Search Climate Insights Directory

The document details how NASA public affairs officials, under the Bush administration, attempted to filter and restrict the public statements of Dr. James E. Hansen regarding global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. While these events led to a new NASA media policy supporting openness in February and March 2006, the agency simultaneously removed the phrase "to understand and protect our home planet" from its mission statement. Dr. Hansen further noted that similar or more severe controls on scientific information were occurring at NOAA.

A 2006 Union of Concerned Scientists survey of federal climate scientists reveals widespread political interference, including the editing of scientific findings to suit political goals and restrictions on communicating with the public. While scientists maintain that the quality of U.S. federal climate research is excellent, they report declining job satisfaction and morale, particularly at NASA, and express concern that the government is obscuring climate knowledge by exaggerating scientific uncertainty.

The document provides raw survey data from 29 NCAR climate scientists. The results show that while respondents generally view NCAR's internal scientific integrity and leadership positively, they express significant concern over the decline of the U.S. federal government's climate science environment over the last decade.

The document provides a detailed breakdown of survey responses from 279 federal climate scientists across seven U.S. agencies. It assesses perceptions of scientific integrity, the quality of federal climate research, and specific instances of political interference. Key data points include a majority of respondents viewing the environment for federal climate science as worse than it was 5 or 10 years ago, and various reported experiences of pressure to alter scientific findings or terminology.

The IAI Ad Hoc Committee on Relations with Member States focused on improving engagement with member countries through the development of 'Partnership' documents, the identification of science-related focal points, and targeted outreach to countries with budget arrears or previous activity. The committee recommended prioritizing the maintenance of the Collaborative Research Networks (CRN) program as a primary incentive for participation and proposed a system for in-kind contributions to be reviewed by the Executive Council and Conference of the Parties.

The document details how federal agencies like NOAA and NASA used media policies to control scientists' public communications on climate change. It provides specific examples of scientists, such as Dr. Thomas Knutson and Dr. Kevin Trenberth, whose media appearances were blocked or diverted to political appointees or scientists with opposing views when their research highlighted human influence on the climate or hurricane intensity.

The Eighth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) of the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) reaffirmed the institute's role as a regional leader in coordinating scientific research on global change in the Americas. The meeting resulted in eight resolutions covering the institute's strategic direction, the approval of a selection process for the Executive Director, the establishment of an external evaluation committee, and the approval of financial statements, budgets, and scientific grant guidelines for the 2001/2002 period.

The report finds that climate disinformation is widespread across Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, the UK, and the USA, with between 55% and 85% of surveyed populations believing at least one misinformation statement. Significant gaps exist between public perception and scientific consensus regarding the human cause of climate change and the role of natural gas. The study highlights that regular news consumption does not necessarily correlate with better scientific understanding and, in some cases, is linked to higher belief in misinformation narratives. Additionally, a substantial portion of respondents in all six countries believe their nations cannot afford to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The document serves as a resource guide for the Canadian education system to counter the influence of corporate interests in climate curricula. It categorizes a wide array of vetted materials across themes such as climate science, Indigenous perspectives, civic engagement, and climate justice. Additionally, it lists advocacy networks, including For Our Kids and the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, which work to remove industry-sponsored materials from schools.

The document critiques the pre-zero draft of the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction for lacking ambition and failing to sufficiently integrate with other global agendas. It argues that the draft relies too heavily on the previous Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) narrative and lacks a clear organising logic connecting its goals to its priorities for action. Key gaps identified include a poor articulation of financing requirements, insufficient detail on monitoring and accountability, and a passive approach to coordinating with climate change and sustainable development frameworks. The authors recommend a more explicit focus on conflict-affected states, a stronger integration of ecosystem services, and the establishment of an international science advisory mechanism for disaster risk reduction.

The document serves as a bibliography of resources detailing how the fossil fuel industry, trade associations, and third-party intermediaries have worked to obstruct climate policy and discredit climate science. It categorizes these resources into themes such as corporate influence on policy, the funding of climate deniers, and the suppression of activism. Additionally, it includes specific quotes from industry entities like Peabody Energy and ExxonMobil that illustrate contradictory or denialist stances on climate change.

The document outlines five steps for media agencies to refuse pitching for Shell, citing the company's decision to freeze renewable energy investments, its history of denying climate science despite internal knowledge since 1989, and the fact that clean energy investments comprise less than 2% of its capital expenditures. It also warns agencies about the reputational risks associated with Shell's history of human rights abuses and misleading advertisements.

The Climate Bonds Scientific Framework is a scientifically grounded analysis of emission mitigation pathways and technology options used to anchor the Climate Bonds Taxonomy and certification criteria. Overseen by the Climate Bonds Board and implemented by staff alongside Climate Wedge and research institutions, the framework is reviewed by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The research, conducted by Climate Analytics and IIASA, analyzes emission pathways and technology alternatives, including data from the IPCC’s 5th assessment report, to identify technology categories essential for limiting global average surface temperature growth to 2°C.

The document asserts that the defendants had internal knowledge of the link between fossil fuels and global warming as early as the 1950s but spent decades funding disinformation and public relations strategies to manufacture doubt. It highlights a contradiction where companies publicly denied climate change while privately adjusting infrastructure, such as oil rigs and pipelines, to account for rising sea levels.

The policy brief contends that a 10-year commitment cycle for climate mitigation is too long and would lock in current low levels of ambition until 2030. It argues that 'reviews' are historically inadequate for increasing ambition unless they are treaty-mandated with strict 'shall' language. The author advocates for a common 5-year commitment period system to align with IPCC Assessment Reports and respond to falling costs of low-carbon technologies.

The document is a student guide designed to facilitate classroom conversations, small group discussions, or writing prompts based on 90-second radio stories from Yale Climate Connections. It provides a structured set of questions divided into categories such as general impressions, making connections, finding and evaluating solutions, justice and equity, and climate communication in action. Additionally, it lists suggested radio stories categorized by topics including energy, health, policy and politics, and species and ecosystems, and offers extension activities for deeper research and analysis.

The document outlines the challenges U.S. transportation agencies face due to extreme weather, emphasizing that adaptation requires a combination of local contextual data, science literacy for engineers, and improved decision-making tools. It recommends the creation of a central information clearinghouse, enhanced federal technical assistance for local governments, and a shift toward integrating 'the climate question' into the entire transportation lifecycle. Key gaps identified include the need for higher-resolution rainfall data (6-hour or less) and better economic analysis tools to weigh the costs of inaction against the benefits of preparedness.

The document details the IEU's strategic aims to strengthen its staffing, deliver high-quality evaluations, build capacity for evaluation-based learning, and engage with international best practices in climate change evaluation.

A Global Witness investigation based on a survey of 468 climate scientists reveals that online abuse is common, particularly for those with high academic output and media visibility. The report highlights that women are disproportionately targeted with sexual violence and personal attacks. This harassment leads to mental health issues, productivity loss, and a 'chilling effect' where scientists become less likely to engage in public discourse. The document identifies Twitter and Facebook as primary venues for abuse and calls for reforms to social media business models and content moderation to protect scientists and ensure the flow of critical climate information.

The document describes a transdisciplinary workshop activity aimed at creating a "level playing field" of knowledge by clarifying often-misunderstood climate terms. It outlines a process where participants categorize statements to distinguish between weather, climate, adaptation, mitigation, disaster risk reduction, and development. The briefing highlights benefits such as increased receptivity to climate science and improved stakeholder ability to articulate information needs, illustrated by a case study in Windhoek, Namibia, where the activity supported the development of the city's first Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan.