Climate: Scientist more certain, reporters more confused?

Study looks at use of ‘hedging language’ in newspaper climate stories

The science is unequivocal, but the reporting is not.

Staff ReportFRISCO — Scientists may be more convinced than ever that greenhouse gas emissions are gradually frying the planet, but journalists just can’t seem to shake the habit of using “hedging language” that leaves room for doubt, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder.The study compared newspaper coverage of climate science in 2001 and 2007, finding in that snapshot view that the use of wimpy, ambivalent words was more common in 2007, even though scientific certainty about the causes and impacts of global warming has grown. And newspapers in the U.S. use hedging language more frequently than their counterparts in Spain. The two years were chosen because in both, there was prominent coverage of new reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The researchers drilled down deep to examine the context of the hedging language, to try and help unravel some of the mysteries of climate communication, according to lead author Adriana Bailey.

“We were surprised to find newspapers increased their use of hedging language, since the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are contributing to it has substantially strengthened over time,” said Bailey, a doctoral student at CU-Boulder’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, or CIRES, and lead author of the paper. CIRES is a joint institute of CU-Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The finely tuned study is an exercise in linguistics and climate science communication. The researchers focused on articles in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and two Spanish newspapers, El Mundo and El Pais, looking for words that suggest uncertainty, like almost, speculative, could, believe, consider, blurry, possible and projecting.

Once the words were identified, the scientists considered the context they were used in to determine if they should count as hedging language.

For example, the word “uncertainty” was counted in a New York Times article that read “…substantial uncertainty still clouds projections of important impacts…” but it was not counted in a sentence in the same newspaper that read “…uncertainty was removed as to whether humans had anything to do with climate change…”

Also, the researchers only counted hedging language that had to do with either the physical science basis for climate change—such as changes in average temperatures and precipitation patterns—or the IPCC process. Language related to possible adaptation and mitigation efforts, such as preparing coastal cities for expected sea level rise, was not included.

The results showed that in 2001, the U.S. papers used 189 hedging words or expressions per 10,000 words printed while the Spanish papers used 107. In 2007, the number of hedging words and expressions used per 10,000 words rose to 267 in the U.S. and to 136 in Spain.

Given that Spain has ratified the Kyoto Protocol—the international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions—while the U.S. has not and that Spain has proposed a national climate policy, the research team was not surprised to find that Spanish newspapers seem to be communicating less uncertainty about climate change than U.S. papers.

But the team did not expect to see increases in hedging language in both countries over time. The study was not designed to determine the reasons for the increase, but Bailey said it could be related to a number of factors, from amplified politicization of climate change—including polarization of climate stances by political leaders—to the possibility that reporters are actually writing more about the detailed science, which requires greater explanation of the accompanying scientific uncertainties.

The researchers also noticed that the ways in which qualifications are introduced into climate change articles have evolved over time.

“One of the new ways uncertainty is being constructed is by comparing IPCC reports and climate studies against each other, and in that way, presenting results that seem disparate,” Bailey said. “The second new way is by comparing predictions to observations — by describing climate changes that are happening faster than expected or that are smaller than anticipated, for example.

“Making sense of these ‘surprises’ is part of the scientific process; it’s how we build new knowledge,” she added “But news stories don’t often provide readers with the background information necessary to understand this.”

While this study analyzed news articles that appeared after the IPCC’s third and fourth assessment reports, the researchers say the findings can help people better interpret media coverage of more recently released reports on climate change, including the IPCC’s fifth assessment, which was published last year.

An awareness of how the media use hedging language to cover the changing climate can help media consumers distinguish remaining scientific questions from uncertainties constructed by the news, the researchers said.

The study is published in the journal Environmental Communication.


3 thoughts on “Climate: Scientist more certain, reporters more confused?

  1. ” an exercise in linguistics and climate science communication.” For a moment there, someone might think you were talking facts – not opinions. Have you found any temperature readings from the future to confirm the co2 hypothesis yet ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s