At least some more reporters and at least some polling organizations are looking out their windows, paying attention to wildfires in California and heat waves in Australia and floods in …, and starting to address climate change.
Incredibly political journalists have started to ask Republicans regularly about climate change in the year two thousand eighteen
— Rebecca Leber (@rebleber) December 4, 2018
These (so-to-speak) newcomers to the beat of the most critical issue facing mankind are approaching the topic almost as one might discuss the Easter Bunny and (more ominously) the Zombie Acopalyse.
Too often we see reports of (Republican) politicians and the public being asked:
“Do you believe in climate change?”
It's almost 2019. Can we stop reporting on climate change like it's Santa? https://t.co/J6FPCXlF7b
— Jennifer Hollett (@jenniferhollett) December 1, 2018
Simply, purely, this is not a situation of belief but a willingness to accept scientific conclusions and understanding.
A decade ago, climate scientist Dr. Vicky Pope explained it thusly:
When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we “believe in climate change”. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity’s activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
“The scientific evidence is overwhelming …”
And, sadly, reporters and pollsters persist in “belief”-type questions and discussions.
The term "belief" is inappropriate. We don't "believe" re "gravity". This is about understanding/accepting science.
— A Siegel (@A_Siegel) November 29, 2018
Mother Jones‘ Rebecca Leber makes the absurdity of “belief” framing clear.
Do you believe in health care?
Do you believe in GDP?
Do you believe in cancer?
Do you believe in national debt? (a HT @jamisonfoser on that one)Get why it's embarrassing to ask, "Do you believe in climate change"?
— Rebecca Leber (@rebleber) December 4, 2018
Will any journalist or pollster be embarrassed that the best they could do, with their limited shot at asking question, was to ask whether the President or his supporters believe in Vampires?
Rather than being embarrassed, when facing a politician the question could be: what discrete and specific actions will you vote for and execute to address the mounting climate crisis which is laid out in scientific analysis and reporting?
For the public, perhaps it is better to ask
- Are you aware that over 97 percent of the relevant scientific experts have concluded that humanity is responsible for over 50 percent of recent global warming (and potentially all of it)?
- Would you support government policy, such as moving toward clean electricity systems, to address climate change?
- …
Recognizing the reality of climate change is not about religious belief and framing in in this way undermines the ability to have rational and meaningful p.ublic dialogue about what policies to pursue to deal with reality