Sentences with phrase «consensus climate change policy»

On further investigation, the website demonstrates that they appear to be nothing but advocates of consensus climate change policy.

Not exact matches

According to Evanega, the high quality of the report could help improve the policy environment for GE crop use and to convince more people that there is scientific consensus about the safety of GE technology and that biotechnology can help the country respond to climate change.

We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate - change field — namely, climate sensitivity — operates as an «anchoring device» in «science for policy».

Dr. Jon Christensen, his opponent, an adjunct assistant professor in the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, emphasized the «consensus» and the «existential threat» of climate change, extolled the expansion of renewable energy sources like wind and solar in California, and insisted that politicians in the Golden State are focused on not burdening poor people with their «green» policies.

In the same way that creationists urge schools to «teach the controversy,» climate change skeptics aim to sow doubt about scientific consensus, said Mark McCaffrey, the programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that has long supported the teaching of evolution in schools and recently began to defend climate change education.

We show how the maintained consensus about the quantitative estimate of a central scientific concept in the anthropogenic climate - change field — namely, climate sensitivity — operates as an «anchoring device» in «science for policy».

It is my opinion that media outlets and policy makers often cite controversy rather than consensus with regard to anthropogenically induced climate change.

The scientific discussion is misframed in the press, in the public mind and in the policy sector, as being between the consensus position and the «skeptics» who are so confident that nothing of consequence is at stake in anthropogenic climate change that they feel comfortable advocating an essentially trivial policy repsonse to it.

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.

Lets abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues surrounding climate change.

It has been difficult to come to a global consensus on what are the best policies for mitigating the effects of climate change.

Lindzen may feel compelled to «mislead» about science because he sincerely believes more harm will befall us if society follows the policy outcomes of the scientific consensus on climate change.

Some insights into the public pressure on those that are skeptical of consensus climate change science or the UNFCCC policies are provided by a recent iaiTV interview of Benny Peiser, Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

As the scientific case for a climate - change catastrophe wanes, proponents of big - ticket climate policies are increasingly focused on punishing dissent from an asserted «consensus» view that the only way to address global warming is to restructure society — how it harnesses and uses energy.

While BP is far from a green company and is not even greenwashing itself like it was in the «Beyond Petroleum» days, this reminds some climate policy observers of the late 1990s corporate defections from the Global Climate Coalition, when companies were no longer denying the urgency of climate change nor the scientific consensus underpinning that uclimate policy observers of the late 1990s corporate defections from the Global Climate Coalition, when companies were no longer denying the urgency of climate change nor the scientific consensus underpinning that uClimate Coalition, when companies were no longer denying the urgency of climate change nor the scientific consensus underpinning that uclimate change nor the scientific consensus underpinning that urgency.

That sounds pretty progressive, and is certainly greener than the position of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has explicitly denied the «broad scientific and policy consensus» on climate change.

Keywords: climate change litigation, climate policy, international law, separation of powers, role of judiciary, judicial authority, rule of law, political question doctrine, science and law, politicization of science, scientific consensus, scientism, science - based risk regulation

new: scientific consensus on climate issues does not exist - Novaya Gazeta, December 16, 2009 - Instead of articulating and prosecution of false targets political leaders gathered in Copenhagen should concentrate on the other - to develop policies that promote more effective human adaptation to climate change, economic growth, the development of free trade, protection of property rights, strengthen democracy.

Organisations who deny or reject current science on human - caused climate change, such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK and the Heartland Institute in the US, have published critical reports, and the Republican Party organised congressional testimony against the consensus research on Capitol Hill.

Now ClimateEthics agrees, of course, that if the consensus view of climate change science is correct, enlightened self - interest would support strong climate change policies.

The various official Conservative policy statements cited above contain no implicit or explicit acknowledgnment of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (human - caused) global warming, as outlined in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The consensus position is the mainstream scientific view --- not the hyperbolic claims of environmental groups or others that support climate change policies.

Consequently, those who oppose policy to mitigate climate change have sought to cast doubt on the consensus for over two decades.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

However, in the case of climate change, the overwhelming scientific consensus — and the impetus for mitigative policies it entails — poses a particular dilemma for people whose identity is threatened by any potential interference with the free market.

Because any further delay will make the climate change threat worse, US politicians have a duty to support policies that will reduce the threat of climate unless they can produce strong scientific evidence that has been fully vetted by respectable scientific institutions that climate change is not the threat entailed by the scientific consensus view.

Moreover, previous research has identified important associations between public perceptions of the scientific consensus, belief in climate change and support for climate policy.

@Katz The survey drew responses from 88 insurance companies and found that while there's a broad consensus that climate change will result in more severe weather and more insurance losses, only 11 of the companies surveyed have implemented climate - change policies.

Effectively communicating the scientific consensus can also help move the issue of climate change forward on the public policy agenda [6][15][20][24 — 25].

Previous research has suggested that perceptions of the scientific consensus play an important role in the formation of public beliefs and attitudes towards climate change and, moreover, that (mis) perceptions of the scientific consensus potentially decrease public support for climate change policies [15 — 19].

However, mounting evidence against climate change theory and the «consensus» is unlikely to stem the tide of policy designed to combat global warming, thanks to the sheer size of the climate change industry that has built up over the last few decades.

A recent series of reports from the Science and Public Policy Institute spotlights problems with the peer review process of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and efforts to create the illusion of scientific consensus on global warming.

In previous entries, Ethicsandclimate.org examined the failure of the US media to communicate about: (a) the nature of the strong scientific consensus about human - induced climate change, (b) the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reductions necessary to prevent catastrophic climate change, (c) the practical significance for policy that follows from understanding climate change as essentially an ethical problem, (e) the consistent barrier that the United States has been to finding a global solution to climate change in international climate negotiations, and (f) the failure of the US media to help educate US citizens about the well - financed, well - organized climate change disinformation campaign.

Since 1998, a total of at least $ 30.9 million has been doled out from ExxonMobil to think tanks running climate denial campaigns, blocking policy solutions, and attacking the scientific consensus on climate change — including $ 1.8 million last year alone.

The study cites Spencer and Bast along with other «manufacturers of doubt,» whose work to undermine the public understanding of this consensus has been stunningly successful — only 12 percent of Americans, their previous work found, know that more than 90 percent of scientists agree on this — and has resulted in «cascading effects on public understanding that climate change is happening, human caused, a serious threat, and in turn, support for climate change mitigation and adaptation policies.»

Tim Lambert links to this article by Eric Pooley in Slate's The Big Moneye which points out that, for all the disagreement among economists regarding the details of climate change policy, there is substantial consensus on the following main points (i) the cost of action to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will be of the order of 1 per cent of GDP (ii) a strong mitigation policy is preferable to business as usual

The environmentalists linked the issue so that people, including some scientists began to think that the IPCC's focus on man made climate change represented a consensus on the science which was also a consensus on the environmentalist's recommended policy.

When one says he has been to Greenland and it is even worse than the climate scientists are saying, and another asks why she is only applying uncertainty to the consensus view and not her own, and another asks what her actual change to policy - making would be, it is a tough audience.

The consensus on attribution can not reasonably extend to represent an agreement about what the effects of climate change are, and what is the best policy response is.

This denier pre-emption of social science research echoes Frank Luntz» infamous 2002 memo advising Republicans to attack the scientific consensus on climate change in order to erode public support for climate policies - long before social scientists began researching the link between perception of consensus and support for climate action.

First, climate change, which is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus and was described by Perlmutter as «possibly the biggest challenge in human history,» merits primary consideration over financial returns under the college's Investment Responsibility Policy, if Perlmutter stands by these words.

That may be the policy urged by many scientists, particularly the most vocal ones in the climate - change debate, but it's not a consensus based on climate research.

Those who want to preserve the status quo have continued to deny and attack the expert consensus because it's a «gateway belief»: when people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it, and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.

No cultural group favors policies that diverge from scientific consensus on climate change, nuclear power, or gun control.

The new findings on aerosols don't change a simple fact: There's overwhelming consensus among scientists and policy experts that humanity is not doing enough to address climate change.

We define climate change denial as «anyone who is obstructing, delaying or trying to derail policy steps that are in line with the scientific consensus that says we need to take rapid steps to decarbonize the economy.»

And surprise, it has an incredible amount of similarities with the consensus narrative, politics, advocacy, and policy tactics based on the unvalidated and unproven CO2 hypothesis of global warming and climate change.

«The importance of experiential learning creates several challenges to a public consensus needed to implement meaningful climate change policy,» the researchers write.