Scientists have been alarmed by these moves, as well as the overall tenor of the administration on
scientific issues like climate change (Trump has not yet appointed a White House science adviser) and some are even now planning a march on Washington, D.C.
Not exact matches
It's just amazing that, you know, you could capture that much information and it's interesting in the
scientific perspective because what we are finding right now with
issues like climate change and conservation is that we really need fine - grained samples from very large geographic areas to really understand the dynamics of species range movements and how fragmentation is occurring and many biogeographic questions, and literally, the only way we can do this is through voluntary networks
like this because it would cost billions and billions to send professionals out at that finer scale to understand it.
For example, understanding that global warming is not a proven science and that there is no circumstantial evidence for global warming alarmism — which is why we see goats
like political charlatans
like Al Gore showing debunked graphs
like the «hockey stick» to scare the folks — and, not understanding that
climate change the usual thing not the unusual thing and that the
climate change we observed can be explained by natural causes is the only thing that really separates we the people from superstitious and ignorant government - funded schoolteachers on the
issue of global warming... that and the fact that global warming alarmists do not believe in the
scientific method nor most of the principles upon which the country was founded.
So when we examine the
climate change debate we should consider whether this
issue is
like a dispassionate
scientific question where we may assume that the math will be used in a neutral manner or is it
like a financial or political
issue where no sensible person would accept the assumption of neutrality.
They are distracting the media and public from the lack of credible
scientific evidence supporting man - made
climate change using
issues like gender.
If Americans are not well - enough informed to successfully tackle
issues like climate change, Otto contends that seeing political leaders directly address the
issues will foster greater public interest in the topics, help Americans distinguish
scientific finding from rhetoric, and encourage our children to devote their education to the subject.
This is an important question, because (as I have shown in previous research) negativity toward scientists is associated with the rejection of
scientific consensus on
issues like climate change.
THe UK - based
Scientific Alliance takes
issue with claims of links between Atlantic hurricanes and so - called «man - made global warming» (aka
climate change): «But no amount of moral blackmail will enable us to tune the
climate to our
liking when long term natural processes are underway, about which we understand very little and can not control.»
It does seem that the Right prefers denial of
scientific reality than do something about their inability to deal with an
issue like climate change.