Martell and Rodewald (2019) considered the recent changes made by The Guardian to its style guide. These changes include the reframing of climate change as climate emergency, crisis, or breakdown and global warming as global heating (Carrington 2019). The Guardian’s goal in making these changes is to “more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world” and to “ensure that we are being scientifically precise” (Carrington 2019).

Martell and Rodewald suggest that “by failing to ground their recommendations in empirical research… The Guardian may have missed an opportunity to effectively communicate with and engage readers.” They further argue that the “failure to draw on existing – or call for additional – empirical research is a missed opportunity to spur improvements in communication of complex issues in a precise and effective manner.”

I take rather a different view and applaud The Guardian for their awareness, social consciousness, and leadership with respect to their role as a media outlet with major influence. I take issue with the conclusion that The Guardian has failed to draw on existing empirical research in adopting its revised language.

Like many scientists, I am a proponent of evidence‐based policy; however, I am also mindful that empirical research is not the only method by which to acquire knowledge. Evidence‐based policy does not, therefore, need to be based only on empirically derived research and is likely to be better informed when it draws on multiple strands of evidence. Framing effects are context dependent, making universal rules of framing difficult to pin down. And although there are numerous empirical framing studies that relate to climate change, none entirely address The Guardian's needs in this context. As such, any relevant evidence base for this context is imperfect at best.

An insistence then that proactive changes, in this setting or any other, be limited to the extent with which they accord to an established empirically derived evidence base would enshrine the status quo under the guise of it being ‘evidence based’. It is the avoidance of this kind of problem for which the precautionary principle (i.e., where there is threat of serious damage, a lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone effective measures of prevention) was developed and made a canon of conservation (UN 1992).

Yet, the actions of The Guardian are supported by empirical research, at least in that they recognize the influence of media framing and the effects subtle differences in language can have in how people perceive and respond to issues (e.g., Harris 1973; Kahneman & Tversky 1984; Entman 1993; Lakoff 2010) and illustrate an understanding that although passive language can often obscure causation, active language can enhance the sense of agency to take action. (See Kusmanoff et al. [2020] for a discussion of strategic framing.) In adopting the new terms, The Guardian also draws on the advice and commentary of experts and have communicated the reasons for these changes.

The core objection of Martell and Rodewald seems to stem not from a lack of evidence (empirical or otherwise), but from a mismatch between the goals The Guardian has set forth and the goals Martell and Rodewald might prefer. The Guardian seeks to be “scientifically precise” and to “more accurately describe the environmental crises facing the world” (Carrington 2019). The greater accuracy sought by The Guardian is to better reflect the scale of the climate crisis and the urgent need for action. Thus, their reframed terms are intended to increase the salience of this among their readers. In contrast, Martell and Rodewald are concerned about the risk of increased polarization and conflict around global heating (or climate change, if you prefer) and thus argue that The Guardian should instead draw on the empirical research that can inform this goal (e.g., Myers et al. 2012).

I believe both goals have merit, and I heartily applaud Martell and Rodewald for publicly voicing their views and engaging constructively in this discourse. This is something that should be encouraged in the research community.

My own view is that because framing cannot be avoided, because all language necessarily exists in some kind of frame, any contrived neutral frame will always be subjective at best. For my mind, it is preferable that, being aware of this, The Guardian has deliberately and transparently chosen a framing that seeks to heighten awareness and promote the urgent need to take action. As researchers, many of us would also do well to be more mindful and transparent of our own values that inevitably translate to our work, consciously or otherwise, and shed the naïve fiction of the objective scientist (Garrard et al. 2016).

Martell和Rodewald（2019）考虑了《卫报》对其风格指南的最新更改。这些变化包括将气候变化重新定义为气候紧急情况，危机或崩溃，将全球变暖重新定义为全球供暖（Carrington 2019）。监护人做出这些改变的目标是“更准确地描述世界面临的环境危机”，并“确保我们在科学上是精确的”（Carrington，2019年）。

马爹利和罗德瓦尔德建议：“由于未能将他们的建议扎根于实证研究……卫报可能错过了与读者进行有效沟通和互动的机会。” 他们进一步认为，“未能利用现有的或需要进行更多的经验研究是错失了机会，无法以精确有效的方式促进复杂问题的交流。”

我持不同的观点，并称赞《卫报》在他们作为具有重大影响力的媒体方面的作用方面的认识，社会意识和领导才能。我对《卫报》在采用其修订后的语言时未能借鉴现有的经验研究的结论表示怀疑。

像许多科学家一样，我是循证政策的支持者。但是，我也意识到，实证研究不是获取知识的唯一方法。因此，基于证据的政策不必仅基于经验得出的研究，并且在利用多条证据时可能会得到更好的信息。取景效果取决于上下文，因此很难确定取景的通用规则。尽管有许多与气候变化有关的经验框架研究，但在这方面没有一个能完全满足《卫报》的需求。因此，与此相关的任何证据基础充其量都是不完善的。

如果坚持认为，在这种情况下或在任何其他情况下，将主动更改限制在其与已建立的以经验为依据的证据基础相符的范围内，就会以“基于证据”为幌子来阐明现状。正是为了避免这种问题，制定了预防原则（即，在存在严重损害的威胁时，不应将缺乏充分的科学确定性作为推迟采取有效预防措施的原因）。保护经典（联合国，1992年）。

然而，《卫报》的行动得到了实证研究的支持，至少是因为他们认识到媒体框架的影响以及语言中微妙的差异对人们如何感知和回应问题的影响（例如，Harris 1973； Kahneman＆Tversky）1984年；恩特曼（Entman）1993年；拉科夫（Lakoff）2010年），这说明了一种理解，即尽管被动语言常常会掩盖因果关系，但主动语言可以增强采取行动的代理意识。（有关战略框架的讨论，请参见Kusmanoff等人[ 2020 ]。）在采用新术语时，《卫报》 还借鉴了专家的意见和评论，并传达了造成这些变化的原因。

马爹利和罗德瓦尔德的核心异议似乎并非源于缺乏证据（经验或其他），而是由于《卫报》提出的目标与马爹利和罗德瓦尔德可能更喜欢的目标之间的不匹配。《卫报》力求做到“科学精确”，并“更准确地描述世界面临的环境危机”（Carrington 2019）。《卫报》寻求更高的准确性，以更好地反映气候危机的严重程度和迫切需要采取的行动。因此，他们改组的用语旨在提高读者之间的关注度。相比之下，马爹利和罗德瓦尔德则担心全球供热问题之间极化加剧和冲突加剧的风险（或气候变化，如果您愿意的话），因此认为《卫报》应该改用可以为该目标服务的实证研究（例如，Myers等人，2012年）。

我相信这两个目标都是值得的，我衷心赞扬马爹利和罗德瓦尔德公开发表意见并建设性地参与这一讨论。这是研究界应该鼓励的。

我个人的观点是，由于无法避免取景，因为所有语言都必须存在于某种框架中，所以任何人为设计的中性框架都将始终是主观的。在我看来，最好是，《卫报》意识到这一点，故意并透明地选择了一个框架，以期提高认识并促进采取行动的迫切需要。作为研究者，我们许多人也将做好更加注意和透明的我们自己的价值观不可避免地转化为我们的工作，有意或无意地和大棚客观科学家的天真小说（加勒德等人。2016）。