Sentences with phrase «as real climate scientists»

Today's Graph of the Day shows that all those climate deniers that spoke of «the global temperature plateau «(as some weird «evidence» that climate change would not be real, busted on numerous occasions) should openly admit they were wrong — as real climate scientists have explained all along.

Not exact matches

But there are also many spurious signals in the data record which scientists must beware of treating as if they represented climate changes in the real world.»

Instead of trashing real climate scientists who study nuclear winter as stooges of KGB manipulation, maybe the FBI should see if the Wegman fiasco might be an actual example of their observation that «foreign researchers may be under pressure to make their research conclude what their government wants it to conclude, or they may be ordered to write completely fabricated studies.»

Real scientists (as opposed to climate modellers) have long maintained that the decline in Arctic ice is caused not by warmer air — in the past year or two Arctic air temperatures have actually been falling — but by shifts in major ocean currents, pushing warmer water up into the Arctic Circle.

My job, to steal a phrase from a climate scientist I quoted in the tipping points story, is to be «caustically honest» about such murkiness where it's real, and to be similarly probing when someone is trying to manufacture murkiness — as has happened a lot in recent years in the climate fight.

If you want to be taken seriously as real scientists running a serious climate change blog, then do it right.

As an outside observer, it seems that climate science is marked by scientists not only debating data, but credentials: who is a real climatologist and who is not.

In the post on research on extreme rainfall and warming, Gavin Schmidt, the NASA climate scientist and Real Climate blogger, described the misinterpretation of some paper abstracts as mainly reflecting a cultural climate scientist and Real Climate blogger, described the misinterpretation of some paper abstracts as mainly reflecting a cultural Climate blogger, described the misinterpretation of some paper abstracts as mainly reflecting a cultural divide:

A brief perusal of the literature should make it clear that a great many climate scientists have accepted the hiatus as real, and as a problem, and a great many hypotheses have been published in various efforts to account for it (including a paper Tamino wrote with Stefan Rahmstorf, as I'm sure you are all aware).

It was a good deed to give Dennis Schmitt a forum to respond to Patrick Michaels since Michaels doesn't offer one, we need to see less of the tug of war and more of the real evolving science as scientists strive to fill in gaps in data and missing links in climate models, and to understand feedbacks and the coupled dynamics of land, air and water.

No matter how you cut it, geoengineering is a mind - boggling proposition, and most scientists are saying it should only be used as a last - ditch resort, rather than as a delay tactic to hold off real climate change action.

It's useful to think of this as an example of Bayesian priors in action — given that 99 % of the criticisms we hear about climate science are bogus or based on deep confusions about what modeling is for, scepticism is an appropriate first response, but because we are actually scientists, not shills, we are happy to correct real errors — sometimes they will matter, and sometimes they won't.

Steve, aside from the fact that Climatology is not a «debate», so there are not 2 sides, the comment section posts here are NOT «the blog», that consists of the lead articles by the group of scientists known as «Real Climate», for which see the Contributors link, the comments are from folks like you and me, generally non-scientists with varied opinions and sometimes clashing personalities.

This dialogue about him being full of pontifical nonsense flows one way, without a response, this silence is a buffer extending his life span as a legitimate skeptic by default, since he can't stand the heat from real climate scientists left on the way side, crushing legitimate science away from any chance to reach a badly mislead audience, simply because he is more popular in the fringe right wing media world dwelling on sound bites and stupidity.

As the tit - for - tat attacks from the tail ends of the spectrum on climate change continue unabated, what was once presumed influence on the part of these scientists will likely become real influence on public opinion and political decision - making, and these scientists will be partly responsible.

'' As a rule, Dr. XXX has no interest in taking part in any event that continues to perpetuate the myth that scientists don't agree that human induced climate change is a real and serious problem.

The claim, which Mann himself uses in the NYT, for example, that 97 % of scientists agree that «climate change is real» and that «we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet» isn't borne out by a reading of the survey, which was itself imprecise about its own definitions, and captures the perspectives Mann has himself dismissed as «anti-science»: sceptics are part of the putative ’97 per cent».

Meanwhile, out here in the real world there has been no warming for nearly 18 years (according to RSS no stat sig warming for 26 years in fact) and as far as I can count the number of papers desperately making contradictory excuses for that now exceeds 30, and the «climate scientists» are still trying to work out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin — which is becoming increasingly obvious to all and sundry, except the aforesaid «climate scientists» of course.

* Sereneti Strategy is necessary when there's widespread, even as high as a 97 % consensus of scientists knowing that climate - change is real.

Real Climate, like Carrington also tried to spin the discovery of the error as scientists correcting the mistakes, all part of the scientific enterprise.

That ageless question rarely troubled climate scientists, who took it for granted that the future climate is as real as a rock, even if their knowledge of this future thing could only be stated within a range of probabilities.

The main readership for this journal is climate scientists, most of whom hold the view that climate change is real, and this was who we saw as our target audience.

While many in the media portrayed the phenomenon as a desperate weapon used by sceptics to undermine climate science, real scientists took notice and began to study the warming pause.

The news here is that the previously denied «pause» has been accepted as real by mainstream climate scientists, has forced open the bounds imposed by previous modeling, and has been openly, unambiguously acknowledged by a peer - reviewed paper in Nature.

, which the public voted as Best Science Blog of 2008, ahead of RealClimate, run by real climate scientists.

As Mann himself explains today on Real Climate, the «trick» being refered to is that, «scientists often use the term «trick» to refer to a «a good way to deal with a problem,» rather than something that is «secret,» and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

Institutions that let men prey on young women also look past demeaning and harassing public behavior, such as a senior male scientist recently describing me as «not a real climate scientist» despite having a Ph.D., or belittling me as «someone [he had] never heard of» when discussing my professional work.

And that, I think, is the real lesson here: climate scientists who act as policy advocates lose scientific credibility.

As a question put to leading climate scientist Phil Jones it demonstrates that whoever composed that particular question knew that «statistically - significant «is a technical term requiring a technically correct answer, knew that the period was too short to allow an unequivocal answer, knew that the general public would equate «no statistically significant global warming» with no real warming.

Everyone generally is taught standard AGWScienceFiction fisics as if it is real world and I have given a range of sources to show that what I am arguing against is the standard teaching in education, certainly all climate scientists working to the AGW energy budget use it as a given.

In fact, 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree — that's right, there is an overwhelming 97 % consensus position that global warming is real and largely driven by human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.

What surprises me is that the real climate scientists, at least so far as I know, never attempt to answer questions relating to data archiving and related matters.

The overwhelming message of the world scientists, the US National Academy of Sciences, all the national academies of all the industrial nations, all the scientific societies in the US that have weighed in on the matter, all on record as being convinced by the many lines of evidence that human - caused climate change is real, and it's a threat.

As we have documented in numerous articles on the disinformation campaign on this website, although responsible scientific skepticism is necessary for science to advance, the climate change disinformation campaign has been involved not in the pursuit of responsible scientific skepticism but in tactics that are morally reprehensible including: (a) telling lies about mainstream climate scientific evidence or engaging in reckless disregard for the truth, (b) focusing on unknowns about climate science while ignoring settled climate change science, that is cherry - picking the evidence, (c) creating front groups and Astroturf groups that hide the real parties in interest behind claims, (d) making specious claims about «good science», (e) manufacturing science sounding claims about climate change by holding conferences in which claims are made and documents are released that have not been subjected to scientific peer - review, and (d) cyber bullying journalists and scientists.

But as the IPCC report underlines, scientists are becoming more and more certain that climate change poses a real danger to the planet.

Using them to predict real data retrospectively is hopeless and World leading climate scientists as they are admit they are way too hot but it's ok we are still doomed but we have a few more years to spend time deindustrialising the West Building more windmills and solar panels and buying stupid electric cars before we all die.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, responded that «top climate scientists in the world, thousands... are as confident that climate change is as real as they are that cigarettes make people sick.»

The 400 scientists they characterize as disputing man - made climate change include mostly folks no one has ever heard of, and the quotes they cherry pick aren't all expressing doubt about whether climate change is real and a problem — many are simply expressing differing opinions about the degree of warming and the consequences of that warming.

Now that Al Gore has admitted to causing untold human hunger and misery on a mistaken premise with his food to fuel conversion project, maybe he should be stripped of the Nobel Prize so it can be given to a real climate scientist such as Henrik Svensmark.

It is interesting that Garth Paltridge should highlight the decline in trust as the real risk faced by climate scientists.

A panel of top American scientists declared today that global warming was a real problem and was getting worse, a conclusion that may lead President Bush to change his stand on the issue as he heads next week to Europe, where the United States is seen as a major source of the air pollution held responsible for climate change.

Climate change not real or significant, or suggestions I make here — all backed by most of the world's leading climate scientists (as well as logic) fly out the Climate change not real or significant, or suggestions I make here — all backed by most of the world's leading climate scientists (as well as logic) fly out the climate scientists (as well as logic) fly out the window.

As where Marcott et al went wrong as climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural variability, with the short decadal time scale (weather) in natural variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real worlAs where Marcott et al went wrong as climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural variability, with the short decadal time scale (weather) in natural variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real worlas climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural variability, with the short decadal time scale (weather) in natural variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real worlas evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real world.

*** Of course, Dr. Curry could handle such comments in the forthright, time - honored climate change blog manner of censoring comments, deleting them, or banning posters as we find at blogs like RealClimate, ClimateSight and others run by real scientists.

Presumably, as a poster at Real Climate, you are a scientist.

Pielke Jr.: «Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre» — February 4, 2009 — Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal goings on with our friends over at Real Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forReal Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forReal Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it.

Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal goings on with our friends over at Real Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forReal Climate... Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA's Gavin Schmidt (a «real scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal scientist» of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forReal Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a «real scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit forreal scientist» of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it.

«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.

As long as climate models continue failing, over the next five - plus years there should be some blowback from real scientists and people hurt by hysterical climate policieAs long as climate models continue failing, over the next five - plus years there should be some blowback from real scientists and people hurt by hysterical climate policieas climate models continue failing, over the next five - plus years there should be some blowback from real scientists and people hurt by hysterical climate policies.

The real deal, say Lüning and Vahrenholt, is that natural climate factors have been known as real drivers for over a decade, and activists, scientists and the IPCC continue to cover them up.