Misleading information on climate science delaying action: report
Misleading information about the nature of climate change is further complicating and delaying action to fight the environmental issue, according to a new research 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
The Hill
13 hours ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian allows GOP to keep ban on state AI rules
The Senate parliamentarian concluded the controversial push to ban state regulation of artificial intelligence for the next 10 years can remain in President Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill. The decision, announced by lawmakers over the weekend, followed weeks of speculation from both parties over whether the provision would overcome the procedural hurdle known as the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian's decision will allow the provision to be voted on in the budget reconciliation process with a simple-majority vote. It comes after Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, altered the language of the House's version in hopes of complying with the Byrd Rule, which prohibits 'extraneous matters' from being included in reconciliation packages. Under their proposal, states would be prohibited from regulating AI if they want access to federal funding from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. The House's version called for a blanket 10-year moratorium on state laws regulating AI models and systems, regardless of funding. Still, some GOP members remained skeptical it would pass the Byrd Rule. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said last week it was 'doubtful' the provision survives. The provision has further divided Republicans, while Democrats are largely against it. While many Republicans are concerned with overbearing regulation of the emerging tech, a few GOP members argue it goes against the party's traditional support of states' rights. Republican Sens. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.) told The Hill they are against the provision, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he is willing to introduce an amendment to eliminate the provision during the Senate's marathon vota-a-rama if it is not taken out earlier. The provision received pushback from some Republicans in the House as well. A group of hard-line conservatives argued in a letter earlier this month to Senate Republicans that Congress is still 'actively investigating' AI and 'does not fully understand the implications' of the technology. This was shortly after Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) confirmed she would be a 'no' on the bill if it comes back to the House with the provision included. 'I am 100 percent opposed, and I will not vote for any bill that destroys federalism and takes away states' rights, ability to regulate and make laws when it regards humans and AI,' the Georgia Republican told reporters. Several Republican state leaders and lawmakers are also pushing back.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
US judge blocks slashing of universities' federal funding from National Science Foundation
By Nate Raymond and Blake Brittain (Reuters) -A federal judge on Friday prevented the National Science Foundation from sharply cutting research funding provided to universities in the latest legal setback to efforts by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration to slash government support of research at major academic institutions. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston invalidated a policy NSF adopted in May that limited the ability of universities to be reimbursed for administrative and facility costs that indirectly support grant-funded research, ruling that it was "arbitrary and capricious." Spokespeople for NSF and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. NSF, a $9 billion agency that funds scientific research, adopted the policy after having already canceled hundreds of grants out of step with the Republican president's priorities. His administration has also been freezing billions of dollars in government funding for numerous universities, including Harvard. NSF's policy, which was announced on May 2, set a cap on how much grant funding could go to cover indirect costs. NSF said funding for such costs could equal no more than 15% of the funding for direct research costs, regardless of what the costs actually were at universities. Historically, universities had negotiated with NSF and other agencies over the rate at which indirect costs could be reimbursed. The cap meant that for every $100 in funding going directly to a research grant award, universities would receive just $15 to cover overhead, such as the costs of maintaining lab space and paying for electricity and staff. The Trump administration said it sought through the policy to rein in spending on administrative overhead, which had grown to consume $1.07 billion of NSF's annual $4.22 billion grant-making budget for higher education institutions. That rate, though, is significantly lower than the indirect cost that many of the 69 research universities belonging to Association of American Universities had negotiated, which was often in the 50% to 65% range, the group's lawyers said. Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said in her Friday decision that the administration's 15% rate was unlawful. The association along with two other academic trade groups and 13 schools sued in May to block the policy, after earlier convincing judges in Boston to block similar funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Department of Energy. The association did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Friday decision. Among the schools that challenged NSF's funding cuts were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, Brown University, the University of California, Carnegie Mellon University, Cornell University, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania. They argued that NSF's action, if allowed to stand, "will badly undermine scientific research at America's universities and erode our nation's enviable status as a global leader in scientific research and innovation." The U.S. Department of Defense has since also adopted a 15% cap, which a judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked pending a hearing on July 2. He did so a day after a different judge in Boston ordered NIH to reinstate hundreds of grants for research on diversity-related topics nixed as part of the administration's purge of initiatives viewed as supporting "diversity, equity and inclusion."
The Hill
4 days ago
- The Hill
World could soon hit 1.5 degree threshold
The Big Story The world may be on track to breach 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming in about three years, a group of scientists warned in a new paper. © Matt York, Associated press file Researchers have called for keeping the planet's warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. An update on the state of global warming published this week says that if 2024 levels of planet-warming emissions continue, there's a 50 percent chance the world will warm to 1.5 degrees in a little more than three years. Researchers note this estimate is 'not expected to correspond exactly to the time that 1.5 °C global warming level is reached' due to a few uncertainties. However, the finding paints a stark picture to how close the world is to passing that threshold. The 1.5 degree figure is partly symbolic — the difference between 1.49 degrees and 1.51 degrees, for example, is not expected to necessarily be the difference between survival and doom. However, there are certain 'tipping points' after which climate damage becomes irreversible — like the melting of the Greenland ice sheet or the collapse of ocean current systems. The paper says that currently, the world is estimated to have warmed 1.36 degrees Celsius (2.45 degrees Fahrenheit) and is currently warming at a rate of about 0.27 degrees Celsius (0.49 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade. Read more at Welcome to The Hill's Energy & Environment newsletter, I'm Rachel Frazin keeping you up to speed on the policies impacting everything from oil and gas to new supply chains. Programming note: I'm off tomorrow so there will be no newsletter. I'll be back on Monday. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect the energy and environment sectors now and in the future: {section_0.content[0].title} {section_0.content[0].description} {section_0.content[1].title} {section_0.content[1].description} {section_0.content[2].title} {section_0.content[2].description} What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets touching on energy issues, the environment and other topics: EPA science revamp calls for 'much smaller' office (E&E News) What Others are Reading Two key stories on The Hill right now: {section_2.content[0].title} {section_2.content[0].description} Read more {section_2.content[1].title} {section_2.content[1].description} Read more You're all caught up. See you Monday! Check out The Hill's Energy & Environment page for the latest coverage. Like this newsletter? Take a moment to view our other topical products here 📩 Privacy Policy | Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe 400 N Capitol Street NW Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001 Copyright © 1998 – 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved. If you believe this has been sent to you in error, please safely unsubscribe. Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
