Not exact matches
Over the past 20 years, evidence that humans are affecting the climate has accumulated inexorably, and with it has come ever greater
certainty across the
scientific community in the reality of recent climate change and the potential for much greater change in the future.
As the editors write in this month's
Scientific American, the ruling failed to define what «unreasonable» discrimination of Internet content is, leaving too much up for debate — «the only
certainty it gives is of the tens of thousands of billable hours to be spent arguing
over the meaning of «unreasonable» in federal court.»
In fact, my tradition links me to a line of
scientific thought that prioritizes doubt
over certainty and does not silence a question at the first response.
In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated — and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived
scientific consensus will be positively associated — with (a) higher personal
certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed
over the past 150 years as mostly human - caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful.
It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the
scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express
certainty that «the science is settled» and «the debate is
over».
Over the years, there have been many
scientific reports which undermine this
certainty.
In 2011 API brought suit with other parties against the EPA
over its authority to regulate greenhouse gases, stating that «EPA professes to be 90 to 99 % certain that «anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are primarily responsible for «unusually high planetary temperatures», but the record does not remotely support this level of
certainty» (Goldman and Rogerson 2013), a statement that flew in the face of the prevailing
scientific consensus (IPCC 2007).