Sentences with phrase «actual science of climate change»

I suggest you start reading about the actual science of climate change.

As I've reminded Mr. Roger, this discussion is not about me, but about the actual science of climate change.

Not exact matches

the fossil fuel industry's climate change denialist propaganda disguised as «science education», and to support actual science (not to mention the survival of the human species) by accepting Laurie David's offer to distribute the DVDs.

In fairness, our science has little ground proofing of theory on climate change because this is our first time having actual field observations.

Sure, the political aspects of climate change are legitimately important in all this and may override that actual science.

Here's a story we all now know well: A small number of groups backed by the fossil fuel industry have for decades shed doubt on the science of climate change, even as the actual scientific community consensus on the issue — that greenhouse gas pollution posed a significant threat to our climate — remained strong and continued to grow stronger.

For example, the summary of the 2011 GAO report states: «OMB reports funding in four categories: technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes.»

Yet, participants in the climate change disinformation machine often speak as if it is inappropriate to talk about duties to reduce greenhouse gases until science is capable of proving with high levels of certainty what actual damages will be.

I believe it (including water vapor clouds) is the the 800 pound gorilla in the room that AGW climate science can't understand because AGW climate science focuses on unvalidated model results and not enough on the actual physics of natural processes involved in the complex climate change process.

Similarly deceptive is an upcoming junk study from a Koch - funded think tank that has taken on the format and appearance of a truly scientific report from the US Government, but is loaded with lies and misrepresentation of actual climate change science.

Thus, John Cook's reasonably even handed and often understated site, skeptical science, which gives example after example after example — based upon the actual science, and vetted science papers — of the multiple fundamental myths that drive the great bulk (if not to some extent, ALL) climate change naysaying, is thus dismissed (and Cook himself — see some of the other anti climate change sites, for instance — repeatedly denigrated).

How to attack the actual deceit and real science denial of the knowing fraud of climate change based renewable energy extortion, in such a way that the law has to consider the facts of the actual fraud, not the unprovable asssertions on the role of CO2 in climate change or the reputaions of the academic PR men for the rackets that justify them, and detach the debate from the climate to focus on the facts of what is done in its name that can only make energy supply expensively worse in fact, FOR PROFIT.

The primary goal of the EdGCM (Educational Global Climate Model) Project is to enhance the quality of climate - change science teaching and learning at the high school level through broader access to actual GCMs, and to assist teachers by providing the appropriate technology, materials and support to use these research - quality climate models effectively in the claClimate Model) Project is to enhance the quality of climate - change science teaching and learning at the high school level through broader access to actual GCMs, and to assist teachers by providing the appropriate technology, materials and support to use these research - quality climate models effectively in the claclimate - change science teaching and learning at the high school level through broader access to actual GCMs, and to assist teachers by providing the appropriate technology, materials and support to use these research - quality climate models effectively in the claclimate models effectively in the classroom.

«It would seem that Richard Muller has served as a useful foil for the Koch Brothers, allowing them to claim they have funded a real scientist looking into the basic science, while that scientist — Muller — props himself up by using the «Berkeley» imprimatur (U.C. Berkeley has not in any way sanctioned this effort) and appearing to accept the basic science, and goes out on the talk circuit, writing Op - Eds, etc. systematically downplaying the actual state of the science, dismissing key climate - change impacts and denying the degree of risk that climate change actually represents.

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.

And that's illustrated if you compare how «science - based» and «science - denier» blogs discuss right about any climate - related topic, from actual atmospheric temperature development to its physical manifestations, like sea level rise (see the chart in the middle of this piece) and social and ecological consequences of climate change — including at some point the fate of iconic mammal species that use sea ice as hunting grounds.

We'll present a couple illustrations before we'll get to the actual publication we hope to discuss — one that compares methodology of science - based and «science - denying» climate websites but that also touches on a subject we personally find far more interesting: what's actually going on in the Arctic, an area that is not only experiencing major physical consequences of climate change, but that is subsequently also set to be a stage for a cascade of ecological consequences of this climate change — both in the Arctic tundra biome and in the adjacent Arctic marine ecosystem.

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.»

An example of this in the climate change war is the use of temperature which is a poor metric for the actual science which requires enthalpy; or such a claim automatically has assumptions, stated or not, that can be challenged.

Gadget Guy: -LSB-...] And none of the problems have been with the actual science that underlies climate change (which is what the Working Group 1 Report is all about).

Conclusion # 3: Since Conclusions # 1 and # 2 are derived from the actual empirical science evidence, policymakers at the national, state, and local levels have no rational basis to make large expenditures and impose unnecessary regulations in an attempt to stop what has now become a fact-less, irrational, anti-science belief of human - caused catastrophic global warming and climate change «tipping points.»

Perhaps you should, you just might learn something about the actual science of greenhouse gasses and climate change.

So its going to turn into an area where any true discussion based on the science of the specific aspect — ice free Artic, sea level rise (when, where and how much)-- will be missing and any chance of actual education will be gone if the standard «opponents» get used in the discussions and they stick to their standard behaviors when discussing anything to do with climate change.