Sentences with phrase «in views on global warming»

Together, the independent variables explained 37 % of the variation in certainty that global warming is occurring, and 29 % of the variation in views on global warming harm, which is considered a moderate amount of explained variance in social science research (Cohe 342 n, 1992).

Not exact matches

«You can expect reductions in the EPA that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energies,» Mulvaney said.

It is certainly possible that Musk could see a «deal» to be made here: Trump supports a carbon tax in exchange for Musk dumping his views on global warming.

«You can expect reductions in the EPA that don't line up with the president's view on things like global warming and alternative energies,» Mulvaney told reporters yesterday.

«New survey on Americans» views on papal encyclical on climate change: Catholics mirror non-Catholic Americans in key attitudes about global warming.»

Unfortunately, his views on oceans and their part in global warming appear to contradict the published science.

It would have been great, for example, if Fox had traveled to Woodward, Okla., which one survey found is the most skeptical county in America when it comes to views on global warming, but where the CNN video journalist John Sutter found an oil - company executive pursuing solar - powered independence from the grid.

The now conventional view on global warming, as stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is that most of the warming recorded in the past 50 years has been caused by emissions of manmade greenhouse gases.

There is a gaping gap, in my view, between several things, perhaps best stated this way: If the large majority of scientists are correct on global warming, and if the Times genuinely means what it says in its occasional editorials on the subject, then the coverage of the issue in the news pages is clearly way below the task, and way off - mark.

Despite a long string of years in which Republican leaders and candidates bashed global warming science, the platform adopted on July 18 has no section characterizing — one way or the other — the party's view of risks from an unabated buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The New York Times Magazine is running a long profile of Freeman Dyson, the independent - minded physicist and polymath from Princeton, N.J., who has come into the public eye of late because of his anti-consensual views of global warming — which are also different from the views of many people in the variegated assemblage of climate skeptic / denier / realists (depending on who is describing them) fighting efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

I first dug in on behavioral and social science research related to global warming views and responses in 2006, and it quickly became clear that this was the scariest body of science of all — topping ice - sheet instability and even calling into question the utility of my profession.

The highlighted points of emphasis in the report have been the dominant focus of research in the field of science communication and science studies for the past 15 years and the basis for recent innovative projects such as the World Wide Views on Global Warming initiative.

If Mann had wanted to point to an opposite end to the spectrum of ways in which scientists can contribute to public discourse on global warming science and risks, a better choice (in my view) would have been Susan Solomon's handling of the rollout of the 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.&raquIn the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.&raquin political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.»

New York Times and everyone, press the presidential candidates to answer specific questions, in specific ways, regarding their views on global warming and how they would address it.

But, as is so clear in considering the interface of science and society on a host of tough issues — from nanotechnology and synthetic biology to global warming — the views of the average person, let alone an elderly folkie, do matter.

«Why does the urban influence on our global analysis seem to be so small, in view of the large urban warming that we find at certain locations (section 5)?

a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases, â??

(You can read his views in my first long article on global warming, published in 1988; it's worth noting that in 2005, Mr. Titus hedged his bets, spending $ 20,000 to elevate his summer house and yard on the Jersey Shore about five feet.)

But the newly obtained documents show that Dr. Carlin's highly skeptical views on global warming, which have been known for more than a decade within the small unit where he works, have been repeatedly challenged by scientists inside and outside the E.P.A.; that he holds a doctorate in economics, not in atmospheric science or climatology; that he has never been assigned to work on climate change; and that his comments on the endangerment finding were a product of rushed and at times shoddy scholarship, as he acknowledged Thursday in an interview.

Whatever your own personal views are about global warming, pro or con, or just sitting on the fence in the middle of the debate, you should know this: there is not much time left.

My point is this: In my view, the Times should find out, and convey to the public (in one place and in organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warminIn my view, the Times should find out, and convey to the public (in one place and in organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warminin one place and in organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warminin organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warming.

First: Months ago, as you know, a very creative and conscientious Dot Earthling (Anna Haynes) suggested in a Dot Earth post that The New York Times should do a survey / questionnaire of all members of Congress regarding their specific views on global warming and potential ways to address global warming.

As I've asserted many times, views on global warming seem like water sloshing in a shallow pan — a lot of movement, no depth (and thus no determination to act).

Here's an incomplete list of other interesting views on both the climate files and the coverage of them (or lack thereof) by the media, along with some stray tidbits, including a report on Copenhagen prostitutes fighting the city's efforts to clean up ahead of the talks and a classic case of potential scientific overreach in a story on how global warming may make sharks more aggressive:

Unsurprisingly, the survey confirmed climate change to be a largely politicized issue, viewed too often along party lines instead of according to factual analysis (and both parties are guilty of this, in different ways — there are plenty of liberals who proclaim their allegiance to the fight against global warming without a basic education on the issue).

Nearly a year after NASA climatologist James Hansen accused federal officials of censoring his views on global warming, scientific freedom is shaping up as a key issue for the next Congress, Environment & Energy Daily reported in its # 1 story... Continue reading →

To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Politicization Climate scientists on the whole, Landsea among them, don't share Happer's specific views about global warming, but they have experienced politicization in the process of scientific inquiry.

Businesses that share the view Mr. Bush expressed in March, when he rejected any binding limits on the warming gases, whether in a global accord or federal legislation, say they are confident that there will be no big shifts.

Independents have remained in between Republicans and Democrats in terms of viewing news on global warming as exaggerated, although they are consistently closer to Democrats.

Finally, perhaps reflecting a synthesis of views on the foregoing issues, the trends reveal a modest increase in the gap between Republicans and Democrats over the threat posed by global warming.

Some people, well - known for disputing the mainstream consensus on climate science, are asking the judge to admit their views in a friend of the court brief, asserting that «there is no agreement among climatologists as to the relative contributions of Man and Nature to the global warming» of the past several decades.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change has been vigorously attacked by some environmentalists and global warming alarmists who view it as a threat to their claim of a «consensus» in favor of their extreme views.

Heartland's position on climate change is controversial only in the mainstream media (which has decided to treat global warming the way liberal environmental groups tell them to, as a matter of settled science) and in the view of far - left organizations such as «Forecast the Facts.»

The economic constraint on environmental action can easily be seen by looking at what is widely regarded as the most far - reaching establishment attempt to date to deal with The Economics of Climate Change in the form of a massive study issued in 2007 under that title, commissioned by the UK Treasury Office.7 Subtitled the Stern Review after the report's principal author Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, it is widely viewed as the most important, and most progressive mainstream treatment of the economics of global warming.8 The Stern Review focuses on the target level of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) concentration in the atmosphere necessary to stabilize global average temperature at no more than 3 °C (5.4 °F) over pre-industrial levels.

In 2004, as they correctly point out, Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes published an essay in Science magazine in which she examined the abstracts of 928 articles on the subject of «global climate change» published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and «found that 75 % supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.&raquIn 2004, as they correctly point out, Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes published an essay in Science magazine in which she examined the abstracts of 928 articles on the subject of «global climate change» published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and «found that 75 % supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.&raquin Science magazine in which she examined the abstracts of 928 articles on the subject of «global climate change» published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and «found that 75 % supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.&raquin which she examined the abstracts of 928 articles on the subject of «global climate change» published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and «found that 75 % supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.&raquin scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and «found that 75 % supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.»

'' In addition to critiques by well - known global warming deniers, the issue of hurricanes and global warming has been debated intensely within the meteorological community, identifying clear differences in the prevailing views on this subject...............&raquIn addition to critiques by well - known global warming deniers, the issue of hurricanes and global warming has been debated intensely within the meteorological community, identifying clear differences in the prevailing views on this subject...............&raquin the prevailing views on this subject...............»

Science offers its view on global warming based on available data, the Pope expresses his view in moral terms, and Senator Inhofe, for example, argues on behalf of industry and ideology.

Bate joined others, such as Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Grover Norquist (Americans for Tax Reform — key strategist of Newt Gingrich's Republican Party faction), Fran Smith (editor of Consumer Alert - a corporate funded «consumer» magazine) and a number of other business lobby organisations, in taking a skeptical view on the issue of global warming.

On the matter of Dr. Jones» use of the phrase «trick» in an email referring to Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph, the Committee concludes: «Critics of CRU have suggested that Professor Jones's use of the word «trick» is evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that did not fit his view that recent global warming is predominately caused by human activity.

We need to be careful focussing upon «trends» — it can lead to serious errors of context — and this underlies the entire «global warming» thesis which relies upon computer models with entirely false (i.e. non-natural) notions of an equilibrium starting point and calculations of trend — this conveniently ignores cycles, and it has to because a) there are several non-orbital cycles in motion (8 - 10 yr, 11, 22, 60, 70, 80, 400 and 1000 - 1500) depending on ocean basic, hemisphere and global view — all interacting via «teleconnection» of those ocean basins, some clearly timed by solar cycles, some peaking together; b) because the cycles are not exact, you can not tell in any one decade where you are in the longer cycles.

Failing that, anyone is free to publish their views on global warming online, or in books and newspapers if they can.

This makes it hard to categorise climate scientists by their views on man - made global warming — not only is there a risk of pigeonholing a scientist's views in too simplistic a manner, but their views may change over time.

Dismissing natural variability even though it is well demonstrated by now that the consensus view on so - called «global warming» has failed seems to invert the scientific process of (in rough form): Observe > hypothesis > test / predict > measure result > Compare to observation > reconcile to reality.

His main views on man - made global warming theory were briefly summarised in this 2012 interview by Andrew Bolt (5 minutes):

In today's West Australian, which is the most widely newspaper in Western Australia, there is a piece by Paul Murray discussing the survey by the American Meteorological Society of the views of its members on the link between carbon emissions from human activity and global warminIn today's West Australian, which is the most widely newspaper in Western Australia, there is a piece by Paul Murray discussing the survey by the American Meteorological Society of the views of its members on the link between carbon emissions from human activity and global warminin Western Australia, there is a piece by Paul Murray discussing the survey by the American Meteorological Society of the views of its members on the link between carbon emissions from human activity and global warming.

In this essay, we will give examples of some of the different views of prominent climate researchers on man - made global warming theory.

That in turn has prompted a slew of news stories on the case, the general gist of which you can get from the headlines: Media and rights organizations defend National Review, et al. against Michael Mann (The Washington Post) Climate scientist faces broad array of foes in suit vs. National Review (Reuters) Groups rally around think tank, publication being sued for global warming views (Fox News)... and of course:...