The views expressed in these articles are those of the individual authors.
The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media is grateful for the generous financial support of the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment and of individual Yale University alumni.
Both climate science and scientists generally have taken a “significant” hit in the world of public opinion as a result of the fall of 2009 hacked e-mails controversy at the University of East Anglia.
But the full picture is more nuanced and subtle, and most Americans still believe global warming is happening (57 percent); a plurality (47 percent) think humans are primarily responsible; and scientists “remained by far the most trusted source of information on global warming (77 percent).”
Future historians may regard recent weeks as a momentary breathing spell in the political trajectory of the climate issue.
In the courts, preliminary rulings are awaited on a spate of legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous and deserve regulation under the Clean Air Act.
In Congress, meanwhile, senators crafting a climate-energy bill different from the cap-and-trade measure passed by the House delayed its unveiling until May 12 so they could regroup after Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina withdrew his support.
DURHAM, N.C. - When it comes to climate communication, many scientists have a “love-hate” relationship with the media.
That’s the assessment of Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. Before his appointment at the Nicholas School, Chameides worked for three years - from 2005 through 2007 - as the chief scientist of Environmental Defense Fund. Previously, he had spent 25 years at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he served as chair of the atmospheric-sciences department from 1998 to 2005. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1998.
Chameides spoke recently from his campus office about how both journalists and scientists can do a better job of educating the public about climate science.
 |
| Can thoughtful climate lexicon avoid the kind of rhetorical congestion that has so far framed the climate debate? |
As the ‘Climategate’ controversy has sent the science and policy community back to the communications drawing board, it’s a good time to return to earlier works on global climate change, or if you like, global warming, or the greenhouse effect, or even the carbon dioxide problem.
The reasons for inaction at the national and international levels are many and complex, but certainly challenges with the language used have contributed to the political deadlock. The situation has implications for how we move forward in the necessary task that our inaction makes more urgent each day: climate change adaptation.
 |
| The Utah capitol: Hearing ‘both sides’ of climate science. |
Eighteen Brigham Young University earth scientists are telling the state’s political leaders that they need to “give considerable weight to an overwhelming scientific consensus, and treat fringe positions with respectful skepticism.”
The BYU faculty members said they think that giving “too much weight” to a vocal but small minority of scientific viewpoints “puts all of us at risk by promoting poorly informed decisions.” Their prescription for better policy for Utah? “Base decisions regarding the effects of climate change in Utah upon the best scientific evidence available.”
So, here’s the deal, and surely we digress:
We’re not going to spill a lot of ink here (spread a lot of bytes?) reporting on the snafu in which a D.C. Beltway public relations/advocacy firm forged letters to a Virginia congressman urging opposition to the recent House-passed Waxman-Markey bill.
It’s simply beneath us to grovel in this gruel (although it’s so danged unreal, and fun, that we retain the option to return to the subject later, perhaps even in a slow-news August moment).
 |
One of the old-line, most vocal, and most influential voices on federal environmental matters may soon undergo changes generally associated with adolescents - a change in its voice. Or at least the impact its voice carries with Washington policymakers.
Whether that happens, and to what effect, may be an important back-story in coming months and years as domestic automakers, two of them only recently out of bankruptcy proceedings, define their new future in a changing Washington political environment … and in some cases have it redefined for them.
With President Obama and key congressional leaders seeking passage this year of global warming legislation, journalists have a great opportunity to explain the complexities of the issue to their readers.
But reporters must be careful too, as climate policy doesn’t fit neatly into a simple storyline of he said/she said. My editor likes to say that the climate debate is just as contentious as the issues facing the Middle East. Indeed, this is a debate filled with nuance, with more than two sides vying for coverage.
 |
A progressive spirit burning for several years in American evangelical circles is prompting many in that religious community to take up activism on climate change.
A sign of the trend was recently on public display in Pastor Rick Warren’s invocation during President Obama’s inauguration.
“When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us,” Warren asked in prayer.
 |
| View larger image BBC ‘Newsnight’ website link to video |
One of the proudest and most credible names in journalism, BBC, has found itself challenged on its questionable editing and splicing of President Obama’s science and climate change remarks during his inauguration on January 20.
The issue involves whether BBC’s self-described “montage” distorted the meaning of Obama’s references to elevating science and combating climate change by appearing to have him say something he never said.
At least not in so many words.