BROOKE GLADSTONE:  A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, is yes, packed with evidence that global warming is a palpable threat. But the report departs from previous ones by offering a different sort of narrative, one that grapples with some of the most intractable challenges of covering climate change. We've been talking about those on this program for years, with journalists like Andrew Revkin of the New York Times Dot Earth blog.

 [CLIPS]:

ANDREW REVKIN:  Global warming is kind of like the Social Security of national debt of the environment. It’s there, we all recognize it’s some kind of big, bad thing, but it’s always kind of a “someday, somewhere” story.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:   Heidi Cullen of Climate Central.

DR. HEIDI CULLEN:  You know, we’ve really been trying to figure out how to cover it as a breaking weather story, so to speak. And it’s, it's not always easy.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  And George Monbiot, columnist for The Guardian.

GEORGE MONBIOT:  As people are confronted with really the inescapable evidence for climate change, they go into denial in the same way as we might go into denial when we go to the doctor and he says, “I’m sorry to tell you, you’ve got cancer.”

  [END CLIPS]

BROOKE GLADSTONE:   Cristine Russell, science journalist and a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, says that this new IPCC report makes a media-ready case about climate change that can no longer reasonably be denied.

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  I think it's been seen as more abstract:  It’s happening to polar bears. And this new report and recent efforts really tried to send the message that nobody is immune, across continents, across oceans, virtually everywhere. That's a different message. An AP science writer named Seth Bornstein had a quote from a scientist that said, “The polar bears are us.”

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  What are the sorts of issues that the IPCC is pointing to that perhaps it hasn’t emphasized so strongly in the past, say in the 2007 report?

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  Things like food, water, health and security. In the food area, for example, they cite that there's evidence already of decreases in crop yields in wheat and corn and, as people are facing hunger and higher food prices, there could be conflict, both within countries and across borders.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  It’s not saying that climate change will cause wars, is it?

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  No, it's really saying that things that we’re already worrying about, if they get a bit worse, there can be a kind of tipping point. And they say that the signs are already there. It’s not abstract.

I mean, another area, of course, is water, either too little of that, droughts, but also too much water, with the flooding of coastal areas in particularly urban areas. So they’re also talking more about climate refugees, and that's an area that has not been emphasized in the scientific reports as much in the past.

Another issue that was raised in the report that was a little unusual from previous efforts is the impact of climate change on the economy. If there are increases in food prices, it's not just a problem for agriculture in Africa. It's already a problem in the US. All of the media surveys show the economy is the number one thing that the public is concerned about, and so that message has really been driven home.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  And you’re saying they didn't say these things in 2007.

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  They have dealt with impacts before, impacts on ecosystems, none of which kind of reverberate with the general public. This report is bolstered by a better PR approach, also much better science, just really massive, 2500 pages.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  Now, in the past, the climate change skeptics have gotten a hold of the report and leaked it in an effort to cast doubt on the report's conclusions. I guess they tried that again this time. Tell me what happened, what the IPCC did differently, because in the past I think the IPCC tried to ignore those leaks, right?

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  Absolutely. What happened this time was as far back as November there was a leaked summary of the report, as well as all 30 chapters in the draft report put up on a skeptic’s website. The New York Times, the wire services all wrote about it but they tended to emphasize the report itself and not doubts being spread by the people who leaked it.

The other thing was that in the past, you know, the IPCC has kind of just turned their head and said, no comment, no comment. This time, they've been much more media friendly. Ironically, in a way, the leaked version was used once again in recent weeks for people to write news stories. So the mainstream media largely ignored the climate denialists this time around.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  There also seems to be, in this report, a greater emphasis on positive and effective actions that can be taken. Now, the notion that, as we've often heard, it's probably too late to do anything about climate change creates a kind of paralysis. Does the IPCC report try to counter that?

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  It definitely does. One of the co-chairs of the report, Chris Field, said he was actually optimistic that there could be actions taken to get ready for climate change, better planning for disasters, such as hurricanes or flooding, trying to breed more drought- or flood-resistant crops and much more emphasis on saving water and energy. I think that is a different and new theme in the report, as well.

That kind of slight note of optimism was not emphasized by the media coverage. I think we’re seeing a lot more attention, maybe more locally than in the national media, to what people can do, how cities can plan differently. And people sometimes don't believe things until they see it for themselves. I think the scientists are coming in and saying, look, we have more evidence, the evidence is piling up, and there's enough of a concern about extreme weather that people are starting to take it much more seriously.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  Cristine, thank you very much.

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  Thank you so much.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  Cristine Russell is a science journalist and senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, is yes, packed with evidence that global warming is a palpable threat. But the report departs from previous ones by offering a different sort of narrative, one that grapples with some of the most intractable challenges of covering climate change. We've been talking about those on this program for years, with journalists like Andrew Revkin of the New York Times Dot Earth blog.

 [CLIPS]:

ANDREW REVKIN:  Global warming is kind of like the Social Security of national debt of the environment. It’s there, we all recognize it’s some kind of big, bad thing, but it’s always kind of a “someday, somewhere” story.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:   Heidi Cullen of Climate Central.

DR. HEIDI CULLEN:  You know, we’ve really been trying to figure out how to cover it as a breaking weather story, so to speak. And it’s, it's not always easy.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  And George Monbiot, columnist for The Guardian.

GEORGE MONBIOT:  As people are confronted with really the inescapable evidence for climate change, they go into denial in the same way as we might go into denial when we go to the doctor and he says, “I’m sorry to tell you, you’ve got cancer.”

  [END CLIPS]

BROOKE GLADSTONE:   Cristine Russell, science journalist and a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, says that this new IPCC report makes a media-ready case about climate change that can no longer reasonably be denied.

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  I think it's been seen as more abstract:  It’s happening to polar bears. And this new report and recent efforts really tried to send the message that nobody is immune, across continents, across oceans, virtually everywhere. That's a different message. An AP science writer named Seth Bornstein had a quote from a scientist that said, “The polar bears are us.”

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  What are the sorts of issues that the IPCC is pointing to that perhaps it hasn’t emphasized so strongly in the past, say in the 2007 report?

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  Things like food, water, health and security. In the food area, for example, they cite that there's evidence already of decreases in crop yields in wheat and corn and, as people are facing hunger and higher food prices, there could be conflict, both within countries and across borders.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  It’s not saying that climate change will cause wars, is it?

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  No, it's really saying that things that we’re already worrying about, if they get a bit worse, there can be a kind of tipping point. And they say that the signs are already there. It’s not abstract.

I mean, another area, of course, is water, either too little of that, droughts, but also too much water, with the flooding of coastal areas in particularly urban areas. So they’re also talking more about climate refugees, and that's an area that has not been emphasized in the scientific reports as much in the past.

Another issue that was raised in the report that was a little unusual from previous efforts is the impact of climate change on the economy. If there are increases in food prices, it's not just a problem for agriculture in Africa. It's already a problem in the US. All of the media surveys show the economy is the number one thing that the public is concerned about, and so that message has really been driven home.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  And you’re saying they didn't say these things in 2007.

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  They have dealt with impacts before, impacts on ecosystems, none of which kind of reverberate with the general public. This report is bolstered by a better PR approach, also much better science, just really massive, 2500 pages.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  Now, in the past, the climate change skeptics have gotten a hold of the report and leaked it in an effort to cast doubt on the report's conclusions. I guess they tried that again this time. Tell me what happened, what the IPCC did differently, because in the past I think the IPCC tried to ignore those leaks, right?

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  Absolutely. What happened this time was as far back as November there was a leaked summary of the report, as well as all 30 chapters in the draft report put up on a skeptic’s website. The New York Times, the wire services all wrote about it but they tended to emphasize the report itself and not doubts being spread by the people who leaked it.

The other thing was that in the past, you know, the IPCC has kind of just turned their head and said, no comment, no comment. This time, they've been much more media friendly. Ironically, in a way, the leaked version was used once again in recent weeks for people to write news stories. So the mainstream media largely ignored the climate denialists this time around.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  There also seems to be, in this report, a greater emphasis on positive and effective actions that can be taken. Now, the notion that, as we've often heard, it's probably too late to do anything about climate change creates a kind of paralysis. Does the IPCC report try to counter that?

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  It definitely does. One of the co-chairs of the report, Chris Field, said he was actually optimistic that there could be actions taken to get ready for climate change, better planning for disasters, such as hurricanes or flooding, trying to breed more drought- or flood-resistant crops and much more emphasis on saving water and energy. I think that is a different and new theme in the report, as well.

That kind of slight note of optimism was not emphasized by the media coverage. I think we’re seeing a lot more attention, maybe more locally than in the national media, to what people can do, how cities can plan differently. And people sometimes don't believe things until they see it for themselves. I think the scientists are coming in and saying, look, we have more evidence, the evidence is piling up, and there's enough of a concern about extreme weather that people are starting to take it much more seriously.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  Cristine, thank you very much.

CRISTINE RUSSELL:  Thank you so much.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:  Cristine Russell is a science journalist and senior fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center.