Sentences with phrase «consensus opinion on climate change»

Not one single, solitary scientific professional or honorific science organization has dissented from the consensus opinion on climate change.

Not exact matches

Through relentless pressure on the media to present the issue «objectively,» and by challenging the consensus on climate change science by misstating both the nature of what «consensus» means and what this particular consensus is, ExxonMobil and its allies have confused the public and given cover to a few senior elected and appointed government officials whose positions and opinions enable them to damage U.S. credibility abroad.

What you're referring to is a condensed version of: Kendall Zimmerman, M. (2008), The consensus on the consensus: An opinion survey of Earth scientists on global climate change, 250 pp., Univ. of Ill. at Chicago.

For example, the constant refrain about how «the consensus» was wrong about plate tectonics is useful for «skeptics» to exploit - and then argue that the existence of a «consensus» on climate change isn't meaningful - when they don't also consider just how pervasively we all trust the product of scientists» work, and by extension the power of shared opinion among experts, as we live our daily lives.

Across the two periods, at The New York Times, The Washington Post and CNN.com, approximately nine out of 10 news and opinion articles reflected the consensus view on climate change.

As an average tendency across articles, the opinion pages at the Washington Post — with few exceptions — consistently portrayed (i.e. in 9 out of 10 opinion page articles) the scientific consensus views on the reality and causes of climate change.

(Skeptical Science) When these politicians are asked about the basis for their positions on climate change, they almost always respond by saying such things as they «have heard that there is a disagreement among scientists» or similar responses that strongly suggest they have informed an opinion on climate change science without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has been based.

Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus on this topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change debate began in the United States in the early 1980s, (d) a delay that has made the problem worse while making it more difficult to achieve ghg emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change because of the steepness of reductions now needed, no politician can ethically justify his or her refusal to support action on climate change based upon a personal opinion that is not supported by strong scientific evidence that has been reviewed by scientific organizations with a wide breadth of interdisciplinary scientific expertise.

A new opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal attacks the 97 % scientific consensus on man - made global warming while completely missing the point on what scientists are actually saying about climate change.

Less than 0.2 % of people with a scientific qualification have expressed an opinion contrary to the consensus on climate change;

At one level, our results are entirely unsurprising: In light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, most dissenting opinions are merely political and rhetorical tools aimed at trying to forestall mitigative action.

1) the consensus as we learned from the East Anglia — gate emails punish scientists by barring them from publishing in scientific journals; 2) in the US right now there is a coordinated effort led by the Obama administration to use all the usual tactics to surround and conquer + flooding the country with public opinion campaigns (check the front page NYT daily feature articles on climate change related).

From my post on why consensus matters in climate science to my follow up on why blogging is not science, it's common for climate skeptic commenters to claim that any reference to the majority of expert scientific opinion on climate change is simply an «appeal to authority».

Within a few years, after his unprincipled, unsupported and unscientific attacks on climate «sceptics», my opinion had changed, to what it is now, that he's the very model of an unthinking and ill - informed little s ** t. Presenting «evidence» that you haven't checked out yourself is both irresponsible and unscientific, as is accepting «current thinking» or some form of consensus without questioning it in any way.

We joined scientists Michael Mann and Dana Nucitelli on the Al Jazeera English «Inside Story Americas» program on May 17 to talk about the scientific consensus on human - caused climate change, U.S. public opinion, the Keystone XL pipeline, geoengineering, and other... Continue reading →

We joined scientists Michael Mann and Dana Nucitelli on the Al Jazeera English «Inside Story Americas» program on May 17 to talk about the scientific consensus on human - caused climate change, U.S. public opinion, the Keystone XL pipeline, geoengineering, and other aspects of the collision between climate science and government accountability: