| Revision as of 09:11, 17 June 2010 editProlog (talk | contribs)Administrators42,638 editsm Protected Climate change alarmism: Excessive sock puppetry: Scibaby socks ( (expires 09:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)) (expires 09:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)))← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:26, 3 September 2021 edit undoKleinpecan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers10,230 editsm R from mergeTag: Redirect target changed |
| (263 intermediate revisions by 89 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
'''Climate change alarmism''' or '''global warming alarmism''' is a ] which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of ] as a technique for motivating public action. Public perception of the realities and risks associated with climate change forms a continuum in which people with "alarmist" views form one extreme along the continuum, and those commonly characterized as "], "skeptics" or "naysayers" at the other extreme. The term also often used by those who disagree with the ] as an epithet for those who broadly adhere to the consensus view. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell| |
|
Alarmism is described as the use of a ] which communicates climate change using inflated language, an urgent tone and imagery of doom. In a report produced for the ] Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit reported that alarmist language is frequently employed by newspapers, popular magazine and in campaign literature put out by government and environment groups.<ref name="Ereaut2006">{{cite book |last1=Ereaut |first1=Gill |last2=Segrit |first2=Nat |title=Warm Words: How are we Telling the Climate Story and can we Tell it Better? |year=2006 |publisher=Institute for Public Policy Research |location=London}}</ref> It is difficult for the public to see climate change as urgent unless it is posed to them as a catastrophe, but using alarmist language is an unreliable tool for communicating the issue to the public. Instead of motivating people to action, these techniques often evoke "denial, paralysis apathy".<ref name="Dilling & Moser">{{cite book|last1=Lisa Dilling|first1=|last2=Susanne C. Moser|first2=|title=Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change|year=2007|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge, UK|isbn=0-521-86923-4|pages=1–27|chapter=Introduction}}</ref> In the United Kingdom, alarmist messages are often subject to "subtle critique" in the ] press, while the ] media often "embrace" the message, but undermine it using a "climate skeptic" frame.<ref name="Ereaut2006"/> |
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{R to section}} |
|
People who hold alarmist views of climate change represent one end of a continuum in public perceptions of climate change. ] found that alarmists made up about 11% of the ] population, while "naysayers", who have a skeptical or cynical view of climate change, make up about 7% of the population. The remainder of the public lay between these two extremes. Their perception of climate change was similar to that of the alarmists, but they differed significantly from them on questions related to perceived risk.<ref name="Leiserowitz2005">{{cite journal |last=Leiserowitz |first=Anthony A. |year=2005 |title=American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous? |journal=Risk Analysis |volume=25 |issue=6 |pages=1433–1442 |issn=0272-4332 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x}}</ref> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
==Influence of media coverage== |
|
|
Minority views—both alarmist and denialist—were reported to get disproportionate attention in the popular press, especially in the ]. One of the consequences of this is a portrayal of risks well beyond the claims actually being made by scientists.<ref name="Boykoff2009">{{cite journal |last=Boykoff |first=Maxwell T. |year=2009 |title=We Speak for the Trees: Media Reporting on the Environment |journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=431–457 |issn=1543-5938 |doi=10.1146/annurev.environ.051308.084254}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Views of scientists== |
|
|
|
|
|
Scientists who agree with the consensus view on global warming often have been critical of those who exaggerate or distort the risks posed by global warming. ] has criticized such exaggeration, stating that he "disapprove of the 'ends justify the means' philosophy" that would exaggerate dangers in order to spur public action.<ref>http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf</ref> Mike Hulme, professor at the ] and former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, describes such exaggerations as "self-defeating," in that they engender feelings of hopelessness rather than motivating positive action.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6655449.stm</ref> ] has objected to "alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Scientists also have been critical of press sensationalism in reporting on climate change. Myles Allen, director of the Climateprediction.net experiment, criticized press reporting that seized on the extreme end of predictions from the experiment without emphasizing the much more likely cases of more moderate warming. |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|