Sentences with phrase «about uncertainties in climate science»

It's interesting that you and others here have gone the ad hominem route simply because I call for transparency and honesty about uncertainties in climate science.

Sashka's main goal seems to be convincing us about the uncertainty in climate science, then to use this uncertainty to argue against regulatory action.

In my Uncertainty Monster paper, I made scientific and pragmatic arguments for understanding, assessing and reasoning about uncertainty in climate science.

Not exact matches

Having taken us to task for somehow not properly handling the uncertainties in climate science — an error we did not commit, as I document above — he then proceeds to offer a horrifically misleading summary of what the IPCC actually found about the achievability and cost of meeting the 2 degree goal.

Drs Leonard Smith and Nicholas Stern wrote poignantly about how policy is nearly always set in the context of uncertainty, and that even incomplete scientific assessments can be of great value («Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy», http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2011/460/presentations/uncertainty, and that even incomplete scientific assessments can be of great value («Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy», http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2011/460/presentations/Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy», http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2011/460/presentations/Smith.pdf).

I've written in the past about other issues related to setting a numerical limit for climate dangers given both the enduring uncertainty around the most important climate change questions and the big body of science pointing to a gradient of risks rising with temperature.

Koenig's careful description of the science and the uncertainty about what the future holds prompted a public spanking from the Center for American Progress climate blogger Joe Romm, who charged her with «scientific reticence» — alluding to NASA scientist James Hansen's paper criticizing sea - level researchers for being overly cautious in 2007 conclusions about the possible rate of sea rise in this century.

It's interesting to note that the chatter about this technology has extended even to Wattsupwiththat, the aggregator of all things doubtful in climate science (where there'll always be sufficient farearound the edges to feed those seeking comfort in uncertainty).

Steven E. Koonin, once the Obama administration's undersecretary of energy for science and chief scientist at BP, stirred up a swirl of turbulence in global warming discourse this week after The Wall Street Journal published «Climate Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much ascience and chief scientist at BP, stirred up a swirl of turbulence in global warming discourse this week after The Wall Street Journal published «Climate Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much aClimate Science is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much aScience is Not Settled,» his essay calling for more frankness about areas of deep uncertainty in climate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much aclimate science, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much ascience, more research to narrow error ranges and more acknowledgement that society's decisions on energy and climate policy are based on values as much aclimate policy are based on values as much as data.

Professor Curry has led debate in the science community about the process of reviewing climate change, including giving testimony before the US house subcommittee on environment this year, remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.

As Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University said a couple of months after your proclamation about the up - coming ice - age QUOTE: There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don't know anything much useful about processes or drivers» (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

In a new filing to the IRS — adding to an active investigation prompted by a 2012 complaint that ALEC is operating as a corporate lobbying group while registered as a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit charity — the watchdog organizations detail for the first time how Exxon has used ALEC as a key asset in its explicit campaign to sow uncertainty about climate science, undermine international climate treaties and block legislation to reduce emissionIn a new filing to the IRS — adding to an active investigation prompted by a 2012 complaint that ALEC is operating as a corporate lobbying group while registered as a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit charity — the watchdog organizations detail for the first time how Exxon has used ALEC as a key asset in its explicit campaign to sow uncertainty about climate science, undermine international climate treaties and block legislation to reduce emissionin its explicit campaign to sow uncertainty about climate science, undermine international climate treaties and block legislation to reduce emissions.

There are many uncertainties as to when the glaciers will be entirely gone > Jimbo's link (his 4th) on the Science news story, which is identical to the recent tempest in a teapot about the Himalayan glaciers > At a time when governments are baulking at taking tough measures to combat climate change, this new blow to the credibility of the IPCC could not have come at a worse time.»

By way of further explanation... Warren's paper seems to suggest that a significant % of the public formulate their views about climate change based on what climate scientists do or don't say about uncertainties in the science.

In the first one, Dr Andrea Taylor, from the University of Leeds (UK), talked about «Communicating uncertainty in climate information: insights from the behavioural sciences»In the first one, Dr Andrea Taylor, from the University of Leeds (UK), talked about «Communicating uncertainty in climate information: insights from the behavioural sciences»in climate information: insights from the behavioural sciences».

I am talking about a consensus of multiple lines of evidence (empirical evidence in addition to modeling, logic etc.) When there is a large degree of uncertainty, as there is in climate science, a consensus of evidence is most definitely very important.

If journalists wrote more stories about where uncertainty exists in the science, and if they were more aggressive about challenging scientists on transparency issues, we wouldn't have these pseudo-scandals erupt every time a climate scientist missteps.

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiClimate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiScience about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiclimate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiscience deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiclimate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

While climate science can effectively inform us about the range of possible consequences of a warming world, there is a large amount of irresolvable uncertainty inherent in climate forecasting.

... Exxon in particular has paid researchers and front groups to create uncertainties about basic climate change science and used denialist groups to attack well - respected scientists...

First, while it is important to understand the remaining uncertainties in climate science, it is critical to also realize how much we do understand about the climate.

Given that much of the science backing the consensus view is not in contention, and given that as we saw in the last entry in this series that there is an ethical need to be very careful in talking about the uncertainties associated with climate science, a PR firm led strategy that emphasizes uncertainty without regard to how much of the science is settled is extraordinarily unethical.

Some of the arguments against climate change policies based upon scientific uncertainty should and can be responded to on scientific grounds especially in light of the fact that many claims about scientific uncertainty about human - induced warming are great distortions of mainstream climate change science.

See in particular «Exxon Sowed Doubt About Climate Science for Decades by Stressing Uncertainty,» by David Hasemyer and John H. Cushman Jr., Inside Climate News, October 22, 2015.

The findings have generated vigorous international debate about an issue that remains a key area of uncertainty in climate science.

... In a recently published book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, the technically qualified authors (scientists all) point to four reasons: a conflict among scientists in different disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the UN's IPCC to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.&raquIn a recently published book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, the technically qualified authors (scientists all) point to four reasons: a conflict among scientists in different disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the UN's IPCC to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.&raquin different disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the UN's IPCC to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.»

Some of the gaps in Chapter 3 on ethical issues raised by climate change policy - making include: (1) ethics of decision - making in the face of scientific uncertainty, (2) whether action or non-action of other nations affects a nation's responsibility for climate change, (3) how to spend limited funds on climate change adaptation, (4) when politicians may rely on their own uninformed opinion about climate change science, and (5) who is responsible to for climate refugees and what are their responsibilities.

Second, other scientific uncertainty arguments are premised on cherry picking climate change science, that is focusing on what is unknown about climate change while ignoring numerous conclusions of the scientific community that are not in serious dispute.

Further, the corporate - funded campaign to play up uncertainties in climate science, carried out through industry associations like the American Petroleum Institute and front groups like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, has done its part to sow public confusion about the level of consensus in climate science.

But Mann argues that the paper adds to growing concerns about the «uncertainty» in climate change science being more bad than good for humanity: «We should be taking into account worst - case scenarios when we attempt to gauge the risks posed by climate change.»

«He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly - disputed issues.»

Whereas he was saying that the public are too vulnerable to be exposed to discussions about uncertainty in scientific debates with implications for policy, the Guardian journalist — as is Guardian journalists» want — read it as a message that there was no uncertainty or controversy in climate science.

After having read the many comments here, I see that the discussion is «getting wrapped around the axle» on the definition of a «black swan», rather than staying on the main topic of how uncertainties and potential major outliers in our knowledge of climate science should affect our conclusions of what is likely to be the human impact on climate and what should be done about it.

Among other things, the authors state that [1] «scientists do not know how large the greenhouse effect is, whether it will lead to a harmful amount of global warming, or (if it will) what should be done about it» (p. 560); [2] that «profound disagreements» about global warming exist within the scientific community (p. 560); [3] that so - called «activist scientists» say that the earth's climate is warming (p. 560); [4] that «science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect Is, if it exists at all» (p. 569); [5] and that global warming is «enmeshed in scientific uncertainty» (p. 573).

In Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy, Lenny Smith and the Blair Government's climate economist, Nicholas Stern attempt to give this form of politics some justification in the face of questions about «uncertainty»In Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy, Lenny Smith and the Blair Government's climate economist, Nicholas Stern attempt to give this form of politics some justification in the face of questions about «uncertaiUncertainty in science and its role in climate policy, Lenny Smith and the Blair Government's climate economist, Nicholas Stern attempt to give this form of politics some justification in the face of questions about «uncertainty»in science and its role in climate policy, Lenny Smith and the Blair Government's climate economist, Nicholas Stern attempt to give this form of politics some justification in the face of questions about «uncertainty»in climate policy, Lenny Smith and the Blair Government's climate economist, Nicholas Stern attempt to give this form of politics some justification in the face of questions about «uncertainty»in the face of questions about «uncertaintyuncertainty».

«The uncertainties of the climate models have not been studied sufficiently at all, and the established science tries to keep quiet about this situation in public.»

A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled «Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: how ExxonMobil uses big tobacco to manufacture uncertainty on climate science,» found that in the preceding years, Patrick Michaels had been connected to at least 11 think - tanks and groups that had received money from ExxonMobil, many of which had gone on to sow doubt about human - induced global warming.

The problem is that Professor Wensch is unhappy with being quoted in a manner that gives weight to his proper and appropriate concern about the uncertainty of global climate «science» and the high potential for bias.

In the run - up to the Paris talks that began Nov. 30, Exxon has been under heavy assault by environmentalists and politicians who say it misled the public by promoting uncertainties about climate science.

It's weaknesses in expressing uncertainties about climate science (covered by WG1) are a problem, but they do not invalidate the scientific knowledge.

As Dr. Curry has said, climate science is in its infancy, and uncertainties about such things as this are not as well understood as are say the steam tables.