Sentences with phrase «scientific position on climate change»

There will never be a unanimous scientific position on climate change, simply because there will never be a unanimous scientific position on anything.

In the last two entries we examined the failure of the US media to communicate about: (1) the strong scientific position on climate change, and (2) the magnitude of greenhouse gas emissions reduction necessary to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.

McKitrick: «No, to the extent my scientific position on climate change has developed and changed over the years it has been due to the research I have seen and done, and the data that has been published.

Not exact matches

And it may assign developing countries a junior position within the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change body responsible for advising on implementation and technological and scientific questions, giving researchers from wealthier countries a disproportionate say in that body's conclusions.

Kerry pointed out that Bush's position conflicted with the findings of distinguished scientific bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, «a scientific panel founded at the behest of his own father.»

After he obtained his B.A. degree, Bromley was offered an assistant position at AAAS to help compile scientific facts on climate change and other global environmental issues for the public, analyzing large numerical data sets and making maps using computational tools.

She says Pres. Donald Trump's administration is carrying out a «war on science» with proposed cuts in scientific research funding and appointments of climate change deniers to top positions.

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.

That differs considerably from advocating for decarbonization, payments to third world nations supposedly at risk from climate change, taxation of carbon, blocking of infrastructure projects, etc, based on scientific positions.

At least half of the 60 - plus S&T related positions identified in the Academy report will involve some level of involvement in one aspect or another of climate change: scientific research; assessment of climate change impacts; analysis and evaluation of adaptation and mitigation strategies; development of energy and other technologies for a carbon - constrained economy and society; and so on.

In no way do my values suggest that debate should be curtailed: I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature and that the public be put in a position where it can make an informed judgment about the voices that are opposing mainstream science on crucial issues ranging from climate change to vaccination.

2007/04/24: TheAge: Howard undermined on climate The nation's leading scientific body, the CSIRO, has undermined Prime Minister John Howard's position on climate change by advising that big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions appear to be both inevitable and affordable for Australia.

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.

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.

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.

The advertising statements regarding the science of climate change also echo Conservative positions on specific scientific issues, as seen in each of the «myths» described, and declared to be false, in the second FoS ad:

(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.

If Obama takes the position that legislation can be negotiated without regard to whether its supporters believe in the scientific evidence or not, if he brings to the bully pulpit no serious vocabulary on climate change, no gravitas on climate science, then how likely is it that he will lead government and society to deal with the problem in a «comprehensive» way?

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.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society.

Numerous studies have found near - unanimous scientific agreement on human - caused climate change, with perhaps the most well - known study on the matter finding that 97 percent of scientific papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agree that humans are behind it.

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

I didn't mean that all scientific issues have been settled — far from it — but rather that we face a situation of seeking a negotiated climate policy in a situation in which one of the major parties, to quote National Journal, appears to be «coalescing around a uniquely dismissive position on climate change.»

(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.

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.

«Because a survey of thousands of scientific papers that took a position on climate change found that 97 percent endorsed the positions that humans are causing global warming.»

Therefore, those working to improve government and individual responses to climate change should adjust their tactics to respond to the insights of sociologists that have concluded that citizens need to understand how the cultural understanding of climate change has been shaped by powerful actors who have used sophisticated tactics to achieve support for their position that climate change policies should be opposed on the basis of scientific uncertainty and unacceptable costs to the economy.

The Post «s opinion section creates a strong perception that «climate change is in doubt» that is at odds with reputable scientific research and at odds with the position on climate change taken by every single relevant scientific institution globally (with the exception of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists).

By Ben Webster Britain's premier scientific institution is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures.The Royal Society has appointed a panel to rewrite the 350 - year - old institution's official position on global warming.

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.

The Farm Bureau does not share the scientific opinion on climate change, with its official position being that «there is no generally agreed upon scientific assessment of the exact impact or extent of carbon emissions from human activities, their impact on past decades of warming or how they will affect future climate changes.»

[6] The Union of Concerned Scientists sent a letter to the group just prior to its meeting pointing out that its climate change position runs counter to that of every major scientific organization, and urged it to support action on climate on change.

You will find that although the wording and sometimes emphasis of their statements differ, every major scientific organization that has taken a position on climate change takes essentially the same views as the IPCC.

While apparently not wanting to «get into the science debate,» Climate Litigation Watch says the science linking fossil fuel producers to climate change is «dubious» — a position at odds with every major scientific academy on the Climate Litigation Watch says the science linking fossil fuel producers to climate change is «dubious» — a position at odds with every major scientific academy on the climate change is «dubious» — a position at odds with every major scientific academy on the planet.

I suppose it would be helpful for this purpose if all the major scientific organizations hadn't already declared a position on climate change.

Chevron's presentation begins with the acceptance of the consensus of the scientific community on climate change, which Chevron says has been its position for over a decade.

in which the growing scientific consensus on the human impact on climate change is characterized as folks just following social trends, or that the IPCC position on global warming is based on the «hockey stick».

Just to cite a recent story, Japan's leading scientific advisory body on climate change has reversed their position on the issue and said the theory of AGW is akin to astrology.

Among other positions, Prof. Dr. Nakicenovic is Member of the United Nations Secretary General High - Level Technical Group on Sustainable for Energy for All Initiative; Member of the Advisory Council of the German Government on Global Change (WBGU); Member of the International Council for Science (ICSU) Committee on Scientific Planning and Review; Co-Chair, Scientific Steering Committee of the Global Carbon Project (GCP); Member of the Board, Climate Change Centre Austria (CCCA); Member of the Working Group of the Austrian Panel on Climate Change (AG - APCC); Member of the Panel on Socioeconomic Scenarios for Climate Change Impact and Response Assessments; Member of the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) Steering Committee; Member of the International Advisory Board of the Helmholtz Programme on Technology, and Member of the Earth League.

I have previously commented on your blog about how various scientific professional societies in the US, Canada and Australia (and elsewhere) have developed position statements on climate change.

I find it difficult at best to comprehend your position on human - induced climate change, given the fact that every science academy across the globe, including the NAS, AAAS, AMA, AMS, AGU, and countless other scientific bodies, ALL agree that AGW is happening, it is already bad, it is going to get worse, and we should be doing everything in our power to cut down our emissions of greenhouse gases and pollution in general.

Note that the NSS does not take a position on the scientific debate about whether climate change is happening, what its causes are, and what can be done about it.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.