Sentences with phrase «believes in climate change science»

Image copyright Getty Images Good news for environmental campaigners: President - elect Trump has finally nominated someone to his cabinet who actually believes in climate change science.

Not exact matches

Well he's a republican, so of course he doesn't believe in science, or climate change.

He has been a lifelong volunteer for causes he believes in, including conducting climate change science field research with the Harvard Department of Forestry in Southern Africa, working on get - out - the - vote efforts for John Kerry, Barack Obama and Zephyr Teachout, building agricultural databases for USAID funded international projects all over the world, and providing technical assistance to schools in Senegal (for which he was awarded the President's Volunteer Service Award by the Obama administration).

I want to know whether Stefanik and Faso believe in science and in climate change science and the devastating impact climate change will have on the environment of our children and grandchildren.

The 16 - term Republican is the chairman of the Science, Space and Technology Committee and has said he does not believe in man - made climate change.

He also covered topics including clean energy - taking a dig at climate change doubters by suggesting his party «still believes in science» - as well as renewing manufacturing, easing student loan debt by allowing Americans to refinance them long - term, bringing more people into the workforce and providing equal pay.

According to a 2013 study of California farmers, factors like exposure to extreme weather events and perceived changes in water availability made farmers more likely to believe in climate change, while negative experiences with environmental policies can make farmers less likely to believe that climate change is occurring, said Meredith Niles, a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard's Sustainability Science Program and lead author of the study.

Climate change sceptics love to point out that science is «always realising that it got it wrong» or that «theories that all scientists used to believe in are always being overturned».

Soon is a leading skeptic of the widely accepted science surrounding climate change, In the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, a study titled «The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change» found that 97 percent of scientists surveyed believed global warming already is ongoing, with 84 percent of scientists surveyed believing human - produced greenhouse gases were the driving force behind the climate change, In the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, a study titled «The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change» found that 97 percent of scientists surveyed believed global warming already is ongoing, with 84 percent of scientists surveyed believing human - produced greenhouse gases were the driving force behind the cchange, In the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, a study titled «The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change» found that 97 percent of scientists surveyed believed global warming already is ongoing, with 84 percent of scientists surveyed believing human - produced greenhouse gases were the driving force behind the Climate Change» found that 97 percent of scientists surveyed believed global warming already is ongoing, with 84 percent of scientists surveyed believing human - produced greenhouse gases were the driving force behind the cChange» found that 97 percent of scientists surveyed believed global warming already is ongoing, with 84 percent of scientists surveyed believing human - produced greenhouse gases were the driving force behind the changechange.

There's a rich businessman character in First Reformed that argues that he doesn't believe climate change exists, despite factual science.

By last April he was questioning the basic science of climate change itself, offering this mealy - mouthed attempt to placate the anti-science right wing without going whole hog into the denial camp: «Humans are not responsible for climate change in the way some of these people out there are trying to make us believe.»

I think that story is example of the the ways in which climate change attribution can be overstretched in ways that I believe undermine science, misdirect resources and weaken the social support for addressing climate change.

Australian climate scientist David Karoly, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Melbourne and a review editor of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report, said he did not believe uncertainty was underplayed in the IPCC assesclimate scientist David Karoly, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Melbourne and a review editor of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report, said he did not believe uncertainty was underplayed in the IPCC assesClimate Change's fifth assessment report, said he did not believe uncertainty was underplayed in the IPCC assessments.

This means we're putting a man who has written an entire book calling climate change a hoax, who has used scripture to refute climate science, who truly seems to believe that environmental groups are a «political machine» dedicated to «misleading the American public regarding their purely politically partisan agenda under the guise of environmental protection» and who has insisted, with a straight face, that CO2 is not a «real pollutant,» in charge of solving climate change.

The only way to promote constructive collective decsionmaking on the climate change that ordinary people, left and right, are worried about, and that farmers and other practical individuals are taking steps to protect themselves from, is to protect our science communication enviornment from the toxic effects of the other climate change — the one that people believe or disbelieve in to express their tribal loyalties.

According to Richard's analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the «significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,» which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

You may well feel that there is not a quality of science to support non-belief in evolution that is similar in quality to the science that supports non-belief that ACO2 poses a risk of dangerous climate change, but many people who don't «believe» in evolution feel their viewpoint is absolutely supported by «quality» science.

I continue to believe that in the bowels of the climate research laboratories in public and private institutions such as Georgia Institute of Technology there are scientists who in a humble spirit of self evaluation of their own work on climate science thoroughly question the accuracy of their predictions about climate changes and its effects.

These organizations, which include the Heartland Institute — a group that once compared those who believe in climate change with the Unabomber — have undermined public confidence in climate science so much that scientists have to defend even their most fundamental findings.

Foreword by Dr, F, James Rutherford American association for the Advancement of Science «Astronomical Cycle: Scientists believe astronomical cycles touch off changes in the ocean - Atmosphere system that drives the world's climate.

I believe totally in the science of climate change.

`... I firmly believe in anthropogenic climate change, I deny that the «science is settled» and I am skeptical toward catastrophic anthropogenic climate change...»

«Many evangelicals believe in climate change or understand the science in climate change, but they still see it as a future event,» he said.

In the case of climate change, people are doubting that the alarmist position is supported by the science, and tending to believe that the experts are exaggerating the risk.

As I posted earlier, I firmly believe in anthropogenic climate change, I deny that the «science is settled» and I am skeptical toward catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACC or more popularly CAGW)-RRB-.

For example, understanding that global warming is not a proven science and that there is no circumstantial evidence for global warming alarmism — which is why we see goats like political charlatans like Al Gore showing debunked graphs like the «hockey stick» to scare the folks — and, not understanding that climate change the usual thing not the unusual thing and that the climate change we observed can be explained by natural causes is the only thing that really separates we the people from superstitious and ignorant government - funded schoolteachers on the issue of global warming... that and the fact that global warming alarmists do not believe in the scientific method nor most of the principles upon which the country was founded.

Answer: Bring up a story that everyone can agree on, then segue from there to science illiteracy on the Left for «believing» in climate change alarmism.

To believe that Mann is right, you have to believe that the developer of the first satellite global temperature record, and the winner of the International Meetings on Statistical Climatology achievement award, and the co-editor of The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences, and the co-editor of Forecast Verification: A Practitioner's Guide in Atmospheric Science, and the co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, and a member of the UN Secretary - General's High Level Group on Sustainable Energy, and the Professor of Meteorology at the Meteorological Institute of Berlin Free University, and the Professor of Climate and Culture at King's College, London, and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and the former president of the Royal Statistical Society, and the former director of research at the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute, and the director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware, and three professors at the Department of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Utah, and the scientist at Columbia's Lamont - Doherty Earth Observatory who coined the term «global warming», and dozens more are all wrong, every single one of them.

As leaders of the industrialized world continue to squabble at home over how to address the threat of climate change — and even as they battle internal factions who don't believe the science of climate change — one group of leaders has come out in favor of swift, comprehensive action to prevent global catastrophe.

Thus, I believe it would be appropriate for the Committee to investigate the Administration's treatment of the 2000 National Assessment, as part of oversight of the White House's political intervention in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and in particular its assessment and communication activities.

That many (although a minority, I believe) of the Australian people are ignorant of the facts of climate change is more understandable, they do not have ready access to well - informed advice and they are receiving mixed messages from the commercial media, but for federal parliamentarians in a Western Democracy, with easy access to advice from experts in the climate science field, to be so abysmally ignorant is inexcusable.

And I want to share with you what I believe is an amazing breakthrough in the science of global warming and climate change.

If Obama takes the position that legislation can be negotiated without regard to whether its supporters believe in the scientific evidence or not, if he brings to the bully pulpit no serious vocabulary on climate change, no gravitas on climate science, then how likely is it that he will lead government and society to deal with the problem in a «comprehensive» way?

One can either believe or disbelieve in the idea of anthropogenic climate change independently of science.

So my interest in the science of climate change is fundamentally a practical one: I want to keep poor quality science from being used to justify public policies which I believe are both counterproductive and immoral.

I believe it (including water vapor clouds) is the the 800 pound gorilla in the room that AGW climate science can't understand because AGW climate science focuses on unvalidated model results and not enough on the actual physics of natural processes involved in the complex climate change process.

After Britain's Royal Society sent a letter criticizing the company for spreading «inaccurate and misleading» views on climate science and funding denial in September, Exxon made what is believed to be its first public acknowledgement that fossil fuels are a «major source» of climate - changing emissions.

We believe that science is nonpartisan and our interest is in getting a clear view of the pace of climate change in order to help policy makers to evaluate and implement an effective response.

Friends of the Earth Europe believes the EU needs to propose an emissions reductions target which is in line with what science says is necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and its responsibilities as a historic emitter.

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

In 2015, Huelskamp said he did not believe that climate change science was «settled» and has said the Pope was wrong to attribute climate change to greenhouse gas emissions.

With the possible exception of Jim Hansen, I believe that there is almost universal acceptance within climate science that net feedback is negative, and not vulnerable to turning positive from any plausible change in the near future.

He wrote a well - reviewed book called «The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming,» in which he presents measured skepticism of climate - change orthodoxy — for example, he believes the role of carbon emissions from human industry is greatly exaggerated by politicized science, but he doesn't think human carbon emissions are irrelevant, and is not implacably hostile to the goal of reducinClimate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming,» in which he presents measured skepticism of climate - change orthodoxy — for example, he believes the role of carbon emissions from human industry is greatly exaggerated by politicized science, but he doesn't think human carbon emissions are irrelevant, and is not implacably hostile to the goal of reducinclimate - change orthodoxy — for example, he believes the role of carbon emissions from human industry is greatly exaggerated by politicized science, but he doesn't think human carbon emissions are irrelevant, and is not implacably hostile to the goal of reducing them.

I assumed @AndyWest was referring to latter, since he was makiing a point about the relative comprehension of climate science among members of the public who «believe in» & «don't believe in» human - caused climate change (also, I'm pretty sure I underscored «correct» answers only in a graphic of item response profiles of latter).

From my experience watching the climate science issue advance over the years, what I continually see is people, like yourself who have clear expertise in a specific area, believing that they understand the entire breadth of the climate change issue when, in actuality, they understand very little of the other broader elements of the global climate system that come into play.

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».

While human - induced climate change is unique in its global scale and long lifetime, AGU believes that science should play the same role in dealing with climate change.

I believe you may have been a victim of misinformation regarding Abelson's reason for leaving Science, but in any case, I would encourage you to visit the many journals themselves for evidence regarding climate change.

Accordingly, as relatively «right - leaning» individuals become progressively more proficient in making sense of scientific information (a facility reflected in their scores on the Ordinary Science Intelligence assessment, which puts a heavy emphasis on critical reasoning skills), they become simultaneously more likely to believe there is «scientific consensus» on human - caused climate change but less likely to «believe» in it themselves!

Back to Jim: when I first arrived here I believed in AGW based on the papers and books you guys in climate science cite and publish yourselves: more IFR trapping, changing albedo, positive feedbacks, increased W2 forcing, etc..