Talk:Media coverage of climate change

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Layne4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dylan.hendel, Luciahormel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Aren't books considered Media? If books are, add some?
Aren't books considered Media? If books are, add some, or at least wikilinks? Some examples: Book:Global warming, Category:Climate change books, Category:Environmental non-fiction books, etc ... 99.88.230.179 (talk) 20:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it means mass media really. So popular books would count. State of Fear is mentioned. Rd232 talk 21:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "State of Fear" is fictional crap, see Climate change denial; or better 2010's Merchants of Doubt, 2010's "The Climate War" by Eric Pooley (ISBN 978-1401323264) on the Politics of global warming (United States), and Michael Specter's 2009 book "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives". Or The Weather of the Future from The Weather Channel Climate Scientist.  If you want to read about fear, read Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and the "State" start with State of the World (book series).  99.54.137.151 (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * State of Fear is fictional crap, but so are Age of Stupid, An Inconvenient Truth, and The Weather of the Future. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You, UseraR, have read the 2010, just in print, The Weather of the Future from The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen (an attempt at non-fiction, extrapolation/prediction)? Or for that matter watched the U.K.'s 2009 The Age of Stupid (mostly documentary footage)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.88.149 (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Age of Stupid is not an attempt at being a documentary, as any sane person would realize. It may use (faked) documentary-style footage.
 * I can believe The Weather of the Future is an attempt at non-fiction; but so are Chariots of the Gods and Worlds in Collision. I can't say the "attempt" is successful without further research.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Bla, bla, bla ... Climate change in popular culture, Soylent Green, Hard science fiction, Category:Dystopian films, are a closer matched rebuttal, as Credibility does actual matter, as blind words will fall, and they lower in the credibility bell curve with appropriate rigourous Scientific method application ... then R&D, with the mind always on the Engineering tolerance of the World, because "A Man HAS TO KNOW his LIMITATIONS" (One-line joke from Magnum Force); see Appropriate technology. 99.24.249.168 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't get out much, do you User:arthur rubin?
 * Are you reading "The Climate War" from the Bloomberg Businessweek editor (a real one)?
 * No answer that you actually READ or WATCH any of them ... isn't the air in your bubble stuffy? 99.52.148.154 (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. If anyone has any serious analysis of the impact of popular books (i.e. books aimed at the general public) and/or films, that would qualify for coverage here. But I'm quite wary of the danger of covering specific books or films in any detail, especially if their scientific accuracy is a big issue (easily expanding to a paragraph or even more per book/film). The current content is quite broad summary and I think from an overall quality perspective it would be best kept that way. Rd232 talk 20:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible bias in article
(I'm not sure that my comment protests a "bias" so much as a simple inaccuracy.) This article makes the common mistake of presenting "scientific consensus" in a manner that implies consensus is an acceptable form of evidence in a scientific debate. The "consensus" opinion on a subject is, at best, an interesting but irrelevant detail. It proves nothing and is inadmissible in methodical scientific debate. Science is not a democracy. Historically, the majority opinion has often been incorrect. Furthermore, even if consensus were an acceptable form of evidence, this article's assessment is factually inaccurate. The number of unbiased scientists who dispute a significant anthropogenic contribution to climate change is actually quite large. (It is simple to find an online petition signed by thousands of such scientists, many of whom hold PhD's.) Of course, the petition also proves nothing regarding the truth of AGW. It does, however, demonstrate that it is false to imply there is little or no scientific opposition to the "consensus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.235.248 (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"This stance is out of step with the findings of the scientific community where the vast majority support the climate change scenarios." This sentence, particularly the part in bold, seems like bias. "The popular media in New Zealand often give equal weight to the those supporting anthropogenic climate change and thosewho deny it." This sentence also sounds biased (the part in bold is the problem). 99.224.93.55 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this is bias. Objections to removing the tag? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)  Never mind, it appears I misunderstood the originator and reasons for the tag. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Add Climate change in popular culture
Add Climate change in popular culture. 99.56.120.249 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Seems tangential, at best.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The Climate change in Popular Culture wp article includes Film, Literature, Television, Comic books, Video games, etc ... all forms of Media (communication), thus directly related within the sphere of this topic.  99.181.132.192 (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Media is more-or-less popular cultural, but the relevance is unclear. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Potential resource
Who Speaks for the Climate?: Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change  by Maxwell T. Boykoff, Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (September 30, 2011) ISBN-13: 978-0521133050

99.190.87.173 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in there. 99.181.152.94 (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge from climate change alarmism
Right. This is fairly decent, but there's a couple bit that could be worked on - for the section on global cooling, we need to move over more sources from global cooling; there's plenty there, but, while Scienceblogs is apparently usually considered a reliable source, due to the high bars to getting accepted there, it's still not the BEST source, and we could do better. Still, the pre-existing parts of this aren't that well-cited, so it's not going to hurt us too much if it takes a bit to beef up the sources, in what is, after all, the only way to salvage some useful content which, without that fix, was POV-pushing, and thus unmergeable. And if you wait too long to merge, stuff's likely to disappear. 86.** IP (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm finding it very hard to see how stuff put out by overnment and environment groups, private military contractors and think tanks, Charles Koch, a meteorologist or quotes from scientists are classified as media coverage. Media coverage is about the press itself. The way they try and 'balance' a debate or distort stuff to suit their readers leanings or to make it easier or get a catchy title. And that's what the rest of the article is about plus the different way media in different countries handle it. The stuff has just been plonked here without though about the suitability for this article. Do you have some reasoning behind this? Something better than that since newspapers report murders therefore murders should be put into media coverage articles. Dmcq (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm sorry, it's self-evident that almost every line is talking about actions in media reporting; I don't see how on earth your claim holds weight. 86.** IP (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you're removed the Charles Koch bit so lets try next 'The term alarmist is also commonly used as a pejorative by critics of mainstream climate science to describe those that endorse it. MIT meteorologist Kerry Emanuel wrote that labeling someone as an "alarmist" is "a particularly infantile smear considering what is at stake." He continued that using this "inflammatory terminology has a distinctly Orwellian flavor."' Exactly what has the media got to do with critics of mainstream climate science or what Kerry Emanuel wrote? Where is the media referred to in any of that or involved in any of that? Dmcq (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See next paragraph, which is full of examples of the behaviour mentioned in the news? You can provide context, you know. I removed Koch since you objected so strongly; They have their own article, anyway. 86.** IP (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the major problem here that 86.** ignores is that, while alarmism language often appear in media, it is mostly not the media that is employing the language. The conduit of language is not the originator of the language. This article is about the media itself..... about how the media handles communication. None of the merged content is about the media itself, it is about how language is employed in the debate, which is a significantly broader aspect than just media. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, then, name, specifically, where you think it fits better, remembering we have a mandate to merge that we cannot simply ignore. 86.** IP (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion was started, you ignored it, and did what you wanted. The correct place to discuss the merger had been GWC or CCA. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly possible for a person to ignore something like that. No-one has compelled me to stick stuff into inappropriate articles. Don't include me in your 'we'. Dmcq (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the remnants of the merged article that were put here seem an uneasy fit. Why wasn't this put into Global warming controversy, per the AfD close? The only 2 editors who commented here re the merge clearly weren't happy with it. More merger discussion here, and I don't see a consensus for the merger as it now stands.

The editor who conducted the merge (and wrote the AfD proposal) seems to have arbitrarily deleted the Views of scientists section -- which seems to me to contain most of the worthwhile material in the deleted article. As time and energy permit, I'll work this material into Global warming controversy, per the AfD close. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Add reference Media Avoid Climate Context In Wildfire Coverage
99.181.143.62 (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Media Avoid Climate Context In Wildfire Coverage July 3, 2012 Media Matters for America
 * See climate change denial ? 108.195.136.157 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly see Climate change controversy. 99.181.143.157 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reference for what content? For new content? If so, add or suggest content. Vsmith (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Climate change denial and "false balance" news coverage
I'm not sure where to use this in this article, but it certainly applies to this subject and False balance:


 * BBC staff told to stop inviting cranks on to science programmes. BBC Trust says 200 senior managers trained not to insert 'false balance' into stories when issues were non-contentious. The Daily Telegraph


 * “Science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views but depends on the varying degree of prominence such views should be given.”


 * The Trust said that man-made climate change was one area where too much weight had been given to unqualified critics.


 * In April the BBC was accused of misleading viewers about climate change and creating ‘false balance’ by allowing unqualified sceptics to have too much air-time.


 * In a damning parliamentary report, the corporation was criticised for distorting the debate, with Radio 4’s Today and World at One programmes coming in for particular criticism.


 * The BBC’s determination to give a balanced view has seen it pit scientists arguing for climate change against far less qualified opponents such as Lord Lawson who heads a campaign group lobbying against the government’s climate change policies.

Here is the actual report from the BBC Trust:


 * Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science Impartiality Review Actions, July 2014. PDF (275KB)

Use of The Daily Telegraph, a secondary source, backed by the BBC Trust primary source, should be good enough as references. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this a college essay?
This article reads like it is an essay or a speech. Major example (problem in bold) (under Distortions of Balance):  "Does a flat-Earth proponent deserve equal time to a modern astrophysicist? Surely not. Should an advocate for intelligent design be taken as seriously as an evolutionary biologist? Again no."  In this section, I can see someone reading this as a speech. This is not a critique on the article itself (I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate that), it is the style in which it is written. Leobold111 (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I found it to have a preachy-type tone, and also a superior attitude towards the (presumably ignorant) readers. -Cleaned it up a bit, but thinking the whole article is garbage but may hold some good resources.2601:C:6783:8416:D58:4BDD:1584:DEDA (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Media coverage of climate change. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114082810/http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf to http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 6 February 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested. Dekimasu よ! 21:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Media coverage of climate change → Media coverage of global warming – Article is clearly about global warming in the media, rather than climate change in general. Even the image in the lede has "global warming" in the headline. A peak in media coverage occurred with An Inconvenient Truth, which is about global warming and not climate change. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Harper Government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Harper_government#Media_coverage_of_climate_change I think this link should be removed. We have a new government. 🇨🇦 Canada TheDoDahMan (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not removed, modified. It is still interesting for historical reasons. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is still misleading (for those that don't know Canadian politics). If you want to keep it, I think it should be in the "See Also" section. Additionally, it would be good to update this section to reflect the current government's views on climate change etc. A mention of the (hated) carbon tax would also be good. I would do it but I can't right now. The ECCC Report is also worth mentioning.TheDoDahMan (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there appears to be little interest, I will update this section. Be patient, I'm new.TheDoDahMan (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Doomers (merge)
I suggest that the article Doomers should be merged into this article's "alarmist" section–any objections? Rwood128 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: POLT 444 Politics and Policy in a Warming World
— Assignment last updated by Alginate7 (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)