3 Communicating climate science |
27. We set out to examine the routes
through which individuals obtain information on climate change,
how effective these are and to what extent they are trusted. Scientists,
traditional media, the internet and government all play a role
in providing information and are trusted to different degrees.
28. James Painter from the Reuters Institute
for the Study of Journalism told us that whilst it is not clear
to what level media changes opinion, or behaviour, there is agreement
that it has a "huge role in setting the agenda for what people
talk or think about".
He also explained that the media plays a crucial role in public
knowledge of science:
In the specific area of science
coverage, most people in the UK get their information from the
media, so the way the media report and frame climate change is
one significant input into public understanding of the topic.
29. Professor Greg Philo, of the Glasgow
University Media Group (GUMG), told us that "the media have
an enormous impact on behaviour and belief" and forms "the
key source of information, especially the BBC, for what people
believe on almost any issue you want to name".
With regards to climate change, the GUMG research found that the
most referred to single source of information (58%) was TV news,
usually the BBC.
Dr Shuckburgh found that "TV news was the most cited source
of information on climate science".
The BIS Public Attitudes to Science 2011 survey found that
"people's most regular sources of information on science
tend to be traditional media, such as television (54%) and print
It also found that people mistrusted how science was presented
in the media:
People also have concerns about
the reporting of science. Seven in ten agree that "there
is so much conflicting information about science it is difficult
to know what to believe" (71%) and that "the media sensationalises
30. The Science Media Centre praised
some of the efforts of both newspapers and broadcasters in covering
climate change but it stressed that fundamental problems remain
with the presentation of climate change as a news topic:
many of the underlying values remain
in newsrooms: the appetite for a scare story, the desire to overstate
claims made by one individual, the reluctance to put one alarming
story into its wider context, 'journalistic balance' that conveys
a divide among experts where there is none.
DRIVERS FOR MEDIA COVERAGE
31. We were interested to understand
what shapes the level and tone of media coverage of climate science.
We were told that, in science programming, there was always a
need for something new, or a new creative approach, to drive coverage.
Channel 4 told us that "communicating science by broadcasting
is tremendously difficult" and that "if you simplify
science, you often make it wrong, so the process of working with
science is by degrees much more complex than the process of working
with other subject areas".
32. This is also a difficulty when considering
news coverage as "often, there is not that much new to report,
and that can be a problem".
David Jordan, Director of Editorial Policy and Standards for the
BBC, told us that "news is about change and things being
different" and that climate coverage will be competing with
other news stories, including the recession.
Editors told us something similar: "the general overarching
narrative has not changed that much. It is the same story being
told over and over again".
The same issue was highlighted by journalists who told us that
"you cannot write the same story every day". Catherine
Brahic, of the New Scientist, told us that "what matters,
is that the public understand that the message is still the same,
it is still there, and it is not an issue that has gone away".
Mr Jordan, told us that "politicians driving an issue and
talking about its importance and policy developments in relation
to it will be clearly important to our news agenda".
James Randerson, of the Guardian, explained that "from an
editor's point of view, if politicians are talking about it, we
report it. It gives us something to report, so if politicians
are not talking about it there is one fewer source of stories".
Professor Philo also emphasised the role of politicians in ensuring
a subject receives coverage because politicians "are seen
as opinion leaders; they are what media specialists [...] would
call primary definers".
33. There is evidence that increased
politicisation of the issue has polarised debate in the UK media.
James Painter's research suggests that "the presence of politicians
espousing some variation of climate scepticism, the existence
of organised interests that feed sceptical coverage and partisan
media receptive to this message, all play a particularly significant
role in explaining the greater prevalence of sceptical voices
in the print media of the USA and the UK". 
On the other side of the argument, when the use, in schools, of
Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" was challenged
in Court, a High Court Judge considered it to have been prudent
that the Government had revised guidance for teachers to highlight
nine 'errors' and exaggerations within the film. Fiona Harvey,
environment correspondent for the Guardian, told us that "a
perception that senior politicians were trying to appeal to a
certain part of the populace and had the idea that they could
win support by being sceptics [...] has affected the way stories
are written in some parts of the press or the media more broadly,
and we as journalists have had to grapple with that".
The Minister, Greg Barker, echoed this when he told us that "I
think it is fair to say that the science has become a bit of a
political football, and that is regrettable".
Professor Pidgeon was of the view that "the impacts of media
reporting on attitudes may be less important than the actions
and statements of the elite commentators (politicians, prominent
personalities, business and NGOs, and government departments)
which prompt that reporting".
34. Submissions to our inquiry commented
on a tendency for the media to approach climate science as an
argument about two equally valid points of view, rather than discussion
about scientific facts, and on the false balance of views being
presented as a consequence. Professor Pidgeon questioned whether
the "norm of ensuring balanced reporting [...] is appropriate
where the scientific evidence is so overwhelming".When
questioned about the balance of views in the media, Sir Mark Walport
told us that climate change "is not a matter for opinion
or belief. It is a matter of fact whether humans are altering
the climate or not. There is a correct answer to this question".
35. In his Review of impartiality
and accuracy of the BBC's coverage of science commissioned
by the BBC trust and published in July 2011, Professor Steve Jones,
concluded with regard to science coverage: "in general, its
output is of high quality".
However, he also stated that the BBC"must accept that it
is impossible to produce a balance between fact and opinion"
and recommended that it take into account "the need to avoid
giving undue attention to marginal opinion".
Professor Jones highlighted the recent efforts made by the BBC
to find a climate sceptic scientists to comment on the publication
on the Physical Science Basis for IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
as an example of false balance:
The producers of the recent Today
Programme piece on the new IPCC report tried, we are told, more
than a dozen qualified climate scientists willing to give an opposing
view but could not find a single one (a hint, perhaps, that there
is indeed a scientific consensus on global warming). Instead,
they gave equal time to a well-known expert and to Australian
retired geologist with no background in the field: in my view
a classic of "false balance".
36. The continuing discovery of new
perspectives on the climate is necessary to keep the issue in
the media but novelty also has a downside. Newspapers thrive on
controversy. Dr Randerson,
from the Guardian, drew our attention to the:
tendency for news desks to like
things that are new and surprising and favour the underdog. A
general issue with science reporting is that mavericks tend to
get more coverage than perhaps they deserve.
A former environmental editor for the
BBC,Richard Black, thought that disproportionate coverage in the
media of sceptical views of climate science was because:
[climate sceptics] have managed
to paint themselves as David in a fight with Goliath, which is
a very appealing situation. Everyone has some kind of empathy
with that. It is not really true, but they have done a very effective
piece of image management.
Ros Donald, from Carbon Brief highlighted
how editorial decisions may also change the way an article is
read: "there may be quite a straight-up report of a scientific
paper, but it would be given an outrageous headline that suggests
global warming has stopped".
37. The Glasgow University Media Group
(GUMG) told us that they found that "the BBC, across media,
remains a highly trusted sourceit was felt to be the least
partial, and most serious about addressing the issues".
In many of our written submissions the BBC was specifically praised
for a great deal of its coverage
but the BBC itself was initially reluctant to provide either written
or oral evidence to this inquiry. They justified that reluctance
on the grounds that climate change is "a matter of reporting
and journalistic inquiry, and one where our strong reputation
for independence is paramount".
We considered, given the importance of the BBC in the public eye,
it was necessary for us to hear from the BBC in public session.
38. Alongside the BBC, we also took
evidence from Channel 4 and Sky. Both clearly stated their position
on climate change to the Committee. Fiona Ball, from Sky, told
us that, as an organisation, it took the view that "climate
change is one of the world's greatest challenges" and it
had a wide-ranging strategy aimed at "raising awareness and
understanding of the impact of climate change".
Ralph Lee, from Channel 4, told us "we are past the point
where the debate is about whether or not climate change is happening
[...] there is massive scientific consensus on that".
39. In contrast, David Jordan, Director
of Editorial Policy and Standards for the BBC, was less emphatic
on the status of the science, stating that:
The BBC believes that it has an
important role to play in explaining climate science, climate
change and global warming, if that is what is happening, to its
audiences. All our evidence is that, although we do not have specific
evidence of climate change itself, the BBC's audiences expect
it to deliver high-quality programming that is informative and
educational about science in general and, therefore, about climate
change in particular.
Although, later in the evidence session,
he seemed less sceptical:
There are now very few people who
say that no global warming is happening and it is not the result
of man-made activity, but the debate has moved on to the precise
ranges and all sorts of other questions.
40. Earlier in this report we saw that
the majority of the public does not have a good understanding
of climate change and its causes and a significant number of people
would like to be better informed.
Despite this, David Jordan believed that there was no lack of
understanding among the BBC audience on climate although "that
may well have occurred in the early stages of climate science".
Given the weight of evidence disputing this, we wrote to David
Jordan on this very point, asking him to expand on his evidence
for this. His response
The BBC does not measure or monitor
our audience's level of knowledge about climate change.This would
not fall within the BBC's remit and would, in any case, be extremely
difficult to quantify.
41. We acknowledge the difficulty
for broadcasters in maintaining coverage of climate change when
the basic facts are established and the central story remains
the same. We consider it vital, however, that they continue to
do so.Our greatest concern is about the BBC given the high level
of trust the public has in its coverage.It did not convince us
that it had a clear understanding of the information needs of
its audience and we note its rejection of Professor Jones' recommendations
42. This is not to say that non-scientists
should be excluded from the debate, the BBC has the responsibility
to reflect all views and opinions in society and it is worth remembering
that not all frauds and mistakes in science have been uncovered
by scientists. Where time is available for careful consideration
and discussion of the facts, it should be possible to explore
more detailed consideration of where the science is less certain,
such as how feedback mechanisms and climate sensitivity influence
the response of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists, politicians, lobbying groups
and other interested parties should be heard on this issue but
the BBC should be clear on what role its interviewees have and
should be careful not to treat lobbying groups as disinterested
43. Lack of appropriate training for
news editors may be an issue. The importance of their role was
explained by David Jordan who told us "editors of individual
programmes (whether news or otherwise) are responsible for fact
checking their content before it is aired".
Professor Jones raised the issue of training in his review and
there have been efforts by the BBC to address the problem.
However, we were very surprised to hear that the science training
for the BBC provided by the College of Journalism, and introduced
at Professor Jones' recommendation, did not include any direct
interaction with scientists because "debates about science
are approached from a journalistic point of view".
It is not clear to us how a 'journalistic point of view' which
presumably emphasises accuracy, can be at odds with a scientific
approach whose prime objective is the establishment of empirical
44. David Jordan told us that, in the
BBC Trust Review of impartiality and accuracy of the BBC's
coverage of science, Professor Steve Jonesrecommended the
BBC "regard climate science as settled in effect and, therefore,
it should mean we should not hear from dissenting voices on the
science of climate change. We did not agree with that".
Professor Jones took issue with David Jordan's assertion and in
a submission to our inquiry made it clear that this was a strong
misrepresentation of the content of his review:
Attempts to give a place to anyone,
however unqualified, who claims interest can make for false balance:
to free publicity for marginal opinions and not to impartiality,
but its opposite. [...] Why the BBC remains so obsessed with contrarian
views on this subject I do not know.
This lack of distinction within BBC
News between proven scientific facts and opinions or beliefs is
problematic. The BBC editorial guidelines include guidance on
accuracy. These were also referred to by David Jordan in evidence
to us. However, these state "accuracy is not simply a matter
of getting facts right.If an issue is controversial, relevant
opinions as well as facts may need to be considered. When necessary,
all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed
to get at the truth".
45. The BBC News teams continue to make
mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions
and scientific fact the same weight. BBC guidelines have stringent
requirements for the coverage of politicians and political parties.
For example, any proposal to invite politicians to contribute
to non-political output must be referred to the Chief Advisor
Politics. The BBC could benefit from applying a similarly stringent
approach when interviewing non-experts on controversial scientific
topics such as climate change.
46. The BBC uses another rule that works
in its coverage of political issues, particularly during elections.
The likely or historical electoral success of an individual party
determines the coverage of that party and its manifesto proposals
thus avoiding false balance. The BBC could reasonably apply similar
rules to those representing minority views on scientific issues.
47. We recommend that the BBC
should develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators
and presenters on the facts of climate that should be used to
challenge statements, from either side of the climate policy debate,
that stray too far from the scientific facts. Public service broadcasters
should be held to a higher standard than other broadcasters.
48. During our inquiry concerns were
raised about inaccurate and misleading reporting of climate science
by newspapers. Bob Ward and Naomi Hicks from the Grantham Research
Institute were critical of the role played by newspapers:
much greater damage to the public
interest is resulting from inaccurate and misleading coverage
by the UK's national newspapers in print and online. In particular,
some newspapers are able to exploit the systemic weakness of the
James Painter noted the increased coverage
of sceptical opinion in the press in both the US and UK and outlined
the findings from his research into the drivers for newspapers
that include sceptical coverage or opinion:
It can be to do with the overall
political ideology of the newspaper; it can be an editor or proprietor
imposing his or her will; it may be that that type of sceptical
column appeals particularly to the readership.
49. Concern was expressed about the
difference between the accuracy of reporting in news items, which
was generally viewed as acceptable, and the frequent inaccuracies
seen in some opinion pieces or personal columns. James Painter
told us that "many of the uncontested sceptical voices or
opinions were to be found in the opinion pages rather than the
Richard Black, former BBC Correspondent, was critical of the coverage
in the Mail on Sunday and the regular inaccuracies that appeared:
This is something that TheMail
on Sunday clearly does not have a problem with because it
has done it many times before. Complaints have been submitted
and mistakes pointed out, and the same thing carries on happening.
Whether one wants to see that as part of a polarised or increasingly
variegated media landscape, or see it in terms of a political
game, depends on how one looks at it.
James Painter told us that despite "lots
of evidence that people distinguish between news and opinion"
what worried him was the finding in his research that "that
there is an awful lot of uncontested sceptical opinion in the
opinion pieces and editorials in much of the right-leaning press".
Fiona Harvey, Environment Correspondent for the Guardian, told
us that this distinction may not exist when reading an article
on the internet, as readers could have arrived at a page via many
Lewis Smith, a freelance journalist, explained that there was
an inherent bias in newspapers which affected which stories they
covered; "it is never going to be delineated as opinion,
but in reality it is opinion".
50. Despite two invites, neither the
Daily Mail nor the Daily Telegraph were able to attend an evidence
session with the Committee. However, they did each, eventually,
agree to provide a written submission. This limited engagement
contrasted with that of the Guardian, which dedicates a significant
amount of effort and resources on their coverage of environmental
issues and climate change in particular. The Guardian now has
the equivalent of seven full-time journalists covering environment
and science; its
website also has a climate change FAQ section, which includes
short responses that are reviewed by the Met Office.
James Randerson explained the reason behind this increase in coverage:
We took a strategic decision about
five years ago that, looking at the swathe of opinion in the scientific
literature and the voices of people like the Royal Society and
so on, this was a major scientific issue, with potentially profound
societal and economic consequences. We felt it was difficult to
do that justice through the normal way of covering any other issue,
so we took the strategic decision to up the register of our coverage.
51. There would not appear to be a significant
difference between papers in their assessment of the science.
The Daily Mail told us that "in climate science there is
almost universal agreement that the climate is changing, and humans
are having some impact on it".
The Telegraph's submission stated that "in terms of our editorial
policy, it is that the climate is changing, that the reason for
that change includes human activity".
52. Differences arise in how they interpret
the implications. The Telegraph is of the view that "human
ingenuity and adaptability should not be ignored in favour of
economically damaging prescriptions", though it failed to
provide us with the evidence on which it bases this view.
The Mail considers climate science to be a political issue and
is of the view "that not every piece of science by every
scientist should be reported as fact".
This ambiguous view of science may explain the claim in the Mail's
submissions that scientists were predicting an ice age 20 years
ago. An examination of the scientific knowledge at the time shows
that this was clearly not the case, although it was widely and
inaccurately reported as such in the media at that time.
53. The Telegraph was clear that it
did not see itself as a participant in the debate about climate
change. Its sole responsibility was to its readers and "presenting
them with a compelling daily package of news and features that
they are happy to pay for".
Both newspapers relied on their readership to distinguish between
factual news reporting and commentary by columnists and absolved
themselves of any responsibility for the content of opinion columns.
The Telegraph told us "we report information, and rely on
our commentators to interpret it."The
Mail also made a clear distinction between its own views and those
set out in opinion pieces, telling us their readers are "very
familiar with the way it reports news and comment".
54. We are very disappointed by the
heavy reliance that the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph place
on the ability of their readers to distinguish between fact and
opinion on climate science. This is especially the case because
opinion pieces about climate science in these publications are
frequently based on factual inaccuracies which go unchallenged.
THE INTERNET AND SOCIAL MEDIA
55. The Glasgow University Media Group
study found that, after traditional media, the internet was cited
most (19%) when respondents were asked specifically about further
sources of information used.
Dr Burch, from the Science Museum, emphasised the potential for
using "multiple routes for multiple audiences in order to
communicate and engage around this issue".
The Met Office told us of "a need and appetite for increased
and informative communication on climate change" and pointed
to their website traffic and engagement with social media as evidence
for this. Lord
Deben, Chair of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), told us
the internet is an important form of communication for the CCC.
Both the Committee on Climate Change and the Department for Energy
and Climate Change (DECC) highlighted their use of Twitter as
a means of communication;
DECC specifically mentioned its use in quickly "responding
to factual errors".
56. In a written submission, Dr Phillip
Bratby, told us of the level of trust he and other members of
the public who are sceptical about climate change have in the
internet as a source of information:
Most members of the public who have
an interest in "climate change" get their information
from widely trusted internet websites and a few independent media
correspondents who do not have vested interests and tell the truth.
Andrew Montford, himself a source for
sceptics on the internet,
concluded that some become climate sceptics because they "realise
that the [traditional] media is only telling them the environmentalist
side of the story, which again makes them suspicious".
57. Catherine Brahic, of the New Scientist
magazine, explained that the internet was often a forum for debate
and that "climate change articles, especially anything that
relates to politics, get a huge amount of comments".
She cautioned against reading comment threads and taking them"as
a representation of the public views at large. They tend to be
the views of people who have very strong opinions".
James Randerson confirmed the level of interest, telling us that
people were "very interested in these topics, and they tend
to do very well online".
58. The Grantham Research Institute
highlighted how the internet, by its very nature, allows for inaccurate
information to be rapidly absorbed into the mainstream debate:
the primary way in which climate
change 'sceptics' damage the public interest is through the spread
of inaccurate and misleading material via websites to sympathetic
journalists in the mainstream media, creating an 'echo chamber
of climate change denial.
We would expect a topical and policy
relevant scientific topic such as climate change to merit an obvious
online presence from the Government aimed at communicating the
science to the public clearly and consistently.It was therefore
disappointing to find that, despite claims from the Government
and organisations such as the Met Office that they increasingly
use online means to communicate, there is little evidence of any
significant activity to support these statements.
59. The internet and social media
are increasingly used by the public when seeking to verify media
reports or obtain further detailed information about climate change.
TheGovernment and other trusted bodiesare currently failing to
make effective use of internet or social media to engage with
the public and provide accurate scientific information about climate
60. We received evidence from Government
Departments and from non-departmental bodies such as the Environment
Agency, the Met Office and the Committee on Climate Change. These
are the bodies and organisations that should be interpreting the
science and putting in place an effective, evidence-based policy
response. If the resultant policies are to gain public support,
the Government and its agencies need to properly articulate the
science supporting them.
61. In its submission to us the Government
stated that "it is essential to have a simple, clear evidence-based
narrative about climate change, its causes and likely impacts
in the public domain and regularly reported in the media".
However, in oral evidence to us, both Lord Deben and Fiona Harvey
told us that, in their view, this was lacking.
Professor Slingo, Chief Scientific Adviser to the Met Office,
told us that there is still "quite a lot of work to do to
create these narratives that people can relate to. That is where
it is not just about the climate science, but the translation
of that and what its implications are, and then taking it down
to the local level"
and cautioned against "having too many multiple voices with
The Royal Academy of Engineering was of the view that "consistency
across government departments and policies is particularly important".
Mr Paul Crick, Director of Planning and Environment at Kent
County Council, expressed his frustration with the lack of clear
messaging from the Government:
Clear messages from trusted sources
are what win public support. It does not help, when their national
adaptation programme is soft launched, that things like the feedin
tariffs are changed and business cases that we previously had
for solar panel installations that had a payback of three to five
years all of a sudden have a payback of eight years plus. 
He concluded that there is currently
a "conflicting message" coming from central Government
when it should be about"consistency, clear messaging and
David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the Committee on Climate Change
told us "someone needs to take charge of the story"
and "we can provide a story, and we aim to do that [...]
but in terms of cascading and multiplying that narrative there
has to be an important role for the Government. There is more
that both central and local government can do once there is a
consider the lack of a narrative strongly reflects a lack leadership
in climate change.
62. The public expects clear leadership
from Government. Professor Pidgeon told us that people want Government
to take a lead.
Local authorities told us that in the public's view climate change
is a problem that is too big to address at a local level and "it
is for national Government to decide or take leadership on",
that "what regularly comes up when we are talking to the
public is that the roles of local and central Government need
better clarification and communication".
Katie Stead from Kirklees Council told us that their surveys "show
almost 100% of people agreed that they had a part to play in terms
of an impact on climate change"but they were looking for
a lead on exactly what to do from local and central Government.
63. There has been internal wrangling
amongst Ministers and a lack of clarity about what Government
considers the climate science to show; all of which have been
widely reported. Most recently the Rt Hon Edward Davey, Secretary
of State for Energy and Climate Change, referring in a speech
to Conservative politicians, criticised those "seizing on
any anomaly in the climate data to attempt to discredit the whole".
He was of the view that "it [undermines] public trust in
the scientific evidence for climate changewhich is of course
overwhelming" and concluded that "we can see around
us today the possible consequences of a world in which extreme
weather events are much more likely".The
Evening Standard published a response to this from the Minister
of State for Business and Energy, the Rt Hon Michael Fallon MP,
who was quoted as saying that "unthinking climate change
worship has damaged British industry and put up consumer bills".These
comments were subsequently widely reported in the press.That coverage
contrasts with media claims that Owen Paterson MP, Secretary of
State of for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whose department
has responsibility for climate change adaptation, is less engaged
with the climate agenda and may even doubt the need for action
on climate change.
64. The lack of clear, consistent messages
from Government has a detrimental impact on the public's trust
in sources of information on climate science. This was highlighted
as an issue by many witnesses, as discussed earlier.
It also, as we have seen, has an effect on the quantity and tone
of media coverage of the science.
65. The Minister, Greg Barker, told
us that previous Government efforts to communicate with the public
about climate science, in particular the "Act on CO2
Campaign", had not been successful. A reduction in available
funding had also had an impact on departmental activity.The
Minister mentioned initiatives such as the 2050 Calculator, a
toolkitfor school, an energy road show and the use of social media
but admitted that the Department's efforts were "a work in
He told us that in his view no Government had got it right.
The 2050 calculator was only mentioned in one other submission
to our inquiry.
recently the focus within Government has shifted. Professor MacKay,
Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate
Change, stressed to us that one of the Government's principal
roles in communication was to fund climate scientists and to "support
those scientists in communicating the science themselves to policymakers
and the general public".
Sir Mark Walport, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, was
of the view that as "many people as are competent to deliver
the message do so".
67. The Minister also told us that,
when it comes to communicating about climate science, "there
is an underlying strategy and a clear acceptance of our respective
However, Professor MacKay described this as a "process"
rather than a communication strategy which consisted of "having
roughly monthly meetings to co-ordinate DECC, the Met Office and
The lack of a proper strategy was illustrated by the response
from John Hirst, Chief Executive of the Met Office, who, when
asked for details of what happened within Government at a strategic
level to co-ordinate communication about climate science, told
That is a question that is difficult
for me to answer because I do not have a role or an influence
on the strategic communications of climate science on behalf of
Professor MacKay told us that the Met
Office was one of the organisations DECC regularly met with to
coordinate a "comms strategy".
There is very little evidence that this is being translated into
any kind of effective strategy for communicating to the public.
THE MET OFFICE
68. The Met Office is the UK's National
Weather Service. It falls under the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills and operates on a commercial basis. The Met Office
Hadley Centre, set up in 1990, is funded by DECC and the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The purpose of
the programme is to "provide up-to-date, robust and traceable
scientific evidence to government on climate variability and climate
In its submission the Met Office told us it was focused on the
needs of decision makers and their science was not, therefore,
specifically aimed at the public.
69. The Met Office does however already
devote some effort to communicating climate science to the public,
despite not having a specific mandate to do so.
In its view, there is "both a need and appetite for increased
and informative communication on climate change that allows the
public to increase their understanding of the issues, the basic
science, and the latest challenges of climate change research".
Mr Hirst, told us "we would welcome a greater responsibility
for communication of science".
The Met Office also provided us with evidence of the traffic on
their website between 2011 and August 2013, with over 700, 000
visits to their climate pages and over 90,000 visits to climate
posts in 2012.
They also had, in March 2014, 200,760 followers on Twitter.
70. We asked what preparation the Met
Office had made for the publication of the first part of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5). We
were told there were a whole series of efforts planned, including
briefing several key organisations.
After publication of IPCC AR5 we were able to find only a single
web page on the AR5 report and two blog posts, and three messages
on Twitter, one of which linked to the Met Office webpage.There
have been some belated updates to the website and, while the information
aimed at the public is now better than at the time of the publication
of the report, it was disappointing, initially to find so little
information with limited efforts to make it engaging to a lay
71. The Met Office is an organisation
seeking to have a greater role in the communication of climate
science. As such we would have liked to have seen greater effort
to communicate to the public on the publication of the IPCC AR5
report. It should have been more timely with information that
should be far more accessible to the public at large.
THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
72. The Environment Agency told us that,
with regards to climate change, it focused on priority risks and
sectors in the National Adaptation Plan and therefore its service
was aimed at organisations and businesses rather than the general
public. However, it also worked with partners to help the public
and communities understand their risk of flooding.
73. The Environment Agency has found
that audiences are usually interested in climate change only to
the extent that it affects their direct interests and have concluded
that it is more productive to focus on impacts such as flooding
or drought. It does not tend to talk about the science
and has found that"it can also be effective to focus on adaptation
actions (solutions) rather than climate (uncertain problems).
In many cases, no or low-regret actions can be taken that make
sense regardless of future climate".The
Agency has also found that "using more active language, such
as 'adapting to a changing climate' and being 'Climate Ready'
helps audiences to move on from the idea of climate change being
remote and something they need to believe in, to needing to take
74. Whilst we accept that the Agency's
focus is on adaptation and resilience to climate change we are
disappointed to see the limited value placed by the Agency on
communicating the wider context.That this may be counterproductive
in the long term was illustrated by some of the reaction to the
extreme winter rain recently experienced in the UK and the resulting
criticisms of the Agency's work on flood prevention.
We note that the trust that the Environment Agency believed it
had achieved on the risk of flooding may have been damaged.
THE COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE
75. The Committee on Climate Change's
(CCC) role is to advise the Government on meeting its carbon targets
and monitoring progress in doing this. The CCC told us that whilst
public understanding was not directly a matter it took into account
it is an important consideration in its work.
Under the Climate Change Act 2008, the CCC "must have
regard to the desirability of involving the public in the exercise
of its functions". The Chair of the CCC, Lord Deben, told
us of his aim of involving the public more.
However, he was reluctant to accept any significant extension
of the CCC's work in communicating science, instead viewing its
role as enabling others to do so.
The CCC was also critical of the Government's efforts:
The Government has not succeeded
in presenting a compelling narrative to the public over the need
for action, and the components of an effective response. It has
at times been alarmist, and has given mixed messages.
David Kennedy, Chief Executive of the
CCC, also highlighted the failure to provide a narrative "I
think there is a sense in the Government that we have moved on
and we do not need a narrative any more" because the Government's
view was that it was already delivering a policy response.
76. The requirement for Local Authorities
to report on progress on meeting climate targets has been abolished.
However, most continue to work in this area. As a result many
local authorities are involved in communication about climate
change at a local level.
77. We heard from Kirklees Council,
which has been engaging with the public for the last ten years
to reduce domestic carbon emissions and tackle climate change
with a strong focus on improving energy efficiency in its area.
It now has plans to stimulate a local green economy and create
jobs. We also
heard from Kent County Council, which focuses on coastal flooding
and the impacts of severe weather and is committed to taking action
to address climate change.Both
are members of the Local Government Association's Climate Local
78. Paul Crick, of Kent County Council,
told us that his council saw its actions to address climate change
as part of its local leadership role and part of the Kent Environment
Stead, Environment Officer at Kirklees Council, told us how the
messages her council used to engage the public had changed over
time. They now focused on those with more direct resonance such
as "how to save money on their fuel bills and how to improve
their health and wellbeing by providing more affordable warmth
and comfort in their homes".
Local authorities use multiple avenues to communicate and their
experience demonstrates that people are motivated to take action.
Financial benefits alone are unlikely to drive behaviour change.
They have found that "tackling areas street by street is
incredibly powerful in stimulating uptake by word of mouth and
seeing neighbours take up an offer".
Kent County Council found many residents "citing uncertainty
as a reason not to take action".
Successful tools in communication included focusing on outcome,
keeping information local to make it relevant, and identifying
actions for communities which ensured climate change was seen
as more of a challenge than a threat.
79. We heard from Government, government
agencies and bodies at national and local levels working at engaging
with the public on mitigating and adapting to climate change.
We found little evidence of any significant co-ordination amongst
them to communicate the science.Neither is there any indication
that the Government is regarded as a primary, or even a reliable,
source of information on climate science by the general public.
80. The Glasgow University Media Group
told us that the public had a high level of trust in scientists,
academics and other experts.
This was supported by the findings of an Ipsos Mori poll from
2012 which found that scientists would be trusted by 66% of respondents
if they were giving views on climate change. There was relatively
little trust in other sources of information, including journalists
and politicians and the poll found that 15% of respondents said
they would not trust anyone.
The Government also emphasised trust in scientists in its written
submission, referring to a Carbon Brief poll which found that
69% of respondents thought scientists and meteorologists were
very (20%) or quite (49%) trustworthy "in providing accurate
information about climate change".
Tom Sheldon from the Science Media Centre told us:
Trust in science is routinely so
high because science is not led by an agenda; it is neutral. Climate
data tell a very important story that needs to be heard, but the
evidence itself is politically and socially neutral. Scientists
need to communicate that.
81. Communicating research findings
is, increasingly, seen as an integral part of a scientist's role.
Sir Mark Walport, the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, told
us "I do not think that scientific research is complete until
the results are communicated. Part of that communication is communication
to the general public as well as to the specialist audiences that
scientists normally communicate with".Dr
Emily Shuckburgh's research indicated that while "many of
the participants [in her study about communicating climate] found
it difficult to relate to scientists [...] nevertheless many felt
it is important to hear directly from the people who are doing
82. This level of trust in scientists
is not reflected among those sceptical about the science. Many
submissions to the Committee from individual members of the public
express views such as:
Scientific and engineering institutions
are not trusted because of their perception as Government propagandists
being funded by Government (he who pays the piper calls the tune).
Andrew Montford, author of a blog "with
a focus on dissenting opinion in the climate and energy debate",
when asked about his trusted sources on climate, responded "it
is probably nobody really. You have to verify everything. Peer
review is completely overdone".
We cannot agree with this contention as we made clear in our report
Peer review in scientific publications, in which we concluded
that peer review was "crucial to the reputation and reliability
of scientific research".
Nick Pidgeon summarised the concerns often expressed by those
who are sceptical:
People who are sceptical about climate
changethere are about 15% you could define currently amongst
the UK populationsaid three things. They said the point
about, "You couldn't trust the scientists." The second
group said, "No, it's all natural cycles," and actually
there is a sense in which that is not entirely untrue, because
climate change is a combination of natural and anthropogenic forcings.
The third thing was, "Actually, this is a get up job because
the Government wants to tax us more."
Professor Chris Rapley told us that
"for those who have formed an opinion that they do not accept
the premise, lack of trust in the science community is a key rationalising
Barker MP, Minister for Climate Change, told us that the approach
to those who are sceptical should be to "listen to their
views and treat them with respect, but we should not let the views
of a relatively small minority dominate the whole agenda".
83. We were interested in how trust
in climate scientists may have been compromised by the "Climategate"
story surrounding the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in 2010.In
our inquiry into the matter, we concluded then that "climate
science is a matter of global importance and of public interest,
and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should
Needless to say this still applies, so it was reassuring to hear
from Professor Sutton that the leak of the UEA e-mails and subsequent
reviews has stimulated "debate about how to make climate
science more open".
Professor Slingo also commented that there was much more openness
about the science as a result:
Scientists have never been secretive,
but what we clearly did not understand was that, in a situation
as important as dealing with climate change, this whole business
of openness, transparency, open data wherever possible, was critically
84. With respect to the impact on the
public trust in climate scientists, the Glasgow University Media
Groups told us that, in their research, "individual stories
disappear. Even with Climategate, nobody raised that with us.
The only people who even remembered it vaguely were those in East
Anglia. The e-mails were from their local university and they
remembered it for that reason. Nobody else had any recollection
85. The science community has recognised
that it is important that scientists themselves communicate science,
particularly climate science.
Media training, such as that now offered by the IPCC to contributing
authors, is one way to address this
but engaging with the media is time consuming and it can interfere
with scientists' core business of research.Professor
Rowan Sutton, Director of Climate Research at the National Centre
for Atmospheric Science, told us that "there is not an understanding
across the board about the need to communicate effectively".
86. Climate science is an area of both
relevance and interest to the public and scientists are the most
trusted source of information on this subject. It is, therefore,
especially important that every effort is made by all publicly
funded scientists working in this area to actively engage with
the public, either directly or through the media. It must also
be recognised that there is a minority of the public who in all
likelihood will never trust anyone on climate science.
THE ROYAL SOCIETY
87. We received submissions from The
Geological Society, The Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal
Meteorological Society. The Royal Society, despite initially declining
to formally respond to the inquiry, provided us with both written
and oral evidence and we were grateful for the intervention the
Society's president, Sir Paul Nurse, on this. The Royal Academy
of Engineering told us that learned bodies had a role in ensuring
there was a consistent message about climate science:
What is vital, but challenging,
is a consistent message from all parties that does not shy away
from these difficulties and uncertainties. Government, industry,
academia and learned bodies all have a role to play in providing
the public with a coherent message.
88. The written submission from the
Royal Society was not as extensive as we expected. However, it
did highlight its role in "providing independent and authoritative
scientific advice to UK, European and international decision makers".
The Society also told us that it worked on a wide range of issues
related to climate science "with a particular emphasis on
communicating accurately the most up-to-date science to non-specialist
Professor John Pethica, speaking on behalf of the Royal Society,
agreed that, as a body in receipt of public funds, it had an obligation
to communicate to the public about climate science.
We found it difficult to establish evidence of this activity.
The Royal Society'sjoint publication ofClimate Change Evidence
27 February 2014 with the US National Academy of Sciences,was
its first publication on climate science since the publication,
in 2010, of Climate Change: a summary of the scienceand,
though it has held several scientific conferences since then on
various aspects of climate science and participated in a briefing
event to parliamentarians, the Society has not held any public
event on climate science. The last event with any relation to
climate was held nearly three years ago, in March 2011,which focused
on carbon storage.
89. The Royal Society receives the majority
of its funding, £47.1 million a year, from the Government.
Block 2 of its delivery plan up to 2015 is for Science Communication
and Education but, of the £515,000 a year allocated to science
communication since 2011, very little appears to have been spent
on communicating on climate science.
The public profile the Society has on this issue is due to the
ongoing debate about climate science taking place directly between
Sir Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, and Lord Lawson
from the Global Warming Policy foundation. This debate has been
widely reported in the press.
90. Sir Paul Nurse has very publicly
engaged with prominent climate sceptics in the past.But the same
is not true of the Royal Society as a whole. The launch of its
joint report with the US National Academy of Sciences could have
been used better to promote and communicate accurately the most
up-to-date science to a non-specialist audience.
91. The Royal Society is a publicly
funded body with a responsibility to communicate about science.
We encourage it to step up to that responsibility.
THE INTERFACE OF SCIENCE AND POLICY
92. As a Committee we have always been
of the vital importance of science in informing evidence based
policy. However, in the case of climate change, discussion and
disagreement about the policy response have become disagreements
about the validity of the science. This difficulty in separating
discussions about the science, which is a factual debate, from
discussions about the appropriate policy response, which is a
matter of judgement, was referred to by witnesses. This is of
particular concern for scientists, who are wary of being drawn
into areas outside their expertise. As Professor Sutton told us:
Sometimes scientists can be drawn
in to comment on things that, frankly, they should not comment
on, because an interview goes in that direction.
93. Professor Tim Palmer, from the Royal
Meteorological Society, said that it was important for scientists
to focus on the science when talking about climate change:
As a scientist I try to separate
[how science will affect society] from the science issues, especially
when speaking in public. I believe that the public's confidence
in climate science and climate scientists may increase if it is
felt that the scientists can take a mostly disinterested view
on climate policy.
94. We were told that "confusion
between the science and the politics bedevils the public dialogue"
and that "the profound policy implications of climate change
mean that public discussion often constitutes policy debate masquerading
as science". ClimateXChange,
the research group that advises the Scottish Government on climate
change issues, told us why, in their view, communicating about
climate change had become so complicated:
Climate change is a politicised
debate involving conflicting interests and challenging societal
and individual habits. The discourse on climate change is complicated
by difficulties in communication between science, policy, the
media and the public. There is space for miscommunication, resistance
and politicisation at any stage of the discourse.
Carbon Brief highlighted how this confusion
is reflected in media coverage: "rapid jumps between detailed
scientific specifics, broad scientific conclusions and pundits
or politicians arguing about climate policy are unlikely to increase
understanding in audiences".RCUK
wrote that "whilst most publicly-funded climate scientists
will acknowledge that their research is relevant to society, engaging
in what can often be a challenging dialogue about controversial
issues can be a daunting task".
95. The National Centre for Atmospheric
Science indicated that this did not mean that scientists had no
role in the policy discussion, "it is not the role of publicly
funded climate scientists to advocate any specific policy responses,
but it is part of our role to explain the likely or potential
consequences of alternative policy choices, based on current scientific
Professor Sutton, told us that scientists should be involved in
"explaining, on the basis of the available evidence, the
potential consequences of different policy choices. That is very
different, of course, from advocating any particular policy".
Professor John Womersley, Champion for RCUK Public Engagement
with Research, expressed similar views: "I think it is completely
appropriate for scientists to become involved in the public policy
debate, if they wish to, to make sure that that debate remains
evidence-based, but it is not mandatory".
Professor Palmer, was more cautious and expressed the view that
scientists should simply present the science and allow politicians
to discuss its relevance to policy.
96. The politicisation of climate science
has made it extremely difficult to discuss the science without
becoming involved in climate politics. This makes a dispassionate
assessment of new climate data extremely difficult. The communication
of these findings can be subject to politicisation before their
implications are fully understood. This heightened political context
makes scientific progress or debate very difficult.
48 James Painter, Ev 157,para 11 Back
para 12 Back
UK Energy Research Centre, UKERC Project Final Report, Climate
change and energy security, December 2012, p8 Back
Shuckburgh, Rosie Robison and Nick Pidgeon, "Climate Science,
the Public and the News Media",Living with Environmental
Change,September 2012 Back
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Ipsos MORI Social
Research Institute, Public Attitudes to Science, May 2011 Back
Media Centre, Ev 144,para3 Back
Q87 [Ralph Lee] Back
Q84 [Ralph Lee] Back
Q87 [Ralph Lee] Back
Q88 [David Jordan] Back
Q163 [Catherine Brahic] Back
61 Q92 Back
Painter, Poles Apart: the international reporting of climate
change scepticism,2011 Back
Risk Research Group, Cardiff University, Ev 122, para23 Back
Steve Jones, BBC Trust,Review of impartiality and accuracy
of the BBC's coverage of science, July 2011, p15 Back
Steve Jones, BBC Trust,Review of impartiality and accuracy
of the BBC's coverage of science, July 2011, p17 Back
Steve Jones, Ev w127 Back
Q194 [Mr Lewis Smith] Back
[Richard Black] Back
75 Q135 Back
Greg Philo and Dr Catherine Happer, Ev 140,par 8 Back
Science Media Centre, Ev 144, section 4; Q64 Back
Ev 174 Back
Sky Broadcasting Limited ("Sky"), Ev 151 Back
Para 23 Back
84 Q90 Back
is the BBC's understanding about the level of knowledge about
climate science amongst television audiences? What are your views
on the findings published by the Glasgow University Media Group
and Shuckburgh et al? Back
Ev 174 Back
BBC, Ev 174 Back
88 Ibid Back
89 Ibid Back
Professor Steve Jones, Ev w127 Back
BBC Editorial Guidelines, Section 3: Accuracy [website
as of 18 March 2014]
Ward and Naomi Hicks, Ev w87 Back
Painter,Ev 158 Back
99 Ibid Back
100 Ibid Back
Daily Mail, Ev 181 Back
Daily Telegraph, Ev 180 Back
Daily Telegraph, Ev 180 Back
Daily Mail, Ev 181 Back
Thomas C., William M. Connolley, John Fleck",The Myth of
the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus", Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society, vol 89, (2008) 1325-1337;
and National Academy of Sciences, Understanding Climate Change:
A programme for action, 1975 Back
Daily Telegraph, Ev 180 Back
109 Ibid Back
The Daily Mail, Ev 182 Back
UK Energy Research Centre, UKERC Project Final Report, Climate
change and energy security: Assessing the impact of information
and its delivery on attitudes and behaviour, December 2012
112 Q41 Back
Office, Ev 137, par1 and Q262 Back
114 Q313 Back
Q314, Q377 Back
Dr Phillip Bratby, Ev w5 Back
Hill Blog Back
Montford, Ev 105 Back
121 Ibid Back
122 Q159 Back
Ward and Naomi Hicks, Ev w86 Back
Government Departments, Executive summary,Ev 130 Back
Royal Academy of Engineering, Ev w80 Back
130 Ibid Back
135 Q226 Back
Hon Edward Davey MP, Energy Divided? Building Stability in
Energy Policy, 14 February 2014 Back
"Cameron urges rail and power firms to help flood victims
- after warning Thames crisis could last two more weeks",
Evening Standard , 14 February 2014 Back
example: "Climate scepticism blamed as Owen Paterson slashes
spending on global warming", The Independent, 26 January
2014 " Owen Paterson at odds with Cameron whether storms
caused by climate change", The Telegraph, 9 January
Para 59 Back
Para 32 Back
Risk Research Group, Cardiff University, Ev 118 Back
Q353, Q354 [Prof David MacKay] Back
Office: Weather and Climate Back
The Met Office, Ev 137 Back
154 Ibid Back
The Met Office, Ev 137 Back
Met Office, Ev 137 Back
Q289 [Mr John Hirst] Q291 [Prof Julia Slingo] Back
Agency, Ev 170 Back
Agency, Ev 173, para 28 Back
Agency, Ev 170, Summary Back
"UK floods: Environment Agency board backs chairman Lord
Smith", BBC, 11 February 2014
"Climate change means we won't
in future be able to engineer our way out of flooding", The
Guardian, 11 February 2014 Back
on Climate Change, Ev 136 Back
on Climate Change, Ev 136 Back
Council, Ev 165 Back
County Council, Ev 160 Back
Government Association, Climate Control [website as of 18 march
Council, Ev 168 par 4.5 Back
Council, Ev 169 Back
County Council, Ev 160 Back
Greg Philo and Dr Catherine Happer, Ev 140, para 9 Back
MORI,Public attitudes regarding climate change, 2 February
Carbon Brief, How does Carbon Brief's polling fit in with other
research?, 2 April 2013 Back
Shuckburgh, Rosie Robison and Nick Pidgeon, "Climate
Science, the Public and the News Media",Living with Environmental
Change, 28 September 2012, p19 Back
Dr Phillip Bratby, Ev w5 Back
Montford, Ev 105 Back
and Technology Select Committee, Eight Report of Session 2010-12,
Peer review in scientific publications,HC 856, p88 Back
189 Ibid Back
Science and Technology Select Committee,Eighth Report of Session
2009-10, The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research
Unit at the University of East Anglia, HC 387-I, Back
192 Ibid Back
194 Q275 Back
Q10 [Professor Philo] Back
example, Q59 [Prof John Wormsley] Back
Q65 [Prof Rowan Sutton] Back
Q75 [Professor Sutton] Back
Royal Academy of Engineering, Ev w80 Back
Royal Society, Ev 149 Back
202 Ibid Back
Royal Society, Climate Change, Evidence and Causes, 27
February 2014 Back
Royal Society, Climate Change: a summary of the science,
September 2010 Back
The Royal Society, Carbon storage: caught between a rock and
climate change, (Lecture), 24 March 2011 Back
Royal Society,Royal Society Delivery Plan 2011-2015 p3 Back
global warming: a stormy meeting between sceptics and believers",
The Guardian,13 December 2013; and " The secret society
of warmists", The Telegraph, 30 November 2013 Back
Meteorological Society, Climate Change Simulation by Tim Palmer,
1 February 2013 Back
Communicating Climate Science Policy Commission,Ev 127, para 25 Back
Ev w59 Back
Brief, Ev 133 Back
Councils UK, Ev 115 Back
Centre for Atmospheric Science, Ev 107 Back
218 Ibid Back