Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates 14 U.S. trade and business associations across three metrics: acceptance of climate science, support for climate action, and endorsement of specific policy proposals. The findings categorize these groups into three tiers: those that misrepresent science and offer limited policy support, those that accept science but offer limited support, and those that accept science and provide significant policy support. The authors argue that some associations use scientific misinformation and vague qualifiers to block meaningful climate policy, and they urge member companies to pressure their associations to adopt science-based positions.

A 2012 analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that climate science coverage in Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal's opinion pages was overwhelmingly misleading, frequently dismissing scientific consensus and denigrating scientists. The report recommends that News Corporation develop standards for accurate communication and distinguish between scientific evidence and policy debates.

null

A snapshot analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that representations of climate science on Fox News Channel and in the Wall Street Journal's opinion section were overwhelmingly misleading, despite News Corporation's public commitments to environmental sustainability.

The Union of Concerned Scientists explains its analysis of 28 S&P 500 companies, finding that half misrepresented climate science in public communications despite expressing general concern about climate change. The document highlights the contradiction between corporate public images and their indirect actions, such as funding anti-climate science members of Congress or trade groups. It argues that current disclosure requirements are insufficient to hold corporations accountable for their influence on national and state-level climate policy, including efforts to undercut wind energy and roll back renewable energy laws.

The report analyzes 28 S&P 500 companies to determine how they engage with climate science and policy. It finds a significant divide between companies that consistently support science-based policy and those that obstruct it. A large number of companies are identified as 'contradictory,' maintaining a public image of environmental concern while funding think tanks, trade groups, and politicians that undermine climate science. The authors argue that a lack of transparency in corporate political spending and risk disclosure allows this interference to persist, and they recommend stricter disclosure requirements for corporations and government contractors.

The Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed 28 S&P 500 companies to determine their impact on climate science and policy discussions. The study found that while some companies are consistent in their support for climate action, others—particularly in the energy sector—actively spread misinformation and obstruct policy. Many companies exhibit contradictory behavior, supporting climate science in public relations while opposing it in government filings or through the funding of anti-science think tanks and trade groups. The report highlights a critical lack of transparency in corporate political spending and business risk disclosures, recommending stricter SEC and congressional requirements to hold corporations accountable.

The document reports that while FDA scientists in 2011 expressed increased respect for agency leadership and higher morale compared to 2006, significant concerns remain regarding corporate and political pressure influencing agency decisions. It highlights a broader pattern of scientific interference across multiple US federal agencies and provides specific recommendations for the FDA and Congress to improve transparency, accountability, and the independence of advisory committees.

The report details a 2011 survey of AMS members, finding that 89% believe global warming is happening and 59% attribute it primarily to human activity. While 53% perceive internal conflict within the society, a majority support the AMS playing an active role in educating the public and policy makers.

The March 2012 survey of 1,008 American adults indicates that while 66% believe global warming is happening, only 46% attribute it primarily to human activities. The public shows a tendency to overestimate the level of disbelief in global warming among their fellow citizens. Trust in information sources is highest for scientists and weather reporters, while trust in fossil fuel companies is the lowest. Political trust is divided, with 47% trusting President Obama and 21% trusting Mitt Romney on the issue.

The document outlines the context for a survey conducted between December 24, 2009, and January 4, 2010, involving 1,001 American adults. It frames this study against a "perfect storm" of events in late 2009, including the "Climategate" email breach at the University of East Anglia, errors in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, the failure of the Copenhagen treaty negotiations, and the stalling of U.S. climate legislation. The survey aims to measure changes in risk perceptions and policy preferences compared to a baseline survey of 2,164 adults from late 2008.

The CDKN Research Consultation workshop, held on 24 September 2010, gathered 40 UK-based researchers to refine a research framework focused on 'Climate Compatible Development' (CCD). The proposed framework consists of four themes: Impacts, Responding to a Changing Climate, Evaluating Climate Compatible Development, and Policy Processes. Funding is planned across three streams: a Long-Term Strategy (£30-250K), a Short-Term Strategy (under £30K), and an Innovation Fund (£10-50K). Key discussions highlighted the need for better integration between climate science and policy-making, the importance of addressing energy access in developing countries, and the necessity of developing indicators to measure adaptive capacity at the local level.

The IAI is seeking to fill two vacancies on its Science Advisory Council in 2010, replacing Rana Fine and Maria Carmen Lemos. The nominations will target four priority areas: Climate Science (specifically climate modeling), Ecosystems and climate (specifically biodiversity), Policy and Human Dimensions of global change (including vulnerability assessment, mitigation, adaptation, and science-policy interaction), and Integration and modeling (focusing on resilience and social-ecological systems modeling). Candidates are evaluated based on basic criteria of scientific excellence, geopolitical balance across the Americas and the Caribbean, and gender balance, as well as second-tier considerations including interdisciplinary research ability, representation of science in the Americas, and the ability to bridge the science-policy divide.

The author contends that existing reactive decision-making frameworks are insufficient for climate change adaptation, which involves both frequent climatic hazards and slow-onset risks. He advocates for a shift from disaster management to disaster preparedness, citing Bangladesh's success in reducing cyclone fatalities as a model. The paper emphasizes that adaptation will require science-oriented approaches, increased climate literacy, and a global responsibility to manage planned relocation for communities in uninhabitable areas. Finally, it suggests that rich countries can learn from the participatory and institutional experiences of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and community-based adaptation initiatives.

In a statement to the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash advocates for immediate national climate legislation. He cites accelerating climate impacts, such as record Arctic sea ice loss and pine beetle outbreaks in British Columbia, as evidence of the need for urgent action. The statement proposes an economy-wide, market-driven cap-and-trade program combined with investments in energy efficiency, grid modernization, and carbon capture to stimulate economic growth and ensure technological competitiveness.

The document outlines a process for scientists to engage with US legislators, emphasizing the importance of planning, the trade-offs between meeting in Washington or in-district, and the tactical steps for requesting and following up on meetings. It suggests that meetings with aides can be productive alternatives and advises maintaining reasonable expectations regarding immediate policy changes.

The Union of Concerned Scientists identifies several organizations that promote climate skepticism and disinformation, arguing they are part of a "disinformation playbook" funded by the fossil fuel industry to delay climate action. The report details the activities of groups such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and the Heritage Foundation, documenting millions of dollars in contributions from ExxonMobil and Koch-funded foundations. These organizations are accused of undermining scientific consensus, attacking climate scientists, and pushing model legislation to obstruct emissions reductions.

The policy brief argues that Africa's high vulnerability to climate change necessitates 'anticipatory adaptation' driven by the effective use of climate science. It outlines seven key recommendations: improving access to historical climate data to enhance downscaling; strengthening the skills of African climate scientists and establishing regional science centres; bridging the communication gap between data producers and users through 'translators'; creating collaborative information-sharing platforms; leveraging existing local organisations; documenting successful adaptation cases; and ensuring donor aid is long-term and aligned with African priorities.

The report documents widespread political interference in U.S. federal climate science, characterized by the manipulation of scientific findings, restrictive media policies, and declining funding. Through surveys and interviews, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project found that scientists frequently faced pressure to alter their results or eliminate terms like 'global warming' to align with political goals, leading to poor morale and diminished scientific integrity.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that ExxonMobil funded a network of ideological organizations to deceive the public about global warming. By spending approximately $16 million between 1998 and 2005, the company promoted a small group of contrarian scientists and used 'information laundering' through front groups to create a false impression of scientific debate. The report details how these tactics mirror the tobacco industry's historical efforts to hide the links between smoking and disease. Furthermore, the document outlines ExxonMobil's influence on the George W. Bush administration, including the appointment of climate negotiators and the censorship of government scientific reports.