Sentences with phrase «which accepts climate science»

Check out the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI), which accepts climate science, takes the threat of climate change seriously, and calls on evangelical Christians to address the issue.

Regarding us (which accept the climate science), then I'm keen on agreeing with dana1981 that we are realists, and maybe that's the right word for it.

Not exact matches

The study also finds that Tea Party supporters with higher levels of education are less likely to trust scientists or accept scientific consensus on topics like evolution or climate change, which runs opposite to the positive effect education has on trust in science among Independents and Democrats.

In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science jScience, the preeminent Indian science jscience journal.

Small changes push the system past a threshold at which stage a new climate state emerges as tremendous energies cascade through powerful sub-systems — and this is indeed a quite widely accepted climate science paradigm.

Versus Michael Mann's hockey stick showing there was no enigmatic medieval period (even tried to change the name) with greenhouse gases emerging as the dominant forcing in the twentieth century — but was based on incredible data - selection techniques and was mostly based on one tree core series, the bristlecone pine trees from one mountain which can not possibly be expected to provide a reliable indicator of climate — the worst type of science but still accepted by climate science because that it what they do — rewrite history and get all the facts wrong.

Bethell's source is the «Galilean electrodynamics of rightwing crank physicist Petr Beckman, commemorated in the Petr Beckman award, which has been accepted by a string of the scientific luminaries of the climate science denial movement such as Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.

Climate models which conflate natural variation with co2 forcing are «accepted science used in daily operations» too.

When are you going to demonstrate the merit and validity of the so - called «climate science» with which you keep bashing us over the head and for which you guys insultingly call us «deniers» for not accepting?

But in the BBC's coverage of the report's release in Stockholm, which was attended by several BBC science journalists, the voice of climate - change sceptics, who do not accept the IPCC's core findings, got considerable airtime.

Many have begun to adopt a so - called «lukewarmer» position, which means they now accept the basics of climate science but don't think it's worth investing heavily today to prevent or limit a problem that will increasingly hit home in the decades ahead.

Early last year, I accepted the journal's invitation to review Recursive Fury, a narrative analysis of blog posts published by climate deniers * in response to Lewandowsky's earlier work in which he and his colleagues showed that endorsement of free - market economics and a propensity for conspiratorial thinking are contributing factors in the rejection of science.

Most people do not deny climate science; instead we adopt what can be called maladaptive coping strategies, those in which we acknowledge and accept the facts about global warming up to a point, but cope by blunting the emotional impact.

You seem to generally accept WG1 as the «best available summary» of climate science today, while I am more skeptical, particularly with regard to its understatement of uncertainty, its myopic fixation on anthropogenic climate forcing, its superficial handling of natural climate forcing factors and its many exaggerations or distortions, which go toward making AGW look more alarming than is really supported by the physical observations.

Today's Climatewire (subscription required) summarizes data and projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the Paris - based International Energy Agency (IEA) from which we may conclude that EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is increasingly irrelevant to global climate change even if one accepts agency's view of climate science.

Why is communicating climate change science hard, in which she wondered why some people don't accept what they are told by climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces».

Climate scientist Bethan Davies, who appears to believe this myth, wrote a blog post, Why is communicating climate change science hard, in which she wondered why some people don't accept what they are told by climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces&Climate scientist Bethan Davies, who appears to believe this myth, wrote a blog post, Why is communicating climate change science hard, in which she wondered why some people don't accept what they are told by climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces&climate change science hard, in which she wondered why some people don't accept what they are told by climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces&climate scientists, and claimed that «There is also a well - funded campaign that seeks to spread disinformation about climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces&climate science» and «we're up against powerful forces».

These groups gladly accept Exxon's support, which enables them to keep churning out misleading reports, to flood newspaper op - ed pages with bizarre arguments against action to curb rampant carbon emissions, and to appear on right - wing TV and radio where they're invited by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tick off blatant distortions of climate science without challenge by actual climate experts.

No less by the very people (climate scientists included) who hide behind their claims they accept the science of climate change and the urgent need for immediate actions which must include changes to Laws and Regulations directly related to energy production and use.

Then you try to switch tactics by demanding that I find fault with the science in AR5 WG1, which you say I am probably incapable of, and you are too; so basically, shut up and accept that IPCC AR5 is hunky dory and the authoritative unquestionable last word on climate science.

The Court undertook an exhaustive examination of the current science on climate change, which both sides accepted.