This document summarizes strategies used to undermine public acceptance of climate change science and discusses ways to more effectively engage the public on this issue. It notes that corporate interests have funded front groups and think tanks to manufacture doubt about climate science and make lack of certainty a political issue. As a result, news media often portray climate science as a two-sided controversy when there is actually a scientific consensus. It suggests joining online networks for information and action, developing new communication strategies, and promoting a values-based debate around climate solutions rather than perpetuating manufactured controversies.

1. Center for Communication & Civic EngagementLance Bennett, Directorwww.engagedcitizen.orgInformation ~ Technology ~ Community@

2. Manufacturing Doubts about ScienceHow Media Spin Undermines Engagement with Public Problems(smoking, AIDS, global warming etc.)

4. The Case of Climate Change

5. 19% who believe what corporations say about climate change

6. 18% who believe that climate change is real, human caused and harmful (ie, who believe what most scientists say)

7. …only 18 percent strongly believe that climate change is REAL, HUMAN CAUSED, and HARMFUL…Survey by Nature Conservancy & EcoAmerica (Oct 2008)

8. Why is science not winning the battle against climate change denial?

9. The News: What to Believe?

11. typical US news report

12. the part of the story that gets buried

13. who is stirring up the controversy?since publics are skeptical of direct corporate propaganda….corporations hire PR firms support think tanks (which support “experts”) influence politicians and partiesall to create public doubt about science(to support political inaction)

14. Round 1: (1980s - 1990s) use PR to turn climate change and its advocates into a jokeWestern Fuels Assn, National Coal Assn & Edison Electric created front org Info Council on Environment (ICE) ~ hired PR firms and scientists to create misinformation campaigns“If the earth is getting warmer why is Minneapolis getting colder?”‘Some say the earth is warming. Some also said the earth is flat” but scientific consensus on human causes grew and ICE was exposed as direct corporate front

15. Round 2: (1990s-now)broaden the interest coalition ~ create better front organizations (fund more think tanks) ~ attack the scienceBroad industry coalition (energy, chemical, cigarette, auto, food processing, biotechnology) + bigger PR firms create: The Advancement of Sound Science Coalitionwhich createdGlobal Climate Science Communication Action Planattack inconvenient findings as “unsound”

16. brand political actions based on science (Kyoto-Copenhagen) as out of touch with realitythis becomes news only in partisan pressMother Jones Special Report 2005

17. Partisan press in other countries more central in public discussion- e.g. UK reporton who funds the skeptics Independent, Feb 7, 2010

18. creating plausible deniabilityIndependent, Feb 7, 2010

19. a look at the propaganda machine 1972-2005 141 books (in English) denied seriousness of environmental problems

20. 130 were published by conservative think tanks or authors working for them

21. websites of 50 major conservative think tanks

22. 45 promote environmentally skeptical policies

23. 28 received money from Exxon aloneSources: Jacques & Freeman, Environmental Politics (2008); HogganClimate Cover-Up (2009)

24. and so, expert news sources multiplyChristopher Horner: uncovers socialist communist green conspiracy

25. Who is Christopher Horner?Legal Counsel, Cooler Heads Coalition

26. Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute

27. Represented CEI in lawsuits against the government to stop distribution of reports on effects of climate change in the US

28. Funding: ExxonMobilRound 3: (late 1990s – present) rebrand the RepublicansFrank Luntz prepares vulnerability assessment for Republicansenvironment was main vulnerability but voters not convinced that science is settledCom Strategy: rebrand the Republicans from climate deniers to science skepticsStop denying – act concerned – and start asking for greater scientific certainty “make lack of scientific certainty” the issueCHALLENGE THE SCIENCE

29. WAIT!Science is not about certainty!!How to respond to opposition demands for certainty?Scientists not good at PR or performing in news dramas (think: Flock of Dodos)Besides, scientists often think that deniers do not merit a response

30. Result –> Manufactured Controversy“Manufactroversy”Cases where “scientific controversy does not exist inside the scientific community but is successfully constructed for a public audience in order to achieve specific political ends”~Leah CeccarelliUW rhetoric scholarThink: Smoking, AIDS, Intelligent Design, WMDs in IraqGlobal warming (human causes, tipping points)

31. politicians align with the Interests

32. politicians defending science appear partisan

33. news reports the political controversyStudy of 928 articles on “global climate change” in peer reviewed science journals (1993-2003) found no major disagreement on human activity causing climate change Naomi Oreskes, Science (2005) Study of 4 leading US newspapers 1998 – 2002 found 53% of articles included a denial or challenge to scientific claimsBoykoff & Boykoff. J Environ Change (2003)

34. why does the mainstream news report two sides of a one sided story?US Journalism filters reality through power in WashingtonJ norm of balance invites SPINNING another side Political Interests magnify claims with PRNews feeds on drama and conflictResult: News resembles reality TV

35. The Political ResultPolls Source: Pew Survey Oct 2009Public Confusion –> Cover for Political Inaction

36. Dealing with Global Warming at bottom of US public priorities Pew American Priorities survey 2009

37. No surprise: US opinion politically drivenSource: Nature Conservancy - EcoAmerica Poll, Oct 2008