Sentences with phrase «driven by the climate science»

Driven by the climate science, the international community is increasingly concerned about the need to set a long - term emission reduction strategy so as to me et a target that will prevent dangerous climate change, or at least, as some dangerous climate change appears unavoidable, limiting the damage.

Not exact matches

In his book The World in 2050: Four Forces Shaping Civilization's Northern Future, Laurence Smith, a professor of geography and earth and space sciences at UCLA, argues that we're about to see a productivity and culture boom in the north, driven by climate change, shifting demographics, globalization and the hunt for natural resources.

Meanwhile, the science of climate change is currently being overshadowed by a media - driven public debate, mainly in the U.S..

It marks the world's acceptance that climate change, driven by humans» greenhouse gas emissions, is about as close to a certainty as science can ever get — and that conclusion can not be covered up or waved away.

«Understanding such processes is especially important today since oxygen in the ocean is decreasing, largely due to the warming of ocean waters driven by climate change,» said the study's lead author Andrew Margolin, a postdoctoral researcher at the College of William & Mary's Virginia Institute of Marine Science and an alumnus of the UM Rosenstiel School.

[T] he idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world's leading authority on climate science, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.climate change is strongly rejected by the world's leading authority on climate science, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.climate science, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.»

Despite your insistence otherwise, you evince at best a shallow understanding of basic principles of climate science (hint: while radiative forcing is known to be at least partially controlled by atmospheric CO2, no «natural», i.e. internal source of variability has been demonstrated that could drive a global temperature trend for half a century), as well as an inability to recognize genuine expertise.

In light of the hard - won scientific consensus developed by the IPCC, has the time not yet come to «center» our discussion on what we know of climate change, based upon good science, and talk about what we are going to do in order to address the human - driven predicament in which humanity finds itself in these early years of Century XXI?

There is a lively debate in climate science about how best to compare the importance of these greenhouse gases, and many climatologists deeply immersed in studying human - driven global warming reject the method used by Howarth.

The inaccurate headline and burst of hyperventilating coverage and commentary (with some exceptions, like this new post by Climate Central) have already provided fodder for those whose passion or job is largely aimed at spreading doubt about science pointing to consequential greenhouse - driven warming.

My goal in creating the image (a larger version is here) was to distinguish elements in the science pointing to greenhouse - driven climate change that are clearcut from those surrounded by deep and enduring uncertainty.

However, it does a fine job of revealing how attitudes about climate change are influenced and manipulated within the power structure, of debunking the deniers» tired arguments, and showing that the anti-climate crusade is driven by ideology and oil cash, not science.

Another head of the hydra was a 2009 paper by John McLean, Chris de Freitas and Bob Carter published in JGR in the innoccuously titled «Influence of the Southern Oscillation on Tropospheric Temperature», the authors claimed that el nino drove essentially all variations to global temperature — a distinctly odd claim since almost nothing in climate science has been mroe closely studied than the relationship between el nino and global climate.

And, the IPCC projection is probably too high because it was driven by a collection of climate models which new science indicates produce too much warming given a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

I am suspicious that climate science is ideologically driven by anti-industrial pseudo scientist n'ere - do - wells.

But in climate science, as in all professions, there are a few good individuals, a lot of mediocre ones and a handful of bad ones (either simply incompetent or driven by some other agenda as advocates for a cause).

Neither Gelbspan nor anyone repeating his accusation ever proved the money trail led to an industry directive to lie about global warming science; none of them have proved skeptic climate scientists were instructed to mimic tobacco industry tactics; journalists have demonstrably not offered overall fair balance in to skeptic climate scientists; the «wedge» being driven is one arguably pounded by enviro - activists who push the «skeptics don't deserve fair media balance» talking point; and Gelbspan was not the first one to bring up this talking point.

Daniel Cressey; cross-posted from The Great Beyond Over 250 members of the US National Academy of Sciences have hit back at global warming deniers, warning that attacks on climate science are being mainly driven not by intellectual inquiry but by special interest and dogma.

Many of the people that are called «denier» don't give a toot about climate science; rather they are driven by economics or politics (or even religion).

Why has it been ignored — possibly that the climate science today is blinkered and driven by agenda.

Foreword by Dr, F, James Rutherford American association for the Advancement of Science «Astronomical Cycle: Scientists believe astronomical cycles touch off changes in the ocean - Atmosphere system that drives the world's climate.

A stern lesson from history Wyatt / Curry stadium waves require confirmation from analysis and computation; otherwise they risk being regarded as one more statistics - driven model, of which the climate literature already contains innumerably many... this large corpus of cycle - seeking pure - statistics climate models is (rightly) ignored by most scientists, due to the dismal track record of cycle - seeking science in regard to explanatory and predictive power.

Professor Hughes's many papers reporting his results, including those on climate change, were reviewed by independent — and often anonymous — panels of scientists before publication, in the peer - review system that drives modern science.

I'm not mind - blown, but as someone without relevant scientific background, I'm always encouraged by work which might contribute to a better understanding of climate and what drives changes than prevailed when the science first became «settled» perhaps 12 - 15 years ago.

Because of the invidious domination by the politically - driven, I suspect climate science would have been better off without such models, allowing the participants to concentrate on observation, theorising, and testing in the real world.

The UCS report cited several examples of Wall Street Journal or Fox News contributors dismissing climate science, disparaging or mocking climate scientists and cherry - picking scientific evidence to undermine the fact that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring and is driven by human activity.

Based on this empirical climate science, it would be safe to conclude that current climate changes are predominantly driven by natural forces, not human CO2 trace gas emissions.»

Their opinion about climate science seems to be driven by their political opinion, rather than vice versa.

And the problem is exacerbated because to the extent that there is a viable scientific community that presents «skeptical» science about climate change, the lines between that community and the community driven by partisanship, religious doctrine, or corporate interests is very blurry indeed.

I think that climate science, the modern one with it's strong connection to environtalism, is much more affected by this drive than other sciences.

Good science demands we examine how climate changed naturally in the past, not to uncritically dismiss the possibility of CO2 — caused warming, but to understand to what degree present climate change is driven by historical cycles.

It found that in 2005, Exxon distributed nearly $ 3 million to 39 groups which «misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change».

Driven by factors like the Bush administration's censorship of climate science communication, Al Gore's prominent role in promoting awareness of the science of global warming, and frequent Republican deployment of climate change denial and «skepticism» to oppose greenhouse gas regulation, a destructive dichotomy has been created suggesting that valuing the role of science in public policy is a matter of political partisanship.

This 1988 Shell report, discovered by Jelmer Mommers of De Correspondent, shines light on what the company knew about climate science, its own role in driving global CO2 emissions, the range of potential political and social responses to a warming world.

Along with the sheer unpleasantness of the moderators at Real Climate and other alarmist blogs, the Guardian's practice of summarily banning anyone who does not follow exactly the party line as laid down by the Klimatariat has driven more people to become sceptics than any deep study of the science ever has.

By the same logic, I reject arguments based on a notion that the vast majority of the «climate science community» is only tribally driven, let alone that all evidence they produce that supports the contention that it is 90 % likely that more than 50 % of recent anomalous warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is a product of tribalism.

The apparent bi-partisan consensus is not driven by a widespread apprehension of climate danger (latent or otherwise), but in large part by a common lack of faith in climate science and in lesser part by the question design, which can't distinguish between the two possible main motivations for affirmative responses as mentioned above (mainly within the Dem / Libs).

Canada» s climate change science program is being driven by a predetermined political agenda with a clear disregard of scientific needs.

Then there is retiree and former scientist (among other things) Oliver Manuel, who believes that climate science is the result of «secret, fear - driven agreements by the winners of the Second World War in 1945.»

In fact, the WGI report is built upon a process which, as revealed by the Climategate emails, is, by its very nature, designed not to produce an accurate view of the state of climate science, but instead to be an «assessment» of the state of climate science — an assessment largely driven by preconceived ideas of the IPCC design team and promulgated by various elite chapter authors.

Ben: I suspect that the main problem in Climate Science is that most of the debate is driven by statisticians rather than engineers.

Professor Mann is currently under investigation by Penn State University because of activities related to a closed circle of climate scientists who appear to have been engaged in agenda - driven science.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effortto provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.

London, 21 February: A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) shows that both the science and policy of the climate debate are shaped and driven by an almost flawless example of classical Groupthink.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.

When someone says that climate science shows that the latest cold air outbreak was partly driven by climate change, people need to know what's wrong with that statement.

You can assume bad faith and conspiracy theories and drive yourself nuts (if you aren't already there), or you can assume that a conspiracy as vast as the one that would be needed to cook the climate science books would have overtly manifested itself by now.

In climate science, we could add that if we had data from well designed measurements in the past, we would also use them, but, unfortunately it is only is the past few decades that a few such measurements are available, driven in major part by improved theoretical models and advances in instrumentation.

This is the same data set used by much of the climate science cabal, agenda - driven politicians and the alarmist mainstream media to claim the «Hottest Year Ever» meme.

We've swapped a centrally organized government effort to distort climate science for a kind of grassroots, guerilla war against it, driven by blogs and skeptic scientist amateurs who nourish a powerful sense of self - motivation, a generous helping of anger and outrage, and seem to smell blood in the water.