Sentences with phrase «who accepted climate science»

But by 2013, Republican moderates like Boehlert who accepted climate science were eliminated.

Not exact matches

Those who know more about climate science, for example, are slightly more likely to accept that global warming is real and caused by humans than those who know less on the subject.

«It's hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who'd rather remind us they're not scientists than listen to those who are,» Clinton states.

The new text will say: «To describe those who don't accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man - made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science.

Heartland doesn't just question climate science, they put up billboards comparing people who accept the science of climate change to murderers and terrorists like the Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden.

comparing people who accept the science of climate change to murderers and terrorists like the Unabomber and Osama Bin Laden.

While I accept the definition of a climate scientist being used on this site is someone who has published on the subject, I certainly do not accept that those who haven't are not able to make a judgement about the state of the science.

The mayor, who said he accepted climate science, found that there was little interest or willingness among people to make this connection and it seems he felt it politic not to push it.

So this is not really the «debate» that the contrarians would like to make it out to be, and most scientists, as well as people who have accepted that climate science points to the need for stronger action, have no more interest in letting the Heartland and NIPCC folks hijack the public discourse and getting the media to frame the narrative in their terms.

Everyone else who follows the science, yourself included surely, has to accept that climate sensitivity estimates almost certainly show CO2 to be the dominant driver of global temperature over the next 50 years.

There are people who accept the science of vaccines because it is overwhelming and based plausible biology and yet do not accept the science of anthropogenic climate change.

So, here is a man who has every reason to deny the reality of climate change (he did once, before becoming PM, say «climate change is crap», but has accepted climate change science since becoming PM).

Rep. Bob Inglis, a six - term Republican Congressman from South Carolina and member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, lost his primary bid for re-election to a Tea Party - backed candidate who accused him of not being conservative enough, at least in part because of his record of accepting reality on climate change.

4 Aug: Crikey: Ellen Sandell: Abbott's European holiday might make him hot and bothered Abbott seems to still be confused about the science of climate change, moving between «climate change is absolute crap» and aligning himself with the climate deniers, and at other times accepting that climate change is a problem, but just not one worth acting efficiently on... All of this will be news to most Europeans, who have long accepted the science of climate change and have been measuring their CO2 emissions in tonnes through the trading scheme, and are benefiting from climate change solutions... Studies predict an increase of up to 6.1 million jobs in 2050, and the EU - wide emissions trading scheme is expected to generate between $ 143 billion and $ 296 billion over the next six years... Maybe on the plane on the way home to Australia, Abbott could use the time to catch up on some reading.

That depth of development, and the way climate science and the GHE has been subject to strong selective pressure in the ecology of scientific hypothesis for over a century and come out on top, makes me see those still rejecting its findings as the conceptual equals of those who refuse to accept the unity of terrestrial biology.

Alarmists accept far more science, it's skeptics by and large who seek to shutdown funding for climate science and deny things like the surface records and the use of climate models.

And there were three witnesses that actually are sort of in the fringe of scientists who do not accept the science of climate change.

It's controversial only in the view of some people outside the field who refuse to accept the results of climate science.

Mr Lord, who does not question the science of climate change, said the papers were pulled by the department at the last minute, after they had been accepted and peer - reviewed.

What he really wants is to jail those who don't accept his interpretation of climate science.

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.

Mr Abbott, who once described the «so - called settled science» of climate change as «crap», now accepts that human actions contribute to global warming.

Are you saying that the very large majority of climate scientists who accept AGW are promoting «misinformation» rather than actual science?

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer - reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic.

To describe those who don't accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man - made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science.

«Ninety - seven percent of scientists, including by the way some who originally disputed the data, have now acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it,» Obama said today, citing a recent study that confirmed — once again — that the vast majority of climatologists accept climate science.

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».

What did surprise me were criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change.

If science knowledge and quantitative skills increase trust in climate scientists, we might expect this effect to be greater for liberals — who tend to be more accepting of climate science than conservatives.

But the article and its author also became the object of extraordinarily vitriolic attacks from climate commentators who refuse to accept any evidence that may unsettle their view of the science.

The Hypocritical Majority I expect that this group accounts for 80 - 90 % of Coalition MP's who have to say that they accept the science of climate change (when most of them don't) and that that are committed to action on climate change (when they're not) As Paul Gilding points out in his article, everyone knows that the Coalition is resisting action on climate change, but unlike America (where climate denial is a badge of honour for conservatives) in Australia they need to take a more subtle line.

I asked Anthony Watts, the meteorologist who runs what may be the most popular climate - skeptic blog, Watts Up With That, what could lead him to accept climate science.

Fortunately there are an increasing number of people who are no longer going to accept that there is anything special about climate science.

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.

Oddly enough, «denier» on a climate science site normally refers to someone who denies the accepted findings of climate science and climate scientists.

You omitted the Type 2 misinformers, who accept the portion of the climate science that fits their pre-determined agenda, but reject the climate science that informs them what targets are necessary to avoid the ultimate climate disaster.

Well, someone who writes that his position on climate science seems to be a choice between fraud and incompetence, I'd say it's more likely 100 % of the people who accept mainstream climate science believe that to be true, and probably at least 25 % of those who accept that pi is approximately 3.14159...

Even those who are, or who claim to be, unpersuaded by climate science, typically accept the now longstanding standard CO2 measurement data.

J Bowers @ 24/6/10 1:23 AM, a slight correction: I suspect that: «I wonder if those who like to gamble with their descendants» lives...» should read «I wonder if those who like to gamble with everyone's descendants» lives...» At some stage, there will come a point when everyone except the deniers accepts that mainstream science was > 90 % right about the climate all along.

It was particularly nice of PNAS to allow the Team to «prearrange» an editor who had been a collaborator with a coauthor within the past 4 years — Cazenave was coauthor with Rahmstorf in Rahmstorf et al (Science 2007), Recent climate observations compared to projections (accepted Jan 25, 2007; published Feb 1, 2007).

Speaking as someone who very much accepts the mainstream science on the climate anomaly and who favours robust ubiquitous mitigation measures and regards nuclear power as a legitimate player in the solution, that's not how I read the role of nuclear power in the advocacy of the agnorati.

I consider myself a climate apostate, meaning someone who used to accept the basic climate science paradigm that ∆ T = lambda ∆ F but now rejects it... in any case, a definition of what you are calling a «skeptic» and what you are calling a «denier» would make your comment understandable to the rest of us.