Sentences with phrase «arguments about climate science»

His arguments about climate science strike a similar tone.

Many climate scientists, bloggers and readers have weighed in this morning online and in my in - box to complain about my short print story assessing the risk of overstatement or inaccuracy facing everyone pressing an argument about climate science and policy.

Not exact matches

Using the example of the current debate surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, Thompson sought to evaluate the argument from authority through a single prism, the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy.

In 2009 he said, when talking about climate change, that the «science is highly contentious, to say the least» and «the climate change argument is absolute crap», but did accept that precautionary action against it was a good idea.

CO2 growth rates (CEI, p. 11): arguments about what growth rates for CO2 emissions that some models use are besides the point of what the science says about the climate sensitivity of the earth system (emissions growth rates are if anything an economic question).

Students watched An Inconvenient Truth — former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's documentary about global warming — and studied the science behind climate change (including arguments that it is not a crisis humans caused).

After 30 years of learning (and unlearning) about climate change science and policy, as many know, I've tended to give extra weight to the argument for greatly intensified research pressed by Gates, and before him Richard Smalley, John Holdren, Martin Hoffert and Ken Caldeira, the Deep Decarbonization team, the Breakthrough Institute and many others.

According to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Upcoming-book-Climate-Change-Denial-Haydn-Washington-John-Cook.html the book is about refuting denialist arguments with climate science rather than about the psychology of denial itself.

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.

• Lack of formal model verification & validation, which is the norm for engineering and regulatory science • Circularity in arguments validating climate models against observations, owing to tuning & prescribed boundary conditions • Concerns about fundamental lack of predictability in a complex nonlinear system characterized by spatio - temporal chaos with changing boundary conditions • Concerns about the epistemology of models of open, complex systems

In a few years, as we get to understand this more, skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and about the surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.

However, it does a fine job of revealing how attitudes about climate change are influenced and manipulated within the power structure, of debunking the deniers» tired arguments, and showing that the anti-climate crusade is driven by ideology and oil cash, not science.

In the last year, my discussions with people who resent AGW talk have more and more been about science and scientists that people disresepct, and less and less about climate arguments and facts that they disbelieve.

Moreover, the arguments I made about «consensus messaging» on climate are all very specific to that controversy; I have zero idea what sorts of arguments someone would make about GM food science communication.

But what in fact appears to happen is that the concerns at least of some of those worried about these types of actions, have led them to try and convince society by attacking the science of the majority of climate scientists and to use scientific arguments that on the whole are rather weak and unconvincing, and nearly always involve the cherry - picking of data.

That's an argument than even deeply non-technical non-scientists of the general public (and Congress / Senate) can understand - part of their «figuring out who knows what about science» mental toolkit that Dan so admires - which is probably why climate science communicators on the sceptic side are so keen to communicate it.

This does not mean we should entirely reject the quest to understand both the natural and social science of «climate emergencies», but rather adds weight to the argument that we need to understand better what it might mean to agree criteria about impacts, vulnerability and so forth that are sensitive to the real challenges of knowability and unknowability involved in such a process.

Dr T goes to great lengths to suggest he is making a scientific argument e.g. he goes on to talk about Type II errors etc, and his speech is all about what the science should be doing (although I concede that some would say that climate science is a political endeavour rather than a scientific one).

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.

Science can not settle all arguments about how the world should respond to global warming, because the answer to that question involves values, varying perceptions of risk, and political ideology, in addition to what we know (and don't know) about the climate system.

Big Oil and Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

In my opinion it demonstrates bad faith on the part of the BBC in failing to present to the public the details of the sceptical argument about climategate and «climate science» yet allowing those involved to present their defence without serious challenge.

Nurse's reasoning is that if we're not scientists, we are not able to follow the complexities of climate science, and so take arguments about the climate on trust.

The amended climate science standards were intended to «ensure students will develop skills to acknowledge and distinguish claim (s) from alternate or opposing claims, support arguments... with evidence, and communicate about science - related topics / issues in a knowledgeable, clear and objective manner.»

For instance, it can help us see through the scientific - sounding arguments of someone like Rick Santorum, who has been talking a lot about climate science lately — if only in order to bash it.

Honest enquiry is what science is about, and none of us have problems with an argument based in fact.Where we have a problem is with climate politics masquerading as science.

Considering the readership numbers about which Latimer Adler just bragged, considering (at least for argument's sake) that newspapers have some kind of intellectual impact, and considering that David Rose did misrepresent climate science results in a manner that may make readers doubt of his honesty, even Stirling English will have to admit that the claim of harm BartR was alluding to earlier might have some merit.

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.

They were tired of orchestrated complaints about Bob's writings and lectures on climate change and could not handle the person who showed that polite argument against poor science and reasoning can defeat politicised science.

«And constantly inserting distractors like «what about water vapor» into your arguments is also very useful given that we are discussing the validity of Jelbring, etc.» — is in comment on the state of play in «climate» science.

And it proves my point that the argument about the substance of climate science is obscured by second hand arguments about the consensus.

Again, from Justice Skolrood's Reasons for Judgment: «The Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball's theory about the corruption of climate science.

Climate science debates occur every day in the blogosphere and on cable news shows, but this particular fight about a major temperature record (and therefore, major news story) highlights the extent to which many boil down to mere contradiction and rejections of facts, rather than arguments based on competing lines of evidence.

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.

Given the magnitude of potential harms from climate change, those who make skeptical arguments against the mainstream scientific view on climate change have a duty to submit skeptical arguments to peer - review, acknowledge what is not in dispute about climate change science and not only focus on what is unknown, refrain from making specious claims about the mainstream science of climate change such as the entire scientific basis for climate change that has been completely debunked, and assume the burden of proof to show that emissions of greenhouse gases are benign.

Climate denial is only superficially an argument about science.

Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that «climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now» is a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about the current science of anthropogenic global warming.

And this tells us that the arguments about the science of climate change are not actually about science.

«There has been over-claiming or exaggeration, or at the very least casual use of language by scientists, some of whom are quite prominent,» Professor Hulme told BBC News -LSB-...] «My argument is about the dangers of science over-claiming its knowledge about the future and in particular presenting tentative predictions about climate change using words of «disaster», «apocalypse» and «catastrophe»,» he said.

If arguments about the science of climate change were actually about the science, then this result would make no sense.

Well I'm just an atmospheric chemist by training so what do I know about «climate science», but it seems to me that doing the work that can be done with statistical methods that are generally agreed to be «correct» rather than flaky, describing the methods used in detail so that others can follow the arguments and criticise where needed woudl be A Good Thing.

Even before Indiana's top enforcer of federal and state environmental regulations was advising coal companies on how to continuing polluting our air and water, it appears that denial of basic climate science is the state's official position on global warming — Indiana's 2011 «State of the Environment» report rehashes tired climate denier arguments such as global temperature records having «no appreciable change since about 1998.»

«In a few years, as we get to understand this more, [referring to ocean variability and the pause] skeptics will move on (just like they dropped arguments about the hockey stick and surface station record) to their next reason not to believe climate science.»

But your initial argument doesn't seem to need any knowledge of climate science to refute - it being a meta - scientific argument about models vs. predictions.

I've been waiting for a number of hours to see if the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology was really going to respond to a fairly uncontroversial statement about climate science with «this is exactly the argument that I do not buy» and nothing else.

It is clear that Gilbert has never actually read any elementary textbook on atmospheric physics or climate science or he would be aware that the argument about adiabatic lapse rate that he presents is not new to anyone in the field... It is discussed in all of these books.

If the scientific argument about the link between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change is only as good as Lewandowsky's claim that «Rejection of climate science [is] strongly associated with endorsement of a laissez - faire view of unregulated free markets», then perhaps climate sceptics should be taken more seriously.

However, I would say the notion of «normal» in climate science has been abused, and the arguments about unprecedented are really misplaced.

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