FAIR examined the transcripts of all
ABC, CBS and NBC network news programs from January 25—the time of
the first blizzard—through March 4. There were 417 segments that
mentioned extreme cold, snow or ice, but only seven of them (less than 2%)
made reference to climate change.
There is a near-consensus among climate
scientists that warmer ocean temperatures lead to a greater
concentration of moisture in the atmosphere above the oceans, which
in turn increases the amount of snowfall during winter storms.
Warmer temperatures also can increase snowfall because the greatest
amount of snow falls when the temperature is between 28 and 32
degrees Fahrenheit.
There is less consensus about the
causes of the extreme cold of the past two winters, but it seems to
be related to the polar vortex, a cyclone-like weather pattern that
circles around each pole. Less ice and snow cover at the North Pole
has weakened the polar vortex, causing cold air masses to drift
southward over the Northern Hemisphere.
Attributing winter storms to climate
change seems counterintuitive to people who identify it exclusively with global warming. Unfortunately, four news segments were devoted to Senator James Inhofe's (R-OK) misleading stunt of
bringing a snowball onto the Senate Floor to mock “global warming.”
A second finding of the FAIR study is
that the corporate media gave substantially less coverage to the
current drought in the Southwestern U.S. to than snowstorms in the East.
There were twelve segments on the drought during the time of the
study, and only one of them mentioned climate change.
That increasing temperature might lead
to droughts is not at all counterintuitive. All the climate models predict less rainfall in the American Southwest. But unlike
blizzards, droughts are “non-events,” which are less likely to
attract media attention even thought their consequences may be quite
serious.
Why are the networks so reluctant to
connect extreme weather to climate change? One possibility is that they see climate change as a partisan political issue. Its mere
mention as a cause of some negative event may be seen as liberal
bias. But if reality has a liberal bias, this means
that less reality will find its way onto the news. A cynic might
also point to the networks' concern about alienating the fossil fuel
companies upon whose advertising they rely so heavily.
A study by social psychologists at Rutgers University shows that when people have direct experience
with extreme weather—in their case, Hurricanes Irene and Sandy—they are more
likely to support politicians whose policies are intended to minimize climate change. However, if this message relating extreme weather to
climate change is to reach the ubiquitous “low information voter”
in time, the media must make these connections early and often.
Right now, that's not happening.
Post Script
The one drought report that did mention climate change was an ABC segment which included this depressing example of false balancing.
A new study from Stanford University claims the drought in California is being fueled by human-caused climate change. But some scientists not involved in the study are questioning some of those findings.
Really? How many scientists? Who are they? Are they independent researchers or are they employed by fossil fuel corporations? What are their objections to the Stanford study? Are these objections scientifically valid? We'll never get answers to these questions from the Mouse House. ABC's message is simply the usual misleading claim that "experts disagree" about climate change.
You may also be interested in reading:
