The article tells us that if a speaker uses the phrase, “global warming,” more republicans will tune out than if the speaker uses the phrase, “climate change.” Democrats tend to react the same to both phrases.

What does that say? One, republicans are less likely to understand that “climate change” and “global warming” are part of the same phenomenon, either because they don’t understand or don’t care to understand. Two, “global warming” is the dog whistle word that republican politicians will use to rile up their base. Three, people are lazy.

Moral of the story? Watch your words when advocating that the climate is changing.

The article by Ian James of the Desert Sun describes a speech given by Stanford University professor Jon Krosnick on the attitudes and opinions of Americans about climate change and global warming. His conclusions are surprising and encouraging: large majorities of Americans across the country see climate change as a threat that needs to be addressed by the federal government. Additionally, these opinions have been consistent over the past several years.

Excerpt:

“What we’ve found is between two thirds and three quarters of Americans have endorsed the idea that the planet has been warming over the last hundred years, that it’s due at least partly to human activity, that it poses a threat to future generations, and that the federal government in particular should take actions to reduce the amount of warming that occurs in the future and to support preparation for the effects.”

One of the most recent polls, which was published in January by The New York Times, found that 74 percent of Americans said the federal government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change.

“Americans don’t seem to be flitting around unstably from one moment to the next. They seem remarkably grounded in their opinions, and remarkably on one side in a way that’s unprecedented in contemporary American politics,” Krosnick said. “There is very little else in the political arena that Americans agree on as much, other than, let’s say, their disapproval of Congress these days. So this is an unusual case in which there is a remarkable consensus and a strong signal being sent from the public to government.”

Excerpt:

There is no evidence of a recent pause or hiatus in global warming, according to an analysis of 40 peer-reviewed studies on the subject published Tuesday in the Scientific Reports, a peer-reviewed journal of the Nature Publishing Group. Researchers found that the studies positing a hiatus didn’t examine a long enough period of time to support such a conclusion.

“There has never been a pause in global warming unless you try to create one by looking at an insufficiently large number of data points,” said lead author Stephan Lewandowsky, a social scientist and professor of psychology at the University of Bristol in the U.K. The study’s co-authors are James S. Risby, a climate scientist with Australia’s national science agency, and Naomi Oreskes, a science historian at Harvard University.

The most recent study is the sixth paper this year that reached similar conclusions, Lewandowsky said. Smith, a prominent climate change denialist, for months has been investigating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration focusing on a study NOAA scientists published in June debunking the hiatus theory.

Excerpt:

A final draft report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says only “rapid and far-reaching” changes in the world economy can keep global warming below the internationally agreed target barrier.

“If emissions continue at their present rate, human-induced warming will exceed 1.5°C by around 2040,” the draft states, according to Reuters, which obtained a copy of the report.

The report, dated June 4, is due for publication in October at the 48th Session of the IPCC in South Korea after revisions and approval by governments. The document will be the main scientific guide to stave off disastrous climate change.

The 2015 Paris agreement, signed by 197 countries, sets a warming limit of “well below 2°C” over pre-Industrial Revolution levels with an aspirational 1.5°C target to avoid dangerous climate effects such as sea level rise, extreme weather and droughts.

In January, a leak of an earlier draft suggested a “very high risk” the 1.5°C target will be surpassed by mid-century. The current draft reaffirms the findings of the earlier draft, but also includes 25,000 comments from experts and a wider pool of scientific literature, Reuters noted.

The latest news further cements worldwide failure to meet the goals struck in Paris. Last year’s Emissions Gap Report from the UN’s environment program found that greenhouse gas emissions are set to overshoot the climate accord by about 30 percent. National pledges only covered a third of the cuts needed by 2030 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.