The news a person watches often says a lot about his or her politics. But what does it say about how they view science?
A lot, it turns out. And thatís a problem.
We analyzed nearly 600 cable news transcripts from CNN, Fox News and MSNBC to assess how accurately hosts and guests portrayed climate science. Overall, we found that cable programs reflected whatís in the Congressional Record far more than whatís in scientific journals like Nature or Climatic Change.
Fox News Channel hosts and guests often dismissed climate science as they argued against climate policy. Sean Hannity and Greg Gutfeld, for instance, both accused scientists of manipulating or hiding climate data as they criticized liberal policy priorities on climate change. But the network wasnít monolithic. Bill OíReilly and Bret Baierís programs were responsible for most of the networkís accurate coverage, including regular reporting, interviews with guests who accept the science and fact-checking overstatements from climate advocates.
On MSNBC, hosts and guests sometimes overstated the severity of climate change. For instance, some linked climate change to tornadoes, despite the lack of data scientists have on tornado patterns. But in many more cases, the network covered climate science accurately.
It seems clear that opponents of climate policy misrepresent the science much more often than supporters.
CNN sometimes split the difference. Several debates on the network pitted an environmentalist who accurately represented the science against a libertarian who didnít.
Why do peopleís politics have such influence on how they view scientific facts? According to research from Yale Universityís Dan Kahan, people process scientific information based on their ideology and policy preferences rather than their level of education or science literacy.
Not surprisingly, a Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll showed that 84 percent of Democrats accept the fact that the Earth is warming while opinion among Republicans is more divided. Sixty-one percent of non-tea-party Republicans recognize that the Earth is warming while only 25 percent of tea party Republicans do.
Certainly, Democrats and liberals are no strangers to ignoring or even rejecting science on other issues, or overstating risks scientists have identified, but on climate, they tend to get the science right.
Unfortunately, the political divide over climate science degrades our public discourse. If we canít agree on the facts, we canít effectively debate policy. Democracy and science work best when policymakers recognize the risks scientists have identified, even as they disagree on if and how to respond. Itís crucial for such disagreements to be based on our values rather than competing views of scientific reality.
As it stands, our broken climate debate creates uncertainty for businesses that are doing long-term planning. Despite the gridlock, many major energy companies are simply baking a carbon price into their business plans. Further, the risks we face from rising seas, more extreme heat, and shrinking snowpack affect all of us, regardless of our political leanings. As the effects of climate change mount, rejecting the science should become less tenable for politicians and pundits.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., walks on Broadway after a Future Forum with young entrepreneurs in the Flatiron District of New York City, April 16, 2015. Reps. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., Seth Moulton, D-Mass., and Grace Meng, D-N.Y., also attended.