Journalists need to be aware of the danger of providing false equivalence and false balance when covering news stories – particularly regarding the subject of climate change.
The fact that climate change is driven by human activities is a matter of established scientific reality. However there will be those who disagree with this and who demand equal air time in order to get what they feel is fair exposure to their views.
Such contrary views need to be considered alongside decades of rigorous research, encompassing diverse scientific disciplines, that have reached one compelling conclusion: the Earth’s climate is warming at an unprecedented rate, and this warming is primarily attributable to human activity in the form of greenhouse gas emissions.
Journalists need to be aware of these scientific facts and ensure that they don’t try to ‘balance’ coverage by treating differing views in the global warming debate as having equal credibility and value.
This is about avoiding false equivalence or false balance. False equivalence is when journalists sometimes present an inaccurate or false version of events by trying too hard to ‘balance’ a story or incorrectly treating elements of a story as being roughly equal – or opinions as being of equal value.
To help journalists understand the importance of providing factual climate change and global warming coverage Media Helping Media has gathered some of the overwhelming scientific evidence, supported by data and research that points the finger at human activity as a major cause of climate change.
This evidence makes clear that those who contest the causes of climate change without credible evidence should not be given equal weight in serious scientific, policy, or media discussions.
If journalists and programme producers fall into the trap of providing false equivalence and false balance when covering stories related to climate change they will be denying the public the facts they need to make informed choices.
The evidence:
- The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming, with nearly 100% of climate scientists agreeing that human activities (anthropogenic) are causing global warming. You can read more about this consensus in studies such as:
- The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling and well-established:
- Global temperatures have risen by about 1.2°C since the late 19th century, with the past decade being the warmest on record. You can find global temperature data and analysis from:
- Atmospheric CO2 levels are at their highest in at least two million years, primarily due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. For CO2 data, see:
- The ocean has absorbed much of the increased heat, warming significantly since 1969. Learn more about ocean warming:
- Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are shrinking, and sea levels are rising at the fastest rate in at least 3,000 years. Information on ice loss and sea level rise:
- Extreme weather events have become more frequent and severe due to climate change. Information on extreme weather:
The anthropogenic greenhouse effect is the primary driver of these changes. Human activities, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, have amplified the natural greenhouse effect, leading to accelerated warming. The increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has caused the atmosphere to retain about 1% more energy compared to pre-industrial times.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that it is “extremely likely” (95%+ probability) that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century. The scientific evidence is based on extensive research, including analysis of ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, and changes in the Earth’s orbit. IPCC Reports
While natural climate variability exists, it does not explain the rapid warming observed since the 1950s. The current rate of warming is unprecedented in at least the last 2,000 years, and possibly longer.
In conclusion, the science of climate change is well-established, and there is an overwhelming consensus that anthropogenic effects are the primary contributors to global warming. The evidence spans multiple scientific disciplines and is supported by observations, measurements, and climate models.
Journalists need to be familiar with these models and with the evidence they produce before covering climate change stories.
Focusing on facts:
Given the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, those who contest it should generally not be given as much air-time in debates/discussions in the media or column inches in newspapers.
However, journalists need to be careful to ensure they maintain fairness while also ensuring accuracy. Dissenting voices should be heard, the issue is in what proportion.
- The scientific consensus on climate change is exceptionally strong, with studies showing that between 91% and 100% of climate scientists agree that human activities are causing climate change.
- Among climate scientists with high levels of expertise (20+ papers published), the agreement reaches 100%. This level of consensus is rare in science and indicates a robust body of evidence.
- The consensus has been growing stronger over time, with recent studies showing it approaching 100%. This trend reflects the accumulating evidence and improved understanding of climate systems.
- Multiple independent studies, using different methodologies and sampling methods, have consistently found a high level of consensus. This consistency across various approaches strengthens the reliability of the consensus.
- Major scientific organisations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that human-caused climate change is real. This institutional support further validates the consensus. See NASA’s Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming.
- The evidence for human-caused climate change is based on more than a century of scientific research, forming the structural backbone of our current understanding.
- Recent research shows that communicating the scientific consensus effectively increases public belief in climate change, worry about its impacts, and support for action.
- While healthy skepticism is a part of the scientific process, those who contest the established consensus on climate change often do so without providing credible scientific evidence to support their claims. Their arguments typically do not withstand rigorous peer review or scrutiny from the broader scientific community.
- It’s important to note that the public often underestimates the level of scientific consensus on climate change. This misperception can be exploited by those contesting the consensus to create doubt where little actually exists within the scientific community.
Conclusion:
The scientific community’s near-unanimous agreement on anthropogenic climate change is not a matter of opinion but a reflection of decades of rigorous, peer-reviewed research.
This consensus is supported by a vast body of evidence, including temperature records, atmospheric data, ice core analyses, and climate modelling.
Therefore, in discussions regarding climate change and its implications, it is important to prioritise the perspectives of those who adhere to the established scientific consensus.
Those who deny this consensus without providing credible, peer-reviewed evidence should not be given equal weight in serious scientific or policy deliberations.
To do otherwise undermines the integrity of scientific discourse and hinders the development of effective solutions to address this critical global challenge.
Journalistic integrity
The core issue isn’t simply “balancing” viewpoints; it’s about upholding journalistic integrity in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. False balance undermines the public’s ability to make informed decisions by creating a perception of equal validity between established science and fringe opinions.
The following are some suggestions as to how journalists should handle differing views on the causes of climate change.
The evidence
- Decades of research:
- Emphasise that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change isn’t a fleeting opinion but a conclusion drawn from decades of rigorous, peer-reviewed research across multiple disciplines.
- Highlight the sheer volume of data: ice core analysis, satellite measurements, ocean temperature records, atmospheric composition studies, and complex climate modelling.
- Explain that this consensus isn’t merely a majority vote; it’s a convergence of evidence from independent studies, reinforcing each other.
- Scientific consensus:
- Clarify that scientific consensus isn’t about eliminating all dissent but about establishing a robust body of evidence that supports a particular conclusion.
- Differentiate between healthy scientific skepticism, which drives progress, and denialism, which ignores or distorts evidence.
- Explain that the remaining small percentage of scientists that may not agree with the consensus, often do not have the same level of expertise in climate science as the much larger percentage of scientists who do agree.
- Dangers of misrepresentation:
- Explain how false balance creates a “manufactured controversy,” misleading the public into believing that the science is unsettled when it’s not.
- Point out that this misrepresentation can have serious consequences, delaying or hindering action to address climate change.
- The media has a duty to not only report the news, but to report what the facts are.
Addressing the “demand for equal air time”
- The burden of proof:
- Stress that those who challenge the established consensus have a responsibility to provide credible, peer-reviewed evidence to support their claims.
- Explain that unsubstantiated opinions or cherry-picked data do not hold the same weight as comprehensive scientific studies.
- The importance of context:
- When reporting on dissenting views, journalists must provide context, explaining the level of scientific consensus and the credibility of the sources.
- Clearly distinguish between established science and fringe opinions, avoiding language that suggests equal validity.
- Explain that often, those that are denying the reality of climate change, have a vested interest in doing so, such as those that work for the fossil fuel industry.
- The role of expert voices:
- Prioritise the voices of climate scientists and experts who have dedicated their careers to studying the issue.
- Ensure that dissenting voices are not given undue prominence, especially when they lack relevant expertise.
Journalistic responsibility
- Objectivity and accuracy:
- Emphasise that journalistic objectivity doesn’t mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints, regardless of their validity.
- Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable or politically charged.
- Public understanding:
- Highlight the importance of accurate reporting in shaping public understanding of climate change and informing policy decisions.
- Explain how false balance can lead to public confusion and inaction, hindering efforts to address this critical issue.
- Credible sources:
- Journalists must always source information from well -stablished scientific sources, and not from social media posts and unverified websites.
In summary:
The media’s role in reporting climate change is not to simply present opposing views, but to accurately reflect the scientific consensus. By prioritising accuracy and context, journalists can help the public understand the urgency of the climate crisis and make informed decisions.
- Question: What is “false equivalence” or “false balance” in the context of climate change reporting, and why is it problematic?
- Answer: False equivalence or false balance occurs when journalists present differing views on climate change as having equal credibility and value, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus. This is problematic because it misleads the public, creating the impression of a balanced debate where, in reality, there is a strong scientific agreement.
- Question: What is the level of scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change, and how is this consensus supported?
- Answer: The scientific consensus is nearly 100%, with studies showing that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that human activities are the primary drivers of global warming. This consensus is supported by decades of rigorous, peer-reviewed research, including analysis of ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, and climate modelling.
- Question: What are some key pieces of evidence that support the claim that climate change is primarily caused by human activity?
- Answer: Key pieces of evidence include:
- Global temperature increases since the late 19th century.
- Record-high atmospheric CO2 levels due to fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
- Significant ocean warming.
- Shrinking ice sheets and rising sea levels.
- Increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events.
- Answer: Key pieces of evidence include:
- Question: Why should journalists prioritise the perspectives of those who adhere to the established scientific consensus on climate change?
- Answer: Prioritising these perspectives ensures that reporting reflects the factual reality of climate change, allowing the public to make informed decisions based on accurate information rather than misleading “balanced” viewpoints.
- Question: What is the responsibility of those who contest the established scientific consensus on climate change?
- Answer: Those who challenge the consensus have a responsibility to provide credible, peer-reviewed evidence to support their claims. Unsubstantiated opinions or cherry-picked data should not be given equal weight to comprehensive scientific studies.
- Question: How has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) addressed the issue of human influence on global warming?
- Answer: The IPCC has stated that it is “extremely likely” (95%+ probability) that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century, based on extensive research and analysis.
- Question: What are some methods journalists can use to accurately report on climate change while addressing dissenting views?
- Answer: Journalists should:
- Provide context about the level of scientific consensus.
- Clearly distinguish between established science and fringe opinions.
- Prioritize the voices of climate scientists and experts.
- Emphasise the burden of proof on those challenging the consensus.
- Source information from credible scientific sources.
- Answer: Journalists should:
- Question: Why is it important for journalists to understand the difference between healthy scientific skepticism and denialism?
- Answer: Healthy skepticism drives scientific progress by questioning and testing hypotheses. Denialism, on the other hand, ignores or distorts evidence to maintain a predetermined belief, which can mislead the public and hinder appropriate action on climate change.
- Question: According to the text, what are the dangers of the media misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change?
- Answer: Misrepresenting the consensus can lead to a “manufactured controversy,” misleading the public into believing the science is unsettled, which can delay or hinder action to address climate change.
- Question: What is the core issue that journalists must remember when reporting on climate change, beyond simply balancing viewpoints?
- Answer: The core issue is upholding journalistic integrity in the face of overwhelming scientific consensus. Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth accurately, which means reflecting the established science and not creating a false perception of equal validity between established science and fringe opinions.
Lesson plan for trainers
If you are a trainer of journalists we have a free lesson plan: Climate Change which you are welcome to download and adapt for your own purposes.
