Sentences with phrase «scientific consensus positions»

The fluoride segment has a number of problems but let's start with the main one - the failure to wrestle with scientific consensus positions that water fluoridation is effective and safe (update: should describe the consensus as «effective, and safe enough to be highly recommended»).

In such a case it makes rather more sense to weight near - unanimous scientific consensus positions than the weight assigned to some uncredentialed fringe or another.

Judith, I'd contend that there is a greater difference between the scientific consensus position and that of science scepticism with regard to uncertainties, even if there is little to distinguish them in the science.

In this post we look at the first of these communications failures, namely the failure to communicate to US citizens the strength and nature of the current scientific consensus position on climate change.

Plenty of people come to SkS and strongly argue their points without problem at all, even when they go against the scientific consensus position, as long as they play by the rules.

Not exact matches

awanderingscot If God's preferred way of creation was evolution somewhat along the lines of current scientific consensus would you still maintain your position?

midwest rail I am puzzled as to why atheists or non believers call it a lie when a Christian takes an unlikely but not ruled out position that is contrary to mainstream scientific consensus.

Considering scientists don't agree with you, why should I listen to your illogical position over the scientific consensus?

Refusing to work with the new administration, he says, «creates a void where others who don't agree with the scientific consensus will fill those positions».

Countless professional and honorific scientific societies have looked at the science — and not one has dissented from the consensus position.

By Kenneth Richard «Consensus» Science Takes A Hit In 2017 During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

Moreover, since virtually every professional or honorific organization of scientists has taken a position in support of the science, and since the scientific consensus is arrived at via the scientific method, when you impugn the consensus, you are impugning the entire scientific community AND the scientific method.

If there really was no consensus, you would provide multiple position statements from relevant and authoritative scientific bodies that directly contradict the prevailing view.

«Not a single paper in a large sample of peer - reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that «most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

The scientific discussion is misframed in the press, in the public mind and in the policy sector, as being between the consensus position and the «skeptics» who are so confident that nothing of consequence is at stake in anthropogenic climate change that they feel comfortable advocating an essentially trivial policy repsonse to it.

But what is very evident from a scientific analysis of the «skeptical» position is that while the «skeptics» disagree with the consensus position, all the «skeptical» hypotheses are themselves in disagreement with each other.

This shrug of resignation, so casually dismissing the downsides that science is unable to dismiss, seems to be the latest fashionable replacement for dismissal of the fact of global warming, or of its largely human origins, now that those positions are so opposed to the scientific consensus that they have been forced to the fringe.

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.

A 2013 paper, «Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,» examined «11,944 climate abstracts from 1991 — 2011» and found that «97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position,» while a parallel self - rating survey found that «97.2 percent endorsed the consensus.»

He had claimed he found 34 abstracts in the scientific mainstream that did not accept the consensus position that humans are causing rapid climate changes.

Climate Change Position of the Saint Louis Zoo: «Scientific consensus holds that climate change is interrupting natural cycles, causing habitat loss and prompting more extreme weather patterns.

That sounds pretty progressive, and is certainly greener than the position of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has explicitly denied the «broad scientific and policy consensus» on climate change.

«Consensus» Science Takes A Hit In 2017 During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

The fact that, in this debate, the entertainer represents the «side» of the overwhelming scientific consensus is less important to the producers of «Meet the Press» than the fact that one «side» is also the consensus of the Democratic Party, while the view of a small fringe in the scientific community is the official position of the Republican Party.

But neither do I think we should pretend that our position is scientific consensus.

Although Richards disagreed with many of Goreham's positions, she said it provided an opportunity for NEPPA members like herself that understand and believe the scientific consensus on manmade climate change to speak out.

Heartland posed a strategic threat by possibly helping orchestrate legislation and curricula intended to undermine the activist position that consensus = scientific certainty.

At the other extreme, however, the process that leads to the consensus is heavily politically charged, as well as strongly value - laden, the environment in which the scientists operate is polarized and characterized by competing non-scientific interests, and scientists are exposed to possibly significant consequences attached to taking a scientific position that deviates from the consensus position.

The Straw Man is easily clarified - your position is that the paper is being presented as a measure of the consensus on AGW in the climate science community, hence consideration of papers not primarily on the topic shouldn't count, whereas the reality, clearly laid out in the methods is that it is at attempt to quantify the breadth and depth of acceptance and endorsement of the AGW concensus in the scientific literature as a whole, hence any scientific paper that states or implies such acceptance is fair game.

So not only did they include classes of papers that can't be viewed as having a position on the scientific consensus on AGW, it appears they omitted a whole swath of papers that they thought might have had a negative light on AGW.

The consensus position is the mainstream scientific view --- not the hyperbolic claims of environmental groups or others that support climate change policies.

Phil, from the conclusions: «Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2 % based on self - ratings, 97.1 % based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.»

(3) The consensus position on climate change science and why it is entitled to respect despite some scientific uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of climate change impacts and,.

Thus, we can recognize scientific consensus by position statements by prestigious scientific organizations, such as this statement from 18 associations on climate change, or the result of meta - analysis studies (evaluations of a series of other prominent studies) that come to a clear determination, such as this study on the relationship of vaccines and autism.

Here, I broaden the enquiry of conspiracism to embrace an analysis of the (pseudo --RRB- scientific arguments that are advanced against the scientific consensus on climate change, and how they contrast with the positions of the scientific mainstream.

Current atmospheric CO2 levels are higher than at any time since at least a million years ago, and there is no notable scientific dissent from the consensus position that global warming is happening, is human caused, and presents a global problem.

On climate change in particular — as on other contested science issues — both sides think their position is consistent with scientific consensus.

(Skeptical Science) When these politicians are asked about the basis for their positions on climate change, they almost always respond by saying such things as they «have heard that there is a disagreement among scientists» or similar responses that strongly suggest they have informed an opinion on climate change science without any understanding of the depth of the scientific evidence on which the scientific consensus view 0f climate change has been based.

Two, in response to arguments from some climate change skeptics, many scientific organizations with expertise relevant to climate change have endorsed the consensus position that «most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities» including the following: • American Association for the Advancement of Science • American Astronomical Society • American Chemical Society • American Geophysical Union • American Institute of Physics • American Meteorological Society • American Physical Society • Australian Coral Reef Society • Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society • Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO • British Antarctic Survey • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society • Environmental Protection Agency • European Federation of Geologists • European Geosciences Union • European Physical Society • Federation of American Scientists • Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies • Geological Society of America • Geological Society of Australia • International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics • National Center for Atmospheric Research • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Royal Meteorological Society • Royal Societyscientific organizations with expertise relevant to climate change have endorsed the consensus position that «most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities» including the following: • American Association for the Advancement of Science • American Astronomical Society • American Chemical Society • American Geophysical Union • American Institute of Physics • American Meteorological Society • American Physical Society • Australian Coral Reef Society • Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society • Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO • British Antarctic Survey • Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences • Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society • Environmental Protection Agency • European Federation of Geologists • European Geosciences Union • European Physical Society • Federation of American Scientists • Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies • Geological Society of America • Geological Society of Australia • International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics • National Center for Atmospheric Research • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Royal Meteorological Society • Royal SocietyScientific and Technological Societies • Geological Society of America • Geological Society of Australia • International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) • International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics • National Center for Atmospheric Research • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration • Royal Meteorological Society • Royal Society of the UK

There is also a very long list of scientific organizations endorsing the consensus position, with none opposing it.

This is the key phrase: «Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1 % endorsed the scientific consensus.»

I find the GMO and climate change discussions most similar, in that those who oppose scientific consensus have the most trouble articulating any argument to support their position.

nobody is claiming that the existence of a consensus on a scientific question is in any way proof that the mainstream position is correct, that is a straw man.

One of our main quibbles with the way the climate change debate is presented is precisely that the IPCC «consensus» belies a broad range of nuanced positions and arguments — both scientific and political — as does the so - called sceptic camp.

Today, the committee chair, Rep. Lamar Smith (R - Texas), invited to a hearing a trio of fringe scientists with positions far out of whack with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.

Empirical studies aimed at trying to make sense of this phenomenon have concluded that the reason the public remains divided on «scientific consensus» isn't that they haven't been exposed to evidence on the matter but rather that when they are exposed to evidence of what experts believe they selectively credit or discredit it in patterns that reflect and reinforce their perception that scientific consensus is consistent with the position that predominates in their cultural or ideological group.

, but describing the problem as simply varying perceptions «that scientific consensus is consistent with the position that predominates in their cultural or ideological group» I think overlooks or ignores a deeper problem: the sense, varyingly expressed, that «scientific consensus» itself is infected with positions that predominate in a cultural or ideological group.

A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts «Consensus» Science During the first 6 months of 2017, 285 scientific papers have already been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob... or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related «consensus» positions commonly endorsed by -LSB-...]

Yet, as we reported in the past, the curious positioning as a hero puts as much distance between him and the «scientific consensus» represented by the IPCC Assessment Reports as there exists between the IPCC and any climate change «denier».

«Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1 % endorsed the scientific consensus.»