Same Speaker, Same Speech,
But Coverage Differs Substantially

Recent coverage of an often-quoted climate change "skeptic" by three West Virginia news outlets provides useful insights into how the media can take substantially different approaches when a nationally recognized "expert" comes to town.

The example involves Fred Singer, who founded and heads his Science & Environmental Policy Project, headquartered in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, and coverage of a recent presentation he made in Charleston, W.Va.

Singer spoke to an audience of about 70 people on September 26 at an event sponsored by Payne Engineering Co., the First Presbyterian Church of Charleston, Blackbird Technology Group of Indiana, and BB&T, a banking and financial firm. An advance news release had said Singer would present a "science-based view of global warming."

State's Largest Newspaper: A Focus on IPCC

The state's largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette, with a general reputation across the state as a progressive or "liberal" voice, generally used the Singer talk as a way to report more on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. Experienced environmental reporter Ken Ward, writing under a "Climate change skeptic tells West Virginia not to worry" headline, opened his news article with "One of the nation's most outspoken and controversial climate change skeptics ..."

Singer's key message, Ward reported: humans are not making the world warmer, and residents should resist efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. "What we're experiencing now is entirely natural," Ward quoted Singer as telling his audience. "It has nothing to do with carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases or the burning of coal."

That may have been sweet music to the ears of West Virginia coal interests, but Ward reported that Singer's message is "decidedly at odds with a growing, international scientific consensus." He then took the next four paragraphs reporting on the IPCC's findings and its "network of more than 2,000 scientists from around the world."

Ward next reported on several additional Singer points, following each with what amounted to a rebuttal from the IPCC reports.

"For years, Singer has been among the most-often quoted skeptics, naysayers, or 'contrarians' that argued against" a warming world, causes for the warming, and concerns that it "would be a bad thing," he reported. He reported on various earlier claims tying Singer's group to high-carbon funders and conservative political interests but acknowledged that Singer's audience "was mostly receptive, applauding Singer's conclusions and laughing at his repeated jokes about Al Gore."

Public Radio: Singer a 'Rorschach Test'

For the West Virginia radio audience, West Virginia Public Broadcasting's Scott Finn reported "far less consensus on climate change" in coal-rich West Virginia than in many other parts of the country.

Noting "a warm welcome" for "a controversial climate change skeptic," Finn described Singer as "sort of a Rorschach test for your views on climate change" - a denier to environmentalists and "a hero" to those supporting coal interests.

Finn reported that Singer's group "disputes the prevailing wisdom on climate change," and he too reported that the group has received funding from energy interests. The latter is a claim Singer often contests, but at the same time he has not made public specific information on his funding and feels he need not do so.

In his on-the-air report, Finn said Singer's Charleston audience "listened eagerly" as Singer, among other things, said some proponents of climate change science are making money off their purported concerns.

"No one challenged Singer after the speech," Finn reported. "They asked him questions like, 'How can I convince people in conversations that global warming is not caused by humans?'"

"So why is he right and the vast majority of climate experts wrong?," Finn asked in his report. His response: "He blames the computer models they use." He aired Singer's saying he "would have no objection" if carbon dioxide emissions could be reduced "without causing great economic damage," but he doesn't see that being the case.

"To believe Singer, you have to disbelieve a huge and growing number of scientists from around the world - including several former climate change skeptics like Singer," Finn reported. "Why would they lie?"

Singer replied to Finn's question by saying he does not want to "cast aspersions at the motivations of other people." But he said that as "a young academic, trying to get ahead in the academic world, there's a very strong pressure on you to conform. I think all human beings, not just scientists, have this wonderful ability to ignore facts that are inconvenient. Or to paraphrase Al Gore, to ignore an inconvenient truth," Singer said, concluding the radio interview.

'Fair and Balanced' Singer Coverage?

Clearly the most sympathetic coverage of Singer's speech came from The State Journal, which on its web site promises "fair and balanced" coverage and "tough but fair" questions.

Seen primarily as the state's "pro-business paper," the story by Dan Page, editor and publisher, ran under a "Singer Says Climate Change Natural, Not Manmade," headline. The opening two paragraphs of Page's report deals with Henry E. Payne III, the Charleston company that brought Singer to town for the talk.

Page reported that Payne for decades had been "an advocate for West Virginia's ability to generate coal-fired electricity and send it to an energy-hungry nation." The second and third paragraphs reported that Payne "realizes that political pressures are building against the burning of coal to produce energy. He recognizes that the fear of global warming has motivated the movement against coal ... and also believes the fear is unwarranted."

Page reported that Singer feels that scientific data do not support the notion that human activity, including the burning of coal, "causes climate change."

"Singer finds himself at odds with former Vice President Al Gore, who has preached his global-warming sermon for many years," Page reported. "While Singer has academic credentials as a scientist, Gore has a 2006 movie."

According to Page's report, Singer told the Charleston audience that two factors primarily influence climate change - solar activity and clouds. He reported Singer's saying that humans cannot affect either of those factors and that he "expressed bewilderment that politicians have seized Gore's theme and are moving toward policies that could affect the way the United States generates energy."

Page reported Singer's remarks that U.S. energy use "drives our economic engine. This is what produces our prosperity .... This is why we are where we are .... This is why the United States leads the world - because we use more energy per capita than anybody else. It's that simple."

As for carbon sequestration, Page reported Singer's telling the audience that it is "the worst idea to come down the pike. It's an absolutely crazy idea .... a bad idea from the word go."

He reported that Singer is particularly worried that "too many people now are making money out of this global-warming business" and that Singer "does not feel alone in his efforts to promote a scientific evaluation of climate." Asked by Page if he fears his message is falling on deaf ears, Singer reportedly responded, "I will say this - that everyone I talk to and give a presentation to comes away convinced."

That may be the case with lay audiences, but it appears that two of the three West Virginia journalists were less than convinced. For the present, at least, most mainstream media coverage of climate science is not trending in Singer's favor. If he and other "skeptics" are to succeed in getting their message through to the public at large, they may increasingly have to find ways to go around, and not through, journalists familiar with the terrain.

COMMENTS/QUESTIONS

Contact info@yaleclimatemediaforum.org.