Sentences with phrase «because accepting climate science»

Not exact matches

If it can be shown that good science is routinely being ignored simply because it challenges accepted understanding of climate, that would be a much stronger case

Obviously the above assumption of harmlessness would not be accepted on the basis of current science, both because of climate change and ocean acidification processes.

And yet, 400 years later, here we are: watching a public official tasked with guiding the educational trajectories of his community's children rail against the accepted science on climate change — because its conclusions threaten to undermine the local political culture.

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.

There are people who accept the science of vaccines because it is overwhelming and based plausible biology and yet do not accept the science of anthropogenic climate change.

Rep. Bob Inglis, a six - term Republican Congressman from South Carolina and member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, lost his primary bid for re-election to a Tea Party - backed candidate who accused him of not being conservative enough, at least in part because of his record of accepting reality on climate change.

Basically, it's easier to question climate science than accept its conclusions, because to accept the science would mean acknowledging the need for top - down actions to preserve the communal resource of our planet.

I suspect because probably they know that there is a strong prevalence of agreement among experts that continued and increasing aCO2 emissions pose a potential threat, but they find that «consensus» to be politically inconvenient because they don't want to accept the political associations with accepting that threat, so instead they focus on a red herring of a more politically convenient target of whether expert climate scientists agree that «CAGW» is «settled science»

a) they think it is a hoax b) they don't think it is a hoax, put tick it because they are luke warm, and a negative will give the sceintist a false opinion of their views c) they fully accept climate science, but such a blatant attempt to paint sceptics as nutter it is irritating.

They will seek to do similar but perhaps not quite in similar style to Abbott, because they tend to open and proud of their rejection of mainstream climate science whereas Abbott hides his rejection behind a pretense of accepting it as having some reality but rejecting it's seriousness or urgency — and rejecting all climate policy that might reflect that seriousness.

For instance, because of some of the things on this list, Americans are more likely than they were in previous years to accept the possibility that science has something to say about the Earth's climate and the changes we have experienced or that may be in the future; journalists are starting to take a new look at their own misplaced «objective» stance as well.

Do you accept or reject climate science because you have difficulty with the maths or physics?