Download Critical Thinking: An analysis of strategies in evaluating media coverage of climate change at an academic level

Critical Thinking: An analysis of strategies
in evaluating media coverage of climate
change at an academic level
How should students apply critical thinking to evaluate the mixed information on climate
change in the media?
When undertaking studies in university, students are required to uphold the academic integrity of the
institution. The curriculum in universities is subjected to higher levels of scrutiny as it is the highest-level
of tertiary education. The information students can access and provide in their studies is available in a
variety of formats and features materials from a wide cast of individuals, ranging from professionals and
academics to amateurs and the uninformed, specifically in relation to climate change in the media
(Boykoff, 2011). This mixed information must be carefully vetted before it is included in a student’s work
as it is their responsibility to adhere to the academic standards required by their university. As such the
information consumed and utilized by students in the course of their studies must be evaluated through
critical thinking analysis.
The concept of critical thinking is a mindset in which information is observed through a deductive and
systematic process (Burton, 2018). The ability to think critically, when applied in the academic field,
supports students in ascertaining the value and validity of sources and creating structured assertions that
follow a logical sequence (Judge, Jones, & McCreery, 2009). Students who implement critical thinking in
their studies use an analytical approach to examine and evaluate information. When thinking critically,
students research and interpret information and use it as a basis for their own studies. It is this ability that
allows them to develop arguments that ratify their position with credible sources and meet the academic
standards that universities require (University of Leeds, 2020). In regard to the mixed media coverage of
climate change, students must evaluate sources of information through critical analysis before
incorporating them in their studies. Climate change, more specifically anthropogenic climate change, is
contested and widely debated within the media; it invokes an array of responses, ranging from belief,
skepticism, pseudo-science, and conspiracy theories (Boykoff, 2011). To uphold university academic
standards, students must avoid poor sources of information through the implementation of critical
thinking strategies such as maintaining neutrality, assessing authority, and corroborating evidence.
1
When evaluating information, it is crucial that students maintain neutrality – any personal opinions or
biases should not be displayed in their arguments. Van den Brink-Budgen (2011) states that there should
be no disregard or misrepresentation of evidence that does not align with one’s position as it weakens
credibility. The information that students intend to use should be impartial in nature as well. This display
of neutrality can be seen in the report, Global Warming of 1.5°C, created by the Inter-governmental Panel
on Climate Change (2018); it features impartial language when presenting information, relaying scientific
evidence in an objective manner that should be present in all sources that students utilize. In contrast to
the IPCC’s report, the newspaper article by Miranda Devine, Turn off the alarm, exhibits subjective
language that makes it an unsuitable source for referencing. Devine (2018) declares that statements made
by the IPCC are “the latest case of the boy who cried wolf.” Such emotive language exposes the author’s
personal opinions and biases should not be present in academic texts. The alarmist keywords and informal
tone detract from the source and compromise its value (Brick, Herke, & Wong, 2017). This critical thinking
strategy assists students in remaining impartial when evaluating information and displaying neutrality in
their own studies.
Another essential strategy of critical thinking is to assess the authority of authors. As mentioned
previously, anthropogenic climate change is a controversial issue within the media. It is subjected to the
factual statements of experts as well as the personal beliefs of amateurs. It is vital that students make an
effort to differentiate between the authority of authors when evaluating sources for their studies. An
example of a credible source is John Rennie, the author of 7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
(2009); his credentials include a Bachelor of Science from Yale University and the position of editor-inchief of a scientific journal, thus giving him authority in the field of climate change science. Dunlap and
Jacques (2013) reveal that 90 percent of anti-anthropogenic texts are “scientifically unfounded claims”
that are published by authors with no scientific background and are not peer-reviewed. Students must be
aware of such “alternate academia”; it is a movement commissioned by anti-anthropogenic climate
2
change corporations such as oil and coal companies that promotes denial and skepticism of factual,
scientifically proven evidence (Dunlap & Jacques, 2013; Nuccitelli, 2013). Therefore, it is essential that
students appraise the authority of authors through investigating their level of expertise in the field of
climate study and motives before utilizing their works in their studies.
An additional strategy of critical thinking is the corroboration of evidence. This strategy is a vital criterion
of critical thinking that involves the validation of research through the support of other peer-reviewed
sources (Monash Universty, 2020). Without this validation, arguments are unsubstantiated claims that
negatively impact academic works. On the issue of climate change, Gutting (2011) states that “there is no
basis for supporting the minority [anti-anthropogenic climate change] position”, and this is because the
arguments for this position have no reliable corroborators. This is seen in the anti-anthropogenic climate
change website, Climate Conscious. The author criticizes the scientific consensus through an
“internationally respected Canadian climatologist”, Tim Ball (Roberts, n.d.). However, a quick search
reveals that Tim Ball holds a degree in historical geography and philosophy, and none in fields relating to
climate science (Littlemore, 2007), thus making him a poor source of justification. On the other hand,
assertions from the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change are corroborated by peerreviewed and academic texts. These assertions cite reports from the IPCC and other scientific bodies, 97
percent of whom agree with and support their consensus (Nuccitelli, 2013). When evaluating information
about climate change in the media, students must be conscious of the sources they intend to use through
investigating the source’s corroborators and verifying them through other sources.
Although there is a scientific consensus that supports the effects of anthropogenic climate change, the
media coverage of this issue is debated, featuring contestations of factual evidence with unsubstantiated
arguments that are supported by objective and unauthoritative sources. Through critical analysis,
students can determine the merits of a source based on the information provided. The critical thinking
strategies examined above assist students in this aspect through the analysis and evaluation process.
3
Students must maintain the academic standards that universities adhere to as studies undertaken in
university are regarded as intellectual and scholarly texts. The implementation of critical thinking analysis
supports students in their studies and facilitates them in achieving the academic standard.
4
References
Boykoff, M. T. (2011). Who Speaks for the Climate? Making Sense of Media Reporting on Climate
Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brick, J., Herke, M., & Wong, D. (2017). Academic Culture: A Sudent's guide to studying at university.
South Yarra, Australia: Macmillan Science & Education.
Burton, L. J. (2018). An Interactive Approach to Writing Essays and Research Reports in Psychology (4th
ed.). Brisbane, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.
Devine, M. (2018, October 10). Turn off the alarm. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved from https://searchproquest-com.ezproxy.une.edu.au
Dunlap, R. E., & Jacques, P. J. (2013, February 22). Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think
Tanks: Exploring the Connection. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6). Retrieved from
https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.une.edu.au/doi/10.1177/0002764213477096
Gutting, G. (2011, July 12). On Experts and Global Warming. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. Geneva, Switzerland.
Judge, B., Jones, P., & McCreery, E. (2009). Critical Thinking Skills for Education Students (1st ed.). Exter,
United Kingdom: SAGE Publications.
Littlemore, R. (2007, February 5). Dr. Tim Ball: The Lie that Just Won't Die. Retrieved from
https://www.desmogblog.com/dr-tim-ball-the-lie-that-just-wont-die
Monash Universty. (2020, Februrary). Critical thinking. Retrieved from
https://www.monash.edu/rlo/research-writing-assignments/critical-thinking
Nuccitelli, D. (2013, May 29). 97% global warming consensus meets resistance from scintific denialism.
The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics
5
Rennie, J. (2009, November 30). 7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense. Scientific American.
Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/7-answers-to-climate-contrariannonsense/
Roberts, M. (n.d.). The Work of Malcolm Roberts. Retrieved from http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/
University of Leeds. (2020). Critcal thinking - What is critical thinking? Retrieved from
https://library.leeds.ac.uk/info/1401/academic_skills/105/critical_thinking
van den Brink-Budgen, R. (2011). Critical thinking for students: Learn the skills of analyzing, evaluating
and producing arguments (4 ed.). London, United Kingdom: Constable & Robinson.
6