Join the DÉLO club and be the first to know.

Scientific Agreement

Posted on

represents the state of climate science, supported by the world`s leading scientific academies and by the vast majority of scientific researchers and researchers, as documented by the scientific literature evaluated by experts. [87] Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists issued a revised statement,[29] no national or international scientific group has rejected the results of human effects on climate change. [28] [30] The PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Poland`s participation in this important undertaking. [59] The theory of evolution by natural selection is also supported by overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science. [23] [24] Opponents of evolution argue that there are significant differences in development within the scientific community. [25] The ratchet strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended heavily on seeding and was built on the public`s perception of the lack of consensus on evolution. [26] William K. Stevens, a retired New York Times journalist, said: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that the probability is 90-99% that thermal greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon dioxide, fuelled by exhaust pipes and fumes, are the main causes of the warming observed over the past 50 years. In the language of the panel, this security is described as “very likely.” It is rare that there is a clearer answer, at least in this scientific sector, and it describes the end point of progress. [42] But in that sense, when we talk about the regulation of science, we are talking not about the “scientific consensus” as a final answer, but about the starting point on which everyone agrees. Future research is generally not based on an attempt to find alternatives that work better (although we are always open to them), but on how to refine and better understand what is going on.

Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position and opinion of the scientific community in a given field of study. Consensus implies general approval, but not necessarily unanimity. [1] These results therefore indicate that disclosure of the facts does not necessarily lead to a polarization of the problem. Although people with a higher level of education may participate in more motivated reasoning, this effect can be more than offset by accurate information on the status of the scientific agreement. In addition, it is easier for people to correct people`s perception of the norm than to try to change deeply held beliefs on contentious issues, as social norms help to establish standards that allow people to assess the adequacy of their beliefs and behaviours. It is important that scientists are seen as an impartial group.8 In other words, correcting men`s perception of the scientific norm can help to depolarize ideological visions of the world and neutralize reasoned cognition. In short, we caution against the conclusion that the transmission of facts on the issues is necessarily “polarizing.” Human activity changes the Earth`s climate. Globally, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other thermally viable greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. The burning of fossil fuels dominates this increase. The increase in man-made greenhouse gases is responsible for most of the observed global surface warming, which has amounted to about 0.8oC over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (including carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, current and future emissions have affected the climate system for millennia.