The government, the media – particularly the BBC-  must up their game in communicating the science of climate change to the public. That’s the conclusion of a report by a Parliamentary select committee, out today.

Detrimental to trust

“A lack of clear, consistent messages on the science has a detrimental impact on the public’s trust in climate science.”

So says the cross-party Science and Technology Committee’s report, ‘Communicating climate science’, compiled following evidence sessions with a range of experts and representatives of government and the media.  It calls on the government to implement a strategy for communicating climate change “as a matter of urgency” and has harsh words for media outlets that it says have been guilty of confusing scientific evidence with opinion.

Media

The select committee report reserves particularly strong criticism for the BBC, and charges it with failing to fully live up to its mandate to educate people about climate science. It says the BBC has “rejected” the conclusions of a report in 2011 that advised the corporation to avoid so-called false balance on climate, where fringe views on the science are presented as a counterpoint to mainstream scientific opinion.

Committee chair, Labour MP Andrew Miller, says:

“Given the high level of trust the public has in its coverage, it is disappointing that the BBC does not ensure all of its programmes and presenters reflect the actual state of climate science in its output. The Today programme and other BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight. Some editors appear to be particularly poor at determining the level of scientific expertise of contributors in debates, for instance, putting up lobbyists against top scientists as though their arguments on the science carry equal weight.”

The committee concludes that “the MPs are not convinced that the BBC has a clear understanding of the information needs of its viewers and listeners.”

The media play an important role in providing the public with information – including on climate change, according to James Painter at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, quoted in the report. He adds that the media also have a “huge role in setting the agenda for what people talk or think about”.

In its submission, Carbon Brief highlighted how poor media coverage can erode understanding: “rapid jumps between detailed scientific specifics, broad scientific conclusions and pundits or politicians arguing about climate policy are unlikely to increase understanding in audiences”.

Some print media outlets also come in for criticism. The report says that the distinction between fact and opinion in the climate debate is blurred because scientific material is seen in some quarters as politically tinged. It notes that evidence of this is found in submissions from the newspapers themselves. As an example it quotes the Daily Mail, which told the committee it “considers climate science to be a political issue and is of the view ‘that not every piece of science by every scientist should be reported as fact'”.

However, as the Guardian highlighted earlier this week, all of the newspapers the committee spoke to told it they agree that humans are causing climate change. This assertion from newspapers that have regularly featured climate skeptic reporting and opinion pieces, like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, is likely to be something they are held to in the future.

Government

Despite a strong legislative basis for addressing climate change, skeptical voices have become more prominent in government, attacking climate policies and the science that underpins them, the report says. The chief executive of advisory body the Committee on Climate Change, David Kennedy,  told the panel:

“We consider the lack of a narrative strongly reflects a lack of leadership in climate change.”

The report also warns that there is a deeper institutional problem with climate communication. It says it has found “little evidence” of any significant coordination within local and national government on communicating climate science – even among bodies tasked with helping communities adapt to and tackle climate change.

Miller says:

“Climate policy touches on many aspects of government policy, it is important, therefore, that there is a consistent message across the whole of government on the issue. The mandate to act on climate can only be maintained if the electorate are convinced that the government is acting on the basis of strong scientific evidence so ministers need to do more to demonstrate that is the case.”

He adds:

“All ministers need to acquaint themselves with climate science and clearly and consistently reflect the government approach in all their communications, especially with the media.”

It’s not all criticism, although it may not be much comfort to the government. The report acknowledges that, at a time when public trust in institutions is low, government has a hard time communicating with the public in general.

The BBC and government have not yet responded to the committee’s findings. It remains to be seen whether they will result in a change of policy in either quarter.