Sentences with phrase «science on anthropogenic climate change»

One of the most glaring differences between legitimate science - based blogs and those that deny the science on anthropogenic climate change is how they write about polar bears and Arctic sea ice.

Not exact matches

The recent paper in Science Express by Hansen et al (on which I am a co-author) has garnered quite a lot of press attention and has been described as the «smoking gun» for anthropogenic climate change.

Sadly, in recent years we have become accustomed to a ritual in which the publication of each new result on anthropogenic climate change is greeted by a flurry of activity from industry - funded lobby groups, think tanks and PR professionals, who try to discredit the science and confuse the public about global warming.

ChE — I've seen substantial data on the effects of anthropogenic climate change on agricultural productivity — it's a subject that has been addressed in detail by the IPCC and many other organizations concerned with agriculture, as well as by the climate science literature.

The consensus in climate science is that recent climate change is overwhelmingly identified as anthropogenic in cause, and furthermore (as per AAR5 on Impacts) there is a consensus that climate change will have significant impacts that while a value judgement can quite reasonably be described as «dangerous».

The allegations are based on the false premise that ExxonMobil reached definitive conclusions about anthropogenic climate change before the world's experts and before the science itself had matured, and then withheld it from the broader scientific community.

Two full decades of anthropogenic climate change being established science and Australia's policy focus is fully on maximum expansion of coal and gas extraction and export with some ineffectual climate «policies» to distract and pacify public concerns.

Reports such as those of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) demonstrate that science is far too immature to know what, if any, GHG concentrations would cause «dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.Climate Change (NIPCC) demonstrate that science is far too immature to know what, if any, GHG concentrations would cause «dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.climate system.»

There is concern that the institutions of science are so mired in advocacy on the topic of dangerous anthropogenic climate change that the checks and balances in science, particularly with regard to minority perspectives, are broken.

The British medical journal The Lancet, known for its tobacco Prohibitionist and anti-Israel views, created a commission on Health and Climate Change to promote, as if it were science, the view that «to avoid the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified toClimate Change to promote, as if it were science, the view that «to avoid the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified to Change to promote, as if it were science, the view that «to avoid the risk of potentially catastrophic climate change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified toclimate change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified to change impacts requires total anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to be kept below 2900 billion tonnes by the end of the century» — not a calculation that physicians, biologists, and the like are particularly qualified to make.)

The Fraser Institute has published material skeptical of climate change science since at least 2001, which marks the publication of Global Warming: A Guide to the Science by Willie Soon and Sallie L. Baliunas The abstract states: «There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on cscience since at least 2001, which marks the publication of Global Warming: A Guide to the Science by Willie Soon and Sallie L. Baliunas The abstract states: «There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on cScience by Willie Soon and Sallie L. Baliunas The abstract states: «There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate.

In the spirit of rigorous philosophical thinking and good science — has anyone on the editorial board spent even 5 minutes reviewing the evidence * against * anthropogenic global warming -LCB- and / or the newer «climate change»? -RCB-

Betts says:» the authors seem to assume that climate science is entirely focussed on anthropogenic climate change, and that natural variability is only researched as a supplementary issue in order to support the conclusions regarding anthropogenic influence.»

Chairman Markey pressed the executives on science of anthropogenic global warming, asking each whether he agreed with Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy, who has referred to climate change as a «Ponzi scheme and a hoax.»

Science magazine supports the prevailing view, stating, «There is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change» that accounts for «most of the observed warming over the last 50 years» (Oreskes, 2004).

These were: the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis is invalid from a scientific viewpoint because it fails a number of critical comparisons with available observable data, the draft TSD was seriously dated and the updates made to an abortive 2007 version of the draft TSD used to prepare it were inadequate, and EPA should conduct an independent analysis of the science of global warming rather than adopting the conclusions of outside groups such as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and U.S. Government reports based on IPCC's reports.

He calls Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.&Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.climate change is real.&change is real.»

One of the most troubling aspects of the leaked Heartland Institute documents was the revelation that they were planning to create a school curriculum for K - 12 students that «that shows that the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain — two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science» indicates that there is scientific controversy on the core issues of anthropogenic climate change (*).

More clear framing — e.g. «as a lukewarmer, I have what I believe is a nuanced view on the strength of the findings of mainstream climate science regarding anthropogenic greenhouse - driven warming and associated claims of climate change.

Climate science expert credibility: New study finds striking level of agreement among climate experts on anthropogenic climateClimate science expert credibility: New study finds striking level of agreement among climate experts on anthropogenic climateclimate experts on anthropogenic climateclimate change

Peiser has long opposed mainstream science's conclusions about anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global wscience's conclusions about anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global wScience Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global warming.

In our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, we analysed over 12,000 papers listed in the «Web Of Science» between 1991 to 2011 matching the topic «global warming» or «global climate change».

There is a strong degree of agreement in climate sciences on the question regarding anthropogenic climate change.

In the USA, the «Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change» (NIPCC) report (Idso et al. 2009; NIPCC 2013), the «Science & Environmental Policy Project» (SEPP), and the Heartland Institute have played an active role in the public discourse, providing a platform for the public dissemination of papers at variance with the notion of anthropogenic climate Climate Change» (NIPCC) report (Idso et al. 2009; NIPCC 2013), the «Science & Environmental Policy Project» (SEPP), and the Heartland Institute have played an active role in the public discourse, providing a platform for the public dissemination of papers at variance with the notion of anthropogenic climate cChange» (NIPCC) report (Idso et al. 2009; NIPCC 2013), the «Science & Environmental Policy Project» (SEPP), and the Heartland Institute have played an active role in the public discourse, providing a platform for the public dissemination of papers at variance with the notion of anthropogenic climate climate changechange.

This a group of 22 ecologists conclude in a joint paper that was published in Science in 2016, titled «Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change» — that was based on a review of available predictions for biodiversity decline under anthropogenic climate change that were published in scientific literature.

Naomi Oreskes, from the University of California, noted in an article in Science in 2004: «there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

It argues that the IPCC's «heroic days» of «Herculean work» are probably over, more frequent assessments focused on policy challenges are required, and the wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can help: New Scientist says because the case for anthropogenic climate change is firmly established («the Nobel prize is won») the IPCC really needs to revision itself.

I understand that science must hold to standards that preclude rhetoric and moral distinction, but the social context of the debate is what's preventing the information, the virtually unanimous accord that anthropogenic climate change is here, from being acted on, now.