Sentences with phrase «accepted by the climate science»

It is just as well accepted by the climate science community.

Soon and Baliunas just showed there was a mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and other natural climate variability in history — a very good paper that is now accepted by climate science as more indicative of what actually occured in climate history.....

Versus Michael Mann's hockey stick showing there was no enigmatic medieval period (even tried to change the name) with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing in the twentieth century — but was based on incredible data - selection techniques and was mostly based on one tree core series, the bristlecone pine trees from one mountain which can not possibly be expected to provide a reliable indicator of climate — the worst type of science but still accepted by climate science because that it what they do — rewrite history and get all the facts wrong.

Not exact matches

Those who know more about climate science, for example, are slightly more likely to accept that global warming is real and caused by humans than those who know less on the subject.

The White House obviously accepts the science behind human - caused climate change, as was made clear again this week by its announcement of plans to cut carbon emissions from U.S.

Polls by Pew Research show the vast majority of people (70 — 80 %) in most countries accept climate science and want more to be done to reduce emissions.

This tribal theory applies to peoples political affiliations such as liberal or conservative, or membership of other social groups, and we know liberals do tend to accept climate science more than conservatives from polls by Pew Research etc, although its not black and white.

the fossil fuel industry's climate change denialist propaganda disguised as «science education», and to support actual science (not to mention the survival of the human species) by accepting Laurie David's offer to distribute the DVDs.

It was important to show that, despite a few climate - science deniers, the fundamental science was well - accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

By apparently accepting climate change science he is trying to improve his image as an environmental president.

Happily, in America this question has already been asked and answered by a number of major religious organizations and evangelical groups that are on record as both accepting the science of climate change and supporting action at the public - policy level.

Our governments have not accepted the reality dictated by the laws of physics and climate science: we must phase out fossil fuel emissions rapidly.

For me, that begins with people accepting that there is no hiding place left in the science — the overwhelming consensus of the vast body of scientists that study climate is that the trends we are seeing in the air, the oceans and in our ecosystems are entirely consistent with the theory of global warming, while the alternatives offered by sceptical scientists — even the much heralded role of the Sun — so far fail that test.

But by 2013, Republican moderates like Boehlert who accepted climate science were eliminated.

PS I also think that a lot of what is said to be «climate science» is disgracefully shoddy work done by disgracefully bad «scientists» and unquestioningly accepted by gullible fools.

It is worth noting that Gleick's forgeries are considered normal practise by the climate science establishment... and that hypocrisy for personal gain (Gore) is accepted and rewarded.

Everything I've read on the subject leads me to accept that the high level of confidence expressed by the IPCC on the broad questions of whether AGW is real and likely to be a threat is representative of the view of the large majority of climate scientists and of the underlying science itself.

John A, say's of me «Such a shame you don't spend any time looking at the evidence to see whether that accepted climate science should have been accepted in the first place» when it's clear I'm here reading stuff I disagree with and discussing it... Then, after more baseless accusation of me unsupported by any evidence bar extrapolation from the details of myself I gave, he goes on to say «I reserve the right to say what I think and justify what I say with evidence that people can check for themselves».

Bethell's source is the «Galilean electrodynamics of rightwing crank physicist Petr Beckman, commemorated in the Petr Beckman award, which has been accepted by a string of the scientific luminaries of the climate science denial movement such as Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.

Alarmists accept far more science, it's skeptics by and large who seek to shutdown funding for climate science and deny things like the surface records and the use of climate models.

After reading Linzden's article I found nothing that throws any real doubt on climate Science — It's all about discrediting the motives of those doing work that has been accepted and endorsed by the top scientific institutions of the world.

Mr Lord, who does not question the science of climate change, said the papers were pulled by the department at the last minute, after they had been accepted and peer - reviewed.

It's unclear why the committee didn't immediately exonerate Mann of the fourth allegation — seriously deviating from accepted practices within the academic community — except that by leaving it open, the committee apparently hoped to rebuild «public trust in science in general and climate science specifically.»

But in the BBC's coverage of the report's release in Stockholm, which was attended by several BBC science journalists, the voice of climate - change sceptics, who do not accept the IPCC's core findings, got considerable airtime.

Last October, his team announced that the global mean temperature on land had increased by 1.6 degrees since 1950, a result that matched the numbers accepted by the mainstream climate - science community.

Early last year, I accepted the journal's invitation to review Recursive Fury, a narrative analysis of blog posts published by climate deniers * in response to Lewandowsky's earlier work in which he and his colleagues showed that endorsement of free - market economics and a propensity for conspiratorial thinking are contributing factors in the rejection of science.

Most people do not deny climate science; instead we adopt what can be called maladaptive coping strategies, those in which we acknowledge and accept the facts about global warming up to a point, but cope by blunting the emotional impact.

By «science informed», we mean that we accept the climate science consensus.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer - reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic.

My recommendation is a «Climate Science Panel» led by you with the mission of selecting climate science papers that meet generally accepted scientific staClimate Science Panel» led by you with the mission of selecting climate science papers that meet generally accepted scientific staScience Panel» led by you with the mission of selecting climate science papers that meet generally accepted scientific staclimate science papers that meet generally accepted scientific stascience papers that meet generally accepted scientific standards.

When climate science accepts the data and doesn't try to explain it away (or, worse, hide it by graphical sleight of hand and presentational jiggery - pokery), I'll be happier with calling it a science in truth.

You seem to generally accept WG1 as the «best available summary» of climate science today, while I am more skeptical, particularly with regard to its understatement of uncertainty, its myopic fixation on anthropogenic climate forcing, its superficial handling of natural climate forcing factors and its many exaggerations or distortions, which go toward making AGW look more alarming than is really supported by the physical observations.

Skeptic science will never be accepted by the cartel orthodox, there can only be internal reforms but the Supreme Climate Soviet must continue.

All the funding was directed to only one side of climate science, and that was the side promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and accepted as the «official science» by goverclimate science, and that was the side promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and accepted as the «official science» by goverClimate Change (IPCC) and accepted as the «official science» by governments.

«Ninety - seven percent of scientists, including by the way some who originally disputed the data, have now acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it,» Obama said today, citing a recent study that confirmed — once again — that the vast majority of climatologists accept climate science.

The reality of climate change due to human activity has been widely accepted by climate scientists, and some experts worry that attempts to deny the science could prevent states from preparing for sea level rise, extreme weather and other effects of a warming planet.

«It would seem that Richard Muller has served as a useful foil for the Koch Brothers, allowing them to claim they have funded a real scientist looking into the basic science, while that scientist — Muller — props himself up by using the «Berkeley» imprimatur (U.C. Berkeley has not in any way sanctioned this effort) and appearing to accept the basic science, and goes out on the talk circuit, writing Op - Eds, etc. systematically downplaying the actual state of the science, dismissing key climate - change impacts and denying the degree of risk that climate change actually represents.

In 2011, Romney was chastised by the right - wing media for accepting climate science, even though he didn't propose to do anything about the problem.

So if I accept the missing energy is going to OHC to explain the hiatus as postulated by Climate Science (TM) then they also need to explain when and why this started occurring 15 years ago (or more for lag).

BY imploring policymakers to «accept the science» many climate change activists are preaching little but hypocrisy.

«Everyone» may accept there are siting effects, well except for all those people presenting «mainstream climate science» papers and positions for years as evidence that Watts is full of it as siting has no discernible effects, people like Mosher etc have pointed to temperature record reconstructions done by individuals, often mentioned by Tami's Troupe over at Open Airy Mind and similar sites, that found siting made no significant difference in the trends, etc..

Why is communicating climate change science hard, in which she wondered why some people don't accept what they are told by climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces».

Climate scientist Bethan Davies, who appears to believe this myth, wrote a blog post, Why is communicating climate change science hard, in which she wondered why some people don't accept what they are told by climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces&Climate scientist Bethan Davies, who appears to believe this myth, wrote a blog post, Why is communicating climate change science hard, in which she wondered why some people don't accept what they are told by climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces&climate change science hard, in which she wondered why some people don't accept what they are told by climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces&climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces&climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces».

What they are really saying is this: In their humble opinion, the Mann hockey stick will not be deposed from its status as the generally - accepted temperature record for the last 2,000 years unless some major new study, one conducted by people with recognized stature in the climate science community, comes to a different conclusion.

These groups gladly accept Exxon's support, which enables them to keep churning out misleading reports, to flood newspaper op - ed pages with bizarre arguments against action to curb rampant carbon emissions, and to appear on right - wing TV and radio where they're invited by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tick off blatant distortions of climate science without challenge by actual climate experts.

Wallace asks «is it acceptable to omit the majority of the data» But it seems to be a pervasive tactic accepted by peer reviewed climate «science»

• Accept that the IPCC's dynamic models are the mediocre part of climate - science, and large dynamical models improve only at a slow decade - by - decade pace.

• Accept that the energy - balance models are the strong part of climate - science, being founded on thermodynamics, calibrated by paleo data, and verified by the secular rise in global energy - balance measures.

I'm outraged by the journals taking positions on the climate science question, and then using the power of their rags to spread those positions by accepting and publishing science that falls apart as soon as someone kicks the tires.

No less by the very people (climate scientists included) who hide behind their claims they accept the science of climate change and the urgent need for immediate actions which must include changes to Laws and Regulations directly related to energy production and use.