Sentences with phrase «scientific certainty on»

But critics say that the report in some cases overstated the level of scientific certainty on the issue or simply got things wrong.

It is even more interesting in the light of Oreskes» claims that scientific certainty on global warming had been achieved well before 1992:

Exxon tried to block the resolution by telling the Securities and Exchange Commission that the supporting statement for the resolution was false and misleading because «it implies a scientific certainty on climate change which, in fact, does not exist.»

I think the reason that focus hasn't shifted to mitigation or other options is that skeptics (including the current administration) have set the bar impossibly high, requiring total scientific certainty on impacts in order to justify costly action.

Not exact matches

It seems to me that the notion that man - made CO2 has a significant effect on climate change is being disproven with more certainty, as day by day more hard scientific evidence is showing that this hypothesis is a delusion.

On 28 October, she told the Boston Chamber of Commerce that Congress needs «to double our investment in scientific and biomedical research and create more year - to - year certainty for that funding.»

Within the first paragraph of their review, they state that «women have the right to feel sexual pleasure, and for this reason sexual medicine experts and sexologists must spread certainties on the biological basis to all women, not hypotheses or personal opinions, and they must use scientific sexual terminology.»

Until recently, such treatments thrived on the power of patient lore, not scientific certainty.

The first approach, the one Price opposed and the one based on knowledge without wisdom, superficially appeared to be based on scientific certainty.

Perhaps the scientific community is still trying to accommodate policy - makers who don't understand the scientific process by making it their first priority to get closer and closer to absolute certainty on attributing climate change to human activities.

If we don't recognize that our belief in scientific progress is a kind of faith, that is because these patterns take on a sense of certainty in hindsight.

But if you take the same strategy and follow the reception of uncertainty through the media, such as the CBS broadcast on «Silent Spring,» and in the President's Science Advisory Committee policy documents, in Carson's testimony before Congress, and in the E.P.A.'s ban on DDT, you can witness the same strategy to assert ignorance and risk, and use visceral images to transform scientific uncertainty into a political certainty.

I suppose, on reading it again, that you could construe what I said to mean that we should not act if we have full scientific certainty... but that's obviously not what I meant, because if we have full scientific certainty (as I pointed out in my examples of seat belts and condoms) we don't need the precautionary principle at all.

If Dr Curry's scientific position is «there is a considerable amount of uncertainty, therefore we should at least be able to draw some boundaries around them before pushing for a consensus on certainty» (I hope my paraphrase is close to the mark), then advocating for a change in the process of conducting climate science follows logically.

But few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change.

As we have pointed out before, in 1992, the «consensus» was characterised very differently to today, and the UNFCCC agreements proceeded not on the basis of scientific evidence and certainty, but according to the precautionary principle.

Based on the evidence as it currently exists, it just is not a valid scientific position to assert with certainty that human emissions have caused recent changes to the climate, and therefore the policy implications that stem from that.

The former can be said with a great deal of certainty because it relies on and a reality of scientific measurement and the statistical analysis of error bounds.

The whole point of the global warming scare is to take an uncertain and unproven scientific hypothesis and insist on it as an absolute scientific certainty requiring immediate action — which just so happens to be a very specific agenda that aligns perfectly with a certain political outlook.

The Paris agreement to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions is based on a precautinary principle declarated in the Rio conference: «Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992, Princible 15, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual//Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163» — Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost - effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to «debate» on television.

If you claim that the climate change impacts predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not reached a level of scientific certainty that warrants action, do you agree that climate change impacts predicted by IPCC could be wrong in both directions, potentially leading to even harsher adverse impacts than those predicted?

In the meantime, during the debates about US domestic policy on climate change that have been taking place for almost thirty years, the US media has reported on climate issues almost exclusively by focusing on issues of scientific certainty about climate change impacts and economic cost to the US economy.

Given the acknowledged uncertainties and limitations expressed in the title, it is hard to believe that the graph showcased in the paper would later become the poster child of certainty for a scientific consensus on global warming — but it would become just that.

Adapting core principles of risk assessment to climate: To date, the approach of climate change assessments has primarily been rooted in communicating relative scientific certainty and uncertainty around anticipated changes in the physical climate system, along with some basic biophysical impacts that would seem to be generally implied by those climate changes: based, for example, on general understanding of associations such as those between impacts and weather extremes.

It turns out, in fact, that «certainty» relates not to the scientific understanding of the influence of CO2 on natural processes, but the application of the precautionary principle.

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».

'' this WGI Technical Summary and the WGI Summary for Policymakers rely on two metrics for communicating the degree of certainty in key findings, which is based on author teams» evaluations of underlying scientific understanding:»

The international political response to climate change science to date has been precautionary, not based on scientific certainty.

Recent arguments dominating the public discussion on climate change seem to have been about the «scientific consensus» achieving certainty, rather than advising caution in the face of doubt.

But on the other, she claims that scientific certainty is not a necessary requirement for action on climate change, and that no such thing exists.

The IF was used on these threads as an heuristic device to enable understanding of the role of uncertainty in scientific problems where there are «conflicting certainties» and expert assessments of confidence levels.

The theme of the conference, «Restoring the Scientific Method,» acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on «post-normal science,» which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientifScientific Method,» acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on «post-normal science,» which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientifscientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on «post-normal science,» which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientificscientific method.

I've been thinking about the PRO-CON FORMAT the media use (which has been discussed earlier), and now think that the format itself is not as bad as the fact that the media have limited the debate between contrarians (who need 99 %, perhaps 101 % certainty on AGW) and scientists (who require 95 % certainty, and even with that, bring all their caveats on screen — as if the scientific devil's adocates were there with them on TV).

on the scientific certainty that CAGW is supported by solid science.

«Few PR offences have been so obvious, so successful and so despicable as the attack on the scientific certainty of climate change.

The theme of the conference was «Restoring the Scientific Method,» and based on the premise that «claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on «post-normal science,» which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific methScientific Method,» and based on the premise that «claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on «post-normal science,» which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific methscientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on «post-normal science,» which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific methscientific method.»

Discrediting the expert in her 2014 case whose opinions were not based on a reasonable degree of scientific certainty.

In their factum [read full submission] IAVGO and ONIWG argued that scientific certainty is not required (and in fact definitive scientific evidence on work - related causation rarely exists).

In their submission to Supreme Court case addressing issues of causation and Workers Compensation Appeals Tribunal jurisdiction, IAVGO and ONIWG argue that scientific certainty is not required (and in fact definitive scientific evidence on work - related causation rarely exists).

This is because the law requires proof of causation only on a balance of probabilities, whereas scientific or medical experts often require a higher degree of certainty before drawing conclusions on causation (p. 330).