Sentences with phrase «from scientific consensus on climate change»

No cultural group favors policies that diverge from scientific consensus on climate change, nuclear power, or gun control.

And worse for Klein's apparent appeal to scientific authority, Hansen's remaining projections are further away from the scientific consensus on climate change than many deniers».

Not exact matches

Pruitt is currently participating in a lawsuit against the EPA's regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and denies the overwhelming scientific consensus on human - caused climate change.

That finding is meant to contradict the stereotype of Americans learning little science in school and being oblivious to or willfully ignorant of the scientific consensus on everything from climate change to evolution.

After fielding questions from other legislators on unrelated topics, Holdren mentioned the list in the course of answering a question about the nature of scientific consensus from Representative John Sarbanes (D - MD), who shares Holdren's views on climate change.

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

In particular, BECI can play a critical role in catalyzing the additional multidisciplinary academic work around carbon removal needed to address the growing scientific consensus (from institutions, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Research Council, and the Global Carbon Project) that preventing further climate change likely requires carbon removal in addition to reductions in carbon emiClimate Change, the National Research Council, and the Global Carbon Project) that preventing further climate change likely requires carbon removal in addition to reductions in carbon emisChange, the National Research Council, and the Global Carbon Project) that preventing further climate change likely requires carbon removal in addition to reductions in carbon emiclimate change likely requires carbon removal in addition to reductions in carbon emischange likely requires carbon removal in addition to reductions in carbon emissions.

As a reflection of that work, 31 scientific societies last year released a letter, updated from 2009, to reflect the current scientific consensus on climate change.

As the scientific case for a climate - change catastrophe wanes, proponents of big - ticket climate policies are increasingly focused on punishing dissent from an asserted «consensus» view that the only way to address global warming is to restructure society — how it harnesses and uses energy.

Based on a series of columns written for the National Post (a newspaper that gives a tremendous amount of space to climate change deniers), the book purported to highlight research that dissented from the scientific consensus that climate change, caused by human activity, is a severe threat to the planet.

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiClimate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiclimate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiclimate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

It seems that the definition of «consensus» varies by field, just as the decision - making framework does, with unanimity or near unanimity expected from the scientific community, even including those scientists who in many cases have not really embedded themselves in the literature nor been required to put together a coherent assembly and analysis of scientific knowledge (and even including, somehow, CEI's [Competitive Enterprise Institute] lawyers with their ExxonMobil support, who are often quoted as the contrary view in papers on the science of climate change).

The New York Times reported on August 19 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will soon issue its 5th assessment report that will state that the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has increased from a 90 % probability in 2007 to a 95 % probability in the new Climate Change (IPCC) will soon issue its 5th assessment report that will state that the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has increased from a 90 % probability in 2007 to a 95 % probability in the new rChange (IPCC) will soon issue its 5th assessment report that will state that the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change has increased from a 90 % probability in 2007 to a 95 % probability in the new climate change has increased from a 90 % probability in 2007 to a 95 % probability in the new rchange has increased from a 90 % probability in 2007 to a 95 % probability in the new report.

These kissing cousins, either from a lack of distinguishable genetic diversity or calculated vengeance, seem incapable of comprehending the vast scientific consensus calling for drastic action on climate change.

«In light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and its worsening impacts, and the related issue of air pollution from burning fossil fuels, the United States and China recognize the urgent need for action to meet these twin challenges,» the countries said in the statement.

Thus, we can recognize scientific consensus by position statements by prestigious scientific organizations, such as this statement from 18 associations on climate change, or the result of meta - analysis studies (evaluations of a series of other prominent studies) that come to a clear determination, such as this study on the relationship of vaccines and autism.

Thus, the consensus on climate science is removed from its scientific context, and becomes a consensus without an object: it can mean whatever climate change psychologists want it to mean.

«Results from the CBA,» says the World Bank, are «extremely dependent on parameters on which there is no scientific agreement (e.g., the impact of climate change on hurricanes) or no consensus (e.g., the discount rate).»

We must so embed in public consciousness the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change that even such a well - funded disinformation industry, such incompetence and complicity from traditional media outlets, and what now has become boilerplate lunacy from Republicans can not dissipate it.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

The Earth has warmed 0.85 °C from 1880 (preindustrial times) to 2012, according to the latest consensus science reported in September by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body established by the United Nations to inform governments of climateClimate Change (IPCC), the scientific body established by the United Nations to inform governments of climateclimate risks.

Given the enormity and harshness of impacts to hundreds of millions of people around the world from climate change coupled with the fact that United States has a special responsibility for the civilization challenging problem because of the comparatively large levels of the emissions coming from America, the failure of the US media to describe strength the scientific consensus on change is a grave and tragic error.

The scientists sent their letter, dated October 29, in response to a letter the Senators received from the American Association for the Advancement of Science claiming a «consensus» of the scientific community on climate change and asserting that «immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climactic catastrophe.»

A recent series of reports from the Science and Public Policy Institute spotlights problems with the peer review process of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and efforts to create the illusion of scientific consensus on global warming.

This analysis draws upon results from a recent experiment that investigated how to effectively communicate the scientific consensus on climate change (full details of the experiment, sample and materials are available and described in van der Linden et al. [20]-RRB-.

Since 1998, a total of at least $ 30.9 million has been doled out from ExxonMobil to think tanks running climate denial campaigns, blocking policy solutions, and attacking the scientific consensus on climate change — including $ 1.8 million last year alone.

«We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer - reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991 — 2011 matching the topics «global climate change» or «global warming».

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature — Abstract — Environmental Research Letters — IOPscience We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer - reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991 — 2011 matching the topics «global climate change» or «global warming».

Two statements of scientific consensus forthcoming in 2013 will provide an opportunity to set the record straight: the National Climate Assessment, which lays out observed and anticipated trends in the U.S., and the Fifth Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global evaluation of the peer - reviewed literature conducted by thousands of researchers.

This is due to the widespread scientific consensus articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsed by the Canadian government of both present and future physical and psychological harms from climate Climate Change (IPCC) and endorsed by the Canadian government of both present and future physical and psychological harms from climate cChange (IPCC) and endorsed by the Canadian government of both present and future physical and psychological harms from climate climate changechange.

On the basis of well - established evidence from the past 20 years, there is now wide consensus among scientific organizations and approximately 97 % of climatologists that human - generated greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of climate change.1 — 4 Although the effects of climate change are already being felt across the world, the magnitude of the effects of future changes depends on our ability to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement adaptation strategies within the ensuing decades.5 Thus, it remains possible to protect children, families, and communities from the worst potential effects of climate changOn the basis of well - established evidence from the past 20 years, there is now wide consensus among scientific organizations and approximately 97 % of climatologists that human - generated greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of climate change.1 — 4 Although the effects of climate change are already being felt across the world, the magnitude of the effects of future changes depends on our ability to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement adaptation strategies within the ensuing decades.5 Thus, it remains possible to protect children, families, and communities from the worst potential effects of climate changon our ability to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement adaptation strategies within the ensuing decades.5 Thus, it remains possible to protect children, families, and communities from the worst potential effects of climate change.

Mr. Ridley might also benefit from reading the perspective of another «conservative» scientist, Professor Barry Bickmore of Brigham Young University, on the meaning of «scientific consensus» regarding climate change.

have played prominent roles in the decades - long work of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which has produced the overarching scientific consensus on the risks of climate change due to human pollution, mostly from burning fossilClimate Change, or IPCC, which has produced the overarching scientific consensus on the risks of climate change due to human pollution, mostly from burning fossil Change, or IPCC, which has produced the overarching scientific consensus on the risks of climate change due to human pollution, mostly from burning fossilclimate change due to human pollution, mostly from burning fossil change due to human pollution, mostly from burning fossil fuels.

Naomi Oreskes, from the University of California, noted in an article in Science in 2004: «there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Among the small number at PCC15, as they called their event, were a number of prominent figures from the movement against the scientific consensus on climate change.

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».

One thing that is clear from these data is that it's ridiculous to claim that «unfamiliarity» with scientific consensus on climate change «causes» non-acceptance of human - caused global warming.

7) How central is the debate over the paleoclimate temperature record to the overall scientific consensus on global climate change (as reflected in previous reports from the Academy)?

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.