Konkurransen Unge Forskere
Climate Change Coverage in British
Kjersti Skaaraaen Herberg
Gjøvik videregående skole
This essay is an investigation of how conservative British tabloid and quality newspapers skew the issue climate change. Through media analysis it discusses the research question “to what extent do the British newspapers The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph differ in the ways in which they deal with the issue of global climate change?” Twenty-nine articles from three weeks’ newspapers have been closely analyzed with special respect to the four categories theme, purpose, point of view and target group, in order to find a pattern in how climate change is presented. This has been organized to allow the development of an argument, supported by key citations. An attempt has then been made to gain insight in the reasons for the editorial decisions that the findings are a result of.
The main observation of the investigation is the sceptical line taken, as both newspapers raise more doubt about the existence of climate change than up-to-date research supports. They consistently take the average citizen’s point of view in matters concerning expenses of climate change policies, and such expenses are the focal point of especially The Daily Mail. The latter also focuses more on morally ambivalent celebrities and uses exaggeration more extensively than The Daily Telegraph. These observations are mainly explained by news values, British culture, science skewing and target group.
The conclusion is that despite the main differences that The Daily Telegraph is more sceptical than The Daily Mail and that the latter oftener connects climate change to other issues such as personal finances and celebrities, the two newspapers deal with global climate change rather similarly. Although only two newspapers have been considered and only for a short period, thus making a broad generalization inappropriate, the investigation gives an impression of conservative British newspapers’ coverage of climate change.
Table of Contents
Part I: Analysis of the newspapers’ coverage of climate change Introduction
Media is often referred to as ”the fourth estate”. This demonstrates the strong position it has taken in the modern society, where it both reflects and influences culture to a large extent. Partly therefore, I have chosen to base my extended essay on newspaper investigation.
Another wish was to combine newspaper investigation with the issue global climate change, which has become very important to our society. It is now a commonly accepted facthat global warming will entail several serious consequences if we do not take action Besides, climate change is a direct consequence of the materialistic culture that characterizes the Western world today. When choosing a country for my research, Great Britain stood out as an interesting choice for several reasons. Firstly, the country has taken the lead internationally by being the first to set legally binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions, and the awareness of climate change is very high, being 98%Six of ten Britons are worried about climate change3, so I assumed that this concern would be reflected in the newspapers. Secondly, it has historically been one of the main pollutersdue to large emissions from early on. A third reason for my choice was the fact that British people are among the most avid newspaper readers in the world. 82.0% of all British adults read a newspaper every day, so newspapers are an important source of information.
In order for my project to comply with the word limit and time available, I have chosen to limit my investigation to two newspapers: The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail.
Firstly, I chose these two because the first is a broadsheet and the second a tabloid newspaper, 1 See appendix 1.
2 IPCC Working Group II Report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm, accessed 12.06.09, 09:57. Technical Summary.
3 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairshttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/individual/attitudes/, accessed 11.06.09, 13:364 Singer, P. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004),Chapter 25 The Newspaper Society : http://www.newspapersoc.org.uk/Default.aspx?page=897, accessed 09.06.09, 13:23 and published research has shown a sharp distinction between the two categorieIt was my opinion that when considering one difference, the other factors should be as equal as possible.
Therefore, I chose two newspapers that are both considered to be conservati As a result of these choices, I ended up with the research question “To what extent do
the British newspapers The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph differ in the ways in
which they deal with the issue of global climate change?” My intention is to study the
newspapers, mainly by applying my knowledge of analysis, but also by comparing it to published research on media’s coverage of climate change and on the differences between 6 See appendix 2.
7 BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3409185.stm, published 19.01.04, accessed 10.06.09, 09:188 The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/feb/22/dailymail.pressandpublishing, published22.02.01, accessed 10.06.09, 10:36 In order to answer my research question, I will analyze the news articles about climate change printed in my two chosen newspapers over a time period of the three consecutive weeks 17-19 in year 2009, including Sundays. The requirement I have set for the articles is that the on-going global climate change is directly linked to the main theme. My focus is on news articles, but editorials and commentaries, and also articles where climate change is discussed to a smaller extent, may be included where it is relevant.
My task is then to analyze the texts with respect to topic, purpose, point of view and target group. I do not find it suitable to compare numbers, because length of the articles as well as the newspapers’ total number of articles may vary. Through a qualitative analysis, I will be able to get an overall impression of how the issue climate change is dealt with. Then I will try to give reasons for my findings by relating them to climate change research, the newspapers’ values, political allegiance, readership, news values and British culture. I should by this become able to reach a conclusion on how the newspapers skew the issue global climate change, and what reasons they may have to do so.
The Daily Telegraph is Britain’s best-selling quality daily newspaperwith a circulation of 2,200,000 every daIt is part of the Telegraph Group, owned by The Daily Mail is the second-largest tabloid paper with a circulation of 820,000 a day4, and is owned by Daily Mail and General Trust. Both newspapers target the middle- and upper-middle class of educated adult 9Telegraph Media Group: http://advertising.telegraph.co.uk/static/KeyFacts.aspx, accessed 10.06.2009, 10:1910 Daily Mail and General Trust pcl:http://www.dmgt.co.uk/corporatestructure/anmediaassociatednewspapers/circulationfigures, accessed10.06.2009, 10:1711 J. Price, J. Nicholas: AS Media Studies (Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd, 2003), Chapter 7 Part I: Analysis of the newspapers’ coverage of climate change
The texts that were found relevant for analysis with respect to the research question, counted 13 in The Daily Mail, including 12 news articles and one commentary, and in The Daily Telegraph the corresponding figures are 13 and three. Climate change was not once on the front page. The results of the analysis are as follow: The Daily Mail: The most striking observation is The Daily Mail’s large focus on what negative short-term consequences Britain’s binding emission targets will have for the average citizen, including personal finances and having to change one’s lifestyle. Out of 13 articles, five were mainly about tax increases. We are given the impression that being able to combat global warming requires too large an effort to be feasible.
For example, taxes are the focus of an article on April 23rd:“Tough new targets to tackle climate change will cost every household at least £600 a year, push more than a million into poverty and send fuel bills soaring. […] The targets will be legally binding, even if every other country in the world continues to increase carbon emissions.” This appeals to people’s sense of justice, because it seems unfair that some countries should do more than others that On April 21st, Matthew Elliott, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, is quoted about the Government’s emission targets: “The Government is running a serious risk of appearing to fiddle while Rome burns. Introducing green policies that will cost billions at a time when the economy is in crisis is frankly irresponsible.” His job is obviously to be negative towards tax increases, not to be concerned about the global future. We are convinced that we need not hurry, and that right now we have not got the capacity to think 12Daily Mail Connected MyLife Survey: http://www.dailymailconnected.co.uk/pdf/news_mylife.pdf, accessed10.06.09, 11:37 about anything but ourselves. April 24th, the Mail had an article about carbon capture and storage at coal plants, telling us that this might just be wasted money: “[Ministers] admit the technology has not been tested on a large scale, will cost billions of pounds to implement, and could add around two percent to household electricity bills.” On May 5th, the Mail prints a similar article with the heading “Miliband’s global warming law ‘could cost £20,000 per family’”. By close-reading the rest of the article, one understands that this sum is to be paid over a period of 41 years. The journalist focuses on the costs to taxpayers, rather than the benefits this will have for the environment.
April 21st, the Mail printed a comprehensive and negative article about wind power: “Wind power is a catastrophe, threatening to despoil our beautiful countryside as an increasing number of hills and mountains succumb to regiments of giant white windmills.
[…]There are already plans to build huge wind farms across some of Britain’s most glorious landscapes.” This is an example of egoism and short-termism, since a major climate change will most likely change landscapes a lot more than building wind farms would, e.g. through April 23rd: “Critics said the targets would cost the economy £14 billion a year by 2020 and would have only negligible impact on climate change.” The highly controversial climate change sceptic Bjørn Lomberg is cited as an expert, although he represents a very small minority of environmental scientists: “It will cost billions of pounds and the net effect will be to reduce world temperatures by one three-thousandth of a degree by the end of the century.” These articles’ common message is that we can just as well give up combating global warming, because it is too challenging.
13 Chapter 10.4 in IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, 7-22 The Daily Telegraph: The negative sides of combating climate change were the main topic of only one article and an important topic of a second in the Telegraph: April 30th: “Meeting the target to cut greenhouse emissions by 80 percent by 2050 will cost around £17 billion a year, or add around £700 on the average electricity bill by 2050.” These are the total costs, so on average it gives a cost of £17 per year – not that much to make a fuss about. May 9th: “After all, talking about fighting climate change is a bit of a nonsense if the only practical way to get around rural areas is in a car.” The message to the readers is that it is not worth combating climate change if it is unpractical and requires a lowering of The Daily Mail: Celebrities are the second major focal point of the Mail, and especially environmental spokesmen’s profligate lifestyles – this is the topic of five articles. On April 26th, the Mail printed two articles about Prince Charles’ flying a private jet on his tour to promote environmental issues, and on May 4th there were two similar articles about the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister: “Critics accused the pair of seeking to ‘live a life in luxury’ at taxpayers’ expense – and pointed out that using private charter flights dramatically The Daily Telegraph: The Telegraph printed three articles about celebrities, only one focusing on their ambivalent moral, and two about Prince Charles’ environmental efforts.
The broad consensus among scientistaken into consideration, both newspapers take a sceptical line on climate change. In fact, on April 26th, The Sunday Telegraph wrote: “In his book, [Lord Stern] criticises the media for giving any space at all to [the deniers of climate change], when ‘the balance of logic and evidence is 99 percent or more to one’”.
The journalists often seem to throw doubt upon official figures, politicians and scientists. They also tend to exaggerate facts to make global warming seem beyond common sense, and to ridicule experts and environmentalists.
The Daily Mail: May 5th: “the Government is committed to cut carbon emissions, blamed for global warming”. This wording implies that the connection between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is not known, but merely thought, to exist. “[Mr Miliband] denied the figures were framed to produce a convenient answer.” “Ministers insist the costs of not acting on climate change would be higher than the price of acting now”. Both quotes show that the journalist serves us the official version, but intimates that she herself does not believe it. This is done by emphasizing that she is referring to official announcements, not presenting personal or the newspaper’s views.
May 8th: “If we have a wet summer, it’s the fault of ‘global warming’. If we have a rare fine summer, Gordon Brown takes the credit.” This gives the impression that climate change is all about natural coincidences that are used by politicians to further themselves.
The Daily Telegraph: A larger portion of the texts express scepticism, for example by using the wording “supposed climate change”, as on April 29th. The Sunday Telegraph, April 19th: In an article with the headline “Save the planet rhetoric reaches crazy heights”, general climate change research is referred to as “environmentalist propaganda”. The journalist quotes environmental spokesmen saying that “failing to ensure one’s home is ‘energy efficient’ was a ‘moral crime’, as ‘socially unacceptable’ as drink driving”, and that “opposing wind farms should be as ‘socially unacceptable’ as not wearing a seatbelt”. The above quotes have been taken out of their original context, and since one often expresses oneself differently written and orally and the humour with which something might have been said is not as easily caught when read, the quotes are made to seem much exaggerated and rather ridiculous. This spreads distrust towards experts and pictures climate change as far beyond common sense. The finishing paragraph is “Fortunately, the latest available data show the downward trend in global temperatures continuing. One thing we don’t need to worry about, it seems, is global warming.” This is just the journalist’s statement, and no effort is made to back it up with data. Journalists’ tendency to fail to do so is also observed in an article on British environmental reporting: “in both the tabloids and broadsheets, there was little evidence provided, in the form of data, to substantiate the claims being made.” Although they fail to support their own claims with arguments, the journalists often try to rebut experts’ claims by finding other data: The Sunday Telegraph April 26th: “the Stern Review went out of its way to cherry pick the most alarming possible predictions about the impacts of climate change and then to exaggerate them still further.” This argument is backed up by figures from other experts that disagree with Stern, underlining the message that climate change is grossly exaggerated, if even true. In the finishing line, Stern is even described as “lost in his apocalyptic dreams”.
The same is done in a similar article about Stern in The Sunday Telegraph on April 21st. The journalist backs up many of her arguments with figures that differed from Stern’s – only to be forced to apologize due to misinterpretations a week later.
There are also other examples where quotes are taken out of their original context to be exaggerated: April 21st there were two articles about Lord Stern’s warnings on climate change. One told that “he said […] Florida and Bangladesh could disappear, alligators could live at the North Pole and millions of people would have to migrate.” However, he is quoted 15 N. Taylor and S. Nathan: “How Science Contributes to Environmental Reporting in British Newspapers: ACase Study of the Reporting of Global Warming and Climate Change”, The Environmentalist, December 2004,doi: 10.1023/A:1020762813548 directly in the second article: “The last time the world was 4-5 degrees above where we are now was 30-50 million years ago, when much of the planet was swampy forest and there were alligators near the Pole”. There is a rather large difference between the two, and one might suspect that the journalist has misinterpreted Stern deliberately to make his words seem too over-dramatized. In The Sunday Telegraph April 26th, another journalist goes even further: “Lord Stern predicts that global warming will make the Artic an ideal habitat for alligators”.
The article, where Stern is referred to as “the world’s Scaremonger-in-Chief”, furthers my argument that data and quotes are manipulated.
Often, humour and self-irony are used to forecast a future with global warming. This has the effect that it suppresses the gravity of the situation. It conveys the message that it is better to stay calm, think about oneself today and not worry unnecessarily. May 2nd: “English lawns will become a sign of ‘social and moral decadence’ as climate change takes effect in the next decade, say horticulturalists. […] Gardeners will have to plant more Mediterranean On May 10th, The Sunday Telegraph had the headline “The elements conspire against the warmists”. “The frenzied efforts of the warmists to panic us over all that vanishing Arctic and Antarctic ice are degenerating into farce”. Later, the journalist refutes Ban Ki-moon’s claim that the polar ice is melting quickly by using contradicting figures from the US National Those who are concerned about global warming are often mocked and made fun of, and are referred to in terms as “romantic greens” (the Mail, April 21st) and “crazed eco- warriors” (the Telegraph, April 21st). This makes it less alluring to believe and sympathize Although both newspapers are sceptical at times, most articles in the Mail and some in the Telegraph acknowledge the threat and the necessity of action. For instance, the Mail refers to “the two great crises of our age – climate change and the energy gap” (April 21st) and “harmful greenhouse gases” (April 19th). On May 10th, the Telegraph furthers that “politicians should force us into setting a concrete example to the developing nations on climate change” and of course both quote experts supporting the existence of climate change.
Very often, the Mail exaggerates global warming, so that it seems a nearly impossible task. An article in the Sunday Mail on May 3rd states that “anyone who eats meat regularly dramatically increases the size of their carbon footprint.” Although this might well be true, the article treats it in such a way that we get the impression that everything we do is wrong, and that combating climate change is far too large a task to master. Simon Retallack, head of the Institute for Public Policy Research, says: “The public become disempowered because it’s too big for them; and when it sounds like science-fiction, there is an element of the unreal there.”16. I have not observed this tendency to the same extent in the Telegraph.
None of the newspapers mention “small actions” or what individuals can do for the climate. This is also observed by Solitaire Townsend, MD for the sustainable development communications consultancy Futerra: “The style of climate change discourse is that we maximise the problem and minimize the solutiAnother finding that is common for both papers is that they only write about Britain – British climate policies, experts, celebrities, etc.
16 BBC news, 21.04.09. Accessed fromhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5236482.stm, 15.06.09, 15:28 Both newspapers focus largely on the costs to the individual of actions to combat climate change, but The Daily Mail does so to a significantly larger extent than The Many of the articles feature celebrities, but this occurs more often in the Mail.
Both newspapers throw doubt upon the existence and gravity of climate change, but the Telegraph more than the Mail. Scepticism is aroused by trying to rebut experts, ridiculing environmentalists, exaggerating and using humour.
Most often, climate change is acknowledged a threat.
The Mail has a tendency to exaggerate.
The focus is held on Britain, although it is a global topic.
Part II: Evaluation of the findings
Having analyzed the texts, summed up findings and considered the effects of them, it remains to gain an understanding of why these decisions have been made, to fully answer the Instead of considering what benefits humanity and the society as a whole, the newspapers most often choose to see things from the individual’s point of view. Both papers target aspiring middle-class adults, who are likely to be money-conscious and alert to what the tax money is spent on. Consequently, the readers disapprove of increases in personal expenses – especially when they are spent on things that will not benefit them immediately, as is the case in global warming. This interests and arouses them and thus makes it valuable news. Perhaps the target groups can explain why this is the focus of a larger proportion of the articles in the Mail, than in the Telegraph.
Although the readerships of both are claimed to be rather wealthy adults, there is a tendency that tabloids sell better among downmarket readerand these have more reason to be concerned about personal finances. Another explanation can be the differences in newspaper categories, since tabloids often focus more on the lives of Celebrities selPeople like hearing about seemingly successful people’s mistakes and faults, because knowing that no-one is perfect legalizes our own faults. Besides, it is annoying to readers that politicians urge people to lower their level of luxury, when 17 J. Price: GSCE Media Studies (Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2003), Chapter 818 See appendix 2.
19 P. Rayner, P. Wall, S. Kruger: Media Studied: The Essential Resource, Part 3: Media Institutions. (London:Routledge, 2004) not doing so themselves. Negative news sell better than positive newsbecause people find it more interesting to read about what people do wrong, than what they do right. The Royalty gets large publicity, because Great Britain is a monarchy where the Queen is a symbol of national unity, identity and priand people are interested in what the royal family does. It is not surprising that the Mail emphasizes celebrities more than the Telegraph, because this is characteristic for tabloi One reason the newspapers give space to sceptics, is their effort to balance the news.
The Boykoff brothers have done research on the US quality press' skewing of climate change, and concluded that their “adherence to balance actually leads to biased coverage of both anthropogenic contributions to global warming and resultant actiThis is likely to be the case in Britain, too. Especially the Telegraph prides itself on being an enquiring newspapeand therefore tries to rebut experts and find The scepticism might to a certain extent be explained by the newspapers’ political allegiance, since both are conservative. Although both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party acknowledge the necessity of action in the energy policy papers, Labour suggests significantly more comprehensive policies. Labour has set specific goals for CO2-reduction and the provision of renewable energy, whereas the Conservatives focus more on adaptation to climate change and the difficulties in 20 A. Bell, M, Joyce, D. Rivers: Advanced Level Media, (London: Hodder Arnold, 2001) Chapter 7: News21 The Daily Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/2122182/Britain-should-get-rid-of-the-monarchy-says-UN.html, published 13.06.08, accessed 11.06.09, 12:3422 See appendix 2.
23 M. and Jules Boykoff: “Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press”, 2003,doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.00124 J. Price, J. Nicholas: AS Media Studies (Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd, 2003), Chapter 7 providing enough cheap energy, rather than combating global warmingThis suggests (but does not prove) that the Conservatives are less worried about global warming, although it does not necessarily apply to the readers in general. Still, readers might be thankful for sceptical arguments, because this serves an excuse to be passive and keep lifestyles unaltered. Seeing the scepticism in relation to the reluctance to change living standards is also in accordance with an article on British newspapers’ reporting on climate change, which concluded that there was “made little attempt to address the suspected causes that would inevitably involve criticism of highly So, although it is a rather unexpected finding that a quality newspaper is more sceptical than a popular newspaper according to the research that quality newspapers are more concerned about facts and scientific correctneit may be explained by their wish to take the readers’ side, and to sell themselves as enquiring.
As mentioned, most Britons are concerned about climate change. The broad consensus among scientists, the high level of education and the free information flow taken into consideration, it would practically be impossible for a large newspaper to Media professor Roy Greenslade claims that the Mail has a consistent tendency to exaggerate: “The Mail presents every facet of life in as gloomy and threatening a light 25 The Labour Party’s environment policy paper: http://www.labour.org.uk/environment, accessed 18.06.09,09:4326The Conservative Party’s energy policy paper,http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Energy.aspx, accessed 11.06.09, 13:4527 N. Taylor and S. Nathan: “How Science Contributes to Environmental Reporting in British Newspapers: ACase Study of the Reporting of Global Warming and Climate Change”, The Environmentalist, December 2004,doi: 10.1023/A:102076281354828 See appendix 2.
as possible. […] Playing to the fears and narrow-mindedness of its audience, it magnifies their xenophobia and hypochondria, panders to their envyheir tendency to exaggerate arouses readers, making them interested in reading the articles.
Proximity is one of the twelve news values identified by Galtung and Ruso this explains why the newspapers keep their focus on Britain.
We see that many of the newspapers’ decisions can be explained by news values, science skewing, target group and aspects of British culture.
29 Roy Greenslade quoted in J. Price, J. Nicholas: AS Media Studies (Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd,2003)30 Reference to Johan Galtung and Mari Ruge in A. Bell, M, Joyce, D. Rivers: Advanced Level Media Conclusion
The conclusion is that although there are some significant differences, The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph deal with the issue global climate change rather similarly, and that The Telegraph’s coverage seems more sceptical towards the existence of climate change than the Mail’s, although it is the case for both that the proportion of sceptical articles is larger than the proportion of scientists that are so. This must be seen in connection both with target group and political allegiance. The Telegraph has an enquiring approach, supposedly because that is the way it wishes to sell itself. The Mail’s tendency to exaggerate may also partly be explained with the newspaper’s general journalism.
Both newspapers take the individual British citizen’s point of view in matters like tax increases, because this is coherent with the reader’s opinions and interests. However, this is to a greater extent the case in the Mail than in the Telegraph, possibly due to different target groups and newspaper categories. Another significant observation is that especially the Mail focuses largely on celebrities, presumably due to news values, the newspaper category and, to These findings have been shown likely to be the result of conscious journalism and intentional editorial decisions. Since the essay only considers two newspapers over a limited time-period, generalizing the findings to apply to all conservative broadsheet and tabloid newspapers is inappropriate. Nevertheless, the investigation serves as an indicator of British newspapers’ coverage of climate change.
PRIMARY SOURCES:The Daily MailThe Mail on SundayThe Daily TelegraphThe Sunday Telegraph, all April 20th – May 10th Bell, A., M. Joyce, D. Rivers. Advanced Level Media. London: Hodder Arnold, 2001. Chapter Price, J. GSCE Media Studies. (Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes, 2003), Chapter 8 Price, J. and J. Nicholas. AS Media Studies. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes Ltd, 2003.
Rayner, P., P. Wall and S. Kruger. Media Studied: The Essential Resource. London: Routledge, 2004. Part 3: Media Institutions.
Singer, P. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven and London: Yale University Galtung, J. and M. Ruge “The structure of foreign news: the presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers”, Journal of International PeaceResearch (1965) quoted in Bell, A., M. Joyce, D. Rivers. Advanced Level Media. London:Hodder Arnold, 2001. Chapter 7: News Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The. Working Group II. “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". 2007. Technical Summary. Available fromhttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-ts.pdf, accessed 12.06.09,09:57.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The. “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability”.
2007. Chapter 10.4. Available from accessed17.06.09, 10:12.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The. Working Group II. “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability". 2007. Summary for Policymakers. Available fromhttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-spm.pdf, accessed 17.06.09,09:23.
M. and Jules Boykoff. “Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press”, 2003.
N. Taylor and S. Nathan. “How Science Contributes to Environmental Reporting in British Newspapers: A Case Study of the Reporting of Global Warming and Climate Change”,The Environmentalist, December 2004. doi: 10.1023/A:1020762813548 Conservative Party, The: The Conservative Party’s energy policy paper. Available at Daily Mail Connected. MyLife Survey. Available at published 13.06.08, accessed 11.06.09, 12:34 Guardian, The: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/feb/22/dailymail.pressandpublishing, published 22.02.01, accessed 10.06.09, 10:36 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The: , Labour Party, The: The Labour Party’s environment policy paper. Available at Appendices
The IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) consists of hundreds of scientists from all over the world. According to its web pages, it was established in 1988 to provide object research by developing reports that “deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio-economic factors” and “aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage”. Of course their conclusions do not reflect the opinions of all scientists, but the panel’s conclusions give a trustworthy indication of where most scientists stand in their view on climate change.
In the 2007-report "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability", it is stated that there is “very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming” and that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. “Very likely” is defined as more than 90% likelihood.
The temperature departures from 1961-1990-levels the past 140 years: Sources:The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: accessed 11.06.09, 11:17 IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution ofWorking Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
, accessed 11.06.09, 11:43 IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, 2001:accessed 15.06.09,10:54 The distinction between tabloid and broadsheet (quality) newspapers refers to formats in which they are printed. However, there are often other large differences as well, both in form and content. There are of course large variations, and the stereotypes do not fit for all.
Still, I will list some characteristics that can often be observed: Tabloids
Source: Bell, A., M. Joyce, D. Rivers. Advanced Level Media. London: Hodder Arnold, 2001. Chapter 7: News

Source: http://voxpublica.no/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Herberg_Kjersti_S.pdf

Whatto bring

General Information for Coral Reef Ecology - 2008 Flight Information Departure We are leaving on TACA flight TA431on May 31, 2008 from Houston, Texas (Bush International IAH), which is scheduled to leave at 15:10. We will assemble at the TACA desk at 9:30 AM . Do not be late! Dr. Kesler already has enough gray hair. If there is an emergency, call Dr. Kesler’s cell phone at 901


Senior Research Scientist Gilead Education 1984: B.S., Physical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, P.R. China. Ph.D. in Biophysics/Physical Chemistry with Prof. Robert C. Matthews, Department of Chemistry, the Pennsylvania State University, USA Postdoctoral Fellow with Prof. Fred Cohen, Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Californ

Copyright © 2011-2018 Health Abstracts