DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplementary Online Material Table of Contents S-1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplementary Online Material Table of Contents S-1 Supplementary Online Material Table of Contents S-1 Coding Instructions – U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations 2 S-2 Coding Sheet – U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations 3 S-3 U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations 4 S-4 U.S. National Climate Change Counter-movement Income Data 2003 – 2010 5 S-5 U.S. National Climate Change Counter-movement Income Distribution 2003 – 2010 36 S-6 Foundation Funding of U.S. National Climate Counter-movement By Foundation and Year 39 S-7 .Foundation Funding of U.S. National Climate Counter-movement By Organization and Year 43 S-8 Foundation Funding of U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations – By Foundation 45 S-9 Foundation Funding of U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations – By Recipient 79 S 10 Climate Change Counter-movement Network Dimensions 113 S 11 Climate Change Counter-movement Network - Relative Node Strength 114 S 12 Climate Change Counter-movement Network - Relative Node Degree 115 Figure S-1 116 Methods Appendix 117 1 S-1 Coding Instructions – U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations The purpose of this organizational coding is to identify the organizations that make up the climate counter-movement in the United States. Definition of climate counter-movement – organizations that advocate against government policies to take substantive action to mitigate climate change. Specifically, this movement opposes mandatory restrictions on GHG emissions, either through regulations or a carbon fee. The advocacy of this community contains several different arguments, such as: 1. Climate change is not occurring. 2. Climate change is occurring, but it is not due to humans. 3. Climate change is occurring, and it is due to humans. But it does not pose a sufficient threat to justify large scale action or climate change will be beneficial. 4. Climate change is occurring, and it is due to humans. But it is too expensive to deal with. 5. Climate change is occurring, and it is due to humans. However, voluntary actions will be sufficient to address this issue. Your task is to review information about this organization, and assign a code that describes the role of this organization in this movement. There are four codes that you can assign to the organization: 1. Climate Counter-movement single focus organization - climate change sole focus 2. Climate Counter-movement multiple focus organization – climate change substantive focus, but not sole focus 3. Climate Counter-movement Peripheral Organization – climate change minor focus 4. Not Climate Counter-movement Organization Coding Steps To code an organization, the first step is to examine its participation in several well-known climate counter-movement events or coalitions. These are participation or sponsorship of the ICC conference, or participation in the Global Climate Coalition, Alliance for Climate Strategies, or the Cooler Heads Coalition. Generally, participation in these coalitions signifies a minimum coding of 3 for this organization. Information about participation in these events or coalitions is available on the organization Excel spread sheet. Enter the results of this review in the External Activities blocks on the coding sheet. The second step is to do a Google search of the organization. Generally, this will turn up the site of the organization, and in a large majority of cases, a Wikipedia site, and organizational description sites developed by both “Source Watch” and Greenpeace. You should read these descriptions and first enter the type of organization in the Nature of Organization box on the coding sheet. You then need to decide if there is evidence that this organization is generally perceived to be part of the climate counter- movement. You should enter the results on the External Web Site Descriptions blocks. The fourth step is to go to the organization’s web site. You should read the organization’s mission (usually listed in the tab labeled “about us.”) Then look over the web site, looking for statements regarding the extent and nature of the organization’s involvement with climate change. You should answer the questions on the coding sheet under the headings of Organization Web Site Review, Nature of Arguments Presented Regarding Climate Change, and Actions Advocated to Address Climate Change. The fifth step is to review the most recent copy of the organization’s IRS 990 form. Go to www.guidestar.org, and enter the organization’s name. This will bring up information regarding the organization, as well as links to the IRS forms of the organization. Open the most recently available IRS 990 form, and fill out the blocks in the IRS 990 Review section of the coding form. The final step is to code the organization into one of four categories. Based on the information obtained about the organization, enter a code of 1-4 in the block Organizational Coding. 2 S-2 Coding Sheet – U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations Climate Change Counter-movement Organization Coding Sheet Name of Organization ____________________________________________________________________ Nature of Organization 1. Advocacy Org 5. University Affiliated Research Institute 2. Think Tank/Research Institute 6. Professional Association 3. Trade Association 7. Foundation 4. Coalition 8. Other ____________________________________ External Activities No Yes 1. Has the organization sponsored the Heartland Conference? 2. Has a representative from this organization spoken at the Heartland Conference? 3. Did the organization belong to the Global Climate Coalition? 4. Does the organization belong to the Alliance for Climate Strategies? 5. Does the organization belong to the Cooler Heads Coalition? External Web Site Descriptions 1. Is the org described on a Wikipedia Site? If so, does it appear to be a counter-movement org? 2. Is the org described on a Source Watch page? If so, does it appear to be a counter-movement org? 3. Is the org described on a Greenpeace page? If so, does it appear to be a counter-movement org? Organization Web Site Review 1. Is global warming/climate change mentioned in the orgs purpose statement, mission, or objectives? 2. Are there other issues mentioned in the organization’s purpose/mission/objectives? 3. Are statements, issue advisories, editorial statements or reports available on the web site regarding global warming/climate change? Nature of Arguments Presented Regarding Climate Change Absent Present 1. Climate change is a hoax/not happening 2. The science of climate change is uncertain 3. Climate change is not caused by human activities 4. Climate change is caused by human activities, but it is not of concern 5. Climate change will be beneficial for humans 6. Addressing climate change is too expensive 7. There are other problems that should be addressed before climate change 8. Other Actions Advocated to Address Climate Change Absent Present 1. No action 2. Voluntary action 3. Expansion/increase use of carbon energy sources 4. Technology research 5. Energy efficiency 6. Price on Carbon (Carbon Tax or Cap & Trade) 7. Carbon Regulations 8. Government Investments 9. Government Subsidies IRS 990 Review No Yes 1. Is global warming/climate change mentioned in the organization’s mission? (Line 1, page 2) 2. Is there a separate statement on global warming /climate change in the organization’s achievements? (Line 4, page 2) 3. Is there a specific funding amount listed that is identified as being spent on global warming/climate change activities? (Line 4, page 2) 4. If funding on global warming/climate change is listed, enter amount. 5. What are the total expenses reported for the most current year IRS 990? (Line 18, page 1) Organizational Coding 1. Climate Counter-movement Single Focus Organization 2. Climate Counter-movement Multiple Focus Organization 3. Climate Counter-movement Peripheral Organization 4. Not Climate Counter-movement Organization Coded By _________________ Date __________ Entered By_________________ Date __________ 3 S-3 U.S. National Climate Counter-movement Organizations 60 Plus Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow International Climate And Environmental Change Advancement Of Sound Science Center Inc. The) Competitive Enterprise Institute InternationalA t PClimate j t (I Science ) Coalition Alliance For Climate Strategies (ACS) Congress Of Racial Equality International Policy Network American Coal Foundation Consumer Alert/National Consumer Coalition James Madison Institute American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) Consumer Energy Alliance John Locke Foundation American Conservative Union Foundation Cooler Heads Coalition Landmark Legal Foundation American Council For Capital Formation Cornwall Alliance For The Stewardship Of Creation Manhattan Institute For Policy Research American Council For Capital Formation Center For Policy Research Edison Electric Institute Manhattan Libertarian Party American Energy Alliance/Institute For Energy Research Energy Citizens Media Research Center American Energy Freedom Center Energy Makes America Great Mercatus Center, George Mason University American Enterprise Institute For Public Policy Research Environmental Literacy Council Mountain States Legal Foundation American Farm Bureau Federation For American Coal, Energy And Security National Association Of Manufacturers American Friends Of The Institute Of Economic Affairs Free Enterprise Action Institute/Free Enterprise Education Institute National Center For Policy Analysis American Gas Association Freedom Action National Center For
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record—Senate S5011
    July 12, 2016 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5011 The clerk will report the bill by title. COMMENDING THE TENNESSEE experienced its warmest June on record The senior assistant legislative clerk VALLEY AUTHORITY ON THE ever. Already this year there have been read as follows: 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNI- eight weather-related and climate-re- A bill (S. 2650) to amend the Internal Rev- FIED DEVELOPMENT OF THE lated disasters that each caused at enue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross in- TENNESSEE RIVER SYSTEM least $1 billion in damage. Globally, it come any prizes or awards won in competi- Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask was found that 2015 was the hottest tion in the Olympic Games or the year on record, and so far this year is Paralympic Games. unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. on track to beat last year. We can’t There being no objection, the Senate 528, submitted earlier today. even hold the record for a year—2016 proceeded to consider the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The has been as hot as Pokemon GO—and Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask clerk will report the resolution by anyone watching the Senate floor to- unanimous consent that the bill be title. night who is younger than 31 has never read a third time and passed, the mo- The senior assistant legislative clerk experienced in their life a month where tion to reconsider be considered made read as follows: the temperature was below the 20th and laid upon the table, and that the century average.
    [Show full text]
  • Accelerated Attacks on Clean Energy by Koch Bros
    Checks and Balances Project Documents: Accelerated Attacks on Clean Energy by Koch Bros. $192 Million to 72 Groups Associated with Opposition to Clean Energy Solutions and Climate Change Denial from 1997-2013 $108 Million to At Least 19 Groups to Fight State Renewable Energy Policies 2011-2013 (Over 18 months, Checks and Balances Project conducted the first in-depth investigation into Koch Industries, Inc. AND what we call the Koch Advocacy Network. Over 350 low-profile regulatory disclosures and more than 8,000 legal disclosure forms drawn from over 60 public agencies, databases and courts were examined. Research was completed prior to the 2016 election.) In August 2015 President Obama singled out the “massive lobbying efforts backed by fossil fuel interests, or conservative think tanks, or the Koch brothers pushing for new laws to roll back renewable energy standards or prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding.” The President described these anti-clean energy efforts as “rent seeking and trying to protect old ways of doing business and standing in the way of the future.”1 Charles Koch responded that, “We are not trying to prevent new clean energy businesses from succeeding” and warned against “subsidizing uneconomical forms of energy — whether you call them ‘green,’ ‘renewable’ or whatever.” He continued, “And there is a big debate on whether you have a real disease or something that’s not that serious. I recognize there is a big debate about that. But whatever it is, the cure is to do things in the marketplace, and to let individuals and companies innovate, to come up with alternatives that will deal with whatever the problem may be in an economical way so we don’t squander resources on uneconomic approaches.” 2 The defense outlined by Charles mirrors the strategy of the network he oversees.
    [Show full text]
  • Threat to Public Education Now Centers on Massachusetts
    THREAT TO PUBLIC EDUCATION NOW CENTERS ON MASSACHUSETTS May 2016 Preface This document updates and expands on Threat from the Right, an MTA task force report issued in May 2013. During the intervening years, the threat to public education, organized labor and social justice has grown substantially. Massachusetts is now in the crosshairs, with the forces behind charter schools, privatization and other attacks on the public good coalescing on Beacon Hill and throughout the state. That is reflected in the title of the 2016 edition, Threat to Public Education Now Centers on Massachusetts. No one should doubt the danger of the challenges outlined in these pages or the intensity of the forces behind them, which are national in scope. Nevertheless, winning the many fights we face is well within the power of the MTA and our allies — parents, students and other members of communities across Massachusetts and the nation. Understanding our opponents is an important step, and this report is intended to help us move toward meaningful victories as we continue to organize, mobilize and build the power we need to realize the goals of our Strategic Action Plan. Contents Introduction Elements of the Charter Campaign The Massachusetts Alignment ......................................................................................................7 Great Schools Massachusetts.......................................................................................................9 Families for Excellent Schools ....................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Koch Millions Spread Influence Through Nonprofits, Colleges
    HOME ABOUT STAFF INVESTIGATIONS ILAB BLOGS WORKSHOP NEWS Koch millions spread influence through nonprofits, colleges B Y C H A R L E S L E W I S , E R I C H O L M B E R G , A L E X I A F E R N A N D E Z C A M P B E L L , LY D I A B E Y O U D Monday, July 1st, 2013 ShareThis Koch Industries, one of the largest privately held corporations in the world and principally owned by billionaires Charles and David Koch, has developed what may be the best funded, multifaceted, public policy, political and educational presence in the nation today. From direct political influence and robust lobbying to nonprofit policy research and advocacy, and even increasingly in academia and the broader public “marketplace of ideas,” this extensive, cross-sector Koch club or network appears to be unprecedented in size, scope and funding. And the relationship between these for-profit and nonprofit entities is often mutually reinforcing to the direct financial and political interests of the behemoth corporation — broadly characterized as deregulation, limited government and free markets. The cumulative cost to Koch Industries and Charles and David Koch for this extraordinary alchemy of political and lobbying influence, nonprofit public policy underwriting and educational institutional support was $134 million over a recent five- year period. The global conglomerate has 60,000 employees and annual revenue of $115 billion and estimated pretax profit margins of 10 percent, according to Forbes. An analysis by the Investigative Reporting Workshop found that from 2007 through 2011, Koch private foundations gave $41.2 million to 89 nonprofit organizations and an annual libertarian conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Monetized Hate: Decoding the Network
    MONETIZED HATE: DECODING THE NETWORK THE NETWORK REVISITED The present scourge of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry in our country is rooted in a calculated, insidious effort to contaminate our public discourse. This effort dates back to the early 2000s, when a small, interlaced network of analysts and activists exploited a nationwide climate of fear in the aftermath of 9/11. To be sure, the systemic mistreatment of our Arab American and American Muslim communities did not begin with the new millennium. However, the success of this so-called network to mainstream hateful rhetoric and advance discriminatory policies is considerable, and thus deserves outsize attention. In 2011, The Center for American Progress (CAP) published “Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.”1 The report found that a nationwide rise in anti-Muslim bigotry was traceable to a handful of “misinformation experts.” These individuals and their organizations relied on a syndicate of activists, media partners, and grassroots organizing to radiate bias presented as fact. They also relied on significant financial support from a select group of charitable foundations. This network of donors, analysts, and activists not only distorted millions of Americans’ understanding of Islam and Muslims, it also drove inequitable policies. One example highlighted in the report was that of so-called “anti-Sharia bills”2 introduced in numerous state legislatures. Most of these bills drew from model legislation drafted by David Yerushalmi,3 an SPLC-designated anti-Muslim extremist. CAP released a follow-up in 2015 entitled “Fear Inc., 2.0. The Islamophobia Network’s Effects to Manufactured Hate in America.” 4 While the revelations of CAP’s initial report led charitable organizations, politicians, and the media to sever ties with many of the network’s key members, the 2015 edition also found that individuals within the network had successfully advanced a range of anti-Muslim policies at the local, state, and federal level.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Donor Privacy Philanthropic Freedom, Anonymity and the First Amendment
    Protecting Donor Privacy Philanthropic Freedom, Anonymity and the First Amendment www.PhilanthropyRoundtable.org www.ACReform.org Contents 1 Executive Summary 3 Introduction 3 A Rich Tradition and History of Anonymous Giving 7 A Constitutionally Protected Right 9 Activists and Attorneys General Threaten Donor Privacy 13 Legislators Seek to Undermine Anonymous Giving 14 Is Anonymity Still Needed? 16 Confusing Politics, Government, and Charity 18 Ideology and Donor Privacy 20 Donor Anonymity is Worth Protecting 22 Endnotes Executive Summary among them for supporters of unpopular causes or organizations is the reality that exposure will lead to harassment or threat The right of charitable donors to remain of retribution. anonymous has long been a hallmark of American philanthropy for donors both large Among the more prominent examples is the and small. Donor privacy allows charitable harassment of brothers Charles and David givers to follow their religious teachings, Koch, who have helped fund a broad range insulate themselves from retribution, avoid of nonprofit organizations ranging from unwanted solicitations, and duck unwelcome Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center publicity. It also upholds and protects important to the libertarian-oriented Cato Institute, as First Amendment rights of free speech and well as organizations that engage in political association. However, recent actions by activity. As a result of their giving, the Koch elected officials, activists, and organizations brothers and their companies routinely face are challenging this right and threatening death threats, cyber-attacks from the hacker to undermine private philanthropy’s ability group “Anonymous,” and boycotts aimed at to effectively address some of society’s most the many consumer products their companies challenging issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Threat from the Right Intensifies
    THREAT FROM THE RIGHT INTENSIFIES May 2018 Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................1 Meeting the Privatization Players ..............................................................................3 Education Privatization Players .....................................................................................................7 Massachusetts Parents United ...................................................................................................11 Creeping Privatization through Takeover Zone Models .............................................................14 Funding the Privatization Movement ..........................................................................................17 Charter Backers Broaden Support to Embrace Personalized Learning ....................................21 National Donors as Longtime Players in Massachusetts ...........................................................25 The Pioneer Institute ....................................................................................................................29 Profits or Professionals? Tech Products Threaten the Future of Teaching ....... 35 Personalized Profits: The Market Potential of Educational Technology Tools ..........................39 State-Funded Personalized Push in Massachusetts: MAPLE and LearnLaunch ....................40 Who’s Behind the MAPLE/LearnLaunch Collaboration? ...........................................................42 Gates
    [Show full text]
  • Part III Statement of Program Service Accomplishments Check If Schedule O Contains a Response Or Note to Any Line in This Part III
    Form 990 (2019) Page 2 Part III Statement of Program Service Accomplishments Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part III . 1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission: SUPPORT CHARITIES & SPONSOR PROGRAMS WHICH ALLEVIATE, THROUGH EDUCATION, RESEARCH & PRIVATE INITIATIVES, SOCIETY'S MOST PERVASIVE AND RADICAL NEEDS, INCLUDING THOSE RELATING TO SOCIAL WELFARE, HEALTH, 2 Did the organization undertake any significant program services during the year which were not listed on the prior Form 990 or 990-EZ? ........................... Yes No If “Yes,” describe these new services on Schedule O. 3 Did the organization cease conducting, or make significant changes in how it conducts, any program services? ................................. Yes No If “Yes,” describe these changes on Schedule O. 4 Describe the organization’s program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses. Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are required to report the amount of grants and allocations to others, the total expenses, and revenue, if any, for each program service reported. 4 a (Code: ) (Expenses $ 163,183,043. including grants of $ 161,930,479. ) (Revenue $0. ) DAF PROGRAM - A DONOR ADVISED FUND (DAF) PROGRAM ALLOWING DAF CONTRIBUTORS TO ADVISE GRANTS THAT SUPPORT CHARITIES WHICH ALLEVIATE, THROUGH EDUCATION, RESEARCH AND PRIVATE INITIATIVES, SOCIETY'S MOST PERVASIVE AND RADICAL NEEDS, INCLUDING THOSE RELATING TO SOCIAL WELFARE, HEALTH, ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMICS, GOVERNANCE, FOREIGN RELATIONS AND ARTS AND CULTURE; AND WHICH ENCOURAGE PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY AND INDIVIDUAL GIVING AND RESPONSIBILITY AS AN ANSWER TO SOCIETY'S NEEDS, AS OPPOSED TO GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPOSED:The State Policy Network
    EXPOSED: The State Policy Network The Powerful Right-Wing Network Helping to Hijack State Politics and Government CENTER FOR MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY | ALECEXPOSED.ORG November 2013 ©2013 Center for Media and Democracy. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photography, recording, or by information exchange and retrieval system, without permission from the authors. Center for Media and Democracy ALECexposed.org | PRWatch.org | SourceWatch.org 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 Madison, WI 53703 | (608) 260-9713 (This publication is available online at ALECexposed.org) CMD, publisher of ALECexposed.org, PRWatch.org, and SourceWatch.org, has created a clearinghouse of information on the State Policy Network at sourcewatch.org/index.php/Portal:State_Policy_Network and a reporter’s guide to SPN at prwatch.org/node/11909/. Please see these online resources for more information. This report was written by Rebekah Wilce, with contributions by Lisa Graves, Mary Bottari, Nick Surgey, Jay Riestenberg, Katie Lorenze, Drew Curtis, and Sari Williams. This report on SPN is also part of a joint effort with Progress Now called www.StinkTanks.org, which includes information about what citizens can do in response to SPN's secretive influence on the state laws that affect their lives. Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 SPN’s Founding and Role in the National Right-Wing
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing Climate Change Denial in the United States and Looking for Impacts on the United States’ Science Diplomacy
    CENTRE INTERNATIONAL DE FORMATION EUROPEENNE SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT INSTITUT EUROPEEN · EUROPEAN INSTITUTE Tracing Climate Change Denial in the United States and Looking for Impacts on the United States’ Science Diplomacy By Stephanie Baima A thesis submitted for the Joint Master degree in Global Economic Governance & Public Affairs (GEGPA) Academic year 2019 – 2020 July 2020 Supervisor: Hartmut Marhold Reviewer: Christian Blasberg PLAGIARISM STATEMENT I certify that this thesis is my own work, based on my personal study and/or research and that I have acknowledged all material and sources used in its preparation. I further certify that I have not copied or used any ideas or formulations from any book, article or thesis, in printed or electronic form, without specifically mentioning their origin, and that the complete citations are indicated in quotation marks. I also certify that this thesis has not previously been submitted for assessment in any other unit, except where specific permission has been granted from all unit coordinators involved, and that I have not copied in part or whole or otherwise plagiarized the work of other students and/or persons. In accordance with the law, failure to comply with these regulations makes me liable to prosecution by the disciplinary commission and the courts of the French Republic for university plagiarism. Stephanie Baima 10 July 2020 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ 3 Abstract
    [Show full text]
  • Computer-Assisted Detection and Classification of Misinformation
    1 Computer-assisted detection and classification of 2 misinformation about climate change 1 2 3,4,* 1 3 Travis G. Coan , Constantine Boussalis , John Cook , and Mirjam O. Nanko 1 4 Department of Politics and the Exeter Q-Step Centre, University of Exeter, United Kingdom. 2 5 Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. 3 6 Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Monash University, Australia. 4 7 Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, USA. * 8 Corresponding author email: [email protected] 9 ABSTRACT A growing body of scholarship investigates the role of misinformation in shaping the debate on climate change. Our research builds on and extends this literature by 1) developing and validating a comprehensive taxonomy of climate misinformation, 2) conducting the largest content analysis to date on contrarian claims, 3) developing a computational model to accurately detect specific claims, and 4) drawing on an extensive corpus from conservative think-tank (CTTs) websites and contrarian blogs to 10 construct a detailed history of misinformation over the past 20 years. Our study finds that climate misinformation produced by CTTs and contrarian blogs has focused on attacking the integrity of climate science and scientists and, increasingly, has challenged climate policy and renewable energy. We further demonstrate the utility of our approach by exploring the influence of corporate and foundation funding on the production and dissemination of specific contrarian claims. 11 Organised climate change contrarianism has played a significant role in the spread of misinformation and the delay of 1 12 meaningful action to mitigate climate change. Research suggests that climate misinformation leads to a number of negative 2 3 4 13 outcomes such as reduced climate literacy, public polarization, canceling out accurate information, reinforcing climate 5 6 14 silence, and influencing how scientists engage with the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence-Based Strategies to Combat Scientific Misinformation
    PERSPECTIVE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0368-6 Evidence-based strategies to combat scientific misinformation Justin Farrell 1*, Kathryn McConnell1 and Robert Brulle2 Nowhere has the impact of scientific misinformation been more profound than on the issue of climate change in the United States. Effective responses to this multifaceted problem have been slow to develop, in large part because many experts have not only underestimated its impact, but have also overlooked the underlying institutional structure, organizational power and financial roots of misinformation. Fortunately, a growing body of sophisticated research has emerged that can help us to bet- ter understand these dynamics and provide the basis for developing a coordinated set of strategies across four related areas (public inoculation, legal strategies, political mechanisms and financial transparency) to thwart large-scale misinformation campaigns before they begin, or after they have taken root. cientific misinformation undermines public understanding fuel companies and wealthy family foundations such as Koch, Scaife of science, erodes basic trust in research findings and stalls and Mercer12,13. Echoing Steve Milloy (above) about the EPA rule, Sevidenced-based policymaking1–3. For example, in April 2018, Ebell similarly reflected about the decades of political work that it Scott Pruitt (former administrator of the Environmental Protection took to get to this point. “This was a very long fight. And we have Agency; EPA) signed a proposed rule that would sharply reduce the turned the corner”12. number of scientific studies the EPA can take into account, effec- Many, especially climate scientists who have seen the evidence tively limiting the agency’s ability to regulate toxic chemicals, air of warming first hand, wondered how we had reached this point.
    [Show full text]