Matthew C. Nisbet tells the depressing story of how the IPCC report was released on Friday to thunderous ... silence, failing to break through "the juggernaut narratives of Iraq, the 2008 election, and the weekend's SuperBowl."
One thing Nisbet doesn't stress enough is that there were numerous extremely good pieces in print media. The report could not have asked for clearer, stronger coverage in the major papers and newsmagazines. But it failed to seep into the larger public consciousness. Nisbet notes that it was all but an afterthought on cable news (read the painful transcript at the bottom of his post). You couldn't pay me enough to watch cable news, but I keep pretty close watch on the political blogosphere, and I can testify that it didn't even rise to the level of afterthought there. It received at best one token post from most of the blogs I track. Even that coverage mostly focused on the old-and-moldy story of AEI offering $10K to writers who would cast doubt on the report.
Some blame for this goes to the green community, which as usual had no coordinated, savvy media campaign planned. But in the end, there's no way around the fact that global warming just isn't the kind of story we're built to pay attention to.
You simply won't get a more thoroughly tested and reviewed, more credible and definitive statement on any scientific issue than we've just gotten on global warming from the IPCC. This is something of a reductio ad absurdum of the deep conviction among progressives that "getting the facts out" is the primary challenge around climate change. The facts aren't gonna get any more out than this.
It's time we all learn and internalize the lesson that's been beating us about the head and shoulders for years: by themselves, facts are inert.
Knowing and understanding is not a passive process of absorbing facts. It's an active process. Facts must be sticky; they must have hooks that connect them to our lives and passions. To truly absorb them we must be able to actively engage them and fit them into the skein of narratives and background understandings of which our worldviews are woven.
The facts are out about global warming. But most people aren't engaged, not really. That leaves two options:
- Find some way of engaging people with a problem that's long, slow, invisible, intangible, and immune to near-term solutions.
- Find some way of getting good policies in place without a groundswell of popular support.
Most people reflexively assume we have to do the first. I'm beginning to incline to the second. Much more on that in a later post.
Comments
View as Threaded
bhurley Posted 4:47 am
06 Feb 2007
If it got buried by other stories in the mainstream media, it's probably due to the fact that many editors felt the IPCC wasn't saying anything the public hasn't already heard, they just haven't heard it from the IPCC before. And also there's the issue of the MEGO effect (My Eyes Glaze Over), which makes mainstream media editors leery of climate change science stories in general. "Too complicated, people will zap the channel or skip over the story."
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 5:10 am
06 Feb 2007
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 5:15 am
06 Feb 2007
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 5:23 am
06 Feb 2007
>Most people reflexively assume we have to do the first. I'm beginning to incline to the second. Much more on that in a later post.
This should be interesting. However in your post on this,you might want to avoid words like "reflexively". If you have come up with a new and innovative tactic or strategy it might be wise not imply that the rest of environmental movement is on automatic pilot, or is foolish or unthinking or blinkered or too narrow or something like that for not having thought of it first. If you have something new, or even have rediscovered something that is being overlooked, at least consider it is because you are smart rather than because everyone else is stupid. :)
Permalink
Kit Stolz Posted 5:32 am
06 Feb 2007
"I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."
This is a scientist speaking? Dr. Heidi Cullen, from the Weather Channel, challenged him indirectly, and Bill Nye, the science guy, challenged him directly, but the "balanced" format, the inane nitpicking of inconsequential details, and the frequent cutaways made real debate almost impossible. King then wrapped up by putting his thumb on the scales, saying of Lindzen -- "He's from M.I.T. he knows what he's talking about."
Oy.
For the transcript, see: http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2007 ...
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:39 am
06 Feb 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
d41295 Posted 5:48 am
06 Feb 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:29 am
06 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:54 am
06 Feb 2007
Permalink
cieldumort Posted 8:09 am
06 Feb 2007
Permalink
Jones Posted 12:10 pm
06 Feb 2007
Cellulosic ethanol
George Bush admitting AGW
"Carbon neutral"--word of the year
an avalanche of previously skeptical or hesitant notables "coming out" on AGW
Al Gore is an admired public figure
the Vanity Fair "green" issue.
Now I realise what these add up to is not: concrete action. But we're talking about the public consciousness.
Details of the IPCC report have been trickling out for months now, and it's still not officially finished yet, and it's a really dry, detailed scientific document stuffed with abstruse concepts and a tangle of "likely", "very likely", "extremely likely", "more likely than not"... a story like this getting the lead in most of the media around the world is a pretty big deal. Did you expect fireworks?
I don't expect people to talk about it much, but I think that for many this was the thing that quietly confirmed what they've been thinking about for a long time. It's the last nail in the coffin of the denial stage. That whole stupid debate is officially over, and that's HUGE.
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 12:44 pm
06 Feb 2007
DailyKos, which certainly ranks up there in terms of political activist communities, has had a major upsurge of Global Warming-related discussions since the New Year.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:05 pm
06 Feb 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
dotcommodity Posted 2:58 pm
06 Feb 2007
You never hear that sort of stuff now. Even the right wing fields female attackdogs like Coulter, female politicians for Senate seats.
But those days were the last throes of the old guard. Within a year, 1968, job openings were no longer restricted by sex. It was over for their side.
Likewise, now:
To determine the reaction, don't listen to us grist readers in the choir, NYT readers, dailykos diaryists etc, listen to rightwing talkradio.
That same obsessive attention of the rightwing talkmedia is now lazer-focused on the same kind of mockery and hysterical denial that preceded that sea change in the 60's except now its all about mocking AGW.
Mark my words, they are finished.
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 5:08 pm
06 Feb 2007
It also became clear this AM that Monday's Fraser Institute event trashing the SPM had been a goose egg in terms of media coverage. There's no way that would have happened a year ago.
While I haven't tried to do any sort of count, there also seem to have been a whole lot of editorials and analysis pieces saying the debate is over. This includes plenty of U.S. publications, although the big surprise for me was the Torygraph, which had just published Monckton's garbage a few months ago but changed its stance over the weekend.
All in all, the trend seems good.
Permalink
Kira Posted 1:05 am
07 Feb 2007
I think if it hadn't been for the whacky weather (gw-related or not), this report, Al Gore, and AIT would have been ignored. Nuthin' like a 60-degree January day to make converts.
Permalink