Sentences with phrase «for accepting climate science»

In 2011, Romney was chastised by the right - wing media for accepting climate science, even though he didn't propose to do anything about the problem.

Not exact matches

Peer review in climate science means that the «team» recommends publication of each other's work, and tries to keep any off - message paper from being accepted for publication.

'» I find nothing remarkable in the Pope accepting mainstream science — things have moved on from the days of Galileo»» says Gavin Schmidt, a climate researcher with the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

Those who know more about climate science, for example, are slightly more likely to accept that global warming is real and caused by humans than those who know less on the subject.

For Republicans, the more knowledge they have about climate science the less likely they are to accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming (whereas Democrats» confidence goes up).

«It's hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who'd rather remind us they're not scientists than listen to those who are,» Clinton states.

Is this «science information deficit model» then the reason for our failure to accept climate change?

For most climate researchers science went out the window a long time ago, it is such a biased one sided aregument these days that people like me are terrified of being branded a heretic for even challenging the accepted so - called evidenFor most climate researchers science went out the window a long time ago, it is such a biased one sided aregument these days that people like me are terrified of being branded a heretic for even challenging the accepted so - called evidenfor even challenging the accepted so - called evidence.

The Department of Space & Climate Physics (Mullard Space Science Laboratory in the beautiful countryside in Surrey, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/about-mssl/find-us/travel-by-car) are currently accepting applications for STFC - funded PhD positions commencing in September 2017.

Having studied under - graduate political science at the University of Iowa, but without graduating, Version # 2 now also accepts the need to address and manage climate change impacts... and risks and accepts also the economic rationale, indeed necessity, for doing so now, rather than putting it off until... forever... as he long had argued for.

To give an example, a political science professor that I've communicated with believes that a good analogy for climate science and the «Kyoto clique» is what happened in totalitarian communist Russia when they accepted the theory of «Lysenkoism».

I accept that Gavin et al. will teach me a whole helluva lot more about climate science than I will ever teach him about anything — unless I want to set up a website about radiation physics and he for some reason wants to know something about it.

So this is not really the «debate» that the contrarians would like to make it out to be, and most scientists, as well as people who have accepted that climate science points to the need for stronger action, have no more interest in letting the Heartland and NIPCC folks hijack the public discourse and getting the media to frame the narrative in their terms.

«[T] here is no chance at all that the physical sciences can produce a universally accepted scientific basis for policy measures concerning climate change.

It comes at a time when President Donald Trump and other members of the administration have expressed doubt about the accepted science of climate change, and are considering drastic cuts to federal funding for scientific research.

In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science jScience, the preeminent Indian science jscience journal.

My impression is that climate science (frequently claimed to be critical for the earth's survival) accepts fudging in general.

For me, that begins with people accepting that there is no hiding place left in the science — the overwhelming consensus of the vast body of scientists that study climate is that the trends we are seeing in the air, the oceans and in our ecosystems are entirely consistent with the theory of global warming, while the alternatives offered by sceptical scientists — even the much heralded role of the Sun — so far fail that test.

Climate science Do you accept the views of climate scientists Read more about Questionnaire for council candidates -LClimate science Do you accept the views of climate scientists Read more about Questionnaire for council candidates -Lclimate scientists Read more about Questionnaire for council candidates -LSB-...]

The former vice president focused on the need to «punish climate - change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting «accepted science,»» said the Chicago Tribune.

Soon and Baliunas just showed there was a mountain of evidence for the medieval warm period and other natural climate variability in history — a very good paper that is now accepted by climate science as more indicative of what actually occured in climate history.....

It is worth noting that Gleick's forgeries are considered normal practise by the climate science establishment... and that hypocrisy for personal gain (Gore) is accepted and rewarded.

Rep. Bob Inglis, a six - term Republican Congressman from South Carolina and member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, lost his primary bid for re-election to a Tea Party - backed candidate who accused him of not being conservative enough, at least in part because of his record of accepting reality on climate change.

I know accepting even one explanation from climate science is a slippery slope for you, but logically then you have to dismiss everything, and it looks like you have.

John A, say's of me «Such a shame you don't spend any time looking at the evidence to see whether that accepted climate science should have been accepted in the first place» when it's clear I'm here reading stuff I disagree with and discussing it... Then, after more baseless accusation of me unsupported by any evidence bar extrapolation from the details of myself I gave, he goes on to say «I reserve the right to say what I think and justify what I say with evidence that people can check for themselves».

That depth of development, and the way climate science and the GHE has been subject to strong selective pressure in the ecology of scientific hypothesis for over a century and come out on top, makes me see those still rejecting its findings as the conceptual equals of those who refuse to accept the unity of terrestrial biology.

Alarmists accept far more science, it's skeptics by and large who seek to shutdown funding for climate science and deny things like the surface records and the use of climate models.

Alan Jones» refusal to accept climate science is one reason he sees no need for renewable energy.

Why not accept that climate science is too primitive for the purpose and more research is needed?

When are you going to demonstrate the merit and validity of the so - called «climate science» with which you keep bashing us over the head and for which you guys insultingly call us «deniers» for not accepting?

In a video posted to her campaign website, Clinton knocked Republicans for refusing «to accept the settled science of climate change» and cast her push as a fight for children and grandchildren.

Early last year, I accepted the journal's invitation to review Recursive Fury, a narrative analysis of blog posts published by climate deniers * in response to Lewandowsky's earlier work in which he and his colleagues showed that endorsement of free - market economics and a propensity for conspiratorial thinking are contributing factors in the rejection of science.

A spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt said about Mr Howard's speech: «Government accepts the science that climate change is real.

For denialists, accepting climate science would mean admitting that unrestrained capitalism is jeopardising our future, that comprehensive government intervention is needed, and that the environment movement was right all along.

Basically, it's easier to question climate science than accept its conclusions, because to accept the science would mean acknowledging the need for top - down actions to preserve the communal resource of our planet.

Climate science has been suffering from this rot for a long time, so long in fact that some even demand that their conclusions be accepted on faith without possibility of replication or audit!

AUSTIN, Texas — Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called on SXSW attendees to punish climate - change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting «accepted science.»

In climate science, 30 years is the accepted trend period, partly I think for historical reasons, but the length of time also makes allowance for anomalies arising from short - term fluctuations in weather and other events such as volcanoes.

That's hard to fathom, unless of course you accept that Science [and Nature] have for a long while been part and parcel of the climate establishment - the curia of the IPCC church, if you prefer.

To (a) pretend to accept the science, but attack the scientists and misrepresent so many important aspect of the science, downplaying the impacts and threat of climate change while (b) acting as a spokesman for natural gas, one imagines that the petrochemical tycoon Koch Brothers indeed were probably quite pleased with their investment.

The reality of climate change due to human activity has been widely accepted by climate scientists, and some experts worry that attempts to deny the science could prevent states from preparing for sea level rise, extreme weather and other effects of a warming planet.

«It would seem that Richard Muller has served as a useful foil for the Koch Brothers, allowing them to claim they have funded a real scientist looking into the basic science, while that scientist — Muller — props himself up by using the «Berkeley» imprimatur (U.C. Berkeley has not in any way sanctioned this effort) and appearing to accept the basic science, and goes out on the talk circuit, writing Op - Eds, etc. systematically downplaying the actual state of the science, dismissing key climate - change impacts and denying the degree of risk that climate change actually represents.

So if I accept the missing energy is going to OHC to explain the hiatus as postulated by Climate Science (TM) then they also need to explain when and why this started occurring 15 years ago (or more for lag).

«Everyone» may accept there are siting effects, well except for all those people presenting «mainstream climate science» papers and positions for years as evidence that Watts is full of it as siting has no discernible effects, people like Mosher etc have pointed to temperature record reconstructions done by individuals, often mentioned by Tami's Troupe over at Open Airy Mind and similar sites, that found siting made no significant difference in the trends, etc..

For instance, because of some of the things on this list, Americans are more likely than they were in previous years to accept the possibility that science has something to say about the Earth's climate and the changes we have experienced or that may be in the future; journalists are starting to take a new look at their own misplaced «objective» stance as well.

Regarding us (which accept the climate science), then I'm keen on agreeing with dana1981 that we are realists, and maybe that's the right word for it.

[DC: Last time I looked, the political parties accepting climate science and the need for effective action were in the majority in both Canada and the U.S. I suppose those opposed to science will keep «asking questions» and perpetrating falsehoods until they get the answers they like or manage to elect enough obstructionist legislators.

And for all this, we must accept the word of economist McKitrick, whose main claim to fame in climate «science», apart from his association with McIntyre, is as co-ordinator of an execrable error - ridden review of climate science (the Independent Summary for Policy Makers), produced for a think tank (the Fraser Institute) known to receive significant funding from some of Canada's largest oil and gas companies.

What they are really saying is this: In their humble opinion, the Mann hockey stick will not be deposed from its status as the generally - accepted temperature record for the last 2,000 years unless some major new study, one conducted by people with recognized stature in the climate science community, comes to a different conclusion.

If science knowledge and quantitative skills increase trust in climate scientists, we might expect this effect to be greater for liberals — who tend to be more accepting of climate science than conservatives.