Climate change alarmism

Climate change alarmism or global warming alarmism is a rhetorical style which stresses the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming as a technique for motivating public action. Public perception of the realities and risks associated with climate change forms a continuum in which people with "alarmist" views form one extreme along the continuum, and those commonly characterized as "denialists, "skeptics" or "naysayers" at the other extreme. The term also often used by those who challenge the scientific consensus on climate change as an epithet for those who broadly adhere to the consensus view.

Alarmism is described as the use of a linguistic repertoire which communicates climate change using inflated language, an urgent tone and imagery of doom. In a report produced for the Institute for Public Policy Research Gill Ereaut and Nat Segnit reported that alarmist language is frequently employed by newspapers, popular magazine and in campaign literature put out by government and environment groups. It is difficult for the public to see climate change as urgent unless it is posed to them as a catastrophe, but using alarmist language is an unreliable tool for communicating the issue to the public. Instead of motivating people to action, these techniques often evoke "denial, paralysis [or] apathy". In the United Kingdom, alarmist messages are often subject to "subtle critique[s]" in the left-leaning press, while the right-leaning media often "embrace" the message, but undermine it using a "climate skeptic" frame.

People who hold alarmist views of climate change represent one end of a continuum in public perceptions of climate change. Allan Leiserowtiz found that alarmists made up about 11% of the United States population, while "naysayers", who have a skeptical or cynical view of climate change, make up about 7% of the population. The remainder of the public lay between these two extremes. Their perception of climate change was similar to that of the alarmists, but they differed significantly from them on questions related to perceived risk.

Influence of media coverage

Minority views—both alarmist and denialist—were reported to get disproportionate attention in the popular press, especially in the United Kingdom. One of the consequences of this is a portrayal of risks well beyond the claims actually being made by scientists.

Views of scientists

Stephen Schneider has criticized alarmism, stating that he "disapprove[s] of the 'ends justify the means' philosophy" that would exaggerate dangers in order to spur public action. Mike Hulme, professor at the University of East Anglia and former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, describes such exaggerations as "self-defeating," in that they engender feelings of hopelessness rather than motivating positive action. Hans von Storch has objected to "alarmists [who] think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."

Scientists also have been critical of press sensationalism in reporting on climate change. Myles Allen, director of the Climateprediction.net experiment, criticized press reporting that seized on the extreme end of predictions from the experiment without emphasizing the much more likely cases of more moderate warming.