The climate change debate - Climate Change: A Very Short Introduction - page 26

Moreover, the Guardian clearly conveyed the uncertainties within the science of global
warming, and the paper's editors were, and still are, in favour of the precautionary prin-
ciple. It was through this media filter that scientists attempted to advance their particular
global warming view, by either making claims for more research or promoting certain
political options. From the late 1980s onwards, scientists became very adept at staging
their media performances, and it is clear that the general acceptance of the global warming
hypothesis is in part due to their continued efforts to communicate their findings. Indeed,
both the sceptical and the supportive stances of The Times and the Guardian , respectively,
so legitimized the debate over global warming that the public became aware that this was
not an overnight news story but something that was to become part of the very fabric of
our society.
It seems that the media has also influenced our use of words. From 1988 onwards, the use
of the phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change' gained support, while 'greenhouse
effect' lost its appeal and by 1997 was rarely mentioned. Since then climate change has
become the dominant word, with the realization that changes in precipitation, sea level,
and extreme weather events are for humanity more important than an average raise in
global temperatures.
As mentioned, in the USA the media coverage has been different. First, until recently
there has been no pro-climate change media coverage equivalent to that delivered by the
Guardian . Second, climate change sceptics have been very strong on using the media in
the USA. For example, McInytre and McKitrick in 2003 attacked the GMT 'hockey stick'
( Figure 7 ) by raising questions about the quality of data and accuracy of methods used to
estimate trends in GMT. This debate has taken place between experts but in an unusually
public manner. For example, one US scientist, Michael Mann, who has widely published
on GMT trends, has been at the centre of the criticism and active in responding to it. Des-
pite Mann's strong rebuttal and the weight of scientific evidence that brings into doubt the
validity of the critique, both the media and US and British politicians have continued to
bring attention to the questions raised by McInytre and McKitrick long after they have
been discredited.
There are two possible explanations for this extraordinarily media-facilitated public sci-
entific debate. First, climate sceptics and industrial lobby groups who do not want to see
political action to address climate change are using this debate about methods and sci-
entific uncertainty as a convenient hook on which to hang their case for delay. The GMT
curve over the last millennium is a particularly important target for such criticism, owing
to its emblematic role in the policy debate. It is also clear that a huge amount of money