Climate of Doubt | Frontline

/94225

  • Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
    http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change

    A new study conducted by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

    Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are “dark money,” or concealed funding.


    #climat #lobby

  • EHN est une de mes #sources les plus prolifiques sur les sujets #santé #environnement #cancer #pollution, #geoingénierie, etc. Son histoire est très intéressante, notamment lorsqu’on aborde le déchaînement des #lobbies, sur l’affaire du #bisphénol_A #BPA, et la bataille autour du #changement_climatique

    How one Charlottesville foundation has altered the conversation about research
    http://www.c-ville.com/changing-the-science-climate-how-one-charlottesville-foundation-has-altered

    Since it was founded a decade ago by biologist John Peterson Myers (...) Environmental Health Sciences—parent organization to EHN and The Daily Climate—has become a trusted source for journalists and an online water cooler for scientists across a wide a range of research fields

    le fondateur a des conditions de travail pas dégueu :

    #recherche #propagande #information #presse #internet

    L’opposé exact de “Climate of Doubt” http://seenthis.net/messages/94225

  • Ahead of IPCC Climate Report, Skeptic Groups Launch Global Anti-Science Campaign | InsideClimate News
    http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130918/ahead-ipcc-climate-report-skeptic-groups-launch-global-anti-scien

    Conservative groups at the forefront of global warming skepticism are doubling down on trying to discredit the next big report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In recent weeks, they’ve been cranking out a stream of op-eds, blogs and reports to sow doubt in the public’s mind before the report is published,

    #propagande #climat ; cf. http://seenthis.net/messages/94225

  • Le public ignore le consensus scientifique sur le climat

    http://fr.news.yahoo.com/le-public-ignore-le-consensus-scientifique-sur-le-102123965.html

    Des experts d’Australie, des Etats-Unis, du Canada et de Grande-Bretagne ont épluché 4.000 résumés d’articles scientifiques sur le changement climatique et relevé que 97% d’entre eux déclaraient que la principale cause en était l’activité humaine, à commencer par l’utilisation d’énergies fossiles.
    « Il y a un fort consensus scientifique sur l’origine du changement climatique, en dépit d’une perception contraire par le public », résume John Cook, chercheur à l’université du Queensland en Australie, qui a dirigé cette étude publiée dans le journal Environmental Research Letters.
    (...)
    Une enquête d’opinion du Pew Research Center publiée en octobre dernier a montré que 43% des Américains répondaient « non » à la question de savoir si les scientifiques sont d’accord sur le fait que la Terre se réchauffe en raison de l’activité humaine.

    C’est sans doute un phénomène sans précédent : la propagande par le pluralisme. L’opinion mondiale manipulée non pas par une doctrine officielle directe, mais par le pluralisme imposé par la classe dominante, qui fait que 3% des scientifiques négationnistes ont sur ce sujet autant de temps de parole médiatique que les 97% qui soutiennent la thèse inverse, pour donner à l’opinion l’idée que le phénomène n’est pas clair, et que du coup il n’y a de fortes chances qu’on se trompe, donc il n’y a pas lieu de paniquer, donc pas lieu de réagir.
    #déni #négationnisme #addiction

  • Uncertain climate coverage feeds confusion

    Cette étude très intéressante montre clairement l’immensité de la distance qui sépare le public ou les lecteurs des événements. L’essentiel de notre savoir, nous l’avons construit de manière très indirecte. Les informations nous arrivent filtrées, nous avons toujours du mal à mesurer la validité d’une vision, d’une interprétation et/ou à juger une source crédible ou non.

    Il suffit qu’un pays, une institution, un lobby (groupe de pression) ou une multinationale ait un excellent instrument de propagande, un accès privilégié aux médias pour influencer sensiblement les visions et perceptions dans le public.

    Il semble que les biens mal nommés « climato-sceptiques » aient fait du bon boulot. Depuis Copenhague, le public en général est dans la confusion.

    Source : http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net

    Climate News Network
    28 Prince Edward’s Rd
    Lewes, East Sussex BN7 1BE

    LONDON, Sunday 13 January
    By Alex Kirby

    A study of British beliefs about climate change suggests confusion, distrust and growing lack of interest. Neither politicians nor journalists emerge with much credit : scientists are the most trusted group.

    In 2011/12 the Glasgow University Media Group and Chatham House (the UK’s Royal Institute of International Affairs) undertook a qualitative study of British audiences’ beliefs and behaviour over climate change and energy security, using focus groups and interviews.

    Their aim was to examine the specific triggers for changes in patterns of understanding and attitude - and the conditions under which these lead to changes in behaviour. Their report is entitled

    Climate Change and Energy Security: Assessing the Impact of Information and its Delivery on Attitudes and Behaviour.

    The authors explain: “...the sample sizes were small and the purpose was not to collect data which would be generalised to whole populations. Instead the aim was to provide an insight into how beliefs are formed and the way in which opinions and behavioural commitments can be modified...” The research included 100 participants.

    On climate change the study concludes that there is « widespread public confusion », reflecting how journalists treat it as a topic riven by uncertainty. Most respondents showed only a vague understanding of climate science and believed it to be inconsistent.

    Few trusted politicians, yet “the continuing politicisation” of climate change increased confusion and distrust and drove the topic down the media agenda. This in turn encouraged people to think that climate change deserved a lower priority, with economic problems seen as more urgent.

    A “widespread culture of cynicism and distrust” has led, the authors say, to feelings of powerlessness generally.

    The one group they found to possess any credibility includes scientists, academics and researchers (to many of whom the finding may come as a surprise), whom they urge to force climate change onto the political agenda.

    The researchers found low awareness of energy security issues - but once the term was defined their respondents were worried that it was not higher up the political agenda.

    They did not make the link with possible solutions like renewable energies, which most agreed are currently not enough to meet the UK’s needs. Negative coverage of renewables is beginning to create uncertainty about them.

    Nuclear power evokes “a general openness”, though that is tempered with wariness caused largely by the coverage of the Fukushima accident in the 2011 tsunami.

    The respondents revealed widespread discontent with the thought of the UK depending on gas imports, coupled with a general belief that there are further exploitable reserves of gas in the North Sea.

    The UK’s energy companies are not trusted, being seen as another example of corruption at the top of society.

    Part of the research involved testing respondents’ reaction to new information, through “television and radio news reports, newspaper articles and online content set in the future”. One of these scenarios portrayed a future UK in which a shortage of natural gas had left 20 million Britons with a loss of power.

    #climat #énergie #climato-sceptiques