Sentences with phrase «for public opinion on climate change»

I remember exchanging comments with Willis on more than one occasion, where I explained to him that his confidence in his theory of attribution for public opinion on climate change seemed ill - founded.

Not exact matches

Trevor Tompson, director of the AP - NORC Center, said the bipartisan agreement on climate change's existence could be reason to hope for policy action: «Public opinion around many energy issues tends to be fluid, with people often defaulting to partisan starting points.

However, I also feel that the conference and particularly the grand after - conference plans may have a significant impact on public perceptions (reinforcing Americans» uniqueness in terms of climate change beliefs and opinions) and that in turn can provide political cover for politicians reluctant to support tough measures.

In the PEN / TWUC release, Charlie Foran, President of PEN Canada said, «The government of Canada has no right to determine what is an acceptable opinion for an individual citizen, on climate change or any matter of public interest.

Sometimes it's easy to get the impression that public opinion on climate change is split down the middle, with concerned advocates for climate action on one side and science - denying conspiracy theorists on the other.

In this case, the committee might have discovered more than a few papers by one of them on the subject, such as Risbey and Kandlikar (2002) «Expert Assessment of Uncertainties in Detection and Attribution of Climate Change» in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or that Prof. Risbey was a faculty member in Granger Morgan's Engineering and Public Policy department at CMU for five years, a place awash in expert elicitation of climate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the confeClimate Change» in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, or that Prof. Risbey was a faculty member in Granger Morgan's Engineering and Public Policy department at CMU for five years, a place awash in expert elicitation of climate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the confeclimate (I sent my abstract to Prof. Morgan — who I know from my AGU uncertainty quantification days — for his opinion before submitting it to the conference).

As the tit - for - tat attacks from the tail ends of the spectrum on climate change continue unabated, what was once presumed influence on the part of these scientists will likely become real influence on public opinion and political decision - making, and these scientists will be partly responsible.

Although global climate change entails more than rising temperatures, the terms «global warming» and «climate change» are used interchangeably in public discourse and opinion polls on this issue (e.g., PIPA / Knowledge Networks 2005; see Whitmarsh 2009 for a discussion).

For instance, a poll of American opinions on global warming suggested that the public by and large opposes taxes on gasoline or electricity as a way of combating global climate change and, instead, favors stricter fuel - and building - efficiency standards (Leiserowtiz 2009).

It's easy for people to get confused about immense inertia of public opinion on climate change because advocacy pollsters are constantly «messaging» an «upsurge,» «shift,» «swing» etc. in public perceptions of climate change.

Both Romm and advocacy organizations such as Media Matters for America raise their financial support and define their professional roles as watch dogging the mainstream media, asserting that consistent false balance in mainstream coverage at leading outlets such as the NY Times or the Washington Post remains a major barrier to political action on climate change and that conservative media like Fox News have a powerful impact on wider public opinion.

FOR more than a decade public opinion on human - caused global warming has been moulded by pronouncements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its army of acolytes.

And public opinion matters on the view that such writers offer only to the extent that it is an opportunity to blame climate change deniers for the lack of progress.

Part of the challenge in creating the incentives for policymakers to take action on climate change and to address the issue in a serious way is to accurately communicate about the nature of public opinion.

Regarding Nisbet and getting around skeptics, his closing line is «Part of the challenge in creating the incentives for policymakers to take action on climate change and to address the issue in a serious way is to accurately communicate about the nature of public opinion.»

This is especially curious, because the environmental movement has been telling us for somewhile that, apart from «manipulating» public opinion with distorted science, the establishment is reluctant to act on climate change.

But a ruling by a body such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) would carry much more weight with public opinion and help pave the way for future legal cases on climate change, he said.

For polls see e.g., Brett W. Pelham, «Awareness, opinions about global warming vary worldwide,» Gallup (2009), online here; Leiserowitz et al. (2010b) and other work by Leiserowitz's group; Council on Foreign Relations, «Public Opinion on Global Issues» (2011)(no longer available online); Bruce Stokes et al., «Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions,» Pew Research Center, Nov. 5, 2015, online heFor polls see e.g., Brett W. Pelham, «Awareness, opinions about global warming vary worldwide,» Gallup (2009), online here; Leiserowitz et al. (2010b) and other work by Leiserowitz's group; Council on Foreign Relations, «Public Opinion on Global Issues» (2011)(no longer available online); Bruce Stokes et al., «Global Concern about Climate Change, Broad Support for Limiting Emissions,» Pew Research Center, Nov. 5, 2015, online hefor Limiting Emissions,» Pew Research Center, Nov. 5, 2015, online here.

See the CSM article linked below for a recent overview of public opinion polls on climate change:

The Stanford University climate scientist was a passionate advocate for sober and reasoned discourse on the globe's changing climate, and he often spoke out against dishonesty in the public sphere — whether by opinion - makers, politicians, fossil fuel interests, or news personalities.

That's one upshot of a new public opinion study by the climate public opinion dynamos at George Mason and Yale universities (the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication and the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, respectclimate public opinion dynamos at George Mason and Yale universities (the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication and the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, respectClimate Change Communication and the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, respectClimate Change Communication, respectively).

James Hansen, the director of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies who first warned the world about the dangers of climate change in the 1980s, has joined other scientists in submitting statements to be considered by a judge at the Information Rights Tribunal on Friday... James Hansen told the Guardian: «Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature... If successful, the FOI request may, by exposing one link in a devious manipulation of public opinion, start a process that allows the public to be aware of what is happening, what is at stake, and where the public interest lies.»»

The AGU said: «Mr. Michaels's op - ed reflects a political strategy to sway popular opinion on climate change without regard for facts or the enormous body of scientific evidence... The result damages the scientific community and is a disservice to the public.»