Sentences with phrase «claims about climate change science»

The claims about climate change science made by these conservative / industry groups have questionable scientific value.

The claims about climate change science on the Cato and TCS websites have questionable scientific value.

Not exact matches

In an op - ed for Fox News, Rep. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House science committee, made a host of false and misleading claims about climate change and related issues.

Most of these claims are political attacks that promote a partisan agenda and are not objective information about climate change science.

SPIEGEL / Axel Bojanowski claim that the Science world is upset about a recent Munich Re study, when it comes to extreme weather and growing cost from climate change.

I don't claim to know anything about social or psychological sciences to elaborate, but this might just be a consequence of the fact that climate change operates on timescales much larger than a political term or the time it takes to schedule your son's soccer practice.

I find it funny that the NASA hockey team members claim any scientists outside of climate science can not talk with authority about climate change.

More than 650 scientists from around the world dispute the claims made by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore about global warming, saying that science does not support that climate change is a manmade phenomenon, according to a posting on the Senate environmental committee's press blog.

The proposition that «science» somehow dictated particular policy responses, encouraged — indeed instructed — those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue about the science.36 So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if «science» and «policy» were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.

Since the theme of that Heartland junk science junket is «Restoring the Scientific Method,» perhaps the attendees will query Dr. Soon about the ethics of accepting a million dollars from polluter interests while claiming that climate change is nothing to worry about.

The IPCC's claims about these things have been thoroughly refuted by the recent report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, which cites nearly 5,000 peer - reviewed scientific articles that contradict the IPCC's claims.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Bob Ward, policy and communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, claims the link between extreme weather events and climate change is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006 because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spoClimate Change and the environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, claims the link between extreme weather events and climate change is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006 because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spotChange and the environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, claims the link between extreme weather events and climate change is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006 because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spoclimate change is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006 because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spotchange is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006 because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spotlight.

In other words, the climate change denial machine has been attacking the views of mainstream science, not just the claims of environmental organizations that perhaps may occasionally make exaggerated claims about climate change impacts.

Some of the arguments against climate change policies based upon scientific uncertainty should and can be responded to on scientific grounds especially in light of the fact that many claims about scientific uncertainty about human - induced warming are great distortions of mainstream climate change science.

First among them is false balance, which the book describes as giving false industry - friendly claims about climate change «an equal place on the media stage with actual science.»

As we have documented in numerous articles on the disinformation campaign on this website, although responsible scientific skepticism is necessary for science to advance, the climate change disinformation campaign has been involved not in the pursuit of responsible scientific skepticism but in tactics that are morally reprehensible including: (a) telling lies about mainstream climate scientific evidence or engaging in reckless disregard for the truth, (b) focusing on unknowns about climate science while ignoring settled climate change science, that is cherry - picking the evidence, (c) creating front groups and Astroturf groups that hide the real parties in interest behind claims, (d) making specious claims about «good science», (e) manufacturing science sounding claims about climate change by holding conferences in which claims are made and documents are released that have not been subjected to scientific peer - review, and (d) cyber bullying journalists and scientists.

It accused three groups, Friends of Science, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute of making false and misleading claims about climate change, including that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a polClimate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute of making false and misleading claims about climate change, including that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a polclimate change, including that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a polclimate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

What needs explaining is not who discovered what — the scientists or the «deniers» — but how alarmist claims about climate change always seem to precede the evidence, such that researchers believe the negative picture before the science has delivered a verdict.

For more information about the science of climate change, Ettling recommended NASA's website and skepticalscience.com, a website started by an Australian physicist that lays out claims from skeptics alongside scientific findings.

All these years Steve has maintained a very clear (and always polite) stance: he proposed himself to audit some data, models, procedures and conclusions, while not defending or declaring any particular position about the claims made by Climate Science regarding anthropogenic climate change, global warming and other similar Climate Science regarding anthropogenic climate change, global warming and other similar climate change, global warming and other similar issues.

I've always been agnostic about [climate change]... I don't completely dismiss the more dire warnings but I instinctively feel that some of the claims are exaggerated... I don't accept all of the alarmist conclusions... You can never be absolutely certain that all the science is in.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

In spite of his own errors, May is deeply suspicious of any attempt to subject claims about the future of the world's climate to scientific scrutiny, and he steps further outside the realm of material fact to speculate that those guilty of not respecting the facts belong to an «active and well - funded «denial lobby»» that is «misinforming the public about the science of climate change».

Peiser has long opposed mainstream science's conclusions about anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global wscience's conclusions about anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global wScience Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global warming.

Demands for political action on climate change sit behind claims about climate science, and are assumed to flow from it, a priori.

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».

We often hear the claim that the science of climate change is settled, that there is general agreement that humans have been causing most of the recent warming trend, and that it will all end in global disaster unless we «do something about it».

Haigh had made an attempt to correct a statement made by Ebell, but in a «bizarre» turn, the host «attempted to defend Mr Ebell's false claims about the science of climate change»: [135]

If the scientific argument about the link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change is only as good as Lewandowsky's claim that «Rejection of climate science [is] strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez - faire view of unregulated free markets», then perhaps climate sceptics should be taken more seriously.

In her Science editorial, Ms. Oreskes also makes a curious claim about past research on «climate change»: that of 928 climate research paper abstracts published from 1993 - 2003, none rejected the consensus view on climate change.

Staff at NWS and MN climatology have refused to speak out about climate change and global warming by claiming that the science is too controversial and political for them to deal with.

Thus, in climate science, the heat wave of Paris (Trenberth is wrong about it being in all of Europe, during that very period Berlin's temps were perfectly within the normal) is Measurement B, where as CO2 emissions is Measurement A. Trenberth is claiming A caused B by default, but since that defies the premise of the null hypothesis, that the NH must be changed to match the default position.