Sentences with phrase «public accept the science»

When told a scientific consensus exists, and that it is on the order of 97 % of climate scientists, the vast majority of the public accept the science....

Most members of the public accept the science that says carbon pollution is heating the planet and that this will cause environmental damage.

Not exact matches

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only oScience behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only oscience doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

We have strived to assert in our reporting, writing and editing the principle that decision making in the sphere of public policy should accept the conclusions that evidence, gathered in the spirit and with the methods of science, tells us to be true.

In an $ 11 billion game industry dominated by dull and bloody «first - person shooters» — not to mention a country where five out of 10 people do not accept evolution — a blockbuster game like Spore that communicates science to the public is sorely needed.

It can even be inferred that science has not been accepted by pop culture and scientists have not entered the public's awareness.»

Soon is a leading skeptic of the widely accepted science surrounding climate change, In the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, a study titled «The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change» found that 97 percent of scientists surveyed believed global warming already is ongoing, with 84 percent of scientists surveyed believing human - produced greenhouse gases were the driving force behind the change.

To this end, the Center has developed a three - stage knowledge transfer process: (1) Knowledge Synthesis — a critical analysis of cutting - edge science and program evaluation research to identify core concepts and evidence - based findings that are broadly accepted by the scientific community; (2) Knowledge Translation — the identification of gaps in understanding between scientists and the public, and the development of effective language to communicate accurate scientific information in a way that can inform sound public discourse; and (3) Knowledge Communication — the production and dissemination of a wide variety of publications and educational media via print, the Web, and in - person presentations.

Examples of the schools students can «choose» include: a Milwaukee school that accepted $ 2.3 million of taxpayer funded vouchers but abruptly closed in the middle of the school year; a school in Florida where classes were held in public parks once the school was declared unfit by the fire marshall; or hundreds of schools that teach creationism in science classrooms.

Amid debate about where charter schools fit into the spectrum of public education options, I accepted an invitation to visit Horizon Science Academy - McKinley Park on Chicago's South Side.

«We're hoping the public review goes well enough that the state board will accept the recommendation of Superintendent Torlakson to approve the NGSS as the new science standards for the state of California,» Gilbert said.

Most of the collections of multiple hundreds of Romance e-books and Science Fiction e-books and Horror e-books are copyright infringing (although EBay sellers falsely and recklessly claim that they have «GNU licenses» or that current bestsellers are «in the public domain», and EBay accepts these untruthful statements as «proof»).

@ 58 Hank, first the general public (nor I) needs to educate themselves about the intricacies of «statistics» in the links to accept the climate science and act accordingly.

That a substantial portion of the public does not widely accept the science does not make it a scientific debate.

Even among the public that accepts the science of global climate change, the dire circumstances we now face in this regard are consistently downplayed, and the logical implications that follow from the scientific analysis of the necessity to enact swift and aggressive measures to combat climate change are not followed through either intellectually or politically.

Specifically, once empowered and participatory, are science organizations and government officials prepared to accept and implement public preferences that cut against the interests of science?

So this is not really the «debate» that the contrarians would like to make it out to be, and most scientists, as well as people who have accepted that climate science points to the need for stronger action, have no more interest in letting the Heartland and NIPCC folks hijack the public discourse and getting the media to frame the narrative in their terms.

And yet, 400 years later, here we are: watching a public official tasked with guiding the educational trajectories of his community's children rail against the accepted science on climate change — because its conclusions threaten to undermine the local political culture.

Happily, in America this question has already been asked and answered by a number of major religious organizations and evangelical groups that are on record as both accepting the science of climate change and supporting action at the public - policy level.

Unfortunately the public policy science is often identified a «junk» because it isn't research science and this prevents it from being accepted in the courts.

I would also note that public policy science is accepted by courts in regulatory matters under a «arbitrary and capricious» standard.

So it's all about intentions obfuscated by phony technical debates that large numbers of the public accept as validating a partisan science consensus.

It's unclear why the committee didn't immediately exonerate Mann of the fourth allegation — seriously deviating from accepted practices within the academic community — except that by leaving it open, the committee apparently hoped to rebuild «public trust in science in general and climate science specifically.»

That this should be the accepted wisdom promulgated by the IPCC to the World's leaders and public is a disgraceful reflection on the state of science today and the integrity of those who practice this art under the guise of science.

«Geoengineering» is their contrived «science» that they are mentally preparing the public to accept as a «remedy» for what they caused in the first place with the ongoing chemical bombardment of our skies with barium, aluminum, etc..

Not only the public, but industry and every other country have accepted the science and the idea that emissions need to be reduced, so a rag - tag group of skeptics would have a hard time with making their case for urban heat islands or whatever their current fad is.

I'd planned to also mention how our pro-global warming friends must view skeptic scientists and skeptic organizations as a very annoying irritation, but they probably fear the general public the most, over the looming potential of the public losing faith in talking points about «settled science» and «corrupt skeptic climate scientists» that become too preposterous to accept.

How much responsibility do you accept for the weakening of public trust in science — and in the IPCC?

My guess the denier pundits in US government will turn around and accept these public statements as another argument to refute science.

While the general public on average accepts climate science, Republicans are more likely to reject the scientific consensus.

For example in Ishaq v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 156, (a case about whether a woman could wear her niqab during a citizenship ceremony), six public interest groups — including the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the National Council of Canadian Muslims — were refused permission to intervene, as the court determined that they could not advance their proposed arguments without social science evidence to back them up; nor could the court take judicial notice (facts and materials are accepted on a common sense basis without being formally admitted in evidence) of any of the facts necessary to support the arguments.

That it is even necessary to take this to trial — to say nothing of the refusal of so many to accept the correctness of the verdict — bears witness to how dismally science has failed to deliver its message to the broader public.