Sentences with phrase «yet as a climate scientist»

Yet as a climate scientist and a climate policy scholar, I know market forces and current policies are far from adequate to limit the rise in global temperatures, as envisioned in the Paris Agreement.

Yet as a climate scientist and a climate policy scholar, I know market

Not exact matches

Climate change is yet another science - based global challenge requiring the best efforts of scientists worldwide — a point that ExxonMobil seemed to acknowledge in a statement that described the historic Paris climate agreement as «an important step forward.Climate change is yet another science - based global challenge requiring the best efforts of scientists worldwide — a point that ExxonMobil seemed to acknowledge in a statement that described the historic Paris climate agreement as «an important step forward.climate agreement as «an important step forward.»

«Of course not — and yet scientists have the same level of certainty about human - caused climate change as they do that cigarettes harm your health.»

Others called Gleick a hero for his deception, noting that no one has yet come forward to acknowledge a role in the 2009 theft of climate scientist emails in an incident now widely referred to as «Climategate.»

The Climate Scientists know rainfall is going to change and can even make some decent guesses on those changes — but they are far from certain as yet.

Since we have no data from the future, most climate scientists will speak only of what the GCMs say, yet as humans we have learned from the Arctic that melting does not wait on models.

As you point out other studies agree with the MBH study so I would have thought what amounts to a sudden global climate shift would be of major interest to climate scientists everywhere yet one sees relatively little written about it.

Scientists who study the warming seas and complicated climate and ice trends around Antarctica got a big jolt in recent days as yet another great fringing, floating ice shelf jutting from the Antarctic Peninsula began to disintegrate.

Of course, that's only one datum, but as a next step, you could get another climate scientist of stature to send a query — and then, if need be, another, and then yet another.

Yet because of the political climate, especially in the US, many scientists feel obligated to respond, which results in, as you mention, a great deal of wasted effort that could better be spent elsewhere.

Yet, as of 4:23 AM EDT Monday June 14, this is what's available on Brian's page about «Climate Scientists still besieged».

Yet journalists continued to report updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry - funded climate change denier - as if both were equally valid.

The new report — the first of three comprehensive studies to come out this year — makes one of the strongest claims yet in support of the hypothesis that human activity, namely the relentless pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is what's behind climate change — an effect climate scientists refer to as anthropogenic global warming.

As a professional auditor, I remain puzzled how company directors can face prosecution for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct by knowingly releasing reports to the market place that are seriously flawed if not fraudulent... yet the climate change charlatans (the IPCC and its assisting cabal of snake - oil salesmen scientists) can issue reports of greater consequence to the world, which are knowingly biased and flawed, and contain blatant errors and anomalies, but they still remain «untouchables»!

For instance, extreme weather events occurred with about the same frequency during the 1945 - 77 global cooling period as they do today, yet no climate scientist pointed to human activity as being responsible in the earlier period.

Yet in the global warming issue, we see instances where a major organization promoted the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a Nobel laureate when he is not, and another organization similarly promoting a prominent IPCC scientist as a Nobel laureate when he is not, and the long - term promotion of book author Ross Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner when he is not, a problem first revealed long ago by Steve Milloy and expanded upon at this blog.

It strikes me as curious in the extreme that somebody — even someone with a climate scientists disdain for uncertainty — would not qualify this comment in terms like «the earliest comment we've yet discovered».

As you read them, thousands of politicians, regulators, scientists, and activists are gathered for yet another «climate conference,» this time in Marrakech, Morocco.

I use the word «authority» loosely here in the case of Hertsgaard, as he, like the UCS, is really nothing more than yet another person enslaved to the accusation against skeptic climate scientists most famously first seen in Ross Gelbspan's 1997 book.

* (For a good reason, too — there are so inordinately few somewhat qualified or learned and somewhat credentialed individuals on this subject who take the manufactured «anti Climate Change theory: view one that should be pursued by nearly every scientist on the planet were it to have merit, as it is a far better end result if true, yet nevertheless is not, but persists in fact due to the enormous ideological, macroeconomically frightened (and myopically presumptive), and «good thing going» industry based pressures, behind it.)

Yet funny how on this issue millions, however, are so brilliant as to be able to fundamentally disagree with the world's leading climate scientists on a complex multi layered probability and time range global dynamic biologic, ecologic, energy problem).

Alas, on further reading, Pope's article is revealed not as a plea for honesty but yet another consensus scientist's attempt to keep the public from hearing any views on climate but her own.

-- Post-1950s stratospheric cooling — Post-1950s mesospheric cooling — Post-1950s thermospheric cooling — Horizontal / regional distribution of warming and the temporal pattern of warming [DOI: 10.1175 / BAMS - D -11-00191.1, pages 1683 and 1684]-- Climate sensitivity estimates, where even the low range estimates would end up with CO2 causing most of the post-1950s warming — Exclusion of other likely causal factors, such as the Sun [ex: solar - induced warming causes warming of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere, yet scientists observed cooling in these layers].

Indeed, the extended hiatus in warming, together with the unprecedented fall in solar activity, has furrowed the brows of not a few scientists, who have not as yet succumbed to the moral vanity of the global warming / climate crisis crowd.

Yet, as the author notes, there is evidence that climate scientists in general and the IPCC in particular tend to be conservative in their estimates.

The world would be hotter than at any time for 15 million years, yet this is now regarded as the most likely future before the end of the century by leading climate scientists.

I'll just take it as yet more proof that many climate scientists, like Overpeck, simply aren't that intelligent or are purposely misleading people.

Yet, when scientists examine the empirical temperature measurement datasets, it becomes readily apparent that changes in CO2 levels are not generating the expected changes in global temperatures, as predicted by the immensely powerful and sophisticated (and incredibly costly) climate models.

Yet, as Festinger would have predicted, instead of falling silent, perhaps even admitting error, the denialists have become more vehement in their attacks on climate scientists, environmentalists and anyone who accepts the evidence for global warming.

As Wallace Broecker (a very famous environmental scientist) once said, «We have clear evidence that different parts of the earth's climate system are linked in very subtle yet dramatic ways.»

Yet we have commenters — most — commenting on it who don't understand this (or don't want ot, or their skepticism is getting in the way of even being able to intelligently entertain the idea) yet who are profession opinions routinely on this site as if they have more knowledge on the subject than the world's leading climate scientists, or are simply better scientists than thYet we have commenters — most — commenting on it who don't understand this (or don't want ot, or their skepticism is getting in the way of even being able to intelligently entertain the idea) yet who are profession opinions routinely on this site as if they have more knowledge on the subject than the world's leading climate scientists, or are simply better scientists than thyet who are profession opinions routinely on this site as if they have more knowledge on the subject than the world's leading climate scientists, or are simply better scientists than them.

This vested interest is so strong, in fact, that it has led many climate «scientists» (Mann, Bradley, Hughes, Esper, Phil Jones, and likely others as yet unknown), to conceal their data and their methods.

Over the last three years, I've had the opportunity to meet with scientists who occupy different positions on the climate spectrum: Some are out - and - out «skeptics»; some broadly agree with the so - called «consensus» but dislike its intolerance; others define themselves as «lukewarmers» or have only relatively modest disagreements with Mann & Co - yet even that can not be tolerated by the Big Climate enfclimate spectrum: Some are out - and - out «skeptics»; some broadly agree with the so - called «consensus» but dislike its intolerance; others define themselves as «lukewarmers» or have only relatively modest disagreements with Mann & Co - yet even that can not be tolerated by the Big Climate enfClimate enforcers.

It's fascinating that, like vultures searching the ground for a carcass, some viewers look at one study (which is as yet unverified by other climate scientists) and claim it puts the final nail in the coffin of AGW.

Of course, Donald Rumsfeld was not specifically referring to climate science back in 2002, yet there can be few other disciplines so riven with uncertainties from top to bottom that are still able to attract voluble proponents enthusiastically promoting the latest findings as incontrovertible facts, to a world largely unable to question the work of scientists.

By Richard Ingham (AFP)-- 3 hours ago PARIS — A leaden cloak of responsibility lies on the shoulders of UN scientists as they put the final touches to the first volume of a massive report that will give the world the most detailed picture yet of climate change.

Scientists have long warned that the world needs to quickly move away from fossil fuels in order to mitigate global climate change, but governments with stakes in the Arctic have yet to heed these calls: instead they have viewed less seasonal ice due climate change as a chance to exploit the region for more fossil fuels.

I had not even paid attention to claims of global warming myself before late 2009 (I don't know if I even heard of it before that), yet within a year I had disproved the «greenhouse effect» being foisted upon the people of the world as «settled science», and shown that climate scientists should have done the same 20 years ago, if any had been competent in their field.

Some as - yet - unidentified climate feedbacks could be at work, the scientists behind the research conclude.

And yet, Adam has again reported the mere opinion of one vociferous climate scientist, as though it automatically had authority — even on matters completely outwith his field of expertise.

«As a scientist, what concerns me the most is not that we have passed yet another round - number threshold but what this continued rise actually means: that we are continuing full speed ahead with an unprecedented experiment with our planet, the only home we have,» Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, said in a statement on the milestone.

This hasn't played out yet, but IMO it is highly likely that the remaining shred of public confidence in IPCC and the «insider» climate scientists will now erode away, as critique of the AR5 report mounts over the next several months.

Cucinelli is a Catholic, yet he attacks climate science and scientists who are recognized by the Vatican as experts in their fields.

More on Climate-Gate Calm Down Over» Climate Gate»: 6 Points for a Level - Headed Discussion» ClimateGate» Scientists Cleared Yet Again, Story Ignored by Media Yet Again And» Climate Gate» Will Henceforth Be Known As...

So Much Evidence, And Yet... But we know all this — likely as you, TreeHugger reader, are likely aware that this has long been the case made by the vast consensus of mainstream scientists and an even vaster majority of climate scientists..

But with one of these solutions at least, seeding the ocean with iron, Australian scientists are urging caution: More Study Needed to Determine Risk Reuters is reporting on an as yet unreleased study by scientists at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center in Hobart, Tasmania:

The subhead, Why scientists find climate change so hard to predict, is even worse as it tars current scientists with the same brush, yet the article doesn't address current prediction challenges in any useful way.

The world would be hotter than at any time for 15 million years, yet this is now regarded by leading climate scientists as the most likely future before the end of the century.

... and the Antarctic ice sheet is growing Creating yet another challenge for global climate change modelers to consider, scientists report that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is not thinning as previously believed, but is instead growing thicker.