Sentences with phrase «know about climate change science»

(Take the quiz: «What You Don't Know About Climate Change Science.»)

(See related «Quiz: What You Don't Know About Climate Change Science.»)

Not exact matches

Republicans on a congressional science committee are asking state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to fork over a number of records related to his probe of climate change and what Exxon Mobil may have known about its effects on the environment.

Climate Change — Want to know more about climate change — the science, impacts and political Climate Change — Want to know more about climate change — the science, impacts and political dChange — Want to know more about climate change — the science, impacts and political climate change — the science, impacts and political dchange — the science, impacts and political debate?

Climate Change — Want to know more about global warming — the science, impacts and political debate?

They say that these debates about climate change and teaching evolution in schools, you know, really comes down, it really blurs the lines; it confuses the public about the kind of the boundaries between science and ideology.

(d) He said the fourth system change concerns the way we organize ourselves as humans, urging us to make sure our organizational principles align with what we know about the planet (he admitted he fully accepts the climate change science).

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?

After 30 years of learning (and unlearning) about climate change science and policy, as many know, I've tended to give extra weight to the argument for greatly intensified research pressed by Gates, and before him Richard Smalley, John Holdren, Martin Hoffert and Ken Caldeira, the Deep Decarbonization team, the Breakthrough Institute and many others.

The thing that constantly amazes me about Americans and climate change is the assumption of so many non-climate scientists that they know the science better than the experts... that there is some obvious thing none of the professionals have even thought of.

I don't claim to know anything about social or psychological sciences to elaborate, but this might just be a consequence of the fact that climate change operates on timescales much larger than a political term or the time it takes to schedule your son's soccer practice.

I read this website to become more acquainted with the science of climate change (I'm also attending Prof. Archer's Coursera class on climate change right now), and because this website seems trustworthy to me as someone who doesn't know enough about climate science to decide for myself who's right or wrong about this subject.

Most climate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEchange communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHKnow campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEChange Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEChange Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHknow the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEchange and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHING!

So, questions will be around what interventions and policies are justified by what the current science already says — not just what it doesn't yet specifically know — about risks and implications of climate change.

Those dismissive comments sounded laughable to folks who read Skeptical Science and know the scientific understanding about climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.Climate Change, for instance, has sometimes made conclusions based upon the «balance of the evidence» The ideological climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.climate skeptics, (to be distinguished from reasonable skepticism) often publicizes what is not known about these issues and ignores what is known and at the same time has accused those who have identified plausible but unproven risks as doing «bad science.»

People more concerned about the issue of climate change also tend to know more about science, generally.15

Given that there is still much we do not know about climate change — including why mean global temperature has been flat for the past ten years — undermining confidence in climate science can (further) undermine its ability to inform policy.

My previous column looked at some of the current science, showing what is and is not known about people moving due to climate change.

For example, people who know more about science also tend to perceive strong consensus among climate scientists that human activity is responsible for climate change.

It's a common refrain: If people only knew more about the science, there wouldn't be so much polarization on the issue of climate change.

The cities say that the oil companies have known about the risks of anthropogenic climate change, but that rather than disclose what they know, the companies engaged in a decades - long campaign to deceive the public that the science is uncertain.

Not everyone who needs to know about climate change is a scientist (ie, facile in Latin) so science language needs to be accurate, sans forays into the esoteric.

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

Of all the politicians in yesterday's hearing who are known climate change deniers, West Virginia Rep. David McKinley gets the tin foil hat award for his completely false assertions about climate change science.

As someone who speaks out against those who deny climate change — again and again and again and again — I knew exactly what Marshall Shepherd, the 2013 president of the American Meteorological Society, meant the moment he talked about having to slay the «zombie theories of climate science.»

Even our hostess (who knows a lot about «the science») concedes that it is «complicated» and that there is great «uncertainty» regarding attribution of climate change (and, hence, all the projections for the future).

«No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral benefits... Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.»

«ExxonMobil, the world's largest and most powerful oil company, knew everything there was to know about climate change by the mid-1980s, and then spent the next few decades systematically funding climate denial and lying about the state of the science.»

The Soon investigation, then, may have been a lost opportunity for some great science journalism, and a chance to rehash what the science community knows (and doesn't) about climate change.

One of the most interesting things about the climate debate is that in one place it involves people arguing about point A (in this case sensitivity), by assuming that B is well known (in this case temperature change), while not far away people are hotly debating B. Most of AGW science, including F&G, is based on assuming that the surface statistical model means are facts.

According to Friends of Science, there are six things everyone should know about climate change: [5]

... and kind of started a long conversation about that organized effort that I had discovered in my atmospheric science history research... 2:40 point:... then, probably 2006... she discovered the same folks who had been involved in kind of organizing climate change denial in the Unites States had also been involved in the tobacco lobby... and then we knew we had a story to tell.

Obama talked about clean energy, then started to back into global warming and climate science («I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change....»)

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: «No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.»

Alan Carlin knows more about climate change science than most of the people on the EPA work group that wrote the endangerment proposal.

In addition to concealing the known risks, Exxon and Suncor... directed, participated in, and benefited from efforts to misleadingly cast doubt about the causes and consequences of climate change, including: (1) making affirmative and misleading statements suggesting that continued and unabated fossil fuel use was safe (in spite of internal knowledge to the contrary); and (2) attacking climate science and scientists that tried to report truthfully about the dangers of climate change.

The book, How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming (Dawn Publications, 2008), written with photojournalist Gary Braasch, was finished during Cherry's tenure as the 2006 artist - in - residence at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and features many examples of young people and others involved in citizen science projects at Cornell and elsewhere.

The video was shown on a (little watched) cable channel in Australia, and the host was a well known moderate conservative commentator in Australia who has often expressed skepticism about climate change science.

Written with the assistance of top scientists in the field, How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate goes into depth on climate sClimate goes into depth on climate sclimate science.

How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate presents clear science and outstanding photos of the evidence gathered by leading scientists all over the world.

How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming is a nonfiction science book for young people about a hot - button iAbout Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming is a nonfiction science book for young people about a hot - button iabout a hot - button issue.

Asked about whether Peabody would question the science of climate change, Palmer said «I'm no there to talk about the science.

He found welcome political ground in Ontario exemplified by Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart who said, «No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral benefits... Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.»

In a May 10, 2016, article, Almost Everything You Know About Climate Change Solutions Is Outdated, Part 1, Joe Romm says climate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degClimate Change Solutions Is Outdated, Part 1, Joe Romm says climate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degclimate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degclimate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degrees C.

No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits... Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

The paragraph in Science about the effect of climate change on ecosystems did not state that we do not know if there will be effects on the ecosystem.

Your opinion about the science of climate change is no different than any amatuer and I would not give you any more weight than any other non-expert.

That paper, which I posted yesterday, presents data showing that «conservative Republicans» know just as much as «liberal Democrats» about climate science (a very modest amount) and more importantly are just as likely to be motivated to see scientific evidence of climate change as supporting the conclusion that we face huge risks.

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.