Sentences with phrase «public about climate change science»

This is a deliberate tactic to sow confusion in the minds of the public about the climate change science, just as the tobacco industry did about the link between smoking and cancer, Amstrup said in an interview with Motherboard.

Not exact matches

Using the example of the current debate surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, Thompson sought to evaluate the argument from authority through a single prism, the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy.

The EPA last night sent employees a list of eight approved talking points on climate change from its Office of Public Affairs — guidelines that promote a message of uncertainty about climate science and gloss over proposed cuts to key adaptation programs.

Those differences can be caused by people intent on misleading the public, like the organized campaigns to create doubt about the science pointing to human - caused climate change, she said.

Rather than arguing over the science of climate change, public discussion should be about actions needed to address it, he said.

Last week, House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R - Texas) subpoenaed the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts, who are each investigating if Exxon Mobil Corp. misled investors and the public about climate change threats, and several environmental groups (ClimateWire, July 14).

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President - elect Donald Trump's choice to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expressed doubt about the science behind global climate change during a contentious Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday, but added he would be obliged for now to uphold the EPA's finding carbon dioxide poses a public danger.

The initiative encourages Americans to think of climate change as a risk management issue; the panel aims to clarify and contextualize the science so the public and decision - makers can be more adequately informed about those risks and possible ways to manage them.

During a 6 - 10 June training program, the 15 AAAS Leshner Leadership Institute fellows also engaged in interactive sessions on the science of science communication, public attitudes about climate change, how Americans consume science news, best practices in leveraging social media, and the fundamentals of engaging policymakers in science - based dialogue.

«The evidence before the committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming,» the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote in its report on the matter in December 2007.

They say that these debates about climate change and teaching evolution in schools, you know, really comes down, it really blurs the lines; it confuses the public about the kind of the boundaries between science and ideology.

Nisbet's prior research examining public opinion about climate change and energy insecurity also revealed for science communicators that understanding the public in more precise ways than partisanship or ideology allowed for improved outreach.

Partnerships are built around various drivers: for example supporting the Polar regions in a period of rapid change; educating the public about polar sciences and climate; contributing to climate change awareness; mitigation and adaptation; defining and implementing CSR action plan; implementing technology solutions for low carbon emissions.

Scientists have made the science section of the National Climate Assessment public before it is officially due to be released, citing concerns that the administration may attempt to change some of the facts it presents about climate Climate Assessment public before it is officially due to be released, citing concerns that the administration may attempt to change some of the facts it presents about climate climate change.

The organization representing more than 600 public school boards across the state says how science is taught in the classroom will influence how a generation of students think about climate change.

A few days ago I was interviewed about the challenges and opportunities in reporting on complicated, but consequential, science (climate change being a prime example) for the Journalist's Resource project of Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change.

The discussion Chris Mooney's Washington Post piece has rekindled about why the public «doesn't get it» about science, and your question, «What if the public had perfect climate change information,» both presume there is some ideal «It» to «get»... some «perfect» knowledge, some unassailable truth.

Over all, he wrote, «My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do.»

I beg to disagree with the basic thesis of this article: that the public are becoming more sceptical about climate change through a failure to understand the science.

Frank Luntz is arguably one of the biggest reasons the United States has been able to dodge taking action to address climate change for so long — in an infamous memo (which was leaked and obtained by a green group), he revealed the rhetorical tricks and talking points conservative politicians should employ to confuse the public about the state of climate science.

John P. Holdren, the head of Harvard's Program on Science, Technology and Public Policy and a longtime advocate of prompt curbs in greenhouse gases, sent me a note about the reaction he received after the Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune published his opinion piece earlier this month asserting that «climate change skeptics are dangerously wrong.»

Sadly, in recent years we have become accustomed to a ritual in which the publication of each new result on anthropogenic climate change is greeted by a flurry of activity from industry - funded lobby groups, think tanks and PR professionals, who try to discredit the science and confuse the public about global warming.

By way of further explanation... Warren's paper seems to suggest that a significant % of the public formulate their views about climate change based on what climate scientists do or don't say about uncertainties in the science.

The grant to Columbia Journalism School was directed at «public interest research into what the fossil fuel industry understood about the science of climate change and how they acted given that understanding both internally and regarding the public,» but it did not target Exxon Mobil specifically, Wasserman said.»

Last year the UK's prestigious scientific body, the Royal Society, wrote to Exxon asking them to stop funding the groups who were «misinforming the public about the science of climate change».

I continue to believe that in the bowels of the climate research laboratories in public and private institutions such as Georgia Institute of Technology there are scientists who in a humble spirit of self evaluation of their own work on climate science thoroughly question the accuracy of their predictions about climate changes and its effects.

In no way do my values suggest that debate should be curtailed: I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature and that the public be put in a position where it can make an informed judgment about the voices that are opposing mainstream science on crucial issues ranging from climate change to vaccination.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial board has tried every trick in the book to wrongly defend ExxonMobil against allegations that the company intentionally misled shareholders and the public about the science of climate change.

There may not be many scientists who doubt the human cause of recent climate change but, because of politics, their influence is exaggerated and the public has been quite deliberately misled about the level of consensus in climate science.

The cities say that the oil companies have known about the risks of anthropogenic climate change, but that rather than disclose what they know, the companies engaged in a decades - long campaign to deceive the public that the science is uncertain.

Just as Congress investigated the efforts of the tobacco industry to dupe the public into believing its products were harmless, we need a full and open inquiry into the conduct of ExxonMobil and the other institutions whose misinformation campaigns about science have delayed our efforts to address climate change.

Though not CMOS's first public statement, it was one of the most «vocal about climate change of late» due to the fact «that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May [2006]» and because «a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media,» Leahy wrote.

EC: There are many Americans who are very skeptical about the subject of climate change and a lot of them are very mistrustful of scientists generally, so how are you and other folks at the Missouri Botanical Garden communicating the importance of science to the public?

Climate scientists are not only speaking to the public about the science of climate change, but also are calling for policies designed to reduce use of fossil fuel, the primary anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas emissions.Climate scientists are not only speaking to the public about the science of climate change, but also are calling for policies designed to reduce use of fossil fuel, the primary anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas emissions.climate change, but also are calling for policies designed to reduce use of fossil fuel, the primary anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas emissions.»

As someone working in the area of climate change, I have been attacked for my public statements about the science of climate change.

The mainstream media reports the follies of the Right, but less often those of the Left — which are highlighted by their increasing abandonment of science in their quest to alarm the public about climate change.

This exhibition, much as climate - change alarmism, simply isn't about science; it's about establishing a basis — an ethic — for the management of public life.

Laframboise's trip has been organised by free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, which has a long history of promoting doubt about the science of human - caused climate change and the risks of the unmitigated burning of fossil fuels.

A recent study involving a first - ever national survey of public school science teachers found that about 75 percent of instructors surveyed were teaching the issue, but only half were correctly explaining that humans are driving climate change.

Unless the skeptics form a theory, they'll remain minor players in the debates — the climate science debate and the public policy debate about climate change (they're distinct, although often conflated).

The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

ICN's eight - month investigation assembled details of Exxon's early understanding of the emerging science of climate change, casting a new light on the company's subsequent campaign to postpone aggressive climate policies by sowing public doubt about the science.

«James Hoggan's Climate Cover - Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self - interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the scieClimate Cover - Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self - interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the scieclimate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the science....

A new study published in the journal Public Understanding of Science (PDF available here) surveyed a nationally representative sample of over 1,000 Americans in 2008 and 2011 about their media consumption and beliefs about climate change.

On p. 233 of Why We disagree About Climate Change, in Box 7.1, I make the statement «Risbey goes on to accuse those who do not adopt such urgent language in their descriptions of the science as failing in their civic duty in inform the public, a «scientific reticence» which falls short of the standards of impartial communication».

(16 July) On p. 233 of Why We disagree About Climate Change, in Box 7.1, I make the statement «Risbey goes on to accuse those who do not adopt such urgent language in their descriptions of the science as failing in their civic duty in inform the public, a «scientific reticence» which falls short of the -LSB-...]

to that level, it might turn out to be the case that the Heartland documents supply evidence that Heartland is, in fact, engaged in coordinated attempts to discredit legitimate science and mislead both the public and decision makers about the underlying scientific facts of human - caused climate change.

In spite of his own errors, May is deeply suspicious of any attempt to subject claims about the future of the world's climate to scientific scrutiny, and he steps further outside the realm of material fact to speculate that those guilty of not respecting the facts belong to an «active and well - funded «denial lobby»» that is «misinforming the public about the science of climate change».

I assumed @AndyWest was referring to latter, since he was makiing a point about the relative comprehension of climate science among members of the public who «believe in» & «don't believe in» human - caused climate change (also, I'm pretty sure I underscored «correct» answers only in a graphic of item response profiles of latter).