It would take a lifestyle upheaval to drop most Australians' household emissions to a sustainable level. Even many of us who urge equitable action on climate change act as if this doesn't apply to us.
A new study confirms what many already know: Exxon for years sowed uncertainty and doubt about climate change in the public. Should scientists reject certain funding sources?
While climate denialism impedes policymaking in both the US and Australia, there are key differences in their political and public cultures.
People universally believe scientists' solar eclipse calendars, but vaccine warnings or climate predictions are forms of science that strangely do not enjoy equivalent acceptance.
Three years ago The Australian newspaper launched a broadside at the Bureau of Meteorology. But when it did it again this week, it seemed to get less traction from the top echelons of government.
The undermining of environmental science, and the creation of lies and bribes to distort public policymaking, is as old as industries that know their products do harm, but lie to keep them in use.
If the G20 is to remain relevant in the quest for more inclusive and fair global governance, Africa offers an historic opportunity for collective action, despite the absence of the US under Trump.
While many people are willing to happily gamble with pharmaceuticals, which may offer the most trivial of benefits, they are not ready to believe the facts on climate change.
Does science have an answer to science denial? Just as being vaccinated protects you from a later full-blown infection, a bit of misinformation explained could help ward off other cases down the road.
Insisting that science has a monopoly on the truth invalidates dissent and undermines what should be an open dialogue between science and society.
What if extreme weather events could be attributed to human-induced climate change with confidence?
People worry Washington is losing respect for science and even the centuries-old scientific method. Two climate scientists explain how science can be done when talking about the future.
Today is the start of Science Meets Parliament, which helps our nation's leaders embrace the latest scientific evidence.
Scientists are concerned that politics will trump evidence in the new administration. A researcher of political psychology explains why these worries matter far beyond questions of science.
Laser-like focus on a tiny, unimportant detail can mean you miss the gorilla in the room – a tactic climate change deniers use to cast doubt on the science.
There's never been greater need for the study of what we don't know, and why we're not supposed to know it.
A historian of science and technology says Trump team's request for names of Department of Energy employees working on climate change recalls worst excesses of ideology-driven science in government.
Modern science can be difficult or complex for one person to understand and verify, especially a non-scientist. So who should we believe when scientific evidence is met with denial?
One of Donald Trump's senior advisers has recommended cutting NASA climate research because the science has become “heavily politicised". The question is: by whom?
Trump has promised to abolish Obama's Clean Power Plan and back out of the Paris climate accord. But business could become a key firewall that won't let Obama's sustainability legacy die.