Sentences with phrase «warming deniers scientific»

Not exact matches

Trump, by contrast, appears to have no engagement with science, has implicitly denied the scientific consensus when it comes to global warming, and he wasn't supported by the tech industry during the election (the highly ideological, libertarian Thiel notwithstanding).

In so far as some sceptics and deniers are proclaiming that carbon dioxide - induced anthropogenic global warming may be «the scientific fraud of the century» then surely the issues surrounding it must be the scientific debate of the century.

If you listen to global warming deniers, or even much of the public, it seems like there is some stack of scientific studies somewhere that refute anthropogenic — human - caused — climate change.

At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts [to deny scientific findings about global warming].

It's unlikely that the fossil fuel companies will deny in court what is widely accepted by authoritative scientific bodies around the world: that human emissions have already begun to warm the planet, that the harm is already being felt, that the risks of future harm are significant, and that to head them off emissions have to be rapidly reduced.

I had thought there was a legitimate scientific debate about the role of global warming and hurricanes, but it appears that the deniers, although they are legitimate scientists, seem to have fallen in with the think tank ideologues and PR lobbyists who masquerade as scientists.

A «documentary» from the same fact - free alt - right that denies evolution, global warming, dinosaurs, and the scientific method and that fears vaccines, GMO's, cloning, Harry Potter, pasteurization, and irradiated food.

What is most interesting is that none of the skeptics / deniers have a scientific explanation to explain the warming over the past 30 + years which has far exceeded natural influences.

Clearly, the Rap News crew is making fun of the global warming deniers, but it presents their points much more than the scientific consensus.

So I take it that the consensus view is that according to our best current scientific understanding, there is no possibility whatsoever of any catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic global warming; therefore to use the word «catastrophic» is irresponsible alarmism;, and therefore the deniers are actually quite right to accuse anyone who suggests that such outcomes are possible of being an irresponsible alarmist.

I'd object that public ignorance that there is a scientific consensus on many aspects of global warming is a proper subject of agnotology, and that no theory of this ignorance can ignore the active efforts of those sort - of - knowledgeable deniers.

You might argue that e.g. global - warming deniers are not ignorant, as they are typically well aware of the body of scientific knowledge that they choose to actively disbelieve, so they are not a proper subject of agnotology as I understand it.

The» top ten» arguments employed by the relatively few deniers with credentials in any aspect of climate - change science (which arguments include «the sun is doing it», «Earth's climate was changing before there were people here», «climate is changing on Mars but there are no SUVs there», «the Earth hasn't been warming since 1998», «thermometer records showing heating are contaminated by the urban - heat - island effect», «satellite measurements show cooling rather than warming») have all been shown in the serious scientific literature to be wrong or irrelevant, but explaining their defects requires at least a paragraph or two for each one.

It is getting harder and harder to deny the scientific evidence of global warming, even for the skeptics.

Lomborg is surely skeptical to the scientific findings of global warming, but I do not think he is a strong «skeptic» or a denier in this respect.

a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade - long campaign by Exxon - funded front groups — and the scientists they work with — to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem.

At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts [to deny scientific findings about global warming].

I started writing this almost as soon as I accepted Brian Crawford's challenge in another post: list five peer - reviewed studies, published in scientific journals, which deny that Mankind is ultimately responsible for global warming («anthropogenic global warming,» or «AGW»), and enjoy lunch at his treat.

Christy also devoted much of his written testimony denying the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported, «In the high - stakes conflict over U.S. climate - change policy, groups that deny or cast doubt on global warming brought in $ 7.2 million from 2003 to 2010... «Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming,» reported Robert J. Brulle...» In the eighth paragraph, the Inquirer noted the response by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, who observed that many of the groups «support other causes as well» and, in some cases, spend «less than 10 percent of their funding... on climate - related efforts.»

The # 1 strategy they have pursued involves denying the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming.

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

Perhaps the # 1 strategy they have pursued involves denying the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming.

In this context, for the Administration to have released a U.S. Climate Action Report with a chapter on climate change impacts that identified a range of likely adverse consequences, based on scientific reports including the National Assessment, could rightly be seen as an anomaly and appeared to be seen as a significant political error by Administration allies dedicated to denying the reality of human - induced global warming as a significant problem.

'' Global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat - Earthers... you know it used to be it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier,»

To quash the notion that no valid scientific criticism exists against the idea of man - caused global warming, enviro - activists often say «denier scientists» are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the issue, insinuating a parallel to expert «shills» who did the same for «big tobacco».

[1] It is probably the best known and most frequently quoted petition used by those who wish to deny there is a scientific consensus in respect of the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Here, in the wake of the first presidential debate, the media skewered Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for denying his prior Twitter claim that «the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese» — even as Trump's surrogates continued to bluntly advance positions contrary to modern scientific understanding on the subject.

To bear primary responsibility means to have been exposed to the overwhelming scientific data and analysis on anthropogenic global warming and willfully and misleadingly denied or acted in ignorance of that consensus.

However, readers of my column will know that I give contrarians, or sceptics, or deniers (call them what you will) short shrift, and as a close follower of the scientific debate on this subject I can state without doubt that there is no dispute whatsoever within the expert community as to the reality or causes of manmade global warming.

Climate change denial is a term used to describe organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

«Climate Cover - up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a remarkable deconstruction of what he argues is a carefully orchestrated propaganda campaign whose goal is to set the agenda in climate policy by discrediting legitimate science and manipulating public perceptions of the scientific evidence... I have no doubt that Climate Cover - up is going to stir up controversy, particularly in the United States where many of these strategies were deployed and fine - tuned.»

One has to wonder how productive it can be to negotiate with polluters who deny the scientific reality of global warming.

This can no longer be denied by the scientific community and the politicians fanatically pushing the anti-science claim that dangerous and rapid global warming is taking place, due to human CO2 emissions.

Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat.

His critique was, however, widely misrepresented by climate deniers as proving that the IPCC's scientific verdict about the dangers of global warming are too alarmist.

Climate deniers seem to become more active as the scientific evidence for warming mounts.

A rich collection of unfounded beliefs is a common characteristic of those who deny — despite the overwhelming scientific evidence — that manmade global warming is taking place.

Climate Change Deniers, also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deniers, refers to individuals or groups who disagree with the global scientific consensus that emissions of man - made CO2 significantly enhance the natural atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Hundreds of arguments were made by deniers attempting to refute the scientific consensus on global warming.

«Defendants stole a page from the Big Tobacco playbook and sponsored public relations campaigns, either directly or through the American Petroleum Institute or other groups, to deny and discredit the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming, downplay the risks of global warming, and even to launch unfounded attacks on the integrity of leading climate scientists,» the San Francisco suit reads.

In short, the scientific consensus on human - caused global warming is an indisputable reality, supported by many different lines of evidence, despite the strategic efforts to deny it.

«It is bad enough that some people in Washington deny the overwhelming scientific evidence and claim that global warming is a hoax and a Hollywood conspiracy.

In 2004, Green wrote a paper with notorious climate - change denier Timothy Ball arguing that the scientific models used to predict global warming were «of dubious merit».

Senator James Inhofe (R - OK), a longtime global warming denier who has called man - made climate change «the greatest scientific scandal of our generation,» criticized the award and asked the Justice Department to investigate prominent IPCC scientists for possible academic misconduct (they were never charged).

They are also abundantly evident in the movement that denies the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.

Trump has assembled a transition team in which at least nine senior members deny basic scientific understanding that the planet is warming due to the burning of carbon and other human activity.

The «global cooling» myth is another favorite of climate deniers, despite broad scientific consensus that the planet is in fact warming.

Those who want to preserve the status quo have continued to deny and attack the expert consensus because it's a «gateway belief»: when people are aware of the high level of scientific agreement on human - caused global warming, they're more likely to accept that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it, and support policies to reduce carbon pollution.

It's sad that there are many who deny either global warming, or the human cause of it, or both, despite the scientific evidence.