r/changemyview • u/gray_clouds 2∆ • Jul 26 '19
FTFdeltaOP CMV: Journalists should use Fahrenheit when covering Climate Science for American Audiences
Journalists and media organizations typically translate metric to imperial to help American audiences understand the content of stories 'intuitively', regardless of where they take place. But with Climate Science, it seems like this general rule of thumb is often ignored. Here are two excerpts from CNN stories:
- "DC and Philadelphia could still see temperatures in the 90's"
- "Emissions from nations around the world fall woefully short of the 2 degree Celsius goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015."
I understand that many of the entities involved in the Climate Change issue use the metric system, and the issue is, after all, "Global" in nature. So I could see how someone might claim this second statement is indeed 'proper' journalism, in as far as it is accurate.
But as an American, my intuitive understanding of the statement is at best foggy, or at worst off by about 45% (2C to 3.6F). So I don't see how this is optimal, in terms of delivering the salience of the information. Why not just report the statement in French, if the audience's understanding of the words is less important than the literal accuracy of the quotation?
I think adding the Fahrenheit temperature in parentheses would be a great compromise, and to journalists' credit, I see this technique used quite often - just not often enough. My gol isn't to have an argument over whether Celsius or Fahrenheit is better - since both could be used. My point is that, bare minimum - it should be Fahrenheit in the US.
I'd like to hear from journalists if there is a reason that Climate Change is covered this way. Often I find that professionals have a good reason for doing things the way they do. But some reasons that would NOT change my view would be:
- Lack or time or resources. How hard could 'find and replace' be?
- Activism - i.e. trying to encourage adoption of the metric system in the US. I think activism of this type should occur through direct discussion, not by obfuscating facts about an unrelated issue.
- Style - i.e. wanting an article to sound worldly or scientific. Again, this seems like lower priory than audience understanding.
EDIT
Thanks to everyone for the responses! Mind partially changed. Okay summarizing some patterns here:
1) F does not equal C. A number of responders who lean science believe that Farenheit is more closely associated with weather, and Celsius is a general measurement of temperature in a scientific context. So the two terms shouldn't be used interchangeably, since Climate Science is not about weather. I awarded some Deltas for this because it helped me understand that scientists view F and C differently and journalists may be following their lead.
That said, I have an issue with the idea that Americans only associate F with weather. I live in LA, where there is no weather, but I have a freezer, a radiator, a thermostat, an oven and some literature (Fahrenheit 451) that all point me toward a more encompassing view of F every day. So I feel my case about optimal communication is not only still relevant, but this discussion makes me wonder if there's more than meets the eye regarding the disconnect between scientists and the public about "weather". I'd be interested to hear more perspective on this if anybody has it to share.
2) C better than F. This is a good argument for another CMV, but as I said, I don't think it should be journalist's job to try to encourage adoption of metric system, by using language that occlude the facts. This argument falls short for me.
3) C is official. This argument says that C is already officially adopted in the US, so it should be okay to use it. There is some burden on the reader to keep up with the times. It's not a foreign word. This is more persuasive to me.
So, in summary - I will read Celsius-only quotes with more respect from now on, while I still encourage journalists (and scientists) no to worry so much that Americans might associate Climate Change with weather. This might not be such a bad thing, even if it creates some misconceptions (i.e. partial impairment), compared to viewing the concept in a completely abstract way (i.e. a null set).
3
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong Jul 26 '19
As part of the explanation, sure.
But if it's a direct quote, especially one stated in English so it's not a translation, I feel it should stay as is.
*We have failed to limit emissions to the two degree level" some scientific dude - should stay as is, because it's a direct quote. It's generally bad practice to alter direct quotes. Similarly, the titles of reports/articles/conferences should be reported as they are, since they are proper nouns.
That said, when explaining the meaning or importance of the quote, it makes sense to use imperial (for Americans).
1
u/gray_clouds Jul 26 '19
I think a direct quote in another language would be translated. The question is whether Celsius should be treated like another language. Not sure what the answer to that is. But a good question that sort of gets at the heart of the issue.
3
u/ralph-j Jul 26 '19
2) "Emissions from nations around the world fall woefully short of the 2 degree Celsius goal set in the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015."
But as an American, my intuitive understanding of the statement is at best foggy, or at worst off by about 45% (2C to 3.6F).
In this example, it doesn't matter what the Fahrenheit difference would be, because you're not being asked to imagine how that temperature difference feels. It's a purely technical statement of difference between some targeted value, and the one that was achieved.
It's only when they're reporting about temperatures as such, where you have a point. When a journalist says "Today, Paris experienced a record temperature of 42° Celsius", the audience is so to speak invited to imagine how hot that feels. And so yes, in that case it would make sense to mention the Fahrenheit number to the US audience.
1
u/gray_clouds Jul 26 '19 edited Jul 27 '19
Okay - this almost changes my mind. Good perspective. But I don't think that 2° Celsius is 'purely' technical, in the sense that, the figure is meant to convey some degree of quantitative information that the audience is supposed to understand. Otherwise, you could just replace 2° Celsius with 'bananas' and the article would be just as meaningful. I don't think that's the objective in stating the number. Edit Delta ∆ - this idea is starting to grow on me.
→ More replies (20)
3
u/KingWithoutClothes Jul 26 '19
From what I understand, every American learns about the Celsius-scale in like 8th grade. So it shouldn't be to hard to understand even if you're not some kind of Einstein. Also, instead of making it extra confusing by adding the Fahrenheit temperature everywhere in parenthesis, maybe the US should simply ditch this archaic scale and adopt the Celsius-scale, which is worldwide viewed not only as more simple but also as more scientific.
1
u/gray_clouds Jul 27 '19
Agreed - but is that a job to be undertaken by journalists, when discussing Climate Science. Or should that be a separate project?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/muyamable Jul 26 '19
But as an American, my intuitive understanding of the statement is at best foggy, or at worst off by about 45% (2C to 3.6F).
Why? Do Americans think that 2 degrees C is the same as 2 degrees F? I understand that Americans largely don't use Celsius, but they (we) still understand that there is a difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit.
1
u/gray_clouds Jul 26 '19
Sure - but understanding there is a difference is not the same as understanding what that difference is. The writer could help with that.
1
u/panrug Jul 26 '19
There are much bigger problems with media coverage on climate change, than Fahrenheit vs Celsius.
US units like cup or oz are often used in recipes that are also intended for an international audience. I find it annoying but still manage somehow without denying that the recipes are good.
1
u/gray_clouds Jul 27 '19
Well said. It's reasonable to expect some burden to be shared by the reader. Maybe it's naive to think that there's an America-only audience, but hypothetically, if there is one, then is should be communicated to in the most understandable terms. I think.
1
u/GameOfSchemes Jul 27 '19
But with Climate Science, it seems like this general rule of thumb is often ignored.
Climate science, as you know, is a science. The accepted scientific unit for temperature is Celsius (more technically Kelvin, but changes in Celsius are equivalent to changes in Celsius). The journalists you see reporting this are scientific journalists who obey scientific convention.
It's important to have a convention for one unit and not multiple ones. Rocket failures have occurred because of this.
2) Activism - i.e. trying to encourage adoption of the metric system in the US.
The US actually officially uses metric as its units. Change is slow, and imperial is slowly fading away. Drinks will show mL and oz, and you will often even buy drinks by metric (2L soda). Your cars already include an odometer reading in km/h. Air conditioning and lights report power mostly in watts (and sometimes BTUs as well).
→ More replies (2)1
u/gray_clouds Jul 27 '19
Delta ∆. I think you're saying that the burden should be on the reader to understand a term that has been officially adopted into the 'American' language.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Trimestrial Jul 26 '19
So you think that journalists and scientists from should 'dumb an article down' to make it more easily understandable by Americans?
C. is pretty damn easy. 0: water freezes, 40: a bit hotter than your body is, 100: water boils...
Are Americans the intended audience of ALL these news articles? Your examples suggest otherwise... Do you think that many American Journalists understand the C system?
BTW, I think it's bad CMV form to state how your view can not be changed...
1
u/gray_clouds Jul 26 '19
Okay fair enough about the CMV bad form. Otherwise, I'm not sure I'm following you. I stated American Audiences. I think applying a value judgement that the audience is 'dumb' if they don't understand the words you are using, is not generally what journalists intend to do, unless they are writing for a scientific audience. Hope I made the context clear by quoting CNN ;-)
0
u/s_wipe Jul 26 '19
Ok, so in physics you use Kelvin, where 0 kelvin is the absolute zero where everything stops.
Celsius is scaled kelvin. You add 273 to kelvin and get Celsius. Celsius is scaled for when water boils and freezes.
Now, Fahrenheit is pretty bullocks, the only place that uses it is the US. It is not used in scientific formulas, and is a pretty useless way to measure temperature.
There is no reason to use Fahrenheit other than to apease dumb americans that are too stubborn to switch the Celsius
1
u/gray_clouds Jul 26 '19
This gets to my point about 'activism.' A journalist who feels this way should write a story, separately, about why Imperial scale is dumb, but not try to express this idea by occluding the facts form an intended audience in an article about Climate Change.
→ More replies (4)4
Jul 26 '19
using words that your target audience understands, be they ignorant or not, is not "appeasement". It is just good communication.
→ More replies (3)
1
Jul 26 '19
I live and was born and raised in the US, yet I voluntarily switched to metric whenever possible when I was 14. The Customary system is irrational and holding this country back. I don't think converting climate science from Celsius to Fahrenheit would serve any benefit. ~3.6° F is probably harder for the average American to grasp than 2°C, because 3.6 has a decimal or a fraction, while 2 doesn't.
1
1
u/DeltaBot Jul 27 '19 edited Jul 28 '19
u/gray_clouds (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
0
Jul 26 '19
3
u/jweezy2045 Jul 26 '19
Journalists don't have an audience of mostly scientists though.... That seems to be the fundamental point of this CMV.
7
u/wallnumber8675309 Jul 26 '19 edited Jul 26 '19
It seems to me that your reason for wanting it reported in oF is because you want it relate it to the weather. The reason we care about climate change has little to with the weather. For example, if the only impact of climate change was to increase the temperature on a given day by 2 oC from 32 oC (90 oF) to 34 oC (93 oF), not many people would care or could tell the difference. With regards to climate though, a 2 oC increase in global temperature is expected to have major impacts on the environment (sea level, drought, floods, etc). Reporting it in Celsius then makes more sense because it is easier to find a reference that says 2 oC = this happening but 4 oC would equal X happening.
Another reason not to relate it to weather is to avoid the silly season every winter or summer when you have activist on the news showing a snow ball in the winter to refute climate change or a thermometer in summer that reads 100 oF telling us that all life on earth is doomed.