Sentences with phrase «scientists accept the evidence»

While the New York Times notes that «97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human - induced climate change,» Robertson claimed that the scientists are merely lying to make money... something Robertson would never do.

The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world's active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.

That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human - induced climate change.

Not exact matches

«Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists.

Scientists from all walks of life, around the world accept evolution because of the evidence and where it leads.

Though if you are a scientist you understand that until a hypothesis, such as god exist, has supporting evidence, the null hypothesis is what should be accepted.

Eminent doctors, scientists, professors and thinking men and women accept it with the evidence from the New Testament written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Remember top scientist say if you don't accept the M - Theory which has no evidence and is impossible to prove, your only option is God.

He wants to use a scientist's «bottom - up» approach to New Testament evidence to vindicate Jesus not only to his colleagues, but also to any agnostic reader who accepts the authority of science.

She accepted the evidence of John Lloyd and Alan Scaplehorn, two government scientists, that a smoker's hand, food preservatives and other substances could give a positive result.

Guest editor Paul Whaley of Lancaster University Environment Centre said: «When it comes to determining the risk which chemicals pose to human health and the planet, scientists sometimes struggle to come up with a clear answer because there is no universally accepted system for weighing up the available evidence.

Unfortunately for UFOlogists, scientists can not accept as definitive proof of alien visitation such evidence as blurry photographs, grainy videos and anecdotes about spooky lights in the sky.

In the introduction of the book, which ScienceInsider has reviewed, de Mattei criticizes scientists for failing to accept that the theory of evolution isn't supported by evidence and for ideologically denying any metaphysical truth, starting with the existence of a God that created the Universe.

Scientists are often accused of being boring or negative when they don't want to accept so - called «facts» without seeing the evidence — but cases like the «cane toads in East Timor» and the «toad eating frogs» remind us that popular stories about toads are often inaccurate, and it's worth finding out what's really going on before accepting such stories at face value.

To this end, the Center has developed a three - stage knowledge transfer process: (1) Knowledge Synthesis — a critical analysis of cutting - edge science and program evaluation research to identify core concepts and evidence - based findings that are broadly accepted by the scientific community; (2) Knowledge Translation — the identification of gaps in understanding between scientists and the public, and the development of effective language to communicate accurate scientific information in a way that can inform sound public discourse; and (3) Knowledge Communication — the production and dissemination of a wide variety of publications and educational media via print, the Web, and in - person presentations.

Whether there is a divide between weather and climate scientists out in the field, the meteorological society's official 2007 statement on climate change very clearly accepted that people are jogging the system: «[S] trong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.»

This observation so bothers some «scientists» who refuse to accept the evidence of their own eyes, never mind Miskolczi theory.

«But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report — the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over the climate — were changed or deleted after the scientist charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text...» — Dr. Frederick Seitz commenting on the IPCC Second Assessment Report, The Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

Scientists talk about skepticism to assert that nothing should be accepted or rejected without considerable evidence.

Although many people have accepted with half - believing and half - doubting the view that the emission of greenhouse gases is the primary factors in global climate change, many scientists are skeptical about this view, they have refuted this view with plenty of evidence.»

The massive impact of science on our collective and individual lives has decreased the willingness of many to accept the pronouncements of scientists unless they can verify the strength of the underlying evidence for themselves.

If empirical evidence, based on raw data, tested and verified by skeptical scientists, using the same code, algorithms and methods used by Michael Mann, Phil Jones, the IPCC or anyone else showed a cause and effect relationship between rising anthropogenic CO2 emissions followed by rising global temperatures, the amount of which could be quantified and measured, I would have to accept that catastrophic AGW was the likely cause.

Markey asked whether, in light of the vindication of the scientists involved in the CRU e-mail hack (see links below), Boyce now accepts the scientific evidence for climate change.

So, if none of those deliver (pardon the pun) evidence clearly showing how skeptic climate scientists agreed to accept illicit money in exchange for spreading lies that meet the approval of fossil fuel industry executives, what do we have left?

According to the survey, only 55 % of «Liberal Democrats» — a group 79 % of whom accept human - caused climate change is occurring — believe that climate scientists «research findings... are influenced by» the «best available evidence... most of the time...»

Hence I would propose a «two - hit» hypothesis for climate change deniers: they must both lack the scientific literacy to perceive the overwhelming evidence for AGW, and they must lack the common sense to accept that the overwhelming majority of scientists are probably not wildly wrong about the subject they've spent their lives studying.

«You don't have to be a scientist to accept scientific evidence,» Clinton tweeted.

Yet, as Festinger would have predicted, instead of falling silent, perhaps even admitting error, the denialists have become more vehement in their attacks on climate scientists, environmentalists and anyone who accepts the evidence for global warming.

I think the reason those who, rather than being «believers», accept the massive, overwhelming amount of evidence behind man - made global warming, say to «ignore the skeptic scientists» is because those scientists have been debunked and proven wrong over and over and over and over and over.

These alarmist scientists eagerly accept future climate simulations as empirical evidence, bizarrely not realizing the model output is «simulated», not even possibly qualifying to be considered empirical evidence.

This was essentially the technique used throughout the documentary: he goes to NASA, is convinced by the glitziness of their equipment and the scienceyness of their credentials; he goes to the UEA and because Phil Jones is a fellow scientist, Nurse accepts on no evidence other than Jones's say - so that his version of events is correct.

DAVID KAROLY: If you consider a victory someone accepting clearly what evidence shows then yes, it is a victory, but I would not consider that to be an important victory because the vast majority of climate scientists around the world have been assessing the data for an extended period and have reached these conclusions more than 10 years ago... SIMON LAUDER: He also says that his conclusions are stronger than the IPCC's.

While this faulty paper has never been retracted, it is now no longer quoted as evidence by the IPCC — nor accepted by the overwhelming majority of IPCC scientists: Most if not all warming of the early 20th century is due to natural, not human causes.

These scientists are not skeptics in the sense the word is presently used, but skeptics in the tradition of science, who do not accept limited evidence as proof.

Unfortunately, this seems unlikely — *** given the organization's record of replacing evidence - based policy - making with policy - based evidence - making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.

While the argument rumbles on for some, with Exxon now accepting the existance of man - made climate change, and with the climate skeptic's favorite scientist actually being a vocal climate action proponent, I'm ready to move on until someone shows me convincing evidence of this elaborate hoax I keep hearing about.

Scientists who are generally reasoned people and who are trained to accept evidence above all else, are typically incapable of comprehending the situation they are in.

I know about the report to LBJ from the Presidential Science Advisory Committee in 1965 (and its Appendix Y4) and the 1958 booklet from the NAS that talked about CO2 and water vapor being greenhouse gases, but it's never been clear to me exactly when it would be reasonable to say that the evidence was not just strong enough but also widely accepted enough by scientists that the rest of us should have taken notice and done something other than buy more cars and bigger houses.

Most people believe that when the weight of evidence becomes sufficiently great, scientists accept the reality of new phenomena and the truth of new theories.

The surprise to me with this lawsuit is that it doesn't feature sensational evidence like others did — the older Kivalina v Exxon case and the newer San Mateo / Marin / Imperial Beach v. Chevron cases — by citing the infamous «leaked memo set» headlined with «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,» which are universally accepted among enviro - activists as smoking gun evidence of skeptic climate scientists being paid to push misinformation to the public at the behest of sinister corporate handlers.

Civil courts, by definition, are content to accept evidence that is 49 % likely to be wrong, almost ten times as unreliable as the most junior scientist's first paper.