Sentences with phrase «asked about consensus»

Your original comment asked about consensus on these phenomena and both Roberta Way and I stuck to the IPCC consensus view.

Not exact matches

But when you ask what to do about it, that consensus quickly devolves into finger - pointing — at recycling companies like Waste Management for failing to innovate, at the American public for their lazy recycling habits, at producers for creating plastic packaging that is increasingly difficult to recycle, and even at the federal government for not passing strong legislation that encourages better practices.

To this Mr. Cizik replied that he had asked a couple of scientists he knows about that false cooling consensus, and they denied that they ever believed that.

When asked to weigh Spitzer's previous salacious actions against those of former Congressman Anthony Weiner, there is little consensus about whose actions are considered to be more offensive.

Mr. de Blasio asked a reporter who wondered whether the two recent rifts had taught him anything about consensus - building.

And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?

After several quizzes and bogus distractions, we finally asked participants again about their perception of the scientific consensus.

While there is some debate about who should ask for a second date, the main consensus seems to be that, now you've got to know each other a little, this is a chance to get a little more creative — and certainly more romantic!

I asked around on a few forums about how to get the new version downloaded to my Nook and the consensus seems to be that at this time, there is no way to get the new version onto your Nook.

«I think asking people to pay for a game when there's been no critical consensus about it, in exchange for a discount, is really bad.

The climate community is asked to deliver a formal consensus document about the state of knowledge on climate change every five years or so.

I ask this question since I'm more than fed up with hearing about a consensus.

The BBC asked some experts what they thought about the story (the consensus seems to be that yes, all of these things are good to do); and you can read more about Mark and Sylvia at the Alzheimer's Society.

In a recent editorial for The Guardian, Adam Corner made a similar argument, asking «who cares about the climate change consensus?».

Participants read a paragraph about the scientific consensus about our warming planet, and were asked «If you had to choose, how much effort should be devoted to planning for the impacts of climate change?»

Pew Research Center has asked Americans about their perception of the scientific consensus on climate change in different ways over the years.

He says there is scientific consensus among experts that climate change is occurring, but the nationwide online poll of 2,600 adults asked whether they believe scientists agree or disagree about it.

Yet if the question had asked about the most recent 50 - 65 years instead of 150 years, the consensus might have been 97 %.

«Such surveys are often cited as demonstrating a near - unanimous scientific consensus in favor of a climate policy, when they never ask any question about whether and to what extent the anthropogenic component in recent warming might be dangerous or about whether a «climate policy» should be adopted in attempted mitigation of future warming.»

The idea of there being scientists on the one hand, opposed by irrational sceptics on the other has been established so concretely that few editors, peer - reviewers or journalists even bother to ask questions about the content of the consensus, much less about how it is contradicted by the substance of climate sceptics» arguments.

Your guests would have us believe that sceptics contest the claim that «global warming is happening», whereas the question that most sceptics of climate science ask is about the role of feedback mechanisms that are believed to amplify the global warming effect — a subject on which there is far less consensus that your guests will admit.

(Skeptical Science) When these politicians are asked about the basis for their positions on climate change, they almost always respond by saying such things as they «have heard that there is a disagreement among scientists» or similar responses that strongly suggest they have informed an opinion on climate change science without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has been based.

«Presidential aspirant Al Gore, when asked about the revelation and the devastating rebuttal that it represents for his film An Inconvenient Truth said that he had based his work on the published scientific consensus that prevailed at the time.

She asks about the 97 percent consensus among climate scientists.

When once asked about the many scientific institutions that accept the consensus of human - caused global warming — including IPCC, NASA, NOAA, the National Academy of Sciences, and many more — he responded: «What can I say?

Then about a month later I came right out and asked this person: «What is the history of the consensus opinion on the expected factor to correct (normalize)[TLT to GMST] one or the other's trend to match up?

Finally, I think what the media really want to know when they ask about Katrina and global warming is whether the connection is «significant», and I don't think there's consensus there, partly as Gavin says, that's a matter of semantics, partly it's a genuine disagreement as to how important global warming is where hurricanes are concerned compared to other factors, and how «significant» an argument the influence of global warming on hurricanes is for deciding energy policy.

ie consensus about 3.0 C (about rangeing from say 2.5 - 3.5, depending who you ask, or even narrower say 2.75 - 3.25 C say) Your Revkin email stated, «all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable.

I think it it reasonable for reasonable people to be somewhat shocked and surprised by such massive shifts in a scientific consensus to at least be asking questions about who or what is right or more right, and why X evidence is suddenly superseding Y evidence, or why previously accepted global climate models, regional or ocean models no longer are accepted.

If you ask scientists about «dangerous» AGW you're unlikely to get any kind of consensus, since it is not only ill - defined, but clearly also conditional (it depends on many factors, such as what we actually do).

I don't think there's any consensus about where things should be going (except that the billable hour system doesn't serve clients or associates particularly well) but the fact that a firm is asking the question and willing to look at other options should be seen as encouraging.