Sentences with phrase «global consensus statement»

Not exact matches

She is also a member of the Global Obstructive Lung Disease scientific committee which is charged with developing internationally an internationally recognized consensus statement on COPD diagnosis and management.

And the Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a «consensus» global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board.

After reading your post, Kerry Emanuel's website I feel strongly that there is a strong consensus on hurricanes and global warming in the scientific community (in spite of media reports and advocacy statements to the contrary).

Or is Paul defending against the charge by making a numbers argument — the scientists in question are on the same side as the consensus, so to challenge any aspect of global warming science or politics is to make a statement about «the majority of scientists» (many of whom are in fact social scientists)?

Where we would probably disagree is on whether there is sufficient scientific proof underlying the consensus on the degree of man - made global warming and the degree to which that consensus is reflected correctly in the statements made at the top of this thread.

If Cook et al. are now saying that many papers do not make a definite statement because it is obvious that most of global warming is human - made, I am inclined to agree with this assumption, not least because of other research referenced on this page showing a similar degree of consensus.

While the IPCC first made statements attributing global warming to humans in 1995, Cook et al. (2013) found that there has been over a 90 % consensus in the peer - reviewed scientific literature that humans are causing global warming since at least 1991.

-- should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views... But it is effectively BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard — witness the BBC statement last year that «BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man - made.»

The various official Conservative policy statements cited above contain no implicit or explicit acknowledgnment of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (human - caused) global warming, as outlined in the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This statement is often used as a litmus test for belief regarding global warming, i.e. you believe this statement (consensus) or you don't (skeptic).

Data correlating «ordinary science intelligence» (as measured by a standard nine - question test), political ideology, and tendency to agree with the statement «there is «solid evidence» of recent global warming due «mostly» to «human activity such as burning fossil fuels»» suggests that conservative Republicans become less likely to agree with the scientific consensus on climate change the more educated they are.

I stand by my original statement as an accurate reflection of current IPCC consensus forecasts for expected global warming through 2100, though obviously I remain open to contradiction by relevant facts of which I am currently unaware.

Or rather, the message should be in three parts: basic physics leads us to have a strong expectation that the carbon dioxide we've pumped into the atmosphere should cause global warming; the measurements that have been made bear this out; the scientific consensus about the previous two statements is overwhelming.

There have been many statements about the scientific consensus that global warming exists and is caused by the CO2 emissions released by the burning of fossil fuels.

In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, «There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change — which doesn't rest primarily on these temperature issues, in any event — or any doubts about whether any paper on the temperature records was legitimate scientific work.»

Scientific societies and scientists have released numerous statements and studies showing the overwhelming consensus that global warming is happening and that human activity is the primary cause.

(05/27/2013) A new consensus statement by 520 scientists from around the world warns that global environmental harm is putting at risk the happiness and well - being of this and future generations.

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.

But it is effectively BBC policy, enthusiastically carried out by the BBC environment correspondents, that those views should not be heard — witness the BBC statement last year that «BBC News currently takes the view that their reporting needs to be calibrated to take into account the scientific consensus that global warming is man - made».

The Trump administration avoided making any statement on the science of global warming as it moved to revoke the Clean Power Plan, but one of its most influential coal - industry allies made clear he is pushing outright rejection of the scientific consensus.

Before long, we find him citing a late 2006 statement from the World Meteorological Organization as representative of the current scientific consensus on the relationship between hurricanes and global warming.

He told friends he was one of several staff unwilling to put their names to the Met Office - inspired statement in support of the global warming camp, because «science isn't done by consensus».

In fact, read in full, the statement outlines a number of ways global warming should worsen hurricane impacts that are a matter of consensus (to say nothing of potentially larger magnitude changes that are still debated but that may well be happening).