Sentences with phrase «scientific uncertainty does»

Well, it's odd, because the «true» definition seems to have to do with policy making when scientific uncertainty doesn't quite light the way, «normal science» moves too slowly reduce uncertainty significantly, and the potential downside is severe and something must be done.

Once you've determined that scientific uncertainty does not preclude a reason for action, you're confronted with a fresh set of uncertainties.

If politicians want to act as if scientific uncertainty doesn't exist, that should be their problem.

Not exact matches

There isn't a good scientific body of evidence that someone could pick up their blood PFOA level and say «OK, well this means my risk for some health outcome is x, y or z,» and scientists can't provide that and this is one of the places where we'll have to say we don't know and there is uncertainty about that.»

She has had experiences with reporters who thought the scientific community «didn't know anything» when she expressed caveats and uncertainty around a complex topic (such as how mosquito - borne diseases in the U.S. - Mexico border region may be affected by climate change).

I think this is a tricky communication problem that partly has to do with the common perception of «science» as something that always provides solid facts and is characterized by little uncertainty (probably a product of memorizing scientific facts in high school texts).

Don't be too careful with complex scientific backing, you can indicate uncertainties without it.

«The nature of the risk from climate change is enormous and using scientific uncertainty as an excuse for doing nothing is ethically intolerable,» he writes.

Also, as you know, scientific assessments of uncertainty or probability do not usually go from, or merely include, «highly uncertain», «improbable», or «definite.»

Nor do I think the scientific community is doing a bad job of talking about uncertainty and the incompleteness of the science.

The question there is simply this: Did Jones present the whole truth, the unvarnished truth with all the attendant uncertainties or did he present a story that «oversold» the scientific certainty -LSB-?]&raqDid Jones present the whole truth, the unvarnished truth with all the attendant uncertainties or did he present a story that «oversold» the scientific certainty -LSB-?]&raqdid he present a story that «oversold» the scientific certainty -LSB-?]»

Those who like the the idea of having their skepticism subjected to a «more nuanced analysis» and granted «valorisation of the scientific norm of scepticism» (do we get a percentage of «uncertainty»?)

And while we have our ducks in a row, let me invoke the canard that scientists occasionally propagate about the media: that it does not appreciate scientific uncertainty.

I don't see that Crichton's argument is any better — it uses the precise same tactic of arguing from the fundamental uncertainty of the scientific enterprise to try to undermine results that Crichton doesn't like.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

But instead, she asks: «When did scientific uncertainty become a political tactic?»

Gore's arguments, on the other hand, are based on decades of interactions with leading scientists, and he does not claim to be an expert in their place, but instead listens to and comes to understand their findings, understanding issues concerning scientific uncertainties, natural variability, conservation laws, and so on.

However, some political disagreements did surface during these discussions with Saudi Arabia trying to mute the tone of the scientific findings by tirelessly stressing uncertainties throughout the meeting.

To date, it does not appear that either 4 or 5 have been done to satisfactory degree of scientific uncertainty.

Among other things, for instance, the parties to the UNFCCC agreed that: (a) They would adopt policies and measures to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, (b) Developed countries should take the first steps to do this, and (c) Nations have common but differentiated responsibilities to prevent climate change, (d) Nations may not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for not taking action, and (e) Nations should reduce their GHG emissions based upon «equity.»

When Roger says «the output of these models are routinely being provided to the impact communities and policymakers as robust scientific results»... I don't think he means the large model ensembles with their included uncertainty.

I don't know if there can be scientific uncertainty in that sense.

The drawback of this approach is that uncertainty and minority interpretations are so much in the spotlight that we may forget the items that actually do enjoy broad scientific consensus.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster... It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.

If it would be done in honest way with stating first that the uncertainty is so high that all this is just his opinion rather than the scientific result then, it would be no funding, no tenure, no five figure salary.

What I love most about «skeptics» is that they say that they don't doubt that ACO2 might warm the climate — they only have questions about the certainty related to the magnitude of the effect, but then they turn around and offer an argument like AK's that effectively argue that there is no scientific basis for reducing the uncertainties related to the magnitude of the effect.

However, if climate change is understood as essentially a moral and ethical problem it will eventually transform how climate change is debated because the successful framing by the opponents of climate change policies that have limited recent debate to these three arguments, namely cost, scientific uncertainty, and unfairness of reducing ghg emissions until China does so can be shown to be deeply ethically and morally problematic.

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.

Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the United States in 1992 agreed under Article 3 of that treaty to not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for postponing climate change policies, do you believe the United States is now free to ignore this promise by refusing to take action on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty?

For this reason, all nations should aim to reduce ghg emissions as quickly as possible and any nation which opposes doing so on the basis of scientific uncertainty should be asked if the nation is willing to take full legal and financial responsibility for harms caused by any delay.

Do you deny that those who are most vulnerable to climate change's harshest potential impacts have a right to participate in a decision about whether to wait to act to reduce the threat of climate change to them because of scientific uncertainty?

Surely, we see this a lot with climate change, when «skeptics» see scientific overconfidence when actually what is happening is that they didn't understand (or ignored, or filtered out) uncertainty that was quantified and stated.

Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the United States and almost every country in the world in 1992 agreed under Article 3 of that treaty to not use scientific uncertainty as an excuse for postponing climate change policies, do you believe the United States is now free to ignore this promise by refusing to take action on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty?

Later entries in this series will identify questions that should be asked to counter arguments made against national climate change policies on the basis of scientific uncertainty and unfairness or ineffectiveness if China or another large ghg emitter nation do not act.

These questions are organized according to the most frequent arguments made against climate change policies which are claims that climate change policies: (a) will impose unacceptable costs on a national economy or specific industries or prevent nations from pursuing other national priorities, (b) should not be adopted because of scientific uncertainty about climate change impacts, or (c) are both unfair and ineffective as long as high emitting nations such as China or India do not adopt meaningful ghg emissions reduction policies.

Nor does it include those who, sensing a threat from a particular scientific finding to their livelihood or ideology, create a pseudo-science to cast fear, uncertainty and doubt about the legitimate science.

I agree that arguments against pollution controls often hinge on the scientific uncertainties, of which there are always many, instead of the body of evidence and the price of doing nothing.

Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn't done a scientific uncertainty analysis?

Fourth some arguments against climate change policies on the basis of scientific uncertainty often rest on the ethically dubious notion that nothing should be done to reduce a threat that some are imposing on others until all uncertainties are resolved.

How do the interactions between scientific uncertainty and human values influence decision making?

Given that in ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) the Untied States in 1992 agreed to the following under Article 3, do you believe the United States is now free to ignore this promise by refusing to take action on climate change on the basis of scientific uncertainty?

The challenge is that the «I» stands for Intergovernmental, and that the word «science» can not be found in the text of the UNFCCC; this means that its parties (governments) should now agree to ask for scientific uncertainties rather than single - minded prosecution; can we expect politicians to do so?

A rational public and private sector response to the threat of storm damage in a changing climate must therefore acknowledge scientific uncertainties that are likely to persist beyond the time at which decisions will need to be made, focus more on the risks and benefits of planning for the worst case scenarios, and recognize that the combination of societal trends and the most confident aspects of climate change predictions makes future economic impacts substantially more likely than does either one alone.

If you do not understand the elementary criticism that I raised, as seems to be the case so far, then that makes your effort to position yourself as an expert on scientific uncertainty highly problematic.

In the report, the panel emphasized that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat - trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Added to which, just because the question is expressed in public by non-scientists doesn't mean that it is unrelated to the scientific exploration of uncertainty issues going on here and elsewhere (e.g. the «tall tales and fat tails» plus the «lopping off the fat tails» posts).

There is much work to be done in climate science to reduce the uncertainties or to at least acknowledge when reducing those uncertainties will require some scientific breakthroughs or clearly present a limitation of knowing.

Both because we felt that NOAA got a lot of unfair criticism, and also because their new results did produce some real scientific uncertainties; not only is their new temperature record warmer than their old one, it's also a bit warmer than the UK's Hadley Center record, which is probably the most commonly used ocean temperature record,» Hausfather says.

neither do those uncertainties allow scientific closure — as long as models of the climate system's behavior decay into chaos on shorter time scales than human history, climate modeling will remain prey to misrepresentation by those well enough paid, or ideologically bloody minded enough to do so: the trouble with the climate wars is that neither political side, activist or obscurantist, really gives a damn about the science, and those presuming to speak for it invite damnation by both.

In addition to collaborative work we do with these models, one of the primary ways that these models contribute to the scientific community's attempt to reduce uncertainty in future carbon uptake is through participation in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5).