Climate science "under-reported" at 2009 U.N. summit

Related Topics

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon discusses a report from the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing at the United Nations Headquarters in New York November 5, 2010. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon discusses a report from the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing at the United Nations Headquarters in New York November 5, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson

OSLO | Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:33am EST

OSLO (Reuters) - Less than 10 percent of the articles written about last year's Copenhagen climate summit dealt primarily with the science of climate change, a study showed on Monday.

Based on analysis of 400 articles written about the December 2009 summit, the authors of the report for Oxford University's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ) called for a re-think of reporting on future such conferences.

Author James Painter concluded that "science was under-reported" as the essential backdrop to the drama when about 120 world leaders met in Copenhagen but failed to agree a binding treaty to slow climate change.

Much coverage from Copenhagen instead focused on hacked e-mails from a British university that some skeptics took as evidence of efforts by scientists to ignore dissenting views. The scientists involved have since been cleared of wrongdoing.

"We need more discussion between scientists, journalists and policy-makers on how to keep highly significant, slow-burn issues like climate change interesting and engaging to different audiences around the world," Painter wrote.

Of 12 countries studied, Brazil and India gave the summit the most space in print media, followed by Australia and Britain. At the other end of the scale, Nigeria, Russia and Egypt gave the least coverage.

Painter said one way to improve the reporting on climate change was to provide more media staff to help scientists. He said environmental group Greenpeace had 20 media staff in Copenhagen against 12 media staff from 250 universities. The U.N. panel of climate scientists has one media officer.

Among other suggestions was more frontline reporting about the impacts of climate change, along with more imaginative use of new media.

Findings by a U.N. panel of scientists in 2007 that global warming is very likely man-made have been the main driver for action to curb emissions blamed for raising temperatures and causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.

This year's U.N. talks -- of environment ministers rather than world leaders -- will be in Mexico from November 29-December 10.

For Reuters latest environment blogs, click on: blogs.reuters.com/environment/

(Editing by Michael Roddy)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
McBob08 wrote:
The problem is that the media is owned by big corporations — the same big corporations that profit from the Climate Change message being suppressed so they can keep making millions of dollars at the environment’s expense. They have no reason to put the truth out there, and a million reasons to keep the media coverage focused on frivolities and frauds.

Nov 14, 2010 11:29pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Stock-MD.com wrote:
The problem is that the media is not actually interested in the science. They want sensational headlines. Hacked emails grab more headlines and more frontpage space than the actual facts about the climate.

Keep in mind, the only reason that climate change gets as much attention as it does is because Al Gore sensationalized it. And of course nobody at the time wanted to report the other side of the story, that there are a whole lot of scientists that are on the other side and believe man has very little effect on the global climate and that all of these suggested changes will have very little effect on it going forward. And of course they don’t want to report that all expert economists say that these changes will definitely have a negative effect on the global economy. Why? Because those are not sensational headlines.

Nov 15, 2010 10:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Consumerism trumps everything else. And knocking environment science helps economic — consumer — growth because humans do not contribute to climate change which, business claims, means it is good to buy more stuff to keep people working and doesn’t hurt anything.

Nov 15, 2010 11:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.