Sentences with phrase «all about climate science»

The Paris climate agreement was never about climate science.

The EPA last night sent employees a list of eight approved talking points on climate change from its Office of Public Affairs — guidelines that promote a message of uncertainty about climate science and gloss over proposed cuts to key adaptation programs.

Scientific American executive editor Fred Guterl talks with Pres. Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, about climate science, space travel, the issue of reproducibility in science, the brain initiative and more.

Those who know more about climate science, for example, are slightly more likely to accept that global warming is real and caused by humans than those who know less on the subject.

For Republicans, the more knowledge they have about climate science the less likely they are to accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming (whereas Democrats» confidence goes up).

James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz professor of biological oceanography at Harvard, talks about climate science and testifying before Congress, and the collaborations between climate scientists and the national security community as well as with evangelicals.

The IPCC draft report is the third and final study in a U.N. series about climate change, updating findings from 2007, after the Japan report about the impacts and one in September in Sweden about climate science.

«We're not spending money on that anymore,» Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney recently told reporters about climate science.

«If we think about climate science, they want to know the size and shape of particles floating in the atmosphere,» Berg said.

«We can't run away from this issue,» argued Senator Bernard Sanders (D - VT), who also tried to systematically challenge Inhofe's doubts about climate science.

Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question - and - answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.

There is also considerable public confusion about climate science and possible remedies.

«If you know carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,» Kahan said, «then it's safe to say you don't know much about climate science.»

«Misconceptions about climate science are rife with those who confuse weather with climate... the presence of large El Nià ± o events before 1850 AD does not mean that climate change has no effect.»

To this kind of lie, there is no effective reply other than to put out positive reliable information about climate science.

Because Heartland has spent the last decade pushing mythology about climate science, working to bend the public opinion needle back, attacking Al Gore and legitimate climate scientists including Peter Gleick and Michael Mann.

It would measure progress by counting, among other things, the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing views.

It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy.

This article and the paper says a lot but not a word about climate science or how to improve the world and focus on sustaining life.

How Do Big Oil Companies Talk about Climate Science?

From his questions it seems Judge Alsup has a sincere interest in learning about climate science.

Many stories were written about climate science in 2017, but were the ones that «went viral» scientifically accurate?

I seriously doubt that you know anything more about climate science than I, or understand scientific principles on anything more than an 8th grade level, but you think you can make up for it in sheer bluster and bluff.

It is not about climate science as such, it is about physics.

Skeptical Science has a long series of articles answering common denialist complaints about climate science, complete with lots of references.

The deniosphere have the exact same problem about climate science.

but all that is generally on the margins for a website like real climate that is about climate science, so I just plunk the broader perspective in occasionally in a throw - away line.

Thanks so much to everyone who gave me advice on how to get educated about climate science.

Given that you don't understand this, ever wonder what else you don't understand about climate science?

MR: The «essays» that Victor is promoting have nothing to do with science — and the focus of this thread (as noted in the comments above) is supposed to be about climate science.

The discussion about the climate science is fairly brief, but I think that the book would have been even more convincing by citing more broadly, rather than keeping referring to a handful of central people.

If you don't know much about climate science, or about the details of the controversy over the «hockey stick,» then A. W. Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political power.

But, since such a thing is unlikely, those of us who are speaking up need to not only speak up, but do so in such a manner as to leave no doubt where the lies and damned lies about Climate Science come from and what the results of listening to them might be.

What a great set of resources for those of us who are always being asked about climate science and who are always looking for opportunities to educate people who are interested!!

Don't feed the trolls, ignore the theatrics, let's talk about climate science.

I learned a tremendous amount about climate science in the process.

Perhaps you would care to explain exactly how these alleged «past exaggerations of climate predictions» compelled numerous GOP elected officials to deliberately and repeatedly lie about climate science, while seeking to abuse their positions of authority to defund climate research and attack and destroy the careers of leading climate scientists.

The «essays» that Victor is promoting have nothing to do with science — and the focus of this thread (as noted in the comments above) is supposed to be about climate science.

I have tried to do my best to discuss the «Judgment Day Cancelled» in Danish language from my limited knowledge about climate science.

Chevron attorney now up — «from Chevron's perspective there's no debate about climate science» going to be quoting chapter and verse from IPCC reports.

RC is somewhat of a well of clear factual information about climate science and by nearly inevitable connection to a lesser extent about energy topics.

And before I start hearing again about how stupid my questions are and how little I understand about climate science, this is in fact a concern expressed by many of the climate scientists I've been reading and listening to.

While the users of these «arguments» often assume that they are persuasive or illuminating, the only thing that is revealed is how the proposer feels about climate science.

For Sue, about climate science, aerosols, and the 1980s: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/Winter.htm Gavin's description of the timeline is consistent with the history there.

It is the decoupling of dispassionate from skepticism that makes public discussions about climate science and environmental issues in general so uninformative.

To measure success, a media tracking service would be hired to tally the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing view.

So I'm actually learning a bit about climate science in spite of myself.

Victor, You say you are here to debate rather than learn about climate science.

There is a lesson here about media hyping a pseudo-issue but not about climate science suddenly needing to be rewritten.

In following the WSJ's op - ed choices fairly closely, I track what James Taranto says about climate science in the WSJ's «Best of the Web.»