Sentences with phrase «consensus messaging on»

Not exact matches

China may try to pounce on the lack of consensus within the U.S. administration, but is also managing any concessions with the desire of Beijing to project an image of strength to the world to send the message that China can not be bullied into making policy changes.

Its main message is that the lack of «a national consensus on strategic goals and objectives» has set NASA adrift and is preventing the agency from forging a clear path ahead.

The Message Passing Interface Standard (MPI) is a message passing library standard based on the consensus of the MPI Forum, which has over 40 particMessage Passing Interface Standard (MPI) is a message passing library standard based on the consensus of the MPI Forum, which has over 40 particmessage passing library standard based on the consensus of the MPI Forum, which has over 40 participating

The many Gore mistakes, as detailed by a British court, are indulged and excused by the consensus side [all attention to truth flying out the window], because his message is theirs — the consensus one, while this George Will's mistakes are immediately pounced on, ridiculed and demonised.

The clear message of the team conducting this fresh assessment of the climate science consensus is that it's vital to close that gap to have a chance of breaking societal deadlock on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, the arguments I made about «consensus messaging» on climate are all very specific to that controversy; I have zero idea what sorts of arguments someone would make about GM food science communication.

The British university has contended that the messages were illegally obtained by a hacker, who posted them on Web sites of groups critical of the current scientific consensus that human activity has caused dangerous changes to the global climate.

What gets my goat is when otherwise sensible people write stuff supportive of it like: «There had already been six previous studies finding an overwhelming scientific consensus», and strongly objecting to messaging on the basis that it was not effective, while apparently not caring that it was not true!

Overstatement of confidence, active efforts to suppress publication of differing technical analyses, insistence on consensus, over-egged frightening scenarios, and admonitions from one climate scientists to others to «stay on message», are ALWAYS going to be detrimental to scientific progress.

(snip) Despite how my posts are being characterized I'm not intent on being a dissenter I am just skeptical of some of what is here and any website pushing that 97 % number so hard and calling it the consensus makes me VERY skeptical of both the message and the messenger.

When so much of the AGW message is based on «trust us, we're the consensus of scientific opinion», governments and the general public need to know that there's a small core of untrustworthy non-scientists who are doing all they can to hide their results from scientific scrutiny.

However, there is a great deal of this kind of activity going on and - in my view - any suggestion that science communication is dominated by consensus messaging is clearly wrong (although I'm not sure that this is what is being suggested).

We conclude that the scientific consensus on climate change is most effectively communicated as a short, simple message that is easy to comprehend and remember.

Particularly, repeated exposure to simple messages that correctly state the actual scientific consensus on human - caused climate change is a strategy likely to help counter the concerted efforts to misinform the public.

In fact, the consensus message had a larger influence on Republican respondents.

Yet, we find that consensus - messaging does not increase political polarization on the issue (perhaps partly due to the neutral scientific character of the message) and shifts the opinions of both Democrats and Republicans in directions consistent with the conclusions of climate science.

Last summer, climate communication researchers at George Mason University and Yale University published a commentary urging the science community to reiterate the scientific consensus on climate change — that 97 percent of scientists support the conclusion that climate change is real, and humans are causing it — citing studies showing that exposing individuals to this message can increase their estimates of the scientific consensus by 10 to 20 percent.

And the Norwegians apparently didn't the message about the consensus on vanishing ice because they are reporting it was a very good year for ice formation.

Their latest study in Climatic Change tested the effect of three different ways to communicate the scientific consensus: a simple text message, a pie - chart and metaphors (e.g., likening the 97 % consensus on climate change to a 97 % consensus among doctors).

Funnily enough, a third objection to consensus messaging argues that we shouldn't communicate consensus because public views have not moved on.

Another argument against consensus messaging is that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on from fundamental issues such as the consensus.

Well, maybe he has only the second - best advice money can buy, since the consensus messaging strategy was earlier employed by The Republican Party as a means of effectively casting manufactured doubt on climate science to justify policy inaction, by communications guru Frank Luntz.

Research now shows that climate messages can influence public beliefs about the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly in the places that are initially more skeptical.

Public mtg on climate action in SE FlaThe Compact effectively informed its citizens of the appropriateness of using the best available science for these ends but not through a «messaging» campaign focused on «scientific consensus» or anything else.

Then there's this juicy bit of «communication»: ``... it suffices to say that the climate scientists have little doubt about the human impact on the climate...» Of course, like so much science non-communication, this is followed up by some vague qualifying about extent etc so you don't really know if the first bit is a sly consensus message or just a truism.

Ed Maibach recently conducted a test of many different consensus messages and found the most effective variant began with «Based on the evidence, there is 97 % agreement...» Not only does the public put a lot of weight on the consensus of scientists, so do scientists.