Sentences with phrase «scientific facts about climate change»

Key scientific facts about the Climate Change problematic were introduced first with a slide presentation and handouts to participants (materials available here).

There needs to be a Climate Change Agency that can channel all the scientific facts about climate change, and transform them into information that is consumable and persuasive for most Americans.

Today faith leaders from every corner of the world are connecting the dots between our heads and our hearts, between the scientific facts about climate change and our human response.

Not exact matches

Indeed, a recent Pew poll shows that there is a substantial and growing amount of public disagreement about basic scientific facts, including human evolution, the safety of vaccines and whether or not human - caused climate change is real and happening.

He has repeatedly claimed that this constitutes a peer - reviewed scientific publication about climate change, but the fact is that society newsletters are not typically «peer - reviewed» in any normal sense, and the newsletter editor appended a notice on Monckton's article saying it was not peer - reviewed.

In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.

Facts are that the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change is being largely ignored, and more and more so, by the world's leaders and elites, who want us all to just go on producing, buying and consuming ever more and more — as if that was possible.

In fact, there is broad agreement among climate scientists not only that climate change is real (a survey and a review of the scientific literature published say about 97 percent agree), but that we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.

Dr. T. Ball — Principia Scientific International — July 21, 2017 This is the first of a series of articles in which I will provide basic facts about climate and climate change, so the public will understand how much they have been misled by those with a political agenda.

Common to these arguments is that they have successfully framed the climate change debate so that opponents and proponents of climate policies debate facts about costs, scientific uncertainty, or economic harms to nations that act while other large emitters don't act rather the moral problems with these arguments.

Some of the arguments against climate change policies based upon scientific uncertainty should and can be responded to on scientific grounds especially in light of the fact that many claims about scientific uncertainty about human - induced warming are great distortions of mainstream climate change science.

A list of scientific facts about CO2, global warming, and climate change showing how misinformed we are by the «official climate science» of the IPCC.

What distinguishes ethical issues from economic and scientific arguments about climate change is that ethics is about duties, obligations, and responsibilities to others while economic and scientific arguments are usually understood to be about «value - neutral» «facts» which once established have usually been deployed in arguments against action on climate change based upon self - interest.

Between a research - gutting proposed budget, regulation - slashing executive orders, the appointment of climate change skeptics to head the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy, and bogus claims about vaccines, infectious diseases, and global warming, it's no secret that President Donald Trump has demonstrated indifference to empirical fact and hostility to the scientific community.

It attempts to surround the hard facts about climate change with clouds of uncertainty, even though these facts are agreed to by the scientific academies of every major country in the world and the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.»

This phenomenon is partly attributable to the fact that economic interests opposed to US climate change policies have skillfully and successfully framed the US climate change debate as a matter about which there is insufficient scientific evidence or too much adverse impact on the US economy to warrant action.

to that level, it might turn out to be the case that the Heartland documents supply evidence that Heartland is, in fact, engaged in coordinated attempts to discredit legitimate science and mislead both the public and decision makers about the underlying scientific facts of human - caused climate change.

We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be «educated» about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.

In spite of his own errors, May is deeply suspicious of any attempt to subject claims about the future of the world's climate to scientific scrutiny, and he steps further outside the realm of material fact to speculate that those guilty of not respecting the facts belong to an «active and well - funded «denial lobby»» that is «misinforming the public about the science of climate change».

That some still talk about «belief» — a matter of faith more so than facts — in findings that have long been accepted by the scientific community speaks volumes about the general public's understanding and acceptance of global climate change.

Given these facts, what are the alarmist community and the Democrats, whose platform hysterically calls climate change «an urgent threat,» to do about research that has found that «much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue»?

The reasons for that are many: the timid language of scientific probabilities, which the climatologist James Hansen once called «scientific reticence» in a paper chastising scientists for editing their own observations so conscientiously that they failed to communicate how dire the threat really was; the fact that the country is dominated by a group of technocrats who believe any problem can be solved and an opposing culture that doesn't even see warming as a problem worth addressing; the way that climate denialism has made scientists even more cautious in offering speculative warnings; the simple speed of change and, also, its slowness, such that we are only seeing effects now of warming from decades past; our uncertainty about uncertainty, which the climate writer Naomi Oreskes in particular has suggested stops us from preparing as though anything worse than a median outcome were even possible; the way we assume climate change will hit hardest elsewhere, not everywhere; the smallness (two degrees) and largeness (1.8 trillion tons) and abstractness (400 parts per million) of the numbers; the discomfort of considering a problem that is very difficult, if not impossible, to solve; the altogether incomprehensible scale of that problem, which amounts to the prospect of our own annihilation; simple fear.

Climate change is a scientific issue — it's all about physics, and if we just explain the facts to people, they'll understand it is important and take action, right?

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

Britain protests over false melting glacier claims «Britain has officially expressed its concern to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about lax scientific procedures used by the body which supplies the world with the facts about global warming.»

In fact, right now Attorneys General in multiple states have active investigations into what ExxonMobil knew and when about the scientific research on climate change and whether the company actively worked to undermine what they knew to be true.

The Royal Society - A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF) «This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the pponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws.

Although there is uncertainty about what the precise impacts will be, there is no longer legitimate scientific disagreement about the fact that the climate is changing and that those changes will accelerate over the next century.