Today, the Mail continues in the same vein. They've published an article talking about the Climate Challenge Fund (CCF) being "utterly bonkers and misleading".
As recently reported on Left Foot Forward, the Daily Mail and other right-wing papers are conspicuously failing to observe even minimal standards of journalistic probity in their efforts to mud-sling at climate science and the climate-justice movement.
Today, the Mail continues in the same vein. They’ve published an article describing the Climate Challenge Fund (CCF) as being “utterly bonkers and misleading”, citing a Whitehall report which claims public opinion on manmade climate change hasn’t been changed by the work of this fund.
The first point to make here is that just because public opinion has not dramatically shifted on climate change does not mean that the work of the CCF hasn’t contributed to the current state of public opinion not being worse than it actually is.
Honest journalism on this story would consider the possibility that, if the CCF hadn’t done its work, recent opinion polls on the public’s climate-understanding would be even worse than they actually are. (An analogy in this particular regard is the vast amount of money spent by laundry/detergent sellers on advertising. They do NOT expect to win any improved market share by spending this money – they are just trying to avoid losing market share.)
In any case, the substance of the Mail’s story does not match its headlines. It says:
“The report by consultants Brook Lyndhurst … judged that ‘the aggregate picture is one of neutral or very modest positive shifts’.”
That’s a very far cry from a verdict that the money spent was wasted.
Even if the Brook Lyndhurst study that the TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) dug up does say the Climate Challenge projects didn’t succeed in shifting public opinion at all, this would hardly be much of a stunning conclusion – for changing attitudes and behaviour on manmade climate change is notoriously difficult. (For some of the best ways forward on this, see below.)
The TPA have been extremely selective in the CCF projects they highlight. Here is a rather fuller listing of the vast array of projects that the Fund has been engaged in: http://tinyurl.com/ccf-projects
The Mail story opportunistically concludes by saying:
“The Climatic Research Unit [CRU] at the University of East Anglia, which received £16,000 from the Climate Challenge Fund, has come under fire over leaked emails which show scientists attempted to hide data from sceptics.”
I work at UEA, but you don’t need to work here to be aware – any journalist would or should be aware – that the CRU is itself a pretty huge organisation. The money that it received from the CCF was for completely different purposes than the temperature-mapping work which is at the centre of the stolen-emails controversy.
CCF funding is for projects about public understanding of sustainability, etc. – not about the actual business of temperature-measuring. In other words: there is no real connection between this story and that controversy. The Mail has arbitrarily linked the two, to try to jump on a bandwagon.
The Mail’s piece does, however, make one good point:
“Future programmes should ‘avoid sensationalist or shocking imagery in climate change messages, since respondents are likely to find this off-putting’, [the report] said.”
But this is about how most effectively to communicate around manmade climate change, something about which we are still learning. Some of the best thinking on which way to go next with climate communications, away from doom and gloom and toward a better greener future, can be found at:
• SIZZLE
But the Mail, presumably, would rather not let people know about any of this positive thinking about climate-communication.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
23 Responses to “More Mail climate change misreporting”
Anon E Mouse
Mr.Sensible – I agree it was uncalled for, especially the timing but that is one of the aspects of free speech I fear…
Matthew Sinclair
Rupert,
I’ve written a response to this blog here:
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2010/02/left-foot-forward-on-defra-climate-propaganda.html
Best,
Matt
fiona adam
More Mail climate change misreporting | Left Foot Forward: Today, the Mail continues in the same vein. They've pub… http://bit.ly/9ZgFz8
Rupert Read
Thanks for writing, Matthew.
But you haven’t laid a finger on my post, here. For instance, your point that “before and after surveys of the people who actually participated in the projects” were used is largely irrelevant: because all those people have been exposed over the period to the same drip drip drip of lies and propaganda from well-funded denialists such as you and the MAIL. So my point still stands: if there has been even a modest improvement in public understanding and concern among those affected by the projects, while on the national level we have been moving backwards, then that suggests that the projects were in many cases reasonably successful.
None of your other points stand up at all. They are little better than the MAIL’s own reporting of this, and consist of nit-picking and misleading innuendos.
Matthew Sinclair
Rupert,
I’ll leave aside the ad hominem, and you haven’t responded to most of my post. But on the one point you have addressed, some of those surveys are from directly before and after people participated in the projects, e.g. questionnaires at events.
I’m not sure your explanation is particularly convincing anyway, these projects took place before the CRU e-mail scandal and other recent stories which might have changed people’s minds, but it doesn’t fit with the kind of evaluation we’re talking about.
Best,
Matt