Public Knowlege on Climate Change

The 20th century has seen a rise in public discourse over climate change with various sources speaking on behalf of its credibility be it from news outlets or government officials. Either way, much of the public today, despite being aware of climate change as a concept, fail to understand its intricacies and effects or lacks the general knowledge of its severity and how to deal with it. Whether it is the fault of the scientists themselves, the media, or politicians, people’s lack of information or understanding of climate change poses a threat to the future of the planet and its resources.

Published by the Public Library of Science and peer-reviewed by Rebecca K. Priestly, Zoë Heine, and Taciano L. Milfont, the report Public understanding of climate change-related sea-level rise outlines a study performed by the New Zealand SeaRise Programme that tests individuals’ knowledge of the topic of climate change, specifically about sea levels rising in New Zealand. The authors’ credibility comes from both the conducting of their own research study with an organization that specializes in sea-level rising and referencing of past studies with statistical support that led them to perform their own study. For example, the report references a 2015 report from the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner about the certainty of sea-level rising and the uncertainty of both the time-frame and how to prepare. Taking the form of an academic report, the text is divided into various sections that outline the study performed: it begins with an introduction to the topic of concern and study or the purpose of the report which is “to understand the public’s knowledge about the amount, rate and causal mechanisms of sea-level” in order to better prepare for the changing climate; next it moves onto explaining the method by which the study was conducted, describing the demographic of New Zealanders that were being surveyed and how the questions being asked were chosen; the following sections explain the varying results of the study with statistical evidence to support each claim; the final section concludes the study with a summary of all the results and the insight it brings onto the effect of public education about sea-level rising on the solution to the issue itself. This structure, along with the authors’ formal and serious tone and statistical results sprinkled throughout the text serve to fulfill the purpose of informing people about the lack of realistic public knowledge on sea-level rising and the negative effect of the media dramatizing scientific finding that causes the consumers of this news to overestimate the situation of sea-level rising and thus rendering them unable to properly handle the situation. The report then goes on to state that if the public had a better understanding of the scale and rate of sea-level rising. They would be more prepared to adopt mitigation measures, and an informed public would have a more positive effect on decision-making in the government regarding climate change law enforcement. In doing so, the report direct addresses, and is targeted towards, media representatives and government decision-makers that can make a change. Despite this, the genre of this text as a scientific report on an experimental study results in a lack of a subjective stance or criticism towards a certain group of people; the information is presented in a very objective manner.

While the tone of this report suggests that its purpose is solely to inform and raise awareness of the lack of public knowledge about climate change and brings up scientists, media, and the government as all responsible for such an issue, other sources have varying opinions. The Feedstuff Magazine article Scientists respected but not trusted: study shows that Americans view scientists as competent but not entirely trustworthy (Volume 86, Issue 40) is one with the bias that it is in the hands of scientists to be more welcoming to the public. While there is no specific author credited to the article, the credibility of the text comes from the magazine itself being one that focuses on agriculture, business, and the trade industry with various articles on the topic of climate change as well as the article’s reference to the academic review by Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public & International Affairs and quotations from the “lead author Susan Fiske, the Eugene Higgins professor of psychology and professor of public affairs at Princeton.” Being an article in a magazine specialized in agriculture and business, the target audience would be individuals interested in consuming such content. That being said, this article does specifically refer to scientists or rather the scientific community about the lack of trust they hold in the eye of the public. This text outlines the research experiment conducted by Fiske where an online adult sample was asked to “list typical American jobs” in which many included scientists, researchers, professors and teachers. Then a new group of adults was asked to rate the jobs based on warmth and competence; the results showed that the group perceived scientists as only competent rather than as both competent and warm (caring) as teachers or doctors. With the support of the evidence from the study, the author then goes onto state their claim, or agree with Fiske’s claim, that “the public’s issue with science is not necessarily ignorance” but rather it is the lack of proper communication from the scientist to an average person. By reiterating the point of the study referred to in the magazine, the author attempts to bring awareness, specifically to the scientific community, that it is in the hands of scientists to better present their findings in order for the public to trustingly accept it.

Other sources point fingers at the political space. Sarah Seraj’s article from UWIRE text, a college news wire service expresses this sentiment exactly. Many of Seraj’s other published work, both news articles and academic journal pieces, are based around the subject of psychology or behavior but the credibility of this news article specifically come from her references to various people with experience or expertise in the topic of concern including Megan Raby, a history professor and science historian; Kristopher Wilson, journalism senior lecturer and science communicator; and Joshua Busby, associate professor of public affairs; however, the article does not mention which specific college or university it is talking about. The article is overall structured in a standard and straightforward way that is easy for the average college-student reading this to digest. It is informative, touching on the history of climate change misinterpretation that dates back to 1988 during the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which it was argued “that the current warming trend was a result of increased solar activity, not industrial emission.” This was quite clearly incorrect, but as the article states, “like the many similar documents that have followed it over the decades since, it overemphasized (the) level of scientific uncertainty and used cherry-picked data…to make it seem as if it was simply summarizing peer-reviewed research.” The author then goes on to reference more of Raby’s statements, bringing into conversation the reflection of the political world on the climate change debate and how it is seen as having two sides with equal value like two candidates with equal media time. Unlike the unbiased tone of the first academic journal about the New Zealand SeaRise Programme study or the Feedstuff magazine entry about scientists being too far removed from the public, Seraj’s analogy was impactful in supporting her stance that “climate change denial is more pronounced in policy space than in media and is heightened by ideological differences between political parties.”

Furthermore, despite being very different stylistically, both the academic report and this magazine article seem to share the sense of urgency that comes with the effects of the public being unaware or unknowledgeable about climate change, especially considering how much it affects the lives of these very people. The report concludes that “it is essential that publics have access to information that can inform their decision making” which will, pertaining specifically to New Zealanders that will have to deal with the negative effects of the rising sea-level, “enable them to be involved in decisions about both adaptation and mitigation strategies; that is, to prepare for the 0.24 to 0.34 m of sea-level rise we know is coming by 2050, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the higher sea levels possible by 2100 and beyond.” Seraj’s magazine article sums up this very same idea, but in much simpler terms: “the clock is ticking” she states, then quotes Megan Raby, “we are already seeing the effects now in the record loss of arctic sea ice, stressed ecosystems and extreme weather…the longer we wait to act, the more uncertain the future and the more difficult it will be to adapt.” While both sources come to similar closing statements, their tones are quite different. The report seems more optimistic in comparison to the magazine article in that it has an objective take on the situation. The authors do not attempt to persuade the audience into a certain belief; instead, they provide the facts of the dire effects of the changing climate then emphasize the importance of raising awareness for the matter. In contrast, the more dramatic language and tone in Seraj’s magazine article concludes that politicians are the main reason for climate change denial and makes it clear that if nothing is done immediately, danger awaits in the near future in order to get the reader to not only acknowledge the situation but also sympathize with it.

Another article from the New York Times Opinion section, The Depravity of Climate Change, further shows the effect of tone and language in persuading the audience towards a stance or belief. Written by Paul Krugman, who, according to the New York Times, “has been an Opinion Columnist since 2000 and is also a Distinguished Professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center” and “won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography, this opinion piece tells the general public–perhaps even the climate change deniers that he speaks if–that the perception of climate change has been corrupted by media and politics. The article states that “In many ways, climate change resembles cancer denialism. Businesses with a financial interest in confusing the public–in this case, fossil-fuel companies–are prime movers. As far as I can tell, every one of the handful of well-known scientists who have expressed climate skepticism has received large sums of money from these companies…Smoking kills people, and tobacco companies that tries to confuse the public about that reality were being evil. But climate change isn’t just killing people; it may well be killing civilization. The strong language, words like “cancer,” “kills” and “evils” all in comparison to the effects of climate change are used to evoke emotion in the reader and, much like the magazine article, make them sympathize with the author’s stance.

In all, although objective sources such as the experimental report claim that scientists, media and government officials are all contributors to the lack of public knowledge on climate change and climate sciences in general, it is notable that two out of the four sources credit government and politics to be primary causes for the situation. This can, however, be credited to the fact that these two sources are a college newspaper article and a New York Times opinion piece respectfully, both of which are sources of political discourse. Ultimately, one thing that all four sources agree on is that no matter the cause, it is imperative that action is taken to educate the public about climate change in order to prepare for and adapt to the coming effects.

Works Cited

Krugman, Paul. “The Depravity of Climate-Change Denial.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Nov. 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/climate-change-denial-republican.html?searchResultPosition=8 .  Accessed 26 Sept. 2021.

Priestley, Rebecca K., et al. “Public understanding of climate change-related sea-level rise.” PLoS ONE, vol. 16, no. 7, 9 July 2021, p. e0254348. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A667980185/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=98ae7e24.. Accessed 26 Sept. 2021.

“Scientists respected but not trusted: study shows that Americans view scientists as competent but not entirely trustworthy.” Feedstuffs, vol. 86, no. 40, 29 Sept. 2014, p. 6. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A385260915/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=f79512fe. Accessed 26 Sept. 2021.

Seraj, Sarah. “Climate change denial continues to affect public perception.” UWIRE Text, 28 Mar. 2018, p. 1. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A532632544/AONE?u=cuny_ccny&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=dafa2e2c. Accessed 26 Sept. 2021.