Misleading information on climate science delaying action: report
A sprawling report, released this month from the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE), found 'powerful actors' like governments, political parties, and corporations are often behind the intentional spreading of inaccurate or misleading narratives about climate science.
'The result is a decline in public trust, diminished policy coordination, and a feedback loop between scientific denialism and political inaction,' the coalition of researchers wrote in the 127-page report.
Actors often have an economic or political interest in spreading the misinformation, with frequent groups including the fossil fuel industry, members of the Republican party, lobbies and some nation-states or governments. But it can also include unlikely groups like learning institutions.
Researchers noted denial has long threatened the flow of climate science information, but attempts to discredit or delegitimize climate science have started dominating the anti-climate science campaigns.
'When the evidence produced by climate science is disregarded, circumvented or undermined, public trust suffers,' the report stated.
Scientific consensus on climate change is also frequently misrepresented in the media, further complicating the information ecosystem, IPIE said. The report noted social media has become 'key public carriers of information about climate change.'
Misinformation about severe weather patterns has persisted for years, with conspiracy theories and falsehoods often resurfacing during major weather events like hurricanes or tornadoes. Much of this dialogue takes place on social media, where unvetted or false information can spread to mass amounts of users in seconds.
These theories and false information often spark emotional responses, giving actors a chance to set the narrative, disinformation experts previously told The Hill.
Researchers outlined four main policy recommendations to curb the flow of misinformation and its impact on climate action. The suggestions included legislation ensuring standardized carbon reporting and labelling, litigation to ensure standards are enforced and the education of policymakers and the public.
IPIE is an independent and global science consortium of researchers focused on the world's information environment. The report analyzed 300 publications between 2015 and 2025.
To measure the integrity of information, researchers evaluated publications based on markers of accuracy, consistency, reliability and transparency.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Oklahoma is a ‘blueprint' for biotechnology partnerships, federal commission says
From left to right, Commissioner Michelle Rozo, Oklahoma Secretary of Commerce Deborah Moorad, U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice, R-Okla., and Oklahoma Secretary of Secretary of Energy and Environment Jeff Starling on Tuesday speak with the press about Oklahoma's role in the biotechnology industry. (Photo by Emma Murphy/Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma is a 'blueprint' for Washington, D.C. of how to implement public-private partnerships in biotechnology, said a federal official who has been tasked with reviewing advancements in the industry. Michelle Rozo, vice chair of the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, said Oklahoma stands out from other states because of the collaboration between industries and the public-private partnerships in the state. The Commission, which was established by Congress to advance the United States' leadership in biotechnology, is traveling across the country to discuss how states are advancing biotechnology and understand how the group can best implement its recommendations. The main recommendation, Rozo said, is to maintain public-private partnerships in the biotechnology industry. 'I like to say we're beginning to be able to program biology like we program computers, but the outcomes are going to have much more of a wide- reaching effect,' Rozo said. ''When you program computers, you just get ones and zeros out. When you program biology, you get medicines, you get food, you get materials, you get treatments. … The limits almost do not exist.' Rozo was joined by a handful of other commissioners, including Republican U.S. Rep. Stephanie Bice, during a stop in Oklahoma City on Tuesday as part of a nationwide roadshow to discuss how biotechnology advancements could shape national defense. The Commission provides recommendations about the intersection of national security and biotechnology, which uses biology or living organisms to develop new products and technologies or improve existing ones. The commission in April offered Congress a series of recommendations. Representatives from Oklahoma State University, the University of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation spoke about the importance of higher education in pushing innovation in biotechnology forward. Research at these institutions ranges from food security and supply chain resiliency to developing medical treatments and devices. The commission also heard from state leaders about strategies to create hands-on learning opportunities and address gaps in the workforce. The greatest need is more talent and researchers in Oklahoma to push for innovation, but it can be difficult to draw them when most research dollars go to institutions on the East and West Coasts, officials said. When asked about federal cuts to research grants and higher education, Bice said Congress 'isn't interested' in huge cuts to research. 'We recognize that research at large, whether it is through organizations like OMRF or organizations like OU and OSU that are doing really innovative things, is important,' Bice said. 'And we'll continue to invest in those things moving forward.' Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has proposed cutting over $1 billion from the National Institutes of Health, which conducts and supports medical research. Some of the proposals have faced legal challenges. Bice said the commission is on the road to highlight the importance of biotechnology and address the role Oklahoma can play in addressing challenges the U.S. faces in national security. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Los Angeles Times
14 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump wants NASA to burn a crucial satellite to cinders, killing research into climate change
By any reasonable metric, NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been a spectacular success. Originally designed to support a two-year pilot project, it has been operating continuously in space for more than 10 years and could continue doing so for three decades more. The data it produces 'are of exceptionally high quality,' NASA stated in a 2023 review, when it labeled the project 'the flagship mission for space-borne measurements' of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. So perhaps it isn't surprising that the Trump administration plans to shut the program down. It gets worse: The White House has given NASA instructions to destroy the spacecraft by plunging it to a fiery demise in the atmosphere. Knowledgeable scientists and engineers say that Trump could choose to temporarily mothball the orbiting observatory, leaving a skeleton staff in place at NASA to monitor its hibernation until cooler heads prevail at the White House. Destroying the spacecraft, however, will hamstring climate research for decades. The zeroing out of climate research budgets by the Trump White House, of which the cancellation of the OCO program is a part, is taking place just as the value of space-borne climate research has been rising sharply. 'The bottom line is that the societal and scientific benefit of this research increases almost exponentially with sustained and long-lasting measurements,' says Ben Poulter, an expert in greenhouse gas measurements formerly at NASA and now a senior scientist at the nonprofit Spark Climate Solutions. 'We're starting to see the positive impact of OCO-2 at helping to detect trends in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in natural ecosystems as the Earth undergoes the impacts of climate change.' Under the most recent Republican administrations, NASA's involvement in Earth science — that is, research into global warming and other climate change — has consistently come under fire. As I reported recently, these programs were specifically targeted by Russell Vought, currently Trump's budget director and an architect of Project 2025, in a 2023 unofficial budget proposal. There, Vought groused about NASA's 'misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs.' He called for a 50% reduction in the budget for NASA Earth science research — a cut that made it into Trump's current proposed budget. The vastly reduced Earth science budget for NASA was passed by the House earlier this year, but it isn't part of the Senate version, which hasn't been passed. What isn't understood by Vought, Trump or the current acting director of NASA, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, is that Earth science was specifically made part of NASA's portfolio in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which created the agency. Among the agency's directives, the act stated, would be 'the expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere.' That's where climate change occurs. The effort to zero out Earth science alarmed more than 60 Democratic House members, who wrote Duffy on July 18 to warn that 'the scale of reductions to NASA Earth science would ... severely impair the use of Earth science data and research to improve our ability to forecast, manage, and respond to natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and wildfires, leaving the nation less prepared for the challenges of the future and impacting local communities' abilities to adapt and respond to severe weather and natural disaster events.' Trump's budgetary cheeseparing at NASA means the waste of billions of dollars already spent by taxpayers. As I reported before, the bulk of the cost of space missions is in the development of spacecraft and their launch; once that's done, the cost of maintaining a satellite in orbit is nominal. According to David Crisp, who led the OCO development team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena from the outset and is now a private consultant, the OCO program development and launch cost was about $750 million, but since the launch it costs only about $15 million a year to operate. That doesn't count the value of the lost data. Crisp reckons that Duffy and the administration 'decided that NASA should not do Earth science, and the fact that we have billions and billions of U.S. taxpayers' dollars invested in that enterprise right now and really valuable hardware in place, providing critical information to organizations across the world is irrelevant. I think what's going on here is that they've made a strategic move without taking into account tactical realities.' The average layperson — and that includes some White House officials making policy decisions about scientific endeavors — has no idea about the effort required to put a satellite into space and keep it there. The OCO project was typical. As described by Crisp, the process began in the mid-1990s as an inquiry into how carbon dioxide produced on Earth got absorbed by natural 'sinks' such as forests. The project won approval in 2001 from the George W. Bush administration. Environmental science wasn't the partisan football it later became. 'You could be a good Republican and still think this was a good thing to do,' Crisp told me. The first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was readied for launch in February 2009. 'It was a tremendous challenge, an instrument designed to make a measurement three or four times more difficult than anything ever attempted at JPL,' Crisp says. The launch was successful — for just over three minutes, at which point it failed, plunging rocket and satellite to a watery grave in the Indian Ocean. 'We'd spent eight years and $270 million and engaged more than 1,000 work-years of heroic effort,' Crisp recalls. NASA wanted to keep the project alive. For 10 months, Crisp and others beat down the doors of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations and commercial enterprise to find the money to preserve it, but this was in the teeth of the Great Recession, and no one signed on. But ultimately the Obama administration appropriated $50 million in December 2009 to restart the mission. Crisp's team built a carbon copy of the original satellite, and it was launched successfully on July 2, 2014. The original vision was to operate OCO-2 for two years as a proof-of-concept, showing that carbon dioxide could be accurately measured from space. Because of the peculiarities of the launch, however, it carried enough fuel to last 40 years. The reconstruction left enough spare parts in hand to build a twin instrument dubbed OCO-3, which was launched in May 2019 and installed on the International Space Station, where it is still operating. When I asked NASA for a response to widespread criticism of its actions by the scientific community, I got the same standardized reponse that others have received. It labeled OCO-2 and -3 'two climate missions beyond their prime mission,' and added that as the proposed budget has 'not yet been enacted, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.' What NASA believes the OCO 'prime mission' is, if not studying atmospheric conditions on Earth, is a mystery. Within weeks of its own launch, OCO-2 began producing data that would revolutionize climate science. Its applications went well beyond measuring carbon dioxide. OCO-2 was able to detect 'solar-induced fluorescence' in plants, an artifact of photosynthesis, which could be used as a 'reliable early warning indicator of flash drought with enough lead time to take action,' JPL reported last year. Those measurements, Crisp says, 'have been a bigger hit with the science community than the CO2 measurements.' And they're the product not of planning, but serendipity, a crucial feature of scientific progress. At this moment, OCO-2 seems destined for oblivion. Crisp says NASA staffers have been instructed to make a plan to move the spacecraft into a 'disposal orbit' that would incinerate it in the Earth's atmosphere within a few months. But that's expensive, requiring a detailed plan to ensure that its deteriorating orbit doesn't threaten other orbiting craft. The quick and dirty alternative would be to 'point the thing down and fire the thruster, which would basically produce an instantaneous reentry.' Which option will be chosen isn't clear. A third alternative is to place the craft in a sort of suspended sleep, so it could be started up again after Trump and his minions leave office. But that would require 24-hour monitoring to adjust the OCO orbit to avoid space junk — not an infrequent occurrence. (With OCO-3 attached to the International Space Station, it will remain in place, though nonfunctional, as long as the ISS stays aloft.) The plan to destroy OCO-2 is beyond shameful. Crisp says of the OCO hardware, 'these are national assets.... They are what made this country great. Tearing things down doesn't make it great again. It just tears things down.'
Fox News
2 days ago
- Fox News
The 2026 Senate Race Already Attracting Big Attention… and Big Money
In what promises to be a decisive clash for control of the Senate, North Carolina's high-stakes Senate race is shaping up to be one of the most costly of 2026. This next cycle, Republicans will be fighting to preserve their 53- 47 Senate majority. Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley is running for that North Carolina Senate seat; he joins the Rundown to share his outlook on GOP prospects in the midterms, the weight of President Trump's endorsement, and the sharp divide he sees between Republican and Democratic platforms. As acting NASA administrator, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, a strategic initiative he says will be crucial to compete with the growing lunar ambitions from China and Russia. Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine joins the podcast to explore Secretary Duffy's call for American nuclear reactors in space, the evolving legal debate over ownership in space, and why he predicts mining rare metals on the moon will become very lucrative. Plus, commentary from FOX News Digital columnist David Marcus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
