1. Scientific studies (e.g. in peer-reviewed journals) are the first line of information where they try to quantify and qualify a specific aspect of the climate system or related natural system. (These are usually not "press ready".)
2. The IPCC does a meta-analysis of climate studies and provides a synopsis covering a wide range of climate topics. This is where skeptics now like to point out things like members of WWF or Greenpeace being authors, lead authors basically reviewing their own work and favoring it, etc. (Still not quite "press ready".)
3. The IPCC produces a summary for policy makers to translate the large technical report into the highlights about things we supposedly should be worried about. This is where skeptics point out that these summaries are actually edited and approved by policy makers and not the scientists who actually wrote studies. Many IPCC authors have criticized this step. (This is the point where the press picks up on the issues.)
4. The actual MSM (what I call corporate news) reports now filter out words like likely or possible and, because they need to sell their product, the resulting reports are quite spectacular. Unfortunately, this is mostly what the public consumes. (This is the point where skeptics do what the guy in my avatar is doing.)
Also my opinion, and a loose one since I haven't gotten into the background in depth, is that the recent US National Climate Assessment followed the above 4 step process with steps 2-4 having the alarmism aspect ratcheted up a notch.
Edit@Jim Z: Yes we are close on the news; the MSM certainly isn't the grassroots news nor the independent news.
Mike calls it the corporate news, I call it the state run news but since large corporations and the state to often go hand in hand, I suppose our views aren't too different.
First the media is biased politically way to the left of center. Second they like to try to sell stories and scary stories sell more.
1 they are about the same.
2 I think they are trying to save the world the best they can but I don't agree with their end goals. In fact I think most of them are bunch of mind-numbed robots.
3, I think they cried wolf too many times but some people are really really gullible.
Congratulations on posting a pertinent question. My answer is that it varies considerably. In general, the US press tends to first dumb climate science down to a level which they can understand, then hype it up with exaggeration (e.g. the "alarmism" which deniers falsely but routinely ascribe to the scientists themselves) and then pander to the fossil fuel industry lobby by pretending that the fundamental science is in dispute (as it has not actually been for decades). The sleazier outlets like Fox, cut corners on the truth during the dumb-down phase in order to get even faster to the fake debate and fake skeptic "viewpoint." Unfortunately, the readers are mostly even more uninformed than the journalists, so the whole process is one where light is more often upstaged by heat. There are a few notable exceptions to this, mainly in the New York Times. Generally, though I rely on more solid sources such as science journals, Nature and Science, and quality newsmagazines such as Economist.
Most of the time it is not particularly good, but I think it's much better than deniers ability to comprehend what they're reading, which is usually abysmal. Virtually all of the "false" predictions that we hear so much about it here are the result of deniers not being able to parse what someone is saying.
I am disgusted with mass media, at one time MSM acted as a foil to government, acting as the devils advocate, making sure we knew the truth, ensuring that things could not be swept under the carpet.
Not any more now they just amplify what the government says.
They nicely report the grossly inaccurate gov't reports about the supposed problem of AGW. I.e., they very poorly serve their readers, listeners and viewers..which is a scandal.
How the mass media cover scientific subjects matters in many ways, whether scientists like it or not. Stem cells, genetically modified organisms, cloning, the environmental or health implications of chemicals or climate change: whatever the subject, media coverage has helped to shape public perception and, through it, affected how science is translated into policy, most notably in regard to the environment, new technologies and risks (Weingart et al, 2000). Conversely, political, economic and other interests have long tried to influence media coverage of particular topics to affect the public's understanding and perception, and scientists are now becoming more aware of the power of the media. Consequently, the intersection of mass media, science and policy is a particularly dynamic arena of communication, in which all sides have high stakes.
1.) Do you find the reporting of AGW to be more or less alarming than the IPCC reports or is justifiable by the current scientific knowledge?
2) Are the media doing the best they can with the topic, OR do issues like ratings overly affect their reporting?
3.) How does the media's handling affect the overall perception by the public? For example, If you think they are exagerrating AGW, is the public becoming over-concerned or numb to the story?
