Not exact matches
However, even if the hacked emails from HADCRU end up to be much ado about nothing in the context of any
actual misfeasance that impacts the
climate data records, the damage to the
public credibility of
climate research is likely to be significant.
Predictable and consistent behavior Prefers human company, especially children Relatively «directable» without training Affectionate Able to be banged around, by kids and clumsy humans Comfortable indoors, and in the
climates you live in and take vacations Doesn't require a lot of exercise Calm in the home; not hyperactive Medium high food drive; medium high prey drive (for fetching) Able to take, and learn from, a correction Low initiative Low fearfulness Submissive Low other - dog aggression Quiet; not highly reactive to bark at sights and sounds around the home or in
public Image of a guard dog without the
actual follow through (if you are into that kind of thing) Easily Housetrained (some breeds are easier than others)
The
public relations efforts of developed nations on
climate change are always more effective than ours, but it is more important to look at their
actual actions.
Much has been made this week of the gap between what the
public thinks about the consensus among
climate scientists over the human factor in global warming and the
actual level of consensus.
Although the mainstream press is not the least interested in the
actual scientific merits of any
climate issue, they are certainly quick to push on the
public the unsubstantiated disaster hyperbole that is fabricated by needy
climate scientists.
But there remains a gap — independent of politics — between how much the
public thinks scientists agree on the fundamentals of
climate change and what the
actual level of agreement is.
Purposes of the messages will be to challenge the alarmist position on atmospheric warming, educate the
public on
actual climate behaviour and force supporters the likes of Al Gore into an open debate.
NB: I would also want the
actual forecast changes by 2100 to be incuded in every
public climate change statement, so the
public can see how catastrophioc they middle range predictionsare, versus other global problems, or spending the money on defences rather than subsidising what makes things worse by law, etc..
But the gap between
public warnings and
actual events produced an endless stream of
climate irony.
The vast majority of the
public knows a lot less about
climate sensitivity, the link between hurricanes and CO2 or analogues with past
climates than either you or I do, but the link between these issues and
actual policy is quite convoluted.
Particularly, repeated exposure to simple messages that correctly state the
actual scientific consensus on human - caused
climate change is a strategy likely to help counter the concerted efforts to misinform the
public.
Third, the fact that Suzuki does not have even possess a sliver of
actual, real world
climate science reveals a complete utter contempt for the
public and taxpayers.
«Why We Need More CO2 Emissions, Not Less How the
Climate Alarmists Attempt to Mislead the
Public and Dupe the Gullible: An
Actual Example»
Daubert challenges... will hopefully focus the courtroom debate on the
actual scientific issues of
climate change, as opposed to the smoke - and - mirrors evidence and conclusions that have so often prevailed in the
public debate.
Despite the embarrassment of the Climategate data fraud and conspiracy scandal, it has not stopped the politically motivated and financially hungry at Copenhagen from making every effort to lie and mislead the
public about the
actual global
climate condition.
Presenting such alternative figures confuses and undermines the
public understanding of the
actual science, which is an understanding about the driving mechanisms of sea level rise: thermal expansion of ocean water, melting of mountain glaciers and complex dynamics of large ice sheets — in correspondence again with projected temperature rise, that is in turn a product of projected rises of greenhouse gas concentrations using calculated estimates of
climate sensitivity, together creating a net disturbance in Earth's energy balance, the very root cause of anthropogenic
climate change.
Of course if the
actual recorded at the time temperature data was released as a full data base with official blessing it would probably only be a matter of quite as short time before it would be decided by the
climate interested
public and politicals that all that morphed out of reality, adjusted data those scientists were playing with on their play stations wasn't really needed as it bore no resemblance to reality nor had any sort of any perceptible impact or effect on society and their funding should and would consequently cease.
As the Environmental Protection Agency nears a final ruling that manmade global warming endangers the
public health and welfare, «the chamber will tell the EPA in a filing today that a trial - style
public hearing» on the science of
climate change is needed to «make a fully informed, transparent decision with scientific integrity based on the
actual record of the science.»
As the
public has become weary of all wild predictions of catastrophe due to global warming and
climate change, another speculative claim falls victim to
actual data and peer - reviewed research.
I can't comment for
public's
actual perception of the range of forcings affecting
climate.
He thinks
Climate Gate was an actual scandal: «These e-mails from leading climatologists make clear efforts to use statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.
Climate Gate was an
actual scandal: «These e-mails from leading climatologists make clear efforts to use statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the
public on the issue of
climate change.
climate change.»
Reblogged this on
Climate Collections and commented: Executive Summary: This paper illuminates a bias introduced in the public debate on climate change, and I [JC] suspect that this bias feeds back into biasing the actual scientific research of many of those scientists most active in interacting with the
Climate Collections and commented: Executive Summary: This paper illuminates a bias introduced in the
public debate on
climate change, and I [JC] suspect that this bias feeds back into biasing the actual scientific research of many of those scientists most active in interacting with the
climate change, and I [JC] suspect that this bias feeds back into biasing the
actual scientific research of many of those scientists most active in interacting with the media.
This paper illuminates a bias introduced in the
public debate on
climate change, and I suspect that this bias feeds back into biasing the
actual scientific research of many of those scientists most active in interacting with the media.
There continues to be a huge gap between
public perception of consensus and the
actual 97 % consensus among
climate scientists (although new data indicates the consensus gap is closing).