Skip to main content

Science Communication: The “Weight of Evidence” Approach and Climate Change

  • 1095 Accesses


This chapter outlines the ethical issues in science and climate change reporting. It discussed what role journalism and media should play in the global challenge that unfolds as humanity adapts to a changing climate caused by anthropogenic climate change.

The chapter begins by outlining the ethical obligations journalists have in accessing and communicating science. How there is a long-standing understanding and journalistic practice of how science should be identified, summarized, curated and reported. The chapter then moves on to illustrate the importance of journalists critically understanding the scientific peer review process, as illustrated by two case studies.

In the conclusion, the global media ethics framework will be applied to science and climate change reporting. The key concepts considered will be transparency, audience engagement and inclusion.


  • Journalism
  • Climate change
  • Science journalism
  • Ethics
  • Media climate change
  • Peer review
  • Global media ethics
  • Balance as bias
  • Peer review
  • MMR vaccine
  • Science journals

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-32103-5_36
  • Chapter length: 11 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
USD   229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-32103-5
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)


  1. 1.

    Clarke, Profiles of the Future: An Enquiry into the Limits of the Possible, 3.

  2. 2.

    Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt.

  3. 3.

    Boykoff, Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate Change.

  4. 4.

    Boykoff and Boykoff, “Balance as Bias.”

  5. 5.

    Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages.

  6. 6.

    Golinski, Making Natural Knowledge.

  7. 7.

    Lewenstein, “Was There Really a Popular Science Boom?”

  8. 8.

    Robbins, “Science and the Media—An Uncomfortable Fit,” The Independent, paragraph 3.

  9. 9.

    Editorial, “Wakefield’s Article linking MMR Vaccine and Autism was Fraudulent,” The British Medical Journal.

  10. 10.

    Novella, “The Lancet retracts Andrew Wakefield’s Article.”

  11. 11.

    Boykoff and Boykoff, Global Environmental Change.

  12. 12.

    Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt.

  13. 13.

    Chubb, Media Meets Climate.

  14. 14.

    Chubb, Power Failure.

  15. 15.

    Head and Alford, “Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management.”

  16. 16.

    Asayama et al., “Who Captures the Voice of the Climate?”

  17. 17.

    Lidberg, “Australian media coverage of two pivotal climate change summits.”

  18. 18.

    Reporter A and reporter D, interviews.

  19. 19.

    Lidberg, “Australian Media Coverage of Two Pivotal Climate Change Summits.”

  20. 20.

    Chubb, Media Meets Climate.

  21. 21.

    Bradshaw, “‘Calm down, it’s just Facebook.’

  22. 22.

    Grynbaum, “Trump Calls the News Media the ‘Enemy of the American People.’”

  23. 23.

    Hawking, Brief Answers to the Big Questions.


  • Asayama S, Lidberg J, Cloteau A, Comby JB, Chubb P (2017) Who captures the voice of the climate? Policy networks and the political role of media in Australia, France and Japan. In: Media and global climate knowledge - journalism and the IPCC. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff M (2011) Who speaks for the climate? Making sense of media reporting on climate change. Cambridge University Press, New York

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Boykoff M, Boykoff J (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Glob Environ Chang 14:125–136

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw E (2019) “Calm down, it’s just Facebook”: transparent, responsive, and interactive Facebook audience engagement in Australian journalism. School of media, film and journalism. PhD. Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubb P (2012) Really, fundamentally wrong: media coverage of the business campaign against the Australian carbon tax. In: Eide E, Kunelius R (eds) Media meets climate – the global challenge for journalism. Nordicom, Gothenburg, pp 179–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubb P (2014) Power failure: the inside story of climate politics under rudd and gillard. Black Inc, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke AC (1973) Profiles of the future: an enquiry into the limits of the possible. Popular Library, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Editorial (2011) Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. Br Med J 342(7452)

    Google Scholar 

  • Golinski J (2001) Making natural knowledge: constructivism and the history of science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant E (1996) The foundations of modern science in the middle ages: their religious, institutional and intellectual contexts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Grynbaum M (2017) Trump calls the news media the ‘enemy of the American people’. New York Times

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawking S (2018) Brief answers to the big questions. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Head B, Alford J (2013) Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Adm Soc 20(10):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewenstein B (1987) Was there really a popular science ‘boom’? Sci Technol Hum Values 12(2):29–41

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lidberg J (2018) Australian media coverage of two pivotal climate change summits: a comparative study between COP15 and COP21. Pac Journal Rev 24(1):70–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Novella S (2010) The Lancet retracts Andrew Wakefield’s article. Science-Based Medicine, Feb. 3, 2010. At

  • Oreskes N, Conway E (2010) Merchants of doubt. Bloomsbury Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Reporter A (2016a) Interview COP21

    Google Scholar 

  • Reporter D (2016b) Interview COP21

    Google Scholar 

  • Robbins S (2011) Science and the media – an uncomfortable fit. The Independent, Sept. 27, 2011

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lidberg, J. (2021). Science Communication: The “Weight of Evidence” Approach and Climate Change. In: Ward, S.J.A. (eds) Handbook of Global Media Ethics. Springer, Cham.

Download citation