Sentences with phrase «strong climate opinions»

Not exact matches

It is noteworthy that the consensus hardliners are strongest in the USA, particularly since public opinion there seems to be the most skeptical (an August 2011 Rasmussen poll showed that close to 70 % of respondents believed that climate scientists were fudging the data).

The results obtained in our study for climatic variations millions of years ago indicate, in our opinion, that the 200 - year solar cycle exerted a strong influence on climate parameters at those time intervals as well.»

In comparison to these factors and trends shaping wider public opinion, past research suggests that the influence of conservative media / commentators and Climategate on wider public opinion is likely to be limited, reinforcing the views of the 20 % or less of the public already strongly dismissive of climate change and holding a strong conservative political identity.

In climate science the referees are not necessarily familiar with the subject, have strong opinions about who may be allowed to win and on occasion promise to change the peer review process to ensure some people will not get published.

For topics where people might have strong opinions for political or ideological reasons, such as vaccination and autism, or human evolution, or climate change, there can be strong psychological defense mechanisms to learning a different point of view.

One of the more interesting findings is that in general the poorer the nation, the stronger the belief in the serious nature of climate change and the stronger the public opinion for action to mitigate climate change.

In this situation the government official has a strong duty to go beyond his or her own uninformed opinion about whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.

Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus on this topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change debate began in the United States in the early 1980s, (d) a delay that has made the problem worse while making it more difficult to achieve ghg emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change because of the steepness of reductions now needed, no politician can ethically justify his or her refusal to support action on climate change based upon a personal opinion that is not supported by strong scientific evidence that has been reviewed by scientific organizations with a wide breadth of interdisciplinary scientific expertise.

The fact is, most people really don't know what the actual climate change issue is, let alone know a lot of detailed, accurate information about it, so all these strong «opinions» — most at odds with the the assertions of the scientists in directly related fields who professionally study this issue — is another indicator that bias and desire and an enormous host of misinformation drives perception on this issue.

Have explained it, read, but maybe, I don't know, maybe, just maybe, like most people with strong opinions on this issue YOU ARE NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, OR CUT OUT TO BE ONE.

On the other side of the coin, some actively engaged online «realists» exploit the ambiguity of the term «consensus» to translate a strong prevalence of shared opinions among climate science experts that continued and increasing aC02 emissions pose a potential risk, to give the public an impression that «CAGW» is «settled science.»

Dear Mark you seem to have strong opinions on climate skeptics.

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).

I have never had a strong opinion on global climate change.

Besides the direct impact a President Trump would have on climate and energy policy (if he keeps his promises), he would also have a very strong, positive effect on public opinion.

Washington State Opinion Polling Shows Strong Support for Climate Action (Plan Washington, Nov. 28, 2016)

I understand that it's election season, climate change is a politicized issue and there are strong opinions regarding its existence, causes, and solutions.

In ethical terms we see another example of a climate scientist who holds a strong ethical commitment to the policy dimension of climate change and its associated end of shaping public opinion and behaviour, appearing to prioritise the pursuit of those ends above the narrower moral codes of scientific discovery.

I see a dance being done here where you are essentially saying that it is isn't so much that the misperception of «consensus» opinion is wrong, but that the methodology of communicating about that misperception has been ineffective - and it comes across as you being in line with those who doubt whether there is a strong consensus of scientific opinion w / r / t climate change.