Sentences with phrase «opinion about climate science»

Why Politicians May Not Ethically Rely on Their Own Uninformed Opinion About Climate Science and 10 Questions That The Press Should Ask Politicians About Climate Science In Light of This Responsibility.

Their opinion about climate science seems to be driven by their political opinion, rather than vice versa.

«Nobody without a PhD in radiative physics is even entitled to have an opinion about climate science»

Although he has not published any climate - related research in his scientific career, Happer nevertheless seems to enjoy making his opinions about climate science known, as we have previously examined here and here.

As the head of the Regulatory Unit at the Institute for Public Affairs, a right - wing think tank with close ties to greenhouse sceptics, Moran's role has been to support the Government and the fossil fuel corporations with anti-environmental opinions about climate science, the costs of emission reductions and the pitfalls of renewable energy.

Not exact matches

A key goal of the study was to understand how creationist interest groups, science interest groups, public opinion about evolution and political climate influence the political - reform process related to how evolution is taught in schools.

Nisbet's prior research examining public opinion about climate change and energy insecurity also revealed for science communicators that understanding the public in more precise ways than partisanship or ideology allowed for improved outreach.

Because Heartland has spent the last decade pushing mythology about climate science, working to bend the public opinion needle back, attacking Al Gore and legitimate climate scientists including Peter Gleick and Michael Mann.

It's probably conservatives trying to seize the attack ground in view of a possible pending debate about climate change in Washington, but the chorus of denialist opinion is so coordinated and their «logic» so simple it is convincing many, even among educated people (science PhDs) who can not be bothered to look deep into things but try to form an opinion based on a few journalistic pieces.

Watch the first 1 to 2 minutes section of the UP Stream Pt 4 doco / research prject specifically being directed at all Climate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sClimate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sclimate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sclimate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the science.

To be sure a «debate» over whether or not human activity is altering the climate still rages, but it is not a clear - headed objective debate about the science among scientists actually working in the relevant fields, it's a debate about the science and its impact on human society in the court of public opinion.

John P. Holdren, the head of Harvard's Program on Science, Technology and Public Policy and a longtime advocate of prompt curbs in greenhouse gases, sent me a note about the reaction he received after the Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune published his opinion piece earlier this month asserting that «climate change skeptics are dangerously wrong.»

But ultimately, the pope's views on climate science will do little to alter the opinions of Catholics about global warming.

While opinions about climate change vary greatly, even among experts in climate science, the consensus is that short - range weather events have little to do with the climate change debate.

5) To what extent is climate science different than any other research field, or even any other profession, w / r / t the level of «intimidation» people feel about expressing their opinions when they run against more prevalent viewpoints within their profession?

As I said in my reply to Wegman, ordinarily I would agree with him that science shouldn't be conducted through blogs, but in the case of climate science an opinion about global warming in general, or the validity of multiproxy reconstructions or climate models in particular seems to constitute for some a political viewpoint that must be either trumpeted from the rooftops or suppressed by any means possible regardless of its scientific merit.

In climate science the referees are not necessarily familiar with the subject, have strong opinions about who may be allowed to win and on occasion promise to change the peer review process to ensure some people will not get published.

In my opinion it demonstrates bad faith on the part of the BBC in failing to present to the public the details of the sceptical argument about climategate and «climate science» yet allowing those involved to present their defence without serious challenge.

From my reading of the popular science journal, Scientific American (to which I have subscribed for about 35 years), I can say that it shows a similar preponderance of articles relating climate change to human activities; while it does (correctly) give consideration to some of the more reasonable of the contrary opinion.

Well, it's about climate science, not climate opinion or climate belief.

And they took their eye off the ball in terms of public opinion, in talking about climate science and looking at what the denial machine was doing.

The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and The Washington Post all published climate science denial and other scientifically inaccurate statements about climate change on their opinion pages over the last year and a half, while The New York Times avoided doing so, according to a new Media Matters analysis of those four newspapers.

As a technician not a scientist I have long been of the opinion that climate science went from being less about science than it is about the promotion of a political agenda.

(Skeptical Science) When these politicians are asked about the basis for their positions on climate change, they almost always respond by saying such things as they «have heard that there is a disagreement among scientists» or similar responses that strongly suggest they have informed an opinion on climate change science without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has beenScience) When these politicians are asked about the basis for their positions on climate change, they almost always respond by saying such things as they «have heard that there is a disagreement among scientists» or similar responses that strongly suggest they have informed an opinion on climate change science without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has beenscience without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has been based.

The authors note that Oreskes» methodology is further flawed because it also surveyed the opinions and writings of «nonscientists who may write about climate, but are by no means experts on or even casually familiar with the science dealing with attribution — that is, attributing a specific climate effect (such as a temperature increase) to a specific cause (such as rising CO2 levels).»

A Climate Scientist pleads for (understanding / belief / sympathy / faith / acceptance) and taking politics out of science by writing an Editorial Opinion column about politics, and while stating:

Some of the gaps in Chapter 3 on ethical issues raised by climate change policy - making include: (1) ethics of decision - making in the face of scientific uncertainty, (2) whether action or non-action of other nations affects a nation's responsibility for climate change, (3) how to spend limited funds on climate change adaptation, (4) when politicians may rely on their own uninformed opinion about climate change science, and (5) who is responsible to for climate refugees and what are their responsibilities.

Although ordinary individuals may have no duty to go beyond their own personal opinion about the science of climate change, government officials who have the power to enact policies that could present catastrophic harm to millions of people around the world may not as a matter of ethics justify their refusal to support policies to reduce the threat of climate change on the basis of their uninformed opinions on climate science.

A reader recently asked my opinion about this post at Skeptical Science, which is a comment on Ambaum 2010, Significance Tests in Climate Science, J. Climate, doi: 10.1175 / 2010JCLI3746.1.

The authors note that Oreskes» methodology is further flawed because it also surveyed the opinions and writings of «nonscientists who may write about climate, but are by no means experts on or even casually familiar with the science dealing with attribution — that is, attributing a specific climate effect (such as a temperature increase) to a specific cause (such as rising CO

She had the space to do so, but instead hypothesized that science (and presumably climate science) bases its approach to statistical testing in the long shadow of its ancient historical ties to religion, which is something she may well be able to offer an opinion about, as an historian, but which has minimal relevance to policy makers or the interested public in interpreting scientific claims as found, say, in the IPCC reports.

«While the UK media, including the BBC, has some of the best science and environment correspondents in the world, who provide insightful and factual reporting about climate change, too many editors are willing to publish or broadcast inaccurate and misleading information, seemingly on the grounds that atmospheric physics should be treated as just a matter of opinion,» Mr Ward said.

It IS possible to disagree about science facts, science opinions, research findings and policy issues without engaging in the kinds of truly deplorable behavior we have seen from «both sides» [how I hate having to say that] of the Climate Controversy.

The ability of climate science to probe and answer questions about the Earth system, the changes it has undergone, and the potential for change in the future has been (in my opinion) very successful in exploring the scope and limits of climate system predictability.

If the intent of the epistemic level applies beyond weighing opinions, then it might be relevant to the level of courtesy extended, and the depth presented, in answering the concerns of people — people who express an opinion or curiosity about the substance of the science of climate.

I will withhold my full congratulations until Randi has dealt with this next test of his opinions RE The Science about climate change.

In contrast, science comprehension should polarize opinions about climate scientists along ideological lines.

These polling experts argue that this means that when you ask Republicans and Conservatives about the science of climate change, you shouldn't interpret their answers fully as knowledge, but rather as indirect opinions about the policies being posed.

The #ExxonKnew campaign has gained enormous traction in the public mind and many want to know why the corporation started out as such an honest broker in the 1970s, conducting its own climate science research, and then doing an about - face in the 1980s, blatantly denying the reality of global warming and working with other groups to manipulate public opinion so as to thwart a rational public response.

May I give my personal opinion about Judith Curry: from my point of view, the way she expresses her concerns about climate science is very close to the ideal scientific attitude, trying to be balanced and free from ideological a priori (this doesn't mean of course that she is always right, although I did not notice anything wrong in what she said).

Your opinion about the science of climate change is no different than any amatuer and I would not give you any more weight than any other non-expert.

Anybody writing about Environment for newspapers, or speaking on TV or radio, who disputes this should be sent on a training course in the Science of Climate Change in my opinion.

We joined scientists Michael Mann and Dana Nucitelli on the Al Jazeera English «Inside Story Americas» program on May 17 to talk about the scientific consensus on human - caused climate change, U.S. public opinion, the Keystone XL pipeline, geoengineering, and other aspects of the collision between climate science and government accountability:

«This is especially the case because opinion pieces about climate science in these publications are frequently based on factual inaccuracies which go unchallenged.»

Their objective must have been political; they must have wanted the film to change the opinions of the pupils — not about the science of climate change, but about the desired political response to the science of climate change.