Sentences with phrase «settled science of climate change»

In a video posted to her campaign website, Clinton knocked Republicans for refusing «to accept the settled science of climate change» and cast her push as a fight for children and grandchildren.

Heading into the 2015 True / False Film Festival in Columbia, Missouri, the last two documentaries I reviewed were Kirby Dick's The Hunting Ground, about rape on college campuses, and Robert Kenner's Merchants Of Doubt, about the industry - financed «experts» who deliberately muddy the debate over the settled science of climate change and cigarette - smoking.

«It's hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who'd rather remind us they're not scientists than listen to those who are,» Clinton states.

The physics appears to be what is known, the so called settle science of climate change.

Not exact matches

The irony continues with the feting of Okotoks as the greenest community in Canada by such pundits as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and CBC's Peter Mansbridge at the same time the «rurban» community sits in the chosen provincial riding of Wildrose leader Danielle Smith — a right wing student of the climate - change - denying Fraser Institute and cheerful avower that global warming science is «not settled.»

Climate doubters have asserted that the e-mails prove that science surrounding global climate change is not settled and that the data in favor of it were misrepreClimate doubters have asserted that the e-mails prove that science surrounding global climate change is not settled and that the data in favor of it were misrepreclimate change is not settled and that the data in favor of it were misrepresented.

Apsell acknowledged that science has been under siege of late, with a sizeable percentage of the public still believing that researchers continue to disagree over long - settled evidence on climate change, for example.

The effort is the brainchild of two retirees frustrated by what they see as the orthodoxy of «settled science» on climate change.

The researchers found ten different frames used to communicate climate change: Settled Science, Political or Ideological Struggle, Role of Science, Uncertain Science, Disaster, Security, Morality and Ethics, Opportunity, Economics and Health.

Of course, there are quite a few experts in climate science and policy who warn that debating whether the research pointing to a disruptive human climate influence is, or is not, settled is a complete distraction from the reality that the basics are not in dispute (more CO2 = warming world = rising seas and lots of changing climate patternsOf course, there are quite a few experts in climate science and policy who warn that debating whether the research pointing to a disruptive human climate influence is, or is not, settled is a complete distraction from the reality that the basics are not in dispute (more CO2 = warming world = rising seas and lots of changing climate patternsof changing climate patterns).

The science of climate change is sufficiently settled that it is unlikely that what we learn in the future — and we have much to learn — is unlikely to significantly alter the likely consequences of a business as usual approach.

According to Richard's analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the «significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,» which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

I think the most telling part of this interview was the end, when Bill Nye quit trying to even talk about climate change (well he never did get past shrieking «The Science is Settled!!

Lord Monckton, one of the leading scientists battling against the «settled science», has just submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to determine how the U.K. Supreme Court has ruled to support climate change activism in specific legal cases before it.

Today we're told 97 % of climate scientists agree that the science is «settled» on climate change.

The first is that the science of climate change is «settled» and that this consensus can not be questioned.

«The science is NOT settled at all,» he said in testimony in West Virginia earlier this year challenging the teaching of man - made climate change as scientific fact.

Heartland's position on climate change is controversial only in the mainstream media (which has decided to treat global warming the way liberal environmental groups tell them to, as a matter of settled science) and in the view of far - left organizations such as «Forecast the Facts.»

Following a judgment by a Dutch court that the government must step up the fight against climate change, a prominent international lawyer recently proposed that the International Court of Justice rule on climate science so that the scientific disputes in this area can be settled.

In responses to the lack of scientific proof arguments, climate change advocates usually stress the harsh environmental impacts to people and ecosystems that climate change will cause if action is not taken or argue that climate change science is settled.

While at the Institute, Kenneth Green published many anti-Kyoto and climate change skeptical articles, notably the «Science Isn't Settled: The limitations of climate change models», [3] together with Tim Ball and Steven Schroeder.

While at the Institute, Kenneth Green published many anti-Kyoto and climate change skeptical articles, notably «The Science Isn't Settled: The limitations of climate change models» [24] together with Tim Ball and Steven Schroeder.

I'm not mind - blown, but as someone without relevant scientific background, I'm always encouraged by work which might contribute to a better understanding of climate and what drives changes than prevailed when the science first became «settled» perhaps 12 - 15 years ago.

You state «The legs of the climate change argument are three:: causation, the greenhouse effect (the only settled science part), and predictions of dire catastrophe»

Eventually this will change and «climate change» will join phlogiston, Lysenko's theories and the four humors of the body in the lexicon of «settled science» that turned out not to be true at all.

«Science is never settled, but the current state of «climate change» science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.Science is never settled, but the current state of «climate change» science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.»

Initially, PED showed backbone, standing up to political activists pushing the state to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards view of climate change, which promotes the false claims that the science on climate change is settled, that we know human activities are driving dangerous climate change, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that's dangerous to human health and the environment, and that we fully understand how to counteract the effects of climate change or control long - term global tempeScience Standards view of climate change, which promotes the false claims that the science on climate change is settled, that we know human activities are driving dangerous climate change, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that's dangerous to human health and the environment, and that we fully understand how to counteract the effects of climate change or control long - term global tempescience on climate change is settled, that we know human activities are driving dangerous climate change, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that's dangerous to human health and the environment, and that we fully understand how to counteract the effects of climate change or control long - term global temperature.

The science of global warming IS NOT settled, and catastrophic anthropogenic climate disruption is not unequivocal (even without change from business as usual).

Lets just say that I sense that both sides of the debate on climate change have biased POV's on any evidence that is placed before them and that a lot more work needs to be done before anyone can claim that the science is settled.

The pie chart on the right shows graphically what climate scientists have been trying to tell us for years; that the science of climate change is settled.

Critical, objective thinking adults won't buy the idea that they «deny the reality of settled science climate change» because they know there is a plausible counterargument to Gore's one - sided version of the science, and they know guilt - by - association is not enough to indict anyone of being corrupted by corporate interests.

As we have documented in numerous articles on the disinformation campaign on this website, although responsible scientific skepticism is necessary for science to advance, the climate change disinformation campaign has been involved not in the pursuit of responsible scientific skepticism but in tactics that are morally reprehensible including: (a) telling lies about mainstream climate scientific evidence or engaging in reckless disregard for the truth, (b) focusing on unknowns about climate science while ignoring settled climate change science, that is cherry - picking the evidence, (c) creating front groups and Astroturf groups that hide the real parties in interest behind claims, (d) making specious claims about «good science», (e) manufacturing science sounding claims about climate change by holding conferences in which claims are made and documents are released that have not been subjected to scientific peer - review, and (d) cyber bullying journalists and scientists.

Summary: The expert consensus was wrong about global warming; the AGW hypothesis is without empirical evidence merit; climate science is not settled, nor will it be in near future; and climate change will continue regardless of CO2 emissions.

Judith often writes about the «uncertainty monster» but it seems to me there is an even bigger beast «the exaggeration monster» which takes snippets of possible facts or unlikely statements and turns them into «science is settled» papers that reinforce the climate change narrative demonstrating AGW.

The idea that the science of climate change is «settled» is an absurdity, contrary to the very spirit of scientific enquiry.

(b) cherry - picking climate change science by highlighting a few climate science issues about which there has been some uncertainty while ignoring enormous amounts of well - settled climate change science,

Who hasn't heard politicians or media personalities use uncertainty associated with some aspects of climate change to claim that the science is «not settled»?

Mr Abbott, who once described the «so - called settled science» of climate change as «crap», now accepts that human actions contribute to global warming.

By contrast, today the question of whether or not the climate is changing is settled science.

The consequences of such doubts are important: elimination of the science is settled arguments; less money and talk on drastic climate change mitigation measures; more focus on alleviation of Third World poverty.

Basic point being, these are people collectively operate in the realm of «climate change sociology» under the unsupportable premise that man - caused global warming is settled science, thus it is up to them to explain to the rest of us what's wrong with the mindset of skeptic climate scientists....

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is «settled,» significant new peer - reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human - caused global warming.

I've been following the global warming / climate change controversy for many years now, having been always skeptical of the «science is settled» claims.

We often hear the claim that the science of climate change is settled, that there is general agreement that humans have been causing most of the recent warming trend, and that it will all end in global disaster unless we «do something about it».

The science is settled when it comes to the cause of global climate change: It's definitely happening and humans are responsible.

The newsletter then references the «Climategate» hack and reads, «All of this should be a warning flag for anyone proposing actions to respond to climate change on the mistaken assumption that «the science is settled.»

One thinks that the «settled» science of fossil fuel global warming - i.e. climate change - is based on a «huge amount of guesswork» and is actually very unsettled.

But the science isn't settled — a significant point considering the aforementioned economic costs of many proposed climate change «solutions.»

And if they learned (from some other page) of the links I gave to the NPR Gore soundbite (2007) and to the EPA chief's congressional testimony soundbite (Feb 2010, «The science behind global climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming.»)

If the science of climate change was settled there would be no need to publish these reports.