Sentences with phrase «mainstream scientific position»

How are you so sure that you are right and the mainstream scientific position is wrong?

Even if he is not a scientist himself, he ought to have a basic understanding of the mainstream scientific position, perhaps by reading the IPCC's «summary for policy makers», which is designed for that very purpose.

Which brings us back to the mainstream scientific position, which is that the forced trend will dominate on a centennial scale.

For the case of climate change, Thagard and Findlay (2011) showed that the contrarian position, exemplified by the opinion that global warming is a natural fluctuation, is incoherent in comparison to the mainstream scientific position.

For the case of climate change, Thagard and Findlay (2011) showed how the mainstream scientific position, namely that GHG emissions from human economic activities are causing the Earth to warm, is coherent and accounts for the available evidence.

It seems rather strange to see that 28 % of the evidence points towards natural variability being the main factor in explaining the recent warming; that doesn't seem to be the mainstream scientific position at all.

You are advancing a view not heard within the mainstream scientific position.

You need to consider the possibility that Skeptical Science, and all those advocating for the mainstream scientific position, aren't so much partisan as arguing for a scientific position which they believe to be correct.

It also needs to be understood by publics and policy makers alike that, while it can never be guaranteed that a mainstream scientific position will not be overturned by new data or insight, the likelihood of this occurring gets smaller as the size and coherence of the body of data and analysis supporting the mainstream position get larger.

So who's going to sponsor a full - page ad stating the mainstream scientific position / correcting those misleading statements, signed by hundreds of ACTUAL CLIMATOLOGISTS?

Not exact matches

midwest rail I am puzzled as to why atheists or non believers call it a lie when a Christian takes an unlikely but not ruled out position that is contrary to mainstream scientific consensus.

By Kenneth Richard «Consensus» Science Takes A Hit In 2017 During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

He had claimed he found 34 abstracts in the scientific mainstream that did not accept the consensus position that humans are causing rapid climate changes.

In no way do my values suggest that debate should be curtailed: I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature and that the public be put in a position where it can make an informed judgment about the voices that are opposing mainstream science on crucial issues ranging from climate change to vaccination.

«Consensus» Science Takes A Hit In 2017 During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

The consensus position is the mainstream scientific view --- not the hyperbolic claims of environmental groups or others that support climate change policies.

Here, I broaden the enquiry of conspiracism to embrace an analysis of the (pseudo --RRB- scientific arguments that are advanced against the scientific consensus on climate change, and how they contrast with the positions of the scientific mainstream.

It seems to me to be bizarre that modern scientific method (for instance backing up your statements with tests demonstrating that they have statistically significant support from the data — where data is available and the test is easily performed) seems optional for those arguing against the mainstream position.

nobody is claiming that the existence of a consensus on a scientific question is in any way proof that the mainstream position is correct, that is a straw man.

Any scientific study's result, or statement by a researcher, that does not fit a contrarian's personal, flexible definition of CAGW can therefore be adopted as ostensibly supporting their view and refuting the mainstream, even when such results are actually consistent with the mainstream position on climate -LSB-...].

During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

Again, my interest is in how opponents of the mainstream scientific viewpoint came to this position, not to debate science in blog comments.