Sentences with phrase «as climate scientists issue»

However, as climate scientists issue warnings about the severity of unseasonable bushfires, other key public voices actively undermine this message.

The boom in unconventional fuels — such as bitumen extracted from Alberta's tar sands and oil extracted from North Dakota's Bakken shale formation by hydraulic fracturing («fracking»)-- has swelled global reserves even as climate scientists issue ever - sterner warnings that burning more than a small fraction of these reserves would be suicidal.

Not exact matches

As reiterated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued on March 31, scientists estimate that we can emit no more than 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in order to limit the increase in global temperature to just 2 degrees C by 2100 (and governments attending the successive climate summits have agreed in principle to this objeClimate Change report issued on March 31, scientists estimate that we can emit no more than 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in order to limit the increase in global temperature to just 2 degrees C by 2100 (and governments attending the successive climate summits have agreed in principle to this objeclimate summits have agreed in principle to this objective).

An example of this are those scientists convinced of the existence of anthropomorphic climate change who wish to silence dissenting voices whose opinions they fear might be used as an excuse for politicians unwilling to act on environmental issues.

In these cases museum scientists are working at transboundaries that are beyond politics but that can generally facilitate policy, such as with climate change and conservation issues.

So when people question the scientific consensus on issues such as climate change, vaccine effectiveness or the safety of genetically modified organisms (SN: 2/6/16, p. 22), it's no surprise that one of the first inclinations of journalists and scientists has been to think, hey, these doubters just don't know the facts.

«For science issues such as climate change, we might expect scientists to be a credible and neutral authority,» says Benegal.

Scientists must sharpen their message and do more to engage the public as they seek to influence policy on issues such as climate change, representatives of AAAS and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre said in report issued 3 July at the Euroscience Open Forum 2010 (ESOF2010) in Turin,...

Holdren called on scientists and engineers to dedicate 10 % of their time educating policymakers and the public on issues such as climate change, protecting the world's oceans and public lands, continuing Arctic research and demonstrating the importance of investing in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) programs for elementary and middle school students.

That aside, scientists and evangelicals have managed to find common ground on issues such as climate change, agreeing on the moral imperative to preserve the planet.

Writer Mooney and marine scientist Kirshenbaum argue persuasively for scientists to step up engagement with the public, in order to dispel misinformation and foster meaningful civic participation in decisions about issues such as nuclear power, climate change, and public health.

Dan Kellog, an engineer (not climate scientist) on another blog, has raised the issue of once a glacier has melted away, the local temps could rise dramatically (and perhaps, averaged altogether around the world as glaciers melt away, increase the rate of global warming).

To make matter worse there are still «climate scientists» such as yourself who choose to ignore the legimate issues raised and demand that lesser mortals accept your pronouncements without question because you are a «climate scientist» and they are not.

Their model also might help scientists understand other, more current issues — such as climate change.

The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major National Academies of Science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.

The threats posed by climate change are worse than those imagined by most governments, warned Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the scientist who heads the Potsdam Institute for Research on Global Warming Effects and acts as an adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on climate - change issues.

The threats posed by climate change are worse than those imagined by most governments, warned Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the scientist who heads the Potsdam Institute for Research on Global Warming Effects and acts as an adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel on climate - change issues.

I'll try to maintain the discipline to be «caustically honest» (to steal a phrase used by a climate scientist in a story of mine on tipping points last year) in weighing the issues and opportunities confronting humanity as its astonishing 200 - years - and - counting growth spurt crests.

Dan Kellog, an engineer (not climate scientist) on another blog, has raised the issue of once a glacier has melted away, the local temps could rise dramatically (and perhaps, averaged altogether around the world as glaciers melt away, increase the rate of global warming).

Alsups answers seem quite good to me overall as a non climate scientist just interested in the issue.

I think we, as scientists sometimes fail in good communication especially when an issue is as complex as climate change and human effects.

Moreover, on issues such as climate change or evolution, scientists and their organizations are often distracted by over-estimating the size and influence of these groups and by thinking that the goal of communication is to convince these particular publics to accept expert interpretations or proposed policy actions.

Would I be using my standing as a climate scientist to communicate about civil liberties and national security issues about which I am not expert?

Over and over, I meet scientists who despair that issues they see as vital, like climate change or diminishing biological diversity, are not receiving adequate attention.

It is rare for questions to flow in two directions between a scientist and a science journalist, but on an issue as fraught and complex as human - driven global warming — with both the physical climate and communications climate in flux — there's never been a more important moment for such a conversation.

He is not a climate scientist but he writes about the issues of the day (a hundred years of days, from Arrhenius to IPCC) as though he was there.

These other factors include the economy, confusion over colder weather and other perceptual biases, general distrust of government, climate policies such as cap and trade that are not easily sold as effective or in line with public values, the absence of White House leadership on the issue, institutional barriers in Congress and at the international level, and the continued communication and policy missteps of some scientists and environmental advocates.

But as governments and scientists issue reports on the dire consequences of climate change with increasing frequency and alarm, some sectors of the news media seems to remain cool to the topic.

For a certain time, the problem was framed as an issue of mainstream scientists, supporting the concept of anthropogenic climate change, versus a group of skeptics, who doubted the reality of the blade of the hockey stick.

Even when directly confronted with very basic issues, such as journals selectively enforcing data access policies, the response has generally been to solely support the wishes of the climate scientists.

I think the attempt to couch this climate issue as a «science - policy interface», with the scientists coming up short, IPCC failing, environmentalists as warriors etc., is a waste of time.

The findings underscore a strong, substantive role for both party / ideological factors and issue - concern as predictors of people's views across this set of some 25 beliefs related to climate change or people's views of climate scientists.

The debate has attracted a lot of popular attention, but scientists who work in the climate field tend to regard it as an «ink - blot issue.»

Judith Curry, perhaps the best known of the climate scientists who have argued that there is far too much uncertainty in the climate issue for governments to proceed as though they known what is to happen (especially as it isn't happening), has been particularly severe.

As scientists solidify the links between climate change and health issues like tropical ailments that infect Americans on the backs of whipping winds and warming ocean tides, top medical associations are becoming a high - profile lobbying force for climate regulations.

As a professional auditor, I remain puzzled how company directors can face prosecution for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct by knowingly releasing reports to the market place that are seriously flawed if not fraudulent... yet the climate change charlatans (the IPCC and its assisting cabal of snake - oil salesmen scientists) can issue reports of greater consequence to the world, which are knowingly biased and flawed, and contain blatant errors and anomalies, but they still remain «untouchables»!

The scientists believe research on issues like climate change will suffer as NASA shifts priorities toward exploration missions to the moon and Mars.

I'm going to assume you aren't claiming that most climate scientists don't understand that there are issues with the models, that different models give different results, that as we move in time the models are less likely to be accurate, and that the models are just that models and not complete realistic representations of climate.

In 1990, two years after NASA scientist James E. Hansen issued his now famous warning about climate change during a congressional hearing, Lindzen started taking a publicly contrarian stance when he challenged then - senator Gore by suggesting in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society that the case for human - induced global warming was overstated and that natural climate variability could explain things just as easily.

Climate change has long been a tug - of - war issue between scientists and politicians, as many oil - funded politicians deny that a.) it exists and b.) humans are to blame.

According to an article in the Guardian newspaper, published on the 8th of July 2015, ExxonMobil, the world's biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change — seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm's own scientists.

During a 10 - year investigation detailed in the latest issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research, Stanford University scientist Mark Jacobson isolated the widespread warming effects from all sources of soot â $» the visible residue of burned wood, crops, oil, biomass and other fuels â $» from the climate impacts caused by greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane.

Yet in the global warming issue, we see instances where a major organization promoted the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as a Nobel laureate when he is not, and another organization similarly promoting a prominent IPCC scientist as a Nobel laureate when he is not, and the long - term promotion of book author Ross Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner when he is not, a problem first revealed long ago by Steve Milloy and expanded upon at this blog.

It's conceivable that reporters and administrators at NPR may uniformly be able to summarize the collective global warming issue as «we can ignore climate deniers because the science of man - caused global warming is settled and because Michael Oreskes» sister proved denier scientists are paid industry money to lie about it being not settled.»

Speaking of which, the issue raised by you in the OP was whether the IPCC 1990 graphic was used by climate scientists in the period 1992 - 1995 in a way that would rebut John Mashey's claim that by 1992 it had been rejected as misrepresenting what really occurred.

As a specialist in feedback systems, I am frequently appalled at how climate scientists treat (or don't treat) feedback issues.

To make matter worse there are still «climate scientists» such as yourself who choose to ignore the legimate issues raised and demand that lesser mortals accept your pronouncements without question because you are a «climate scientist» and they are not.

The issue is that certain people have taken to citing the percentage of scientists who believe knowing that a lot of people rely on scientists as an authority, with the deliberate intention that they use this invalid reasoning to conclude from it that the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is reliable.

As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a «weapon of mass destruction»As a climate scientist who has worked on this issue for several decades, first as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a «weapon of mass destruction»as head of the Met Office, and then as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a «weapon of mass destruction»as co-chair of scientific assessment for the UN intergovernmental panel on climate change, the impacts of global warming are such that I have no hesitation in describing it as a «weapon of mass destruction»as a «weapon of mass destruction».

Which is to say any scientist who studies this who recognizes that our geologically radical alteration of the atmosphere naturally would present a threat of very simple — if to us quite major — accompanying, if lagging and inherently non linear and somewhat chaotic and volatile, shifts in the general global climate, and various major regions then again within it, as almost all, who actually professionally study this issue and professionally work in this field do, is immediately dismissed.