Sentences with phrase «accept evidence of climate change»

George Marshal wrote: «In the case of climate change, then, we can intellectually accept the evidence of climate change, but we find it extremely hard to accept our responsibility for a crime of such enormity.»

Not exact matches

It is surprising to me that it is often the activists who speak up in support of the scientific consensus around climate change (i.e. that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is induced by humans and is happening), who are the same activists who don't accept the scientific consensus and evidence that shows that GM crops can be safe.

If you accept this some of the increase in Carbon Dioxide concentration is due to this natural phenomenon, claiming that all of the increase is man made ignores this fact supported by the same evidence used to support climate change.

How I would love for just one reporter to ask Mr. Inhofe (or any other denialist) «Please, what level of evidence would you accept as substantial enough that human caused climate change is real?»

Whether to even accept the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and human - caused has become a partisan political issue, thanks in large parts to the efforts of bad actors like the Koch Brothers to poison both our atmosphere and our public discourse.

«But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report — the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over the climate — were changed or deleted after the scientist charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...» — Dr. Frederick Seitz commenting on the IPCC Second Assessment Report, The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

The American Tradition Institute (ATI), a coal company - funded group that does not accept the scientific evidence for human - caused climate change, sued in 2011 for six years of Mann's emails (roughly 38,000 emails) from the University of Virginia, where he had been a professor.

If they are persuadable and persuaded by evidence that their opinions are unsupported by the available evidence and / or are capable of critically examining evidence that appears to support their opinion and find fault with it, that tells me far more about someone than the place he or she starts out / happens to currently stand in terms of «accepting» anthropogenic climate change.

Join us for a fun and lively evening with George Marshall as we explore one of most pressing questions of our time: why, even with overwhelming scientific evidence, do most people still not feel or accept the full threat of climate change?

Climate realists like myself accept that the case for human - driven climate disruption is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence and that no alternative hypothesis yet presented has withstood scientific scrutiny or explained the observed climate cClimate realists like myself accept that the case for human - driven climate disruption is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence and that no alternative hypothesis yet presented has withstood scientific scrutiny or explained the observed climate cclimate disruption is supported by multiple independent lines of evidence and that no alternative hypothesis yet presented has withstood scientific scrutiny or explained the observed climate cclimate changes.

Although many people have accepted with half - believing and half - doubting the view that the emission of greenhouse gases is the primary factors in global climate change, many scientists are skeptical about this view, they have refuted this view with plenty of evidence.»

Markey asked whether, in light of the vindication of the scientists involved in the CRU e-mail hack (see links below), Boyce now accepts the scientific evidence for climate change.

-- because he accepts the best available evidence on climate change for purposes of being a successful farmer.

According to the survey, only 55 % of «Liberal Democrats» — a group 79 % of whom accept human - caused climate change is occurring — believe that climate scientists «research findings... are influenced by» the «best available evidence... most of the time...»

Hence I would propose a «two - hit» hypothesis for climate change deniers: they must both lack the scientific literacy to perceive the overwhelming evidence for AGW, and they must lack the common sense to accept that the overwhelming majority of scientists are probably not wildly wrong about the subject they've spent their lives studying.

offered an amendment stating that Congress accepts as «compelling» the scientific evidence that man - made greenhouse gas emissions are the «root cause» of climate change.

I suspect that that those making the claim of manmade climate change knew in advance that it was unlikely to be accepted either by politicians or the public (partly due to the poor quality of its supporting evidence).

So what does it mean when Bolt sings the praises of a man who is a declared environmentalist, accepts the body of evidence for climate change, supports a carbon tax and is a strong supporter of the United Nations?

For so - called «alarmists,» pointing out what's wrong with drastic carbon cuts is somehow tantamount to denying the reality of climate change, while so - called «deniers» lambast anyone who accepts the scientific evidence supporting this «mythical» problem.

It's my belief that if you could follow the guide lines I presented above, then most who accept man made climate change would entertain the idea of changing their mind if presented with valid evidence.

While the New York Times notes that «97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human - induced climate change,» Robertson claimed that the scientists are merely lying to make money... something Robertson would never do.

I was baffled — why would little versions of me (for I was a physics undergraduate over two decades ago) not accept manmade climate change when it was backed by overwhelming evidence and endorsed by the vast majority of climate experts, Nobel Laureates and even David Attenborough?

The following is from a letter given at the Montreal Conference: Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

While the argument rumbles on for some, with Exxon now accepting the existance of man - made climate change, and with the climate skeptic's favorite scientist actually being a vocal climate action proponent, I'm ready to move on until someone shows me convincing evidence of this elaborate hoax I keep hearing about.

Within a few years, after his unprincipled, unsupported and unscientific attacks on climate «sceptics», my opinion had changed, to what it is now, that he's the very model of an unthinking and ill - informed little s ** t. Presenting «evidence» that you haven't checked out yourself is both irresponsible and unscientific, as is accepting «current thinking» or some form of consensus without questioning it in any way.

Unfortunately, despite this clear empirical evidence, the climate change and global warming doomsday alarmists attempt to portray the 2017 season as a sign of CO2 - induced climate catastrophe - and that is not being well accepted by the actual hurricane experts (here, here, here) who have been on the front lines of tropical cyclone activity and impact research.

The report noted that although these temperature record reconstructions «are not the primary evidence for the widely accepted views that global warming is occurring, [and] that human activities are contributing, at least in part, to this warming,» they «are consistent with other evidence of global climate change and can be considered as additional supporting evidence.»

That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human - induced climate change.

But suppose you were a strongly sceptical person, who required more evidence than others to accept a scientific hypothesis, such as that of of anthropogenic climate change.