Sentences with phrase «over climate science among»

Democrats, in turn, bemoaned the continued debate over climate science among politicians.

Not exact matches

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.

So in a 2015 poll, they broke out the question a little to It then asks respondents which areas they would like science and innovation to prioritize over the next 15 years, with areas such as job creation, health and medical care, energy supply, education and skills, and the fight against climate change among the issues they are asked to consider.

In the United States, a critical role has been played by among others by environmental reporter Andrew Revkin, who at a critical point turned over his blog at the New York Times to largely serve as a forum for doubt and contrarianism about basic climate science.

The exuberance with which the latest «97 %» study has been greeted by many of those who want to promote constructive engagement with climate science reflects a distressing resistance to take in the more general «scientific consensus» that exists among science of science communication researchers that neither a deficit in knowledge of facts — ones relating to the science of climate as well as ones relating to the extent of scientific consensus — nor a deficit in the ability to make sense of scientific information is the source of continuing conflict over climate change.

A new survey of over 12,000 peer - reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are resposcience papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are resposcience team at Skeptical Science has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are respoScience has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are responsible.

Dessler made a fascinating observation of cloud feedbacks in some of the models he looked at in - A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, A.E. Dessler, Science 330, 1523 (2010); DOI 10.1126 / science.1192546 He writes, The sign of the short - wave feedback shows more variation among models; it is positive in five of the models and negative inScience 330, 1523 (2010); DOI 10.1126 / science.1192546 He writes, The sign of the short - wave feedback shows more variation among models; it is positive in five of the models and negative inscience.1192546 He writes, The sign of the short - wave feedback shows more variation among models; it is positive in five of the models and negative in three.

Controversy over climate change, nuclear power, and gun control, among others, are all dominated by these macro science communication dynamics.

Joe Bast and his libertarian think tank are a major force among climate sceptics — but they just can't win the battle over science.

«A new survey of over 12,000 peer - reviewed climate science papers [between the years1991 and 2011] by our citizen science team» has found a 97 % consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer - reviewed literature that humans are responsible.»