In the U.S., the current administration, NOAA headquarters and NWS management and staff have contributed in large ways to
public misunderstanding on climate change and global warming.
But how do you, as a journalist, go about getting that across given the
widespread public misunderstanding of science — the notion that it's a fixed, textbookish set of knowledge.
«Recent surveys of meteorologists have indicated that their belief or disbelief in human cause trying climate change is really an extension of the
broader public misunderstanding, and that's a real problem because meteorologists are among the most trusted messengers of information about climate change.»
There is currently widespread
public misunderstanding about the degree of scientific consensus on human - caused climate change, both in the US as well as internationally.
Sean, I was responding to the idea that the reasons
for public misunderstanding of the science «n statistics, and much more importantly, public inaction on climate change, belongs to bad communication on the part of scientists.
«We do not therefore accept the Department's submissions on the likelihood of
the public misunderstanding the disputed information, or being misled as to its significance by the media.
Pit Bulls have less of a chance than most, due to
public misunderstanding and prejudice.
Muddying the water by dumbing down the language isn't a solution, it will merely add to
public misunderstanding.
Before 2001, NWS headquarters and 5,000 NWS managers and staff contributed in large ways to
the public misunderstanding on climate change and global warming.
I think he has contributed more to
public misunderstanding of the global warming issue than any other scientist and believe his work to be shoddy and intellectually dishonest.
This post seeks to correct
the public misunderstandings that these articles may cause, primarily about the claim of arctic «cooling» but also about comparisons between the DMI 2m Arctic absolute temperature time series and GISS temperature anomaly data from the Arctic region.
Simler J rejected the proposition that the order was justified because of the risk of
the public misunderstanding that the allegations against the Claimant had not been investigated or proven and the devastating consequences which could flow from that.