Sentences with phrase «evidence against climate»

If the evidence against climate change is so «obvious» and «logical,» this exercise should be exceedingly simple.

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.

Surely such a massive winter storm, with its promise of bitter cold winds and potentially heavy coastal snowfalls, must be evidence against the climate crisis?

Republican Congressman cites Noah's Flood as evidence against climate change being caused by humans

To say hurricane Katrina was an indication of climate change is no more correct than saying the current cold outbreak is evidence against climate change — I mean, that's weather — but it does influence people.

Not exact matches

The mounting evidence for climate change, and all its tragic consequences, has provided a powerful argument against fossil fuel power stations: the burning of coal, gas and oil releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is almost certainly responsible for global warming.

Despite any clinical evidence for or against the therapy, the APA denounces such therapy because, «In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality.

Eldridge notes Gibson's signing of a pledge to vote against any climate change legislation that would raise taxes, his support for a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks and his support for fracking as evidence of his true political colors.

«This important evidence gives hope to the fact we can protect some of the world's ecosystems against climate change.

And, by the same token, evidence that meets the rigorous demands of science is often discounted if it goes against what people want to believe, as illustrated by widespread dismissal of scientific evidence of climate change.

An adjustment is necessary because as climate models are continually evaluated against observations evidence has become emerged that the strength of their aerosol - cloud interactions are too strong (i.e. the models» «aerosol indirect effect» is larger than inferred from observations).

Against the backdrop of a vigorous year of questioning of climate science and the IPCC, the Met Office presented a review of its science and the evidence that climate change remains an active threat.

These questions would not be so serious, except that the paper is to appear in SCIENCE and thus will be taken as evidence against the prospect of dangerous climate change.

Taking «backfire effect» as a starting point — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans has interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand the political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

Taking as a starting point the «backfire effect» — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand changes in the international political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

There is all sorts of evidence for and against natural climate change at various stages of history (and prehistory) that bears discussing, but we rarely ever get to it because everyone is banging on about the hockey stick being inaccurate or accurate (depending on your point of view).

We can not simply say it is everyone else's fault; we need to be very clear about what can be used as evidence for or against climate change.

Stephen Dorling, of the University of East Anglia's school of environmental sciences, said it was not surprising the cold period raised questions over climate change — but the snowy weather should not be used as evidence against it.

Jim Galasyn wrote: «Tom Fuller recently invoked Carl Sagan against climate science: «Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.»»

Indeed — Over on the SF Examiner blog, Tom Fuller recently invoked Carl Sagan against climate science: «Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.»

The presentation evidences Exxon's shift from a leader in climate change research to an advocate against the dissemination of climate change information in the early -LSB-...]

«Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exist,» Mr. Kennedy said, Climate Depot reported.

Especially when going up against the overwhelming evidence compiled by a consensus of 97 % of scientists who study climate as their career.

Lesson 3 examines how scientists gather data about climate change and finally lesson 4 examines the evidence for and against global warming.

I intend both to «follow the money» (flowing primarily from special interests opposed to regulation or taxation of greenhouse gas emissions) and to «follow the science» (by exposing the most egregious flaws in the «evidence» against the attribution of contemporary climate change primarily to human causes).

Denying climate change isn't scepticism — it's «motivated reasoning» True sceptics test a hypothesis against the evidence, but climate sceptics refuse to accept anything that contradicts their beliefs

Moreover, the availability of historical precedent might imply less contestation (especially from climate skeptics), a cognitively different approach to what we might consider «sufficient evidence», and easier assessment of any given eruption against some objective measure of impacts.

«I think increasingly the campaign to deny the reality of climate change is going to come up against that brick wall of the evidence being so plain to people whether they are hunters, fishermen, gardeners,» he said.

Because I recognize the true degree of our ignorance in addressing this supremely difficult problem, while at the same time as a mere citizen I weigh civilization and its benefits against draconian energy austerity on the basis of no actual evidence that global climate is in any way behaving unusually on a geological time scale.

A majority of Republican members of Congress, and the vast majority of Republican candidates for Congress this year, are turning against the science of climate change and appearing to deny the evidence that human activity, our burning of fossil fuels, in causing global climate change.

It's true that, in my experience, holocaust deniers occupy a similar mental space to some climate «sceptics», in which anything that might be taken as evidence against their beliefs is seen as part of a grand and far - reaching conspiracy to suppress the «truth».

The only line on the page relating to Brulle's Conspiracy is the claim that «Most people rely on secondary sources for information, especially the mass media; and some of these sources are affected by concerted campaigns against policies to limit CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions, which promote beliefs about climate change that are not well - supported by scientific evidence.»

«But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report — the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over the climate — were changed or deleted after the scientist charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...» — Dr. Frederick Seitz commenting on the IPCC Second Assessment Report, The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

In his latest column for the New York Times, economist and liberal pundit Paul Krugman argues that a new report from the Chamber of Commerce, intended to show that reducing carbon emissions will be too costly, is actually a great piece of evidence for those who argue that the U.S. can lead the fight against climate change without appreciably hurting its economy.

Where in your analysis do you consider evaluation of climate model projections against subsequent climatic evidence?

In the spirit of rigorous philosophical thinking and good science — has anyone on the editorial board spent even 5 minutes reviewing the evidence * against * anthropogenic global warming -LCB- and / or the newer «climate change»? -RCB-

First, other than the «results from climate model simulations», NONE of that even purports to be evidence either for or against AGW.

Challenge for a flag style - solution to present evidence for or against is the climate is soo complex and there are so many potential variables and influences.

The billboard campaign is the latest in Heartland's continuing battle against the scientific evidence of climate change.

«multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century» - a handful of papers a year that only most ardent warmists can find against the thousand of natural influence showing papers.

Joe, you mention that «Lewandowsky falsely linked climate skeptics to moon landing hoaxism, and free marketeers to rejection of beliefs they overwhelmingly endorsed» Far worse, his compatriot Prof David Karoly falsely linked skeptics to an (imaginary) «relentless campaign» of electronic death threats against Australian climate scientists, none of which Karoly deigned or was asked to produce as evidence despite the fact that he was alleging the existence of a serious (and despicable) criminal conspiracy.

First, other than the «results from climate model simulations», NONE of that is evidence either for or against AGW.

«Our results argue strongly against using abnormally large losses from individual Atlantic hurricanes or seasons as either evidence of anthropogenic climate change or to justify actions on greenhouse gas emissions.

Teachers stand on the front lines against dismissive attitudes toward climate change, and have had varying degrees of success in Idaho and Ohio classrooms in bringing students face - to - face with discomforting evidence, even when challenged by a new crop of deniers - in - training.

I'm against Ocean Acidification theory because I've done loads and loads of background reading... about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem... in the eyes of all those undecideds who can't make up their mind whether they agree with me on climate science or whether I'm talking bollocks...»

Unlike your ideologically fuelled and baseless smears against climate scientists, Wegman's case involves clear and compelling evidence of misconduct.

Or does all our talk of evidence and science, or THE Science as campaigners against climate change refer to their scientific material, disguise a deeper distrust of mankind and his powers of reason and rationality?

While the climate science establishment continues its costly and misallocated efforts against «catastrophic» global warming, the empirical evidence indicates the worlds» elites are pursuing a laughably ludicrous Don Quixote quest against an imaginary climate - evil.

John Christy's May 13 testimony to US Congress showed climate models were 400 % too hot in the tropical trosposphere against actual satellite evidence since 1979.

Since the amount of evidence (and there is evidence both indicating and evidence against rapid climate change) is directly tied to concerns us (for myriad reasons some good some bad).