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 scie
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 scie
climate 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).