Sentences with phrase «skeptical about climate change»

A new study suggests those skeptical about climate change and climate alarmism behave in more climate - friendly ways than do those who are very concerned...

We now we have a new potential for the EU to make being skeptical about climate change (global warming, bullshit, or whatever term you prefer to use) a criminal offense.

This striking change persists when looking at voters who see themselves as either liberals or conservative - it is the conservative side of the political divide that is increasingly skeptical about climate change.

But I've highlighted his words «enlisting several scientists who were skeptical about climate change» for a specific reason.

«This is important, because attitudes toward scientists can help explain why some people are skeptical about climate change.»

In 1991, Western Fuels, a $ 400 - million coal consortium, declared in its annual report it was launching a direct attack on mainstream science and enlisting several scientists who are skeptical about climate change — specifically Drs. Robert Balling, Pat Michaels and S. Fred Singer.

In the early 1990s, when climate scientists began to suspect that our burning of coal and oil was changing the earth's climate, Western Fuels, then a $ 400 million coal cooperative, declared in its annual report that it was enlisting several scientists who were skeptical about climate change — Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and S. Fred Singer — as spokesmen.

Americans who are skeptical about climate change engage in personal behavior that is more friendly to the environment than climate alarmists, who support increased government regulation, a new study has found.

UNDER TRUMP, FEWER REPUBLICANS THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSED BY HUMANS BY TIM MARCIN ON 3/28/18 AT 2:06 PM More than a full year into the Donald Trump experience, Republicans have grown more skeptical about climate change compared with the...

Western Fuels, then a $ 400 million coal cooperative, declared in its annual report that it was enlisting several scientists who were skeptical about climate change — Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, and S. Fred Singer — as spokesmen.

People in the town, including Ankney, are largely skeptical about climate change.

And many of these same friends, while skeptical about climate change, see the wisdom in protecting rain forests and the world's biodiversity.

It seems plausible that if the paper had * not * provided an opposing op - ed, many readers (who are skeptical about climate change but not beyond persuasion) might have dismissed the first op - ed outright.

Pompeo, who's skeptical about climate change, might not approve an allocation — even a tiny one — to U.N. climate work, some observers say.

Not exact matches

There also was controversy when Rep. Raul Grijalva, D - Ariz., sent letters to seven universities, seeking information on funding for several scientists who have been skeptical of, or have made controversial remarks about, climate change.

Skeptical Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball formerly of the University of Winnipeg in Canada wrote about the current state of the climate change debate earlier this month:

«Statistical analysis of our data revealed that this decline is attributable to perceptions of recent weather changes by the minority of Americans who have been skeptical about climate scientists.

Luntz was hired by News Corp., Rupert Murdoch's media empire, to explore how to talk about climate change and clean energy to skeptical Americans.

white males are decidedly more «skeptical» about climate change risks only among «hierarch individualists.

«being skeptical about the near two hundred year body of literature...» You are misrepresenting history by dishonestly attempting to portray the «CO2 is the primary cause of climate change» hypothesis was mainstream climate understanding and the «body of literature», for the last 200 years.

Here — in the Figure at the top — what we see are that white males are decidedly more «skeptical» about climate change risks only among «hierarch individualists.»

Phil Mote, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University, is skeptical of McPherson's predictions: «I've been connected to national and international assessments of the state of the science of climate change, and although my colleagues and I are generally very concerned about what challenges climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University, is skeptical of McPherson's predictions: «I've been connected to national and international assessments of the state of the science of climate change, and although my colleagues and I are generally very concerned about what challenges climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.&Change Research Institute at Oregon State University, is skeptical of McPherson's predictions: «I've been connected to national and international assessments of the state of the science of climate change, and although my colleagues and I are generally very concerned about what challenges climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.climate change, and although my colleagues and I are generally very concerned about what challenges climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.&change, and although my colleagues and I are generally very concerned about what challenges climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.&change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.»

Those dismissive comments sounded laughable to folks who read Skeptical Science and know the scientific understanding about climate change.

Most Republicans are skeptical about whether, in general, policies aimed at reducing climate change benefit the environment (72 % of Republicans and Republican leaners say these policies either make no difference or do more harm than good), and 57 % think such policies harm the economy.

People who have doubts or are skeptical about various aspects related to global warming / climate change / extreme climate are not a monolithic lot.

While recent headlines about the woes of U.N. - led efforts to assemble a comprehensive picture of the science have caused gleeful headlines on The Drudge Report and other skeptical media outlets, the vast weight of the evidence — from melting glaciers to warming oceans to satellite temperature readings, and much more — still points to a changing climate caused by human activity.

Like other Republicans skeptical about man - made climate change, he said, «I'm not a scientist.»

Brad DeLong expresses qualified Skepticism Toward the Skeptical Environmentalist I think there's a much more fundamental problem in Lomborg's argument about global warming, as I argue here The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites a range of model estimates of the costs of implementing Kyoto using market mechanisms.

He claimed he was not a climate change denier; said that he doesn't deny that the climate is changing, but he is skeptical about whether the main cause is due to the gasses that humanity is puting into the atmosphere.

«Denial» is a venomous term applied to those skeptical about the role of humans in global climate change, meant to equate climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

EC: There are many Americans who are very skeptical about the subject of climate change and a lot of them are very mistrustful of scientists generally, so how are you and other folks at the Missouri Botanical Garden communicating the importance of science to the public?

There's a rhetorical trope popular among environmentalists that being skeptical about Global Warming / Climate Change theory is like being skeptical about gravity.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

What skeptics are «skeptical» about is one or more of the bald assertions of the alarmist community — usually that the current round of climate changes are: abnormal, harmful, or (primarily) anthropogenic.

«In the scientific field of climate studies — which is informed by many different disciplines — the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change — and that's nearly all of them,» according to Skeptical Science, a website dedicated to explaining the science of global warming.

Many other people are skeptical about the reality of climate change.»

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.»

When I found that changes in observed precipitation were largest in autumn, and did not find the same patterns of precipitation in climate models outputs, I really became skeptical about the use of climate models.

While some individual scientists are skeptical about the tenets of human - driven climate change, there is a broad consensus among climatologists — 97 percent to 98 percent of them agree that climate change is occurring and that it is driven by human activity, according to a 2010 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This puts me roughly in the same camp as James Annan, though possibly I am less skeptical that there could be benefits for moderate warming, and I am probably more skeptical of claims about the supposedly significant level of damage from the current level of anthopogenically induced climate change.

I am a Civil Servant and work for the US DOE, and I am as «skeptical» about man - made climate change as they come.

When I say I am a skeptic I mean I am skeptical about the degree of anthropogenic input to climate change.

They were ones suggesting that even liberal climate change «believers» are a bit skeptical about what «climate scientists» are saying.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change gives a voice — backed by statistics, real - life stories, and incontrovertible evidence — to the millions of «deplorable» Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar «climate change» complex, whose claims have time and time again been provenClimate Change gives a voice — backed by statistics, real - life stories, and incontrovertible evidence — to the millions of «deplorable» Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar «climate change» complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven Change gives a voice — backed by statistics, real - life stories, and incontrovertible evidence — to the millions of «deplorable» Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar «climate change» complex, whose claims have time and time again been provenclimate change» complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven change» complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven wrong.

Yale's «Six Americas» report found that the highly skeptical are more informed about climate change science than those who report a high degree of concern about it (the latter of whom still regularly confuse climate with the ozone hole, etc.).

McKitrick is considered by many on the «skeptical» side of the debate to be an absolutely key player in the debate about climate change, and the veracity / viability climate scientists and the work they produce.

Judith writes: «Relative to the broader issue of attribution, which are at the heart of skeptical concern, details of the surface temperature record don't play a terribly large role in most people's skepticism about climate change.»

And the problem is exacerbated because to the extent that there is a viable scientific community that presents «skeptical» science about climate change, the lines between that community and the community driven by partisanship, religious doctrine, or corporate interests is very blurry indeed.

Last year, speaking at a conference, he said he was «skeptical» about man's role in climate change, adding, «I'm not a scientist.

[DB] «What I'm doing is painting a picture of what it is that needs to be explained to those of us in this world that are skeptical of what we are told about climate change.»