Is the government doing a good enough job of communicating climate science? In a response to a critical report by MPs on Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee, the government has defended the way it communicates climate change, but it has also set out how it plans to improve.

In April, the committee told the government it must up its game in communicating the science of climate change. Its report  ‘Communicating climate science’, followed months of evidence sessions with experts and government and media representatives. Now the government has responded to the committee’s recommendations.

Social media 

The report criticises what it sees as a failure to make effective use of the internet and social media – both by the government and other “trusted bodies”.

In its response, the government says it already has a presence in the world of social media – the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) is on Twitter, for example – but that it needs to improve it. The government also says it is in the process of establishing a “science expert communications group” to improve communication of climate science – but provides no further details.

In the meantime, the government identifies steps it’s taking to improve climate change information on its website. That’ll include its own fact-checking section, with information on “commonly-held ‘myths'” about climate change, explaining why they’re untrue. It’s a relatively bold move on the government’s part, and might be seen as replicating the work of blogs such as Skeptical Science, which is dedicated to dispelling climate change myths and confusion.

Lack of narrative

The committee concluded there was a “lack of a [government] narrative” on climate change and what to do about it, and that this reflected a lack of government leadership.

Few of the witnesses the committee heard from agreed that the government had established a strong storyline about climate change. The Met Office’s Dame Julia Slingo told the committee there’s “quite a lot of work to do” to create narratives people can relate to – about the science and also about its implications on a local and personal level.

Speakers also complained about a lack of consistency in government climate policy. Paul Crick from Kent County Council criticised government vacillating on the level of feed-in tariffs, and the ‘soft launch’ of the government’s national climate change adaptation programme – which means few people have heard of it.

The government rejects the charge that it lacks a narrative, arguing that the UK Climate Change Act shows there’s clear leadership, and on the international stage, it’s pushing for high-ambition global carbon targets.

Does this answer the committee’s specific points about inconsistent policymaking on a local and national level? Probably not – it’s all very well having climate legislation, but when senior ministers suggest climate change might not be all bad, there’s a danger that becomes undermined.

Uncoordinated 

The committee also criticises what it sees as a failure among local and national government agencies to communicate climate science. It says because of this, the expert witnesses who gave testimony do not regard the government as a primary – or a trusted – source of climate change.

The government’s response raises some interesting questions. It argues that because the public trusts scientists far more than politicians to give accurate information about climate change, it is better that scientists do most of this work. This might suggest the government has deliberately refrained from making statements about climate change.

Yet the government also promises it will do more. It says DECC’s climate science team is working on communicating climate science more effectively, and that the department has a strategy for communicating climate change over the next year. It adds:

“A key output from this strategy will be an overarching cross-government narrative which all relevant departments buy into to enable DECC and other relevant parts of government to speak with one voice on the issue of climate change.”

The committee says that as a result of the government’s hands-off approach to communicating with the public and the media, “relying heavily on scientists as the most prominent voice”, a vacuum has appeared that has allowed inaccurate arguments to “flourish with little effective challenge”.

In reply, the government argues  that where climate skeptics have appeared in the media, “scientific voices, notably Professor Brian Hoskins from Imperial and Reading Universities and Professor Peter Stott from Met Office, have been equally prominent with, in our view, stronger arguments”. Presumably the government is referring to instances such as a Today Programme segment on extreme weather featuring Hoskins and skeptic campaigner Nigel Lawson.

At the same time, it promises to “robustly tackle” inaccuracies in the broadcast and print media. But it adds: “Government cannot, and should not, seek to either replace, or coordinate, the real experts.”

Climate science, climate policy

The committee’s inquiry began on the basis that unless the government communicates climate science effectively to the public, it will lose its mandate to use policy measures to tackle climate change.

Does the government accept this premise? On the basis of its responses, perhaps not. It argues that there’s no inconsistency in its climate policies, and in places almost seems to suggest that it’s better if the government largely keeps out of communicating the science of climate change.

On the other hand, the government’s response response details a number of measures designed to make the way the government talks about climate science more accessible and engaging, and hopes to increase communication within government, too. Will this lead to a stronger, more coordinated message on climate change from the government? It remains to be seen whether the government thinks that’s a good thing.