Much confusion and spin infects current public discussion of «peer reviewed» research: first we had Maurice Newman, the Chairman of the ABC, who suggested that «distinguished scientists» challenge the
overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change by «peer reviewed research», although he oddly failed to name such research.
Although «NewsHour» journalists did note there is a
broad scientific consensus on climate change, «what was stunning to me as I watched this program is that the NewsHour... had picked Watts — who is a meteorologist and commentator — rather than a university - accredited scientist to provide «balance,»» ombudsman Michael Getler wrote on Friday.
Lemonick replies: Those who do not accept the
general scientific consensus on climate change span an enormous range, from people who have legitimate scientific disagreements on some of the details all the way to people who distort the facts to people who declare the whole thing a socialist plot (or, alternatively, a money - making scam).
Plus, most professional American scientific organizations, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, acknowledge that there is a
broad scientific consensus on climate change.
The US libertarian think tank, which argues that global warming is not primarily caused by humans, intends to develop teaching material that would cast doubt on
the scientific consensus on climate change.
The consensus among scientists on GMO safety is «stronger than
the scientific consensus on climate change,» said Giddings.
As society comes to terms with
the scientific consensus on climate change, climate scientists are being called on to go beyond a mere understanding of the phenomenon, says climatologist Gregg Garfin, deputy director for science translation and outreach at the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona, Tucson.
«Citing Republican elites who endorse
the scientific consensus on climate change may be the most effective way to persuade citizens that climate change is a real and important problem,» says Scruggs.
Although virtually all climate scientists agree that human actions are changing the climate and that immediate action must be taken, roughly 60 percent of Americans believe that
no scientific consensus on climate change exists.
Each module would inject skepticism into
the scientific consensus on climate change.
Opposing
the scientific consensus on climate change has become something of an article of faith for the socially conservative religious right in the US.
Mr. Hoeven's amendment is designed as an alternative for moderate Republicans who may be worried about going against
a scientific consensus on climate change.»
A new paper published just this month reported that respondents across the political spectrum responded positively to information about
the scientific consensus on climate change.
Heartland has recently been in the headlines after the release of their list «Red Team» nominees sent to the Trump EPA in an attempt to create a government sanctioned debate on
the scientific consensus on climate change.
The conferences, which provides a platform and meeting space for professional climate science deniers, are dedicated to attacking the climate scientists and
the scientific consensus on climate change.
Though the APS statement about climate change is more nuanced than the AAAS letter, stating — for example — «scientific challenges remain in our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate change,» it in no way disputes
the scientific consensus on climate change or the risks it poses.
The nonprofit National Center for Science Education said most science teachers understand
the scientific consensus on climate change, according to a national study conducted in 2014 - 2015 by the center and Pennsylvania State University researchers.
In the light of
the scientific consensus on climate change, as well as «mountains» of good scientific evidence related to other potentially pernicious effects imposed on the Earth by the over consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities of the human species in our time, it could be a pointless distraction for us to be imagining a world for our grandchildren.
Prominent scientists operating outside
the scientific consensus on climate change urged Congress on Wednesday to fund «red teams» to investigate «natural» causes of global warming and challenge the findings of the United Nations» climate science panel.
When ES&T (Environmental Science & Technology) contacted more than a dozen leading scientists to find out how these events affected
the scientific consensus on climate change, many researchers began criticizing the Wall Street Journal and Barton.