Sentences with phrase «evidence against climate change»

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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-...]

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

«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.

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.

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.

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-

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

«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.

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?

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).

A coalition of groups, including some that were impersonated by coal lobbyists fighting against U.S. climate change legislation, have banded together in search of further evidence of wrongdoing in the ballooning fraudulent letter scandal.

The Clexit group's secretary is Viv Forbes — a director of Australian company Stanmore Coal who has long stood firm against the tsunami of evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions to risky climate change.

Let's not forget about when US Senator Jim Inhofe brought a snowball onto the floor of the Senate as supposed evidence against the existence of climate change.

On the contrary, it appears that climate change is fully visible on the FAA radar screen, as evidenced by a variety of tactical maneuvers that any reasonable observer could interpret as intended to keep policymakers from focusing on aircraft emissions, even as the stakes against global ecological health and well - being continue to climb.

I sit on the fence (I have not seen compelling evidence for or against human induced climate change), thus I have no opinion as to who (or what) has caused what, if anything.

While such observations are convenient to use as evidence for already - formed opinions on the matter, these should not hold as scientific proof for or against the climate change science.

Spangled Drongo, it is important to be a critical thinker by keeping an open mind and sifting through all of the evidence both for and against anthropogenic climate change without ideological blinkers or a pre-conceived answer but to do that you have to get your facts right.

It was three climate deniers against 96 other scientists who had evidence that climate change indeed is a reality.

There is also evidence of bias against adaptation projects addressing the underlying socioeconomic factors that make marginalized populations more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

He says that both can be guilty of erroneously using specific events as evidence for or against human - induced climate change, and that climate scientists must take more care in communicating their message to the public if they are to dispel confusion.

Although multiple studies demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists conclude that this exceptional recent warming is caused by humans, obstinate deniers will continue to insist, against all evidence, that the consensus on climate change is crumbling.

And yet, with the sole exception of CBS» «Face the Nation,» all of the major networks got tripped up by the false balance trap: in the interest of showing «both sides» of the climate debate, they gave a platform to people who «feel,» against all scientific evidence, that man - made climate change isn't real, thus feeding into the fallacy that it's something that can be debated at all.

Deforestation, which had been on decline for years, surged nearly 300 % in September; and it happened as evidence mounts that healthy forests — arguably nature's single most effective bulwark against climate change — can lose more carbon than they absorb if subjected to extreme drought.

While not presenting such lawsuits as a sure thing, Mr. Carney alluded to multi-billion dollar lawsuits against the Asbestos industry and said that the risks of such litigation «will only increase as the science and evidence of climate change hardens.»