“Climate change contrarians” are getting 49 per cent more media coverage than scientists who support the consensus view that climate change is man-made, a new study has found.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Because science is boring to the masses. Especially science about rocks and weather patterns. The people with the **hottest** takes get air time because it interests more people which means more $$$


Just because there are people taking two sides of an issue does not mean that both sides need equal coverage. Especially in the case when one side is factually wrong. What happened to journalistic integrity?


Because “boring” explanation of what is happening ain’t going to attract attention (and money) than presenting nutjobs, militant idiots and what not else


The issue with climate change and the media is that climate change is a slow process and the media likes flashy stories. Over the years I’ve seen a ton of articles about sea level rise and how coastal cities will “be underwater within 20 years” or how CA, rocky mountains and the mid west will be completely destroyed by fires etc. This was years ago. Then they push the dates back or mess around with the timeline. It’s like the people who talk about how the world will end on x date, that date comes and passes, nothing happens, they say that their math was wrong or something and eventually nobody believes them. Instead of pushing fear mongering stories that eventually will just make people’s eyes roll we really need to be talking about the pros of clean energy.


Unless I am missing something, the methodology doesn’t seem to perfectly match the title. It’s more like, a climate change contrarian is 49% more likely to be personally invited by the media to defend their views on climate change than is a proponent. Proponents are probably covered far more overall, but the 386 experts were not personally interviewed as often as the 386 contrarians. And why would they? There is 32x as much competition for that media coverage.