Over the years, religion and science have developed a collaborative relationship, addressing not only environmental concerns but numerous other issues. However, both face a significant obstacle in their efforts – the crisis of communication. Certain groups with vested political and economic interests, particularly those tied to industries affected by climate change mitigation, have actively undermined the reality of the environmental crisis.[1] These groups have been accused of deliberately spreading misinformation to create doubt about climate change.[2] Their tactics include funding misinformation campaigns and supporting individuals and think tanks that disseminate misleading information about climate science. They cherry-pick data, presenting selective studies that appear to contradict the overwhelming scientific consensus, while ignoring the vast body of evidence supporting climate change.[3] Furthermore, they promote individuals lacking scientific credentials as supposed experts to question the validity of climate science.[4]
Another strategy employed by certain groups involves creating controversy by exaggerating uncertainties within the scientific community and portraying the issue as a subject of intense debate, despite the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. In fact, a comprehensive study of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers published since 2012 found that over 99 percent of the authors agreed that climate change was caused by human activities.[5] These vested interest groups also attempt to shape media narratives, influencing coverage to give disproportionate attention to dissenting views or present a false balance on the topic. For instance, a media study conducted by Public Citizen in 2019 revealed that during the first half of the year, 86 percent of climate change discussions on the conservative American network Fox News were dismissive of the climate crisis.[6] Moreover, some of these groups exploit societal divisions to hinder collective action on climate change. They frame the issue as ideological or partisan, thereby impeding meaningful dialogue and cooperation.[7] Consequently, despite the strong scientific consensus on the human impact on climate change, the spread of misinformation and the involvement of political interests have led to divisions in North America, particularly in the USA.[8]
The widespread use of social media and digital communication technology has intensified the problem of climate change misinformation, causing concern among experts about its impact on people's attitudes and actions. This misinformation can lead to serious consequences, such as delaying necessary actions to address climate change and move towards a sustainable future. According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a significant portion (69 percent) of climate change denial on social media originates from just ten websites, which fund their campaigns through revenues from Google ads.[9] Digital platforms allow false information to spread rapidly and go viral, reaching a massive audience before corrections can be made. The algorithms used by these platforms prioritize content based on users' interests, creating echo chambers and filter bubbles that reinforce existing beliefs and make it difficult to correct misconceptions.[10]
Additionally, social media can exacerbate polarization and tribalism, as individuals align their views based on political or ideological affiliations, hindering constructive conversations. The influence of fake accounts and bots further amplifies misinformation, giving the impression of widespread support for climate change denial.[11] With limited fact-checking and credibility assessment, users find it challenging to discern reliable information from falsehoods. Vested interest groups also take advantage of targeted advertising to deliver tailored misinformation to receptive audiences. Social media's role in amplifying contrarian voices and drowning out authoritative sources, such as climate scientists, adds to the complexity of the issue. Addressing the problem of climate change misinformation on social media requires concerted efforts from platforms, users, and experts to promote accurate information, critical thinking, and responsible sharing.
Amidst the troubling reality of climate change misinformation, a critical responsibility falls upon scientists, religious leaders, and other authoritative figures to cultivate informed public awareness. The resounding message from the IPCC's 2022 report echoes the consequences of misleading information propagated by vested interests, which distorts perceptions of climate risks and hampers crucial climate adaptation planning and execution. Regrettably, this obstruction has stifled our ability to take effective climate action, necessitating immediate countermeasures to dispel falsehoods and rally unified public support in confronting the pressing challenges of climate change.[12]
A necessary corrective action that must be taken involves elevating science communication.[13] The field of climate science can be intricate and technical, making it challenging for the general public to comprehend. At times, communicators resort to jargon and obscure terms, further deepening the divide between experts and non-experts, resulting in confusion and disinterest. Although scientific uncertainties are inherent in research, emphasizing them excessively overshadows the robust consensus on human-caused climate change. Such an approach has allowed climate change skeptics to exploit the situation, sowing seeds of doubt and casting shadows of disagreement among scientists. Furthermore, uncertainties inadvertently foster the perception that climate change is a far-off problem, clouding the urgency to take immediate action. Convincing people who otherwise have more immediate preoccupations of the long-term consequences of inaction and the imperative for prompt solutions becomes an arduous endeavor. As evident from my conversations with undocumented migrant workers in Thailand, their primary concern revolves around securing stable employment and avoiding run-ins with the Thai police, leaving little room for environmental worries. For many of them, environmental care is reserved for the better-off who can afford to preoccupy themselves with social concerns.
In the face of these formidable challenges, scientists must join forces with communication experts to disseminate their research and discoveries in a lucid and accessible manner to the broader audience. This can be accomplished through a diverse array of channels, such as public talks, articles, videos, and active engagement on social media platforms. In this digital age, utilizing social media responsibly and skillfully is of paramount importance. Effective communicators should harness the power of social media platforms to share accurate information, interact with the public, and confront misinformation head-on. By maintaining a strong presence on social media, they can reach younger generations and those who might not otherwise access traditional media outlets. Furthermore, scientists can collaborate with media channels catering to religious audiences, fostering more informed and balanced coverage of climate change subjects. Oftentimes, brilliant scientists excel in their research but may lack the adeptness to communicate their findings effectively to the public, thus hindering a comprehensive understanding of their work. Recognizing that being a proficient communicator is not an inherent trait for every scientist, interdisciplinary collaboration with communication experts becomes an imperative for the efficient transmission of knowledge. By making climate science more intelligible and relatable, these concerted efforts can counter the confusion stirred by misinformation and empower the public to make well-informed decisions.
Hence, forging alliances with science communicators, journalists, and media organizations becomes imperative to shield the public from environmental misinformation. Collaborating with religious and secular communicators, scientists can ensure accurate and evidence-based presentations of climate change issues. This partnership holds the power to bridge the gap between the scientific community and the broader public, guaranteeing that reliable information reaches far and wide. Given that a significant portion of the population adheres to religious faiths, the role of religious communicators in accurately and effectively addressing environmental concerns becomes paramount. Religious leaders, in this regard, can make meaningful contributions by presenting scientific knowledge using language that is both scientifically accurate and easily comprehensible, while remaining relevant and consistent with the ethical and spiritual worldview of their followers. The communication of climate change and ecological matters within religious contexts should not be a mere regurgitation of scientific facts. Rather, it ought to be adapted to the spiritual nuances inherent in each religious system. This approach ensures that religious adherents perceive environmental issues not just as social challenges, but as deeply imbued with religious and ethical significance. By harmonizing science with spirituality, we can foster a more profound understanding and engagement with environmental issues within diverse religious communities. Together, through the fusion of scientific expertise and effective communication, we can pave the way towards a more enlightened and conscientious approach to addressing the urgent challenges of climate change.
1. Jeff Turrentine, “Climate Misinformation on Social Media Is Undermining Climate Action,” NRDC, April 19, 2022, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/climate-misinformation-social-media-undermining-climate-action
2. R.J. Brulle, “The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016,” Climate Change 149, no. 3 (2018): 289–303.
3. Rachel Schraer and Kayleen Devlin, "COP26: The Truth Behind the New Climate Change Denial," BBC, November 17, 2021, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-59251912
4. David Biello, "Climate Expertise Lacking Among Global Warming Contrarians," Scientific American, June 22, 2010, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-expertise-lacking-among-global-warming-contrarians/.
5. Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z. Houlton, and Simon Perry, "Greater Than 99% Consensus on Human-Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature," Environmental Research Letters 16 (2021): 114005.
6. Public Citizen, "Climate Change Denial Dominates 86% of Fox News Climate Segments," August 13, 2019, https://www.citizen.org/news/climate-change-denial-dominates-86-of-fox-news-climate-segments/.
7. Damian Carrington, "The Four Types of Climate Denier, and Why You Should Ignore Them All," The Guardian, July 30, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/30/climate-denier-shill-global-debate.
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Climate change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,” 2022, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-repor t-working-group-ii/, 1931.
9. Center for Countering Digital Hate, The Toxic Ten: How Ten Fringe Publishers Fuel 69% of Digital Climate Change Denial, November 2, 2021, https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/211101-Toxic-Ten-Report-FINAL-V2.5.pdf, 3.
10. Michele Travierso, "Measuring Magnetism: How Social Media Creates Echo Chambers," Nature, February 23, 2021, https://www.nature.com/articles/d43978-021-00019-4.
11. Corbin Hiar, "Twitter Bots Are a Major Source of Climate Disinformation," Scientific American, January 22, 2021, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/twitter-bots-are-a-major-source-of-climate-disinformation/.
12. IPCC, 1931.
13. IPCC, 1931.
No comments:
Post a Comment