Sentences with phrase «whether consensus science»
Since the thrust of your report is about the fight over cap - and - trade, isn't it more important to assess the fairness, albeit admittedly more difficult, of coverage on that issue — e.g., exaggerated alarmism over potential energy price spikes, etc. — than whether consensus science was reflected?
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/ Not exact matches
The judge in the case did not, in his specific questions to the parties, ask if there was a consensus on the science, or whether climate change would present catastrophic risks.
Science is slow and uncertain, while policy and practice decisions have to be made right now whether a consensus of scientific evidence exists or not.
(The Skeptical Science and Bishop Hill blogs are disputing whether Lewis's new paper is an outlier or signaling an emerging consensus.)
It's always amusing to read in the «skept - o - sphere,» the thousands and thousands and thousands of comments on the subject of whether there is a «consensus» and even more interestingly, precisely how big that «consensus» is, from people who say that the noting the existence of a «consensus» is not only a fallacious argument, but that in fact noting that there is a «consensus» is antithetical to the valid practice of science.
of climate science, and stands to make spectacular inroads on society if a finding of CAGW consensus results, regardless of whether it is true or not.
Since people's beliefs about evolution are influenced by their perceptions of scientific consensus, the total role of science knowledge in shaping a person's opinion likely operates indirectly through beliefs about scientific consensus as well as directly through beliefs about whether humans have evolved over time.
CTL, on any forum — whether skeptic - leaning or consensus - leaning — censorship of the strongest criticisms can serve no good purpose... for the common - sense reason that the strongest skepticism and the strongest science recognize one another not as enemies, but rather as the most natural of allies.
It turns out all movements that deny a scientific consensus, whether it be the science of climate change, evolution or vaccination, share five characteristics in common:
The movie, «Climate Hustle,» questions whether there is a genuine scientific consensus about global warming and features more than 30 scientists who reject mainstream climate science.
Without any modern reference or climate science knowledge, history speaks very well to the great convenience of powerful cultural consensus, whether spawned by science, religion, or indeed past climate fears.
I suspect because probably they know that there is a strong prevalence of agreement among experts that continued and increasing aCO2 emissions pose a potential threat, but they find that «consensus» to be politically inconvenient because they don't want to accept the political associations with accepting that threat, so instead they focus on a red herring of a more politically convenient target of whether expert climate scientists agree that «CAGW» is «settled science»
If skeptics within the climate science community are starved of funding how would we know if they have a strong case or whether the so - called consensus is merely an artifact of them getting all the research grants?
This form of argument has been deployed by alarmists to diminish the credibility of anyone challenging the «consensus», whether or not they actually challenge «the science».
Attacks on any scientific consensus, whether it be human - caused global warming or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibit five characteristics of science denial.
Harvey and his co-authors concluded that some climate - doubting bloggers, including many who cite Crockford, seek to cast doubt on all of climate science by discrediting the scientific consensus on whether polar bears are endangered.
Every movement that has rejected a scientific consensus, whether it be on evolution, climate change or the link between smoking and cancer, exhibits the same five characteristics of science denial (concisely summarized by the acronym FLICC).
Here we have the empirical proof that the positivist should welcome: institutional science is evidentially more easily influenced by politics than are an array of independent researchers, whether or not they are scientifically trained, because they are free to speak out of turn without fear; institutional science can not check itself for political prejudice and deviation from scientific consensus; climate sceptics can and do successfully challenge institutional science; the problems of the climate debate are problems caused absolutely and entirely by the excesses of institutional science and its proximity to political agendas.
No consensus has been achieved in science, society and politics even about the question whether in - depth research in the form of field experiments on Climate Engineering should be conducted.
One can also debate whether consensus climate science has underestimated solar forcing and misrepresented internal variability whilst happily accepting Mosher's 1 - 4.
The question, then, is whether the funding of «skeptical» attacks on «consensus» science is a waste of the stockholder's money.
I am just a lay reader of science, and it is important to understand something about models to gauge whether the scientific consensus that I read about is real, or whether there is a large group of scientists that have fashioned their views and taken a stance because an important moral matter is at hand.