigade is still at it, yet giant strides have nevertheless been made in protecting public health. There is no such luxury in the case of climate change, and it is the anti-environmental paranoia of men like Abbott and Newman, and Andrew Bolt and George Pell, that endangers the health of our planet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22258/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Governments are worried. Vaccination rates are falling under the influence of a campaign of misinformation by a small minority of fanatics. Scientifically there is no debate about immunisation, with every…Clive Hamilton, Vice Chancellor's Chair, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/84452012-07-25T04:19:27Z2012-07-25T04:19:27ZClimate change and the soothing message of luke-warmism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13375/original/bvw773jr-1343186987.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Relax and have a drink, old chap; the planet has managed to look after itself so far without any fuss.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/cyclonebill</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are familiar with the tactics, arguments, and personnel of the denial industry. Yet there is a perhaps more insidious and influential line of argument that is preventing the world from responding to the warnings of climate science.</p>
<p>“Luke-warmists” may be defined as those who appear to accept the body of climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening: emphasising uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow and cautious response.</p>
<p>They are politically conservative and anxious about the threat to the social structure posed by the implications of climate science. Their “pragmatic” approach is therefore alluring to political leaders looking for a justification for policy minimalism.</p>
<p>Among the notable US luke-warmists are <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/staff.shtml">Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger</a> of the Breakthrough Institute. They have been <a href="http://co2scorecard.org/home/researchitem/21">accused</a> of misrepresenting data on the energy savings of investment in energy efficiency and have criticized almost every proposed measure to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions. Their Institute <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/03/16/207705/breakthrough-institute-full-charlie-sheen-energy-efficiency-standards/">has allied itself</a> with anti-climate science organizations such as the American Enterprise Institute.</p>
<p>Another prominent luke-warmist is Roger Pielke Jr, a scientist who was <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/25/the_fp_guide_to_climate_skeptics?page=0,0">bracketed by</a> Foreign Policy journal with well-known deniers such as Richard Lindzen and Christopher Monckton in its guide to climate sceptics.</p>
<p>Daniel Sarewitz has a track record of <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/03/12/844051/-More-reasons-to-doubt-climate-change-skeptics">attacking climate science</a>, accusing it of mixing politics and values with factual analysis. In the UK, Mike Hulme, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2327124/?site_locale=en_GB">has branched out</a> with a peculiar and incoherent argument about science being based on values and ideology.</p>
<p>The effect of luke-warmers’ contributions has been to sow doubt in the public mind about the credibility of the scientific warnings and the need to respond, just as Exxon-funded think tanks have.</p>
<p>Perhaps the pre-eminent luke-warmist is the Danish economist <a href="http://www.lomborg.com/">Bjorn Lomborg</a>, who gained notoriety because his claim to be an environmentalist who had seen the light made him a poster boy of the conservative media. (That he was young, gay and Scandinavian only added to his value as a defector.) Nowadays Lomborg does not reject the principal conclusions of climate science but works assiduously to water down their implications and to boost “sensible” and cautious economic solutions that would allow continued exploitation of fossil fuels. In short he favours adapting to any change in the climate rather than trying to prevent it.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13372/original/dypsh9wc-1343186214.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13372/original/dypsh9wc-1343186214.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13372/original/dypsh9wc-1343186214.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13372/original/dypsh9wc-1343186214.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13372/original/dypsh9wc-1343186214.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13372/original/dypsh9wc-1343186214.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13372/original/dypsh9wc-1343186214.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hip and luke-warm: Bjorn Lomborg.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Mat McDermott</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although more high-brow and nuanced than literal deniers, the lines of argument of luke-warmists are remarkably similar. In 2010 several leading luke-warmists—including Nordhaus, Schellenberger, Pielke, Sarewitz, Hulme, and Oxford University anthropologist Steve Rayner—came together at Hartwell House in Buckinghamshire, UK, to write <a href="http://www2.lse.ac.uk/researchAndExpertise/units/mackinder/theHartwellPaper/Home.aspx">a paper</a> advocating a “new direction for climate policy”.</p>
<p>The Hartwell paper claims to present a “radical” alternative to the failed UN process, although why the authors felt it necessary to describe a slow, cautious and conservative approach to climate policy as “radical” is a puzzle.</p>
<p>The paper begins by repeating allegations that the “Climategate” emails suggest that climate scientists cannot be trusted. The authors drew this conclusion before the string of official inquiries that vindicated the science and <a href="http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2002539/climategate_scientists_exonerated">exonerated</a> the scientists. Others, noting the emails had been selectively released just before the Copenhagen conference, smelt a rat and reserved judgement.</p>
<p>The Hartwell authors seem to have fallen for the Climategate spin because they wanted it to be true. They were also taken in by the campaign in the Murdoch press to undermine the IPCC by accepting uncritically alleged errors in its reports. Errors in IPCC reports, they opined, are proof of the need to “restore trust in expert organizations” even though <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33000.html">none of the claimed errors</a>, manufactured by deniers in all but one case, dented the body of knowledge.</p>
<p>Following the deniers’ lead, the Hartwell authors emphasize the “inherent unknowability” and “systematic doubt” in the body of scientific knowledge. They express misgivings about the desirability of investments in renewable energy, referring to their “chilling history” and “serious financial and social consequences”, a theme pursued by the Breakthrough Institute and more recently <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/06/495791/cnn-solyndra-loan-bush-started-no-evidence-of-wrong-doing-romney-attacks-are-made-up/">taken up</a> by Tea Party Republicans.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13373/original/kf8wt73b-1343186521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/13373/original/kf8wt73b-1343186521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13373/original/kf8wt73b-1343186521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13373/original/kf8wt73b-1343186521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13373/original/kf8wt73b-1343186521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13373/original/kf8wt73b-1343186521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/13373/original/kf8wt73b-1343186521.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hartwell House, a lovely setting for “a relaxed and amused frame of mind” about the global climate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Mick Baker(rooster)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Climate tranquilizer</h2>
<p>The purpose of the Hartwell report is to administer a bromide to the climate policy debate, a kind of sedative to slow the world down, dispensed at a time when those with most scientific expertise are saying the evidence calls for urgent action.</p>
<p>While climate research rings the alarm bells ever more loudly, the Hartwell authors argue the “best line of approach” to global warming would be to adopt the design principle for English country gardens developed by <a href="http://www.kew.org/heritage/people/brown.html">Lancelot “Capability” Brown</a>. They express their approach to climate policy this way:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>After allowing the visitor a glimpse of his destination, the driveway would veer away to pass circuitously and delightfully through woodland vistas, through broad meadows with carefully staged aperçus of waterfalls and temples, across imposing bridges spanning dammed streams and lakes, before delivering the visitor in a relaxed and amused frame of mind, unexpectedly, right in front of the house.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What, one wonders, would a sweating Bangladeshi rice farmer facing a sea-level rise in the Ganges delta make of such complacency, penned by 12 white men sitting comfortably in an English country house? Perhaps it was the port that put them in “a relaxed and amused frame of mind”.</p>
<p>To be accurate, I should say “twelve white men plus one woman and one Japanese man”. The last is from the Japanese Iron and Steel Federation which, along with the Japanese Automobile Manufacturers Association, helped to finance the retreat. The only woman, Canadian economist Isabel Galiana, is <a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/smart-ideas-behind-lomborgs-new-views.html">a favourite of</a> Bjorn Lomborg.</p>
<p>Instead of the “failed” policies of the past, the Hartwell authors argue for a series of policies aimed at social benefits other than reducing carbon emissions, because tackling the problem directly would “injure economic growth, which we think … is politically impossible with informed democratic consent”.</p>
<p>Here we get to the conservative heart of the luke-warmist position. For them the prevailing economic system is sacred, and any change must work around it. “Growth is sacrosanct” is another rendering of President George H.W. Bush’s celebrated declaration at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit: “The American way of life is not negotiable.”</p>
<p>Invoking the conservatism of the voting public is no more than a projection of the Hartwell authors’ own predilections, for informed citizens have frequently consented to policies that “injure economic growth”. A moment’s thought reveals a legion of them, even if the changes were fiercely resisted by business interests and their intellectual apologists.</p>
<p>The 40-hour week, the abolition of child labour, vehicle pollution laws, trade barriers erected for ethical reasons, bans on uranium exports, investment restrictions on odious regimes, and caps on carbon emissions in Europe—all policies that reduced economic growth yet received informed democratic consent.</p>
<p>The more one reads the more the Hartwell political analysis appears to be conservative prejudice dressed up as historical fact. The paper purports to be a social analysis, yet nowhere in its discussion of the difficulty of implementing carbon abatement policies is the influence of the fossil fuel lobby mentioned. In Hartwell House power is invisible.</p>
<p>To exclude the most crucial force that has slowed action on climate change is quirky, until it dawns on us that the essential aim of the Hartwell paper is to defend the status quo from the destabilization due to a changing climate. Those who argue the case for a tranquil and circuitous response to global warming must somehow silence the clang of the tocsin being rung by the climate scientists, and that is what the Hartwell authors attempt with their “relax and smell the roses” approach.</p>
<p>When fossil-fuel funded think tanks set out in the 1990s to sow doubt about climate science their assumed audience was the great unwashed. They could not have hoped to deceive a room full of intellectuals such as those gathered at Hartwell House. No wonder the Hartwell paper has been <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/11/the-hartwell-paper/">greeted warmly</a> on climate denier websites.</p>
<p>One last element of the Hartwell group’s defence of the prevailing order is accidentally revealing. They reject the framing of the climate debate around the notion of “human sinfulness”. Although advanced as a criticism of environmentalism, it actually reveals their own reluctance to concede that climate change is a moral problem embedded in the institutions and everyday behaviours of the established system.</p>
<p>To agree with environmental critics that our social and economic system—its power structure, its inherent goals, the forms of behaviour it endorses—could so damage the Earth that our future, and that of the system itself, is now in peril would require them to discard their essential faith in the benevolence of the status quo.</p>
<p><em>Comments welcome below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/8445/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Hamilton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We are familiar with the tactics, arguments, and personnel of the denial industry. Yet there is a perhaps more insidious and influential line of argument that is preventing the world from responding to…Clive Hamilton, Vice Chancellor's Chair, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/24342011-09-01T05:49:19Z2011-09-01T05:49:19ZScientists vs farmers? How the media threw the climate ‘debate’ off balance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2988/original/Digitalnative.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sections of the Australian media are tipping the debate in the wrong direction.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Digitalnative</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">MEDIA & DEMOCRACY</a> - Natalie Latter wonders if there are some subjects that don’t really require balance.</em></strong></p>
<p>There’s a principle of balance that applies to news reporting.</p>
<p>It’s important for journalists to cover an issue from more than one perspective, but when it comes to reporting climate change, things gets a little more complicated.</p>
<p>Because there is such consensus among scientists on human-induced climate change, “balancing” their views can lead journalists into tricky territory.</p>
<p>It’s interesting to note that this is a problem that has been solved elsewhere. In Britain, for example, the <a href="http://theconversation.com/australian-media-take-note-the-bbc-understands-balance-in-climate-change-coverage-2462">BBC has determined</a> that it no longer has to present “both sides of the story” on climate change. It considers the science is settled, and not up for debate.</p>
<p>But in Australia, the idea persists that “balance” is achieved by giving a large portion of media space to sceptics. </p>
<p>Numerous climate change articles have been published that adhere to the following, flawed, format.</p>
<p>First, report some climate change news. </p>
<p>Second, “balance” that news with anecdotal evidence from a lay-person – a farmer perhaps, who hasn’t noticed any change in the climate. (That’s not surprising given that climate isn’t something that can be readily observed from one location; climate is not the same as weather.) </p>
<p>Or, sometimes the “balance” is provided by the small cohort of climate “sceptics” with superficially-credible positions at universities or seemingly relevant organisations. </p>
<p>The problem is that in this case, the need to “balance” is false. The credibility of scientific information comes from the peer-reviewed process that scientists work within. </p>
<p>Does the media really need to rehash scientific debate in a popular forum that cannot possibly give due attention to the complexity of the issues? Scientific debate takes place in peer-reviewed science between experts for a reason. </p>
<p>Crucially, there is a difference between those who have facts on their side and scientific evidence and those who merely express an opinion. The problem is that the doubt doesn’t have to be persistently covered in reporting for it to impact on public opinion. </p>
<p>The consequences of creating a distorted debate on climate change in the media are serious. </p>
<p>Climate change policies must be based on the best available scientific information. It would be outrageous (but not unusual) for any government to base complex policy on poor information for ideological reasons. </p>
<p>Once the situation is understood as much as possible, we look for policy solutions that fit with our social values and the kind of society we envision. This second stage is where the hard choices are made and the serious debates happen. At least, that is what ought to take place.</p>
<p>In Australia, the push to inject doubt into the climate policy debate has stalled this process. Instead of moving on to the important second stage and evaluating our choices, we are being forced to debate the information itself. </p>
<p>Climate science must be scrutinised, but this is exactly what the scientific process does. It is not the sort of information that can be debated in a newspaper or on the radio. </p>
<p>Why are we still debating the science in the mainstream media? </p>
<p>This is an area that is continually debated and interrogated within the scientific community, by individuals with great expertise. </p>
<p>Instead of accepting the results of a scientific process that is the very foundation of modern society, we are still busy sifting through media misrepresentations of climate change and climate science. </p>
<p>This is a travesty, for us, our future and the future of our society. </p>
<p>Climate change “sceptics” have repeatedly shown their inability to challenge climate science in the peer-reviewed literature because their claims do not have scientific merit.</p>
<p>But the ideological motivation of many who deny the human influence on the climate system has led them to take an alternative path, of challenging the science in the mainstream media. </p>
<p>In many ways this is a clever tactic; the requirement of scientific rigour is avoided and it is much easier to create doubt than to prove an alternative position. </p>
<p>The public needs to be able to trust the information on which we are basing major public policy decisions. Injecting doubt is an effective way to delay such decisions.</p>
<p>Recently, we have seen those who deny the existence of human-induced climate change turn on the journalists that do ask tricky questions. Alan Jones was recently <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/question-time-sees-jones-fly-off-handle-20110822-1j6ue.html">caught on camera inciting a crowd</a> against Sydney Morning Herald Journalist Jacqueline Maley, and <a href="http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Revved-up-by-Alan-Jones-the-angry-mob-turned-on-me/">subjected Sky News journalist David Lipsom</a> to the same treatment. </p>
<p>The ABC’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2011/3268730.htm">Wendy Carlisle was similarly intimidated</a> by prominent climate change sceptic Lord Monckton and his fans during his recent tour of Australia.</p>
<p>All these journalists were merely doing their jobs – reporting the news, and asking important questions. </p>
<p>But we shouldn’t be so surprised. The media has been <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Don't_feed_the_Troll">feeding the trolls</a>; is it any wonder that the trolls are now so offended by basic journalistic scrutiny?</p>
<p>Distorted media coverage is a serious problem that has prevented us from moving on to crucial non-scientific debates about how to deal with climate change. Stalling the debate in this manner raises ethical questions.</p>
<p>First, in terms of public risk, the media has a duty to verify the information it reports. This means establishing the veracity of claims. It does not mean incorporating alternative non-credible viewpoints for the sake of false balance. </p>
<p>Accurate reporting is an ethical responsibility, particularly when the stakes are so high. Climate change is an enormous challenge and we must be able to make decisions based on the best available information.</p>
<p>Second, we have spent so much time now debating the science, there is a false impression that we just need to gather more information and then we will know what to do about climate change. </p>
<p>This is not the case. </p>
<p>The necessary and important debates are still to come. Climate science doesn’t dictate policy. </p>
<p>We still have to work out how to respond to the science, and it’s about time we moved on to doing just this.</p>
<p><em><strong>This is part twelve of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">Media and Democracy</a> series. To read the other instalments, follow the links here:.</strong></em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638">Selling climate uncertainty: misinformation in the media</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/forget-the-fantasy-politics-advertising-is-no-substitute-for-debate-3039">Forget the fantasy politics - advertising is no substitute for debate </a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/democracy-is-dead-long-live-political-marketing-2666">Democracy is dead, long live political marketing</a></strong> </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-the-political-message-what-makes-a-good-advert-2156">Selling the political message: what makes a good advert?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/drowning-out-the-truth-about-the-great-barrier-reef-2644">Drowning out the truth about the Great Barrier Reef</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642">Event Horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/spinning-it-the-power-and-influence-of-the-government-advisor-2406">Spinning it: the power and influence of the government advisor</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/cops-robbers-and-shock-jocks-the-media-and-criminal-justice-policy-2961">Cops, robbers and shock jocks: the media and criminal justice policy</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639">Bad tidings: reporting on sea level rise in Australia is all washed up</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/big-money-politics-why-we-need-third-party-regulation-2516">Big money politics: why we need third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/power-imbalance-why-we-dont-need-more-third-party-regulation-2304">Power imbalance: why we don’t need more third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-vs-farmers-how-the-media-threw-the-climate-debate-off-balance-2434">Scientists vs farmers? How the media threw the climate ‘debate’ off balance</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/warning-your-journalism-may-contain-deception-inaccuracies-and-a-hidden-agenda-2930">Warning: Your journalism may contain deception, inaccuracies and a hidden agenda</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-hidden-media-powers-that-undermine-democracy-3028">The hidden media powers that undermine democracy</a></strong></p></li>
</ul>
<p><em>This article is about the media’s representation of climate change - we’d love to hear your opinions on that topic. If you would rather discuss the existence of climate change, there are many other articles on the site covering that issue: please take your comments to one of those discussions.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2434/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Latter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>MEDIA & DEMOCRACY - Natalie Latter wonders if there are some subjects that don’t really require balance. There’s a principle of balance that applies to news reporting. It’s important for journalists…Natalie Latter, PhD Scholar, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/26422011-08-30T20:37:48Z2011-08-30T20:37:48ZEvent horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2956/original/aapone-20110616000325365835-space-astronomy-blackhole-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Australian's coverage of climate changed is seriously warped.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AFP PHOTO/ NASA - CXC/ A. HOBART</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">MEDIA & DEMOCRACY</a> - Michael Ashley investigates the national paper’s op-ed policy.</em></strong></p>
<p>The “event horizon” of a black hole is one of the most mind-boggling concepts in astrophysics. </p>
<p>The black hole’s stupendous gravity causes time itself to be warped — an astronaut falling inwards sufficiently slowly would see arbitrarily far into the future history of the universe during their final minutes and seconds before crossing the event horizon.</p>
<p>There is no other place in time or space where our normal perception of reality is so completely overturned.</p>
<p>That is, apart from a meeting room deep within the News Limited bunker at 2 Holt Street, Surry Hills.</p>
<p>It is in this room that Chris Mitchell, editor-in-chief of The Australian, holds editorial meetings.</p>
<p>And it is in this room that reality becomes so distorted that The Australian was able to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cool-heads-prevail-on-climate/story-e6frg71x-1226111221575">state earlier this month</a>, “it is in keeping with this newspaper’s rationalist pedigree that we have long accepted the peer-reviewed science on anthropogenic climate change,” while at the same time engaging in a <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/the_war_on_science/">campaign to misrepresent and distort climate science</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/fairfax-shows-how-not-to-run-a-serious-newspaper/story-e6frg71x-1226075919971">Other editorials</a> have made it clear that The Australian believes it is treating its readers as mature adults who should be able to make up their own minds based on arguments from “both sides” of the debate.</p>
<p>The problem is that on one side of the debate you have <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm">97% of the world’s published climate scientists</a> and <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm">the world’s major scientific organisations</a>, and on the other side you have <a href="http://sks.to/skeptics">fools</a>.</p>
<p>Excuse my bluntness, but it is past time to acknowledge that the science underpinning anthropogenic climate change is rock solid. The sceptics have had the time and opportunity to come with up a convincing case, but their best efforts read like arguments that NASA faked the moon landing.</p>
<p>My colleagues working in the climate sciences have largely given up trying to correct the constant stream of misinformation from The Australian, in frustration.</p>
<p>The Australian’s anti-science campaign takes many forms. One is the inflation of the credentials of their fake experts. For example, OpEd writer and member of the Outdoor Recreation Party Jon Jenkins was <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/the-warmaholics-fantasy/story-e6frg73o-1111118484804">referred to as an “Adjunct Professor”</a>. Bond University wrote to The Australian informing them that this was not true.</p>
<p>Howard Brady was <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/sea-level-rises-are-slowing-tidal-gauge-records-show/story-fn59niix-1226099350056">called a “climate change researcher from Macquarie University”</a>; in fact, Brady is a 70 year-old retiree who has published just seven scientific papers (on Antarctic sediments, not climate), the most recent one in 1983, following which he worked for 17 years in the oil industry. Macquarie University contacted The Australian to set the record straight.</p>
<p>In neither of these cases did The Australian publish a retraction or clarification.</p>
<p>Another tactic is to accept opinion pieces on science from unqualified sources. When I contacted The Australian’s opinion editor late last year to express dismay at their bias, I was given the example of Michael Asten, a part-time professorial fellow in the school of geosciences at Monash University, Melbourne, as someone who was well-qualified to comment.</p>
<p>So I did some investigation into Asten and his four OpEds in The Australian over the past two years.</p>
<p>A quick check of Asten’s peer-reviewed publications shows that while he appears to be your go-to guy if you have electromagnetic interference problems with your fluxgate magnetometer, he hasn’t published anything remotely related to climate science. He is, however, well-connected with the mining and coal industries.</p>
<p>In his first OpEd (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627">“Climate claims fail science test”</a>, December 9, 2009), Asten wrote “recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s theory” and he showcased the work that Pearson et al <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7267/full/nature08447.html">published in the top journal <em>Nature</em></a>.</p>
<p>But Asten misrepresented the findings in the Nature paper. Don’t just take my word for it— Paul Pearson and his co-authors wrote to The Australian saying “Professor Michael Asten has misrepresented our recent research by suggesting that it casts doubt on the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming”. </p>
<p>They added, “We would like to take this opportunity to add our voices to the strong and steady message that the world scientific community is delivering to the Copenhagen negotiators — the greenhouse problem is real, imminent and potentially devastating for the planet, its life, and human civilization. Fortunately it is still not too late to avert the catastrophe.”</p>
<p>You would think you couldn’t ask for a clearer statement than that, but Asten went on to argue in his second opinion piece (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/more-evidence-co2-not-culprit/story-e6frg6zo-1225814230258">“More evidence CO₂ not culprit”</a>, December 29, 2009) that he used data in Pearson’s paper to arrive at a different conclusion from Pearson himself.</p>
<p>So, Asten, with no expertise in the field, is using a paper published in Nature to argue the opposite of what the paper actually says. </p>
<p>He then spins this as “top scientists cast doubt” on the IPCC. Gobsmacking.</p>
<p>In Asten’s third article (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/csiro-should-establish-if-there-was-medieval-warming-down-under/story-e6frg6zo-1225865724876">“CSIRO should establish if there was medieval warming Down-Under”</a>, 13 May 2010) he asserts that if the medieval warm period was a global phenomenon, then “warming during the past century should be seen as predominantly natural climate change rather than driven by man-made carbon emissions.” </p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/hear-ye-hear-ye-moncktons-medieval-warming-tale-is-climate-heresy-2326">This is bunkum</a>. The effect of man-made carbon dioxide is clear from multiple independent lines of evidence.</p>
<p>In his fourth OpEd (<a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/political-interference-will-cripple-climate-debate/story-e6frg6zo-1225972366783">“Political interference will cripple climate debate”</a>, 17 Dec 2010), Asten compares models of sea-level rise from a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042947">peer-reviewed paper by Jevrejeva et al</a>, with observations of the sea-level by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044770">Riva et al</a>, finding a factor of five difference. </p>
<p>Asten interprets this as a serious discrepancy in climate predictions that the CSIRO was withholding from the Government. He also describes how compliant scientists were intimately involved in the formulation of Nazi racial policy, and outspoken academics were removed by the Gestapo.</p>
<p>But once again, Asten misunderstands the science. The Riva et al paper wasn’t an observation of the total sea-level rise at all, just an estimate of the contribution from melting ice. The Nazi stuff is simply bizarre.</p>
<p>You would think The Australian, if it had any editorial integrity, would have called a halt to Asten’s ready access to the opinion pages after serious flaws were found with each of his contributions. But the lure of publishing an opinion supporting their editorial bias, from an apparently reputable source, was just too strong to resist.</p>
<p>I have singled out Asten in this article, but the same applies to every one of the climate contrarians that are repeatedly given exposure in The Australian. </p>
<p>For example, <a href="http:///www.theaustralian.com.au/news/facts-debunk-global-warming-alarmism/story-e6frg746-1111118607086">Bob Carter</a> has claimed “temperature records confirm that cooling is under way” - <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm">no they don’t</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/hot-air-doomsayers/story-e6frg6zo-1225708547192">Ian Plimer</a> says “To argue that human additions to atmospheric CO2, a trace gas in the atmosphere, changes climate requires an abandonment of all we know about history, archaeology, geology, solar physics, chemistry and astronomy” - this statement <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm">is just absurd</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/earths-climate-crisis-aint-necessarily-so/story-e6frg6xf-1225992476627">Christopher Monckton</a> has repeatedly <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examples-Monckton-contradicting-scientific-sources.html">misinterpreted scientific papers;</a> and <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/cold-facts-dispel-theories-on-warming/story-e6frg6zo-1225704690711">William Kininmonth</a> states “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide is less than 1°C” - this is a factor of three below <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm">our best estimates</a>.</p>
<p>None of these people has made any impact whatsoever with their arguments in the peer-reviewed literature — they just aren’t contributing to any real scientific debate. The only place that they can publish their junk science is in outlets such as The Australian, where they are welcomed with open arms.</p>
<p>And if you think the bias in The Australian only affects its choice of OpEd pieces, wait till you read Tim Lambert’s examination of news reporting in his article later in this series for The Conversation.</p>
<p>So, when The Australian claims in its editorials to support the peer-reviewed science, it is really just an insurance clause for when the tide inevitably turns against their campaign of misinformation.</p>
<p>The Murdoch media empire has cost humanity perhaps one or two decades of time in the battle against climate change. Each lost decade greatly increases the eventual economic costs, the devastation to our ecosystems, and the suffering of future generations.</p>
<p>Do you think I’m exaggerating? </p>
<p>Read the real science, ask the real experts.</p>
<p>The editors sitting around the table in that meeting room in Surry Hills need to reflect on their culpability.</p>
<p><em><strong>This is the sixth part of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">Media and Democracy</a> series. To read the other instalments, follow the links here:.</strong></em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638">Selling climate uncertainty: misinformation in the media</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/forget-the-fantasy-politics-advertising-is-no-substitute-for-debate-3039">Forget the fantasy politics - advertising is no substitute for debate </a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/democracy-is-dead-long-live-political-marketing-2666">Democracy is dead, long live political marketing</a></strong> </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-the-political-message-what-makes-a-good-advert-2156">Selling the political message: what makes a good advert?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/drowning-out-the-truth-about-the-great-barrier-reef-2644">Drowning out the truth about the Great Barrier Reef</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642">Event Horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/spinning-it-the-power-and-influence-of-the-government-advisor-2406">Spinning it: the power and influence of the government advisor</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/cops-robbers-and-shock-jocks-the-media-and-criminal-justice-policy-2961">Cops, robbers and shock jocks: the media and criminal justice policy</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639">Bad tidings: reporting on sea level rise in Australia is all washed up</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/big-money-politics-why-we-need-third-party-regulation-2516">Big money politics: why we need third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/power-imbalance-why-we-dont-need-more-third-party-regulation-2304">Power imbalance: why we don’t need more third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-vs-farmers-how-the-media-threw-the-climate-debate-off-balance-2434">Scientists vs farmers? How the media threw the climate ‘debate’ off balance</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/warning-your-journalism-may-contain-deception-inaccuracies-and-a-hidden-agenda-2930">Warning: Your journalism may contain deception, inaccuracies and a hidden agenda</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-hidden-media-powers-that-undermine-democracy-3028">The hidden media powers that undermine democracy</a></strong></p></li>
</ul>
<p><em>This article is about the media’s representation of climate change – we’d love to hear your opinions on that topic. If you would rather discuss the existence of climate change, there are many other articles on the site covering that issue: please take your comments to one of those discussions.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2642/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Ashley receives funding from the Australian Research Council and other Australian government bodies for his research in astrophysics.</span></em></p>MEDIA & DEMOCRACY - Michael Ashley investigates the national paper’s op-ed policy. The “event horizon” of a black hole is one of the most mind-boggling concepts in astrophysics. The black hole’s stupendous…Michael Ashley, Professor of Astrophysics, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/26442011-08-29T20:39:16Z2011-08-29T20:39:16ZDrowning out the truth about the Great Barrier Reef<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2901/original/DSC_5727.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mass bleaching at the Keppel Islands in 2006. Our greatest natural asset is under threat, but you wouldn’t know it from reading Andrew Bolt.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ove Hoegh-Guldberg</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">MEDIA & DEMOCRACY</a> - Ove Hoegh-Guldberg dives into the media’s coverage of an Australian icon’s future.</strong></em></p>
<p>One of the most straightforward climate change storylines is the link between global warming and coral reefs such as the Great Barrier Reef. </p>
<p>When our reef waters get too warm, corals sicken (bleach), often causing disease and death. And when the corals go, many of the other organisms go with them. At the current rate of ocean warming, we will soon exceed the critical temperature at which this happens every year, causing the Great Barrier Reef to rapidly degrade. </p>
<p>The greater the amount of human-driven climate change, the less will be left of the Great Barrier Reef as we know it today. And the less fishing, tourism and other benefits we will derive from it as a country.</p>
<p>The science tells us that exceeding 2°C in average global temperature will largely exceed the thermal tolerance of corals today. It is already happening. Rolling mass bleaching events, unknown to science before 1979, are increasing in frequency and severity.</p>
<p>This simple set of linkages demonstrates the risk that climate change generally places on natural ecosystems. </p>
<p>It is supported by hundreds of papers and highly experienced and published experts from oceanography, climate science and marine biology. </p>
<p>Why is it then that commentators in the media such as Andrew Bolt and Jamie Walker consistently take a different view and posit, either directly or indirectly, that all those leading experts are fraudulent, dishonest or at best shoddy scientists? </p>
<p>Is it a genuine lack of understanding of the facts, or is it a deliberate strategy to confuse people about what is otherwise a very clear message about climate change and coral reefs? </p>
<p>Could it be that confusing Australians about the risk to our reef is highly prized by the people that fund their operations? </p>
<p>Let’s take Andrew Bolt. Andrew has been vociferous in his claim that scientists like me are alarmists, even deliberately deceptive. </p>
<p>He wraps us all up in the same blanket: me, Flannery and Garnaut. Quite an honour really, given the eminence of my co-accused. </p>
<p>Apparently, we do it because we are mad, we do it because we are on the take, and we do it because we are zealots!</p>
<p>Bolt has repeatedly claimed, for example, that I warned in 1998 “that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white. In fact, [I] later admitted the reef had made a "surprising” recovery.“</p>
<p>This implies that I got the events of 1998 wrong. Let’s examine his claim.</p>
<p>In 1998, more than half of the Great Barrier Reef experienced bleaching and about 5 to 10% of the corals that make up the reef died (about 4000 km²). </p>
<p>This was the largest mass coral bleaching event in Australian recorded history. </p>
<p>All of this has been reported in the scientific literature.</p>
<p>Other coral reefs did not get off so easily. In the Western Indian Ocean, 46% of corals were eliminated by the underwater heatwave that swept through the region in 1998. An estimated 16% of the corals were eliminated worldwide. </p>
<p>While 1998 was an extraordinarily hot year, it will be commonplace in a few decades time at the current rate of global temperature increase. As if to emphasize this point, 2010 was a shade hotter then 1998 and saw record bleaching in many regions. </p>
<p>If conditions had been as hot on the Great Barrier Reef as in the Western Indian Ocean, similar events would have transpired. </p>
<p>We did fear the worst, but we got lucky, hence the reference to "surprising recovery” when the heat stress was abbreviated by storm activity.</p>
<p>It is hard to see what I got wrong.</p>
<p>Despite my having responded to these issues, Andrew Bolt has not removed the misinformation and continues to this day to chant its content on a regular basis. I find it hard to believe that Andrew cannot understand this critical issue. Perhaps he doesn’t.</p>
<p>It is hard to practice as a humble scientist when powerful columnists like Bolt run amok. Drawing attention to their fundamental scientific errors and distortions only brings more insult and abuse. </p>
<p>Hardly what I signed up for when I began training in science over 30 years ago. </p>
<p>Is this simply bad journalism or an attempt to deliberately mislead the Australian public on this issue?*</p>
<p>Bolt is not alone. </p>
<p>The Australian has also been ahead of the charge with commentators such as Jamie Walker either not understanding or deliberately distorting the information on the risks of climate change to the Great Barrier Reef.</p>
<p>Jamie has published a number of incorrect statements about the Great Barrier Reef, rarely, withdrawing statements when they were proved wrong.</p>
<p>Jamie published the following opening statement to an article in February last year: </p>
<p>“Kevin Rudd’s insistence that the Great Barrier Reef could be "destroyed beyond recognition” by global warming grates with new science suggesting it will again escape temperature-related coral bleaching.“ </p>
<p>The truth couldn’t be further from Jamie’s clumsy spin. </p>
<p>First, there was no "new” science or report, given the story was based on a single year of data from a survey program that the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences has been running for 19 years. It’s literally published every year. </p>
<p>Second, AIMS responded by saying “The latest AIMS monitoring observations of the Great Barrier Reef do not contradict projections of potential harm caused by rising sea surface temperature or any other consequences from increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”</p>
<p>According to AIMS CEO, Dr Ian Poiner, “One or two seasons of no bleaching do not mean that the GBR is not threatened. It is over-generalisation to the point of unreality to extrapolate from one set of observations to what is going to happen to the GBR in the long term.”</p>
<p>As you can see, Dr Poiner statement is pretty unambiguous. Hardly grating up against Kevin Rudd’s statements!</p>
<p>These statements are also relevant to Andrew Bolt’s misunderstanding (deliberate or otherwise) of statements relevant to what will happen within a single year, versus what will happen in the long term.</p>
<p>But this is what happens over and over again in the Australian media.</p>
<p>By misreporting “facts” and smearing scientists’ personal reputations, journalists are willfully misleading the public about the nature of the threat to one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world, and one of our most valuable tourism assets. </p>
<p>And ultimately to our world.</p>
<p><em><strong>Editor’s note:</strong> An earlier version of this article implied that Gina Rinehart has provided direct financial support to Andrew Bolt. There is no evidence to support this claim. This has been corrected.</em> </p>
<p><em><strong>This is the fifth part of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">Media and Democracy</a> series. To read the other instalments, follow the links here:.</strong></em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638">Selling climate uncertainty: misinformation in the media</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/forget-the-fantasy-politics-advertising-is-no-substitute-for-debate-3039">Forget the fantasy politics - advertising is no substitute for debate </a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/democracy-is-dead-long-live-political-marketing-2666">Democracy is dead, long live political marketing</a></strong> </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-the-political-message-what-makes-a-good-advert-2156">Selling the political message: what makes a good advert?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/drowning-out-the-truth-about-the-great-barrier-reef-2644">Drowning out the truth about the Great Barrier Reef</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642">Event Horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/spinning-it-the-power-and-influence-of-the-government-advisor-2406">Spinning it: the power and influence of the government advisor</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/cops-robbers-and-shock-jocks-the-media-and-criminal-justice-policy-2961">Cops, robbers and shock jocks: the media and criminal justice policy</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639">Bad tidings: reporting on sea level rise in Australia is all washed up</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/big-money-politics-why-we-need-third-party-regulation-2516">Big money politics: why we need third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/power-imbalance-why-we-dont-need-more-third-party-regulation-2304">Power imbalance: why we don’t need more third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-vs-farmers-how-the-media-threw-the-climate-debate-off-balance-2434">Scientists vs farmers? How the media threw the climate ‘debate’ off balance</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/warning-your-journalism-may-contain-deception-inaccuracies-and-a-hidden-agenda-2930">Warning: Your journalism may contain deception, inaccuracies and a hidden agenda</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-hidden-media-powers-that-undermine-democracy-3028">The hidden media powers that undermine democracy</a></strong></p></li>
</ul>
<p><em>This article is about the media’s representation of climate change - we’d love to hear your opinions on that topic. If you would rather discuss the existence of climate change, there are many other articles on the site covering that issue: please take your comments to one of those discussions.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2644/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is Director of the Global Change Institute. He is an active research scientist working on coral reef ecosystems and environmental change, for which he receives Australian Research Council support.</span></em></p>MEDIA & DEMOCRACY - Ove Hoegh-Guldberg dives into the media’s coverage of an Australian icon’s future. One of the most straightforward climate change storylines is the link between global warming and…Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director, Global Change Institute, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/26382011-08-28T20:44:49Z2011-08-28T20:44:49ZSelling climate uncertainty: misinformation and the media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2937/original/dannybirchall.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C26%2C768%2C823&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The media does the public a disservice when it misrepresents climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">danny birchall</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em><strong><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">MEDIA & DEMOCRACY</a> - Today, The Conversation launches a week-long series, looking at how the media influences the way our representatives develop policy. To kick off, Stephan Lewandowsky asks how media misreporting undermines a functioning democracy.</strong></em></p>
<p>It is a truism that a functioning democracy relies on independent and strong media that hold the powerful to account. </p>
<p>A tacit, and often overlooked, presumption underlying this principle is that the media pursue their role in an ethical and impartial manner. </p>
<p>If the media themselves abandon ethical standards and replace robust and truthful reporting with spin and the pursuit of an agenda, a crucial element of a functioning democracy has been lost.</p>
<p>In fact, without vigorous competition and meaningful legal checks, there is no reason why a privately-owned media conglomerate could not create an Orwellian environment that deceives politicians and large segments of the public alike.</p>
<p>Anyone inclined to doubt this should consider recent events in the UK involving the Murdoch media. </p>
<p>The behaviour exhibited by some Murdoch ink slingers, who by an act of grand self-delusion have labelled themselves “journalists”, beggars belief.</p>
<p>To hack into the phone of a missing school child, thus interfering with a police inquiry while arousing false hope in parents desperate for a sign of life from their daughter, surely must be considered an act of moral depravity. </p>
<p>Public revulsion at those actions has put an end to the docility with which British politicians have hitherto served the Murdoch press. As the multiple investigations proceed, more and more dubious practices have come to light — the “double agents” that worked for Murdoch from within Scotland Yard, for example — that even an imaginative novelist would not have invented for fear of seeming over the top. </p>
<p>It’s an Orwellian nightmare.</p>
<p>In Australia, News Limited figures have been quick to distance themselves from events in the UK, assuring us that such behaviour was limited to rogue elements among the British tabloids, and proclaiming that Australian outlets are serving the public with high ethical standards. </p>
<p>Some politicians appear to have been unimpressed by those protestations, and <a href="http://thewall.com.au/topics/38165-greens-leader-bob-brown-pushes-for-media-inquiry">calls for an inquiry into the Australian media</a> are refusing to go away.</p>
<p>Many Australian scientists have also remained unimpressed by the protestations not only of News Limited figures, but also by the media coverage of scientific matters by many Australian outlets, from the ABC to Fairfax to News Limited (the latter differing from the former two in a step function of accuracy). </p>
<p>Simply put, the Australian media have failed the public by creating a phoney debate about climate science that is largely absent from the peer-reviewed literature, where real scientific debates take place.</p>
<p>Over the next several days, a series of articles in <em>The Conversation</em> will shine an inquisitive light onto specific instances of misrepresentation, distortion, or spin by the Australian media as they relate to climate change. </p>
<p>There is an urgent need to analyse the media’s systemic failures, not just because a democracy can only function when the media play their role ethically and truthfully, but also because misrepresentations, once published, have lasting cognitive consequences.</p>
<p>Much research on how people update their memories shows that, well, it shows that people do <em>not</em> update their memories. </p>
<p>If people are told that Joe Blogs is a suspect in a jewellery theft, then a subsequent retraction — “Joe is no longer a suspect” — will often remain ineffective. Although people will recall the correction, their behaviour in response to inference questions reveals continued reliance on the false initial information. People will still nominate Joe when asked whom the police should interview in connection with the theft.</p>
<p>Misinformation sticks in people’s memories, even when they acknowledge a correction, and even when they earnestly seek to discard a memory they know to be false.</p>
<p>The potentially tragic implications of this human cognitive limitation are obvious in a judiciary setting.</p>
<p>Research conducted with “mock” jurors in an experimental setting typically reveals that although jurors state that they have obeyed the judge’s instruction to disregard compromised evidence, the jurors’ behaviour — as revealed by them rendering guilty verdicts — remains largely unaffected by corrections. </p>
<p>Lest one think that those are “just findings from laboratory experiments,” it must be noted that a substantial proportion of the American public (between 20% and 30%) continued to believe that Weapons of Mass Destruction had been found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, notwithstanding the fact that the search had remained futile. (And notwithstanding the fact that the absence of WMD’s eventually became official U.S. policy with bipartisan support.)</p>
<p>Of course, media coverage of the search for WMDs was characterised by literally hundreds of reports in which “preliminary tests” indicated the presence of chemical weapons, all of which then turned out to have been false alarms. (And to give the media credit, they were also reported.)</p>
<p>Clearly, it matters a great deal if reports in the media turn out to be false.</p>
<p>Even if corrected, misinformation tends to stick around in people’s minds.</p>
<p>Worse yet, there is some evidence that under certain circumstances, a correction may inadvertently reinforce the original, false information in people’s minds. For example, <a href="http://sitemaker.umich.edu/norbert.schwarz/files/07_aep_schwarz_et_al_setting-people-straight.pdf">research by Professor Norbert Schwarz</a> has shown that health-relevant information, when presented in the popular “myth vs. fact” format, can sometimes reinforce the <em>myth</em>, rather than replace it with the <em>fact</em>. </p>
<p>Clearly, it matters a great deal if the media misreport an issue, even if they issue a correction or apology.</p>
<p>When it comes to climate change, an issue of such global significance, failing to report the facts could thus have enormous repercussions, even if corrections are later issued. </p>
<p>Fortunately, there are some ways by which people <em>can</em> be encouraged to discount misinformation: I will consider those in a few days, after we analyse some specific instances of media spin.</p>
<p><em><strong>This is the first part of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/media-and-democracy">Media and Democracy</a> series. To read the other instalments, follow the links here:.</strong></em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-climate-uncertainty-misinformation-and-the-media-2638">Selling climate uncertainty: misinformation in the media</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/forget-the-fantasy-politics-advertising-is-no-substitute-for-debate-3039">Forget the fantasy politics - advertising is no substitute for debate </a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/democracy-is-dead-long-live-political-marketing-2666">Democracy is dead, long live political marketing</a></strong> </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/selling-the-political-message-what-makes-a-good-advert-2156">Selling the political message: what makes a good advert?</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/drowning-out-the-truth-about-the-great-barrier-reef-2644">Drowning out the truth about the Great Barrier Reef</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/event-horizon-the-black-hole-in-the-australians-climate-change-coverage-2642">Event Horizon: the black hole in The Australian’s climate change coverage</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/spinning-it-the-power-and-influence-of-the-government-advisor-2406">Spinning it: the power and influence of the government advisor</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/cops-robbers-and-shock-jocks-the-media-and-criminal-justice-policy-2961">Cops, robbers and shock jocks: the media and criminal justice policy</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/bad-tidings-reporting-on-sea-level-rise-in-australia-is-all-washed-up-2639">Bad tidings: reporting on sea level rise in Australia is all washed up</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Ten: <a href="http://theconversation.com/big-money-politics-why-we-need-third-party-regulation-2516">Big money politics: why we need third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/power-imbalance-why-we-dont-need-more-third-party-regulation-2304">Power imbalance: why we don’t need more third party regulation</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/scientists-vs-farmers-how-the-media-threw-the-climate-debate-off-balance-2434">Scientists vs farmers? How the media threw the climate ‘debate’ off balance</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/warning-your-journalism-may-contain-deception-inaccuracies-and-a-hidden-agenda-2930">Warning: Your journalism may contain deception, inaccuracies and a hidden agenda</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Fourteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-hidden-media-powers-that-undermine-democracy-3028">The hidden media powers that undermine democracy</a></strong></p></li>
</ul>
<p><em>This article is about the media’s representation of climate change - we’d love to hear your opinions on that topic. If you would rather discuss the existence of climate change, there are many other articles on the site covering that issue: please take your comments to one of those discussions.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2638/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from various federal agencies (primarily the ARC) to conduct research in the public interest.</span></em></p>MEDIA & DEMOCRACY - Today, The Conversation launches a week-long series, looking at how the media influences the way our representatives develop policy. To kick off, Stephan Lewandowsky asks how media…Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.