Here’s the latest paper decrying that we just can’t get the peons to do what we want.

The environmentalist narrative has become a staple of mainstream media coverage in recent years. From reports of melting glaciers to claims of record-breaking temperatures, it seems we cannot go a day without hearing about the impending doom that is climate change. But is this narrative being pushed upon us for our benefit, or is it a tool to manipulate public sentiment?

A recent study by the University of Lausanne, screen capped above, points towards the latter, It reveals insights about media coverage of climate change and its effect on public behavior. The researchers analyzed around 50,000 scientific publications on climate change from 2020 and found a noticeable bias towards natural sciences. The study suggests that the media tend to focus on large-scale, future climate projections and a narrow selection of threats, such as melting glaciers and polar bears.

Interestingly, the researchers found that these types of narratives do not inspire pro-environmental behaviors. Instead, they often provoke push back and avoidance, leading to a lack of engagement in climate action. This doesn’t come as a surprise to those who’ve observed the media’s tendency to lean towards sensationalism in their coverage of climate change.

The authors of the study, Fabrizio Butera and Marie-Elodie Perga, propose a solution-oriented approach to climate change communication. However, this proposition appears to be just another tactic to manipulate public sentiment and coerce compliance with the authors’ policy preferences.

As Butera explains, fear can lead to behavioral change, but only if the problem presented is accompanied by solutions. This statement implies an interest in the strategic use of fear as a tool to drive action. If the public is sufficiently scared and presented with a solution that aligns with the author’s policy preferences, they are more likely to comply.

This study reveals more about the methods of manipulation at play in the climate change narrative than it does about climate change itself. It’s clear that the focus is on influencing public behavior rather than informing the public in an objective, balanced way.

What’s missing in this study and in the broader climate change debate is the presentation of diverse perspectives, including those skeptical of the prevailing catastrophic narrative. Climate change is an intricate issue with scientific uncertainties and wide-ranging viewpoints, all of which should be fairly represented to ensure public understanding. The media, and those in control of it, should promote critical thinking, not fear-mongering and one-sided narratives.

As always, critical thinking and healthy skepticism are essential tools in navigating the complex world of media influence.