| Revision as of 04:26, 15 June 2010 editShock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs)15,524 edits →Views of scientists: Allen← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:02, 15 June 2010 edit undoGuettarda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators63,420 edits +Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Climate change alarmism''' or '''global warming alarmism''' is |
'''Climate change alarmism''' or '''global warming alarmism''' is a ] which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of ] as a technique for motivating public action. | ||
| Ereaut and Segnit described alarmism as a ] which communicates climate change using inflated language, an urgent tone and imagery of doom. They report that it 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> The term also often used by those who disagree with the ] as an epithet for those who broadly adhere to the consensus view. | |||
| ==Influence of media coverage== | ==Influence of media coverage== | ||
Revision as of 05:02, 15 June 2010
Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming as a technique for motivating public action.
Ereaut and Segnit described alarmism as a linguistic repertoire which communicates climate change using inflated language, an urgent tone and imagery of doom. They report that it is frequently employed by newspapers, popular magazine and in campaign literature put out by government and environment groups. The term also often used by those who disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change as an epithet for those who broadly adhere to the consensus view.
Influence of media coverage
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. Stephen Schneider 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. Mike Hulme, professor at the University of East Anglia 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. Hans von Storch 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."
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.
- Ereaut, Gill; Segrit, Nat (2006). Warm Words: How are we Telling the Climate Story and can we Tell it Better?. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.
- http://www.americanphysicalsociety.com/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6655449.stm
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4923504.stm