Sentences with phrase «as the climate scientists argue»

That may be partly due to rising storm intensity and rainfall, as the climate scientists argue.

Not exact matches

I think my question to those of you who couple atheism with evolution and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

I think my question to those of you who couple evil atheism with evolution, the big bang, and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

Climatologist Lloyd Burckle of Columbia University in New York and tree - ring scientist Henri Grissino - Mayer of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, argue that local environmental conditions such as altitude and soil quality, along with climate, might help explain the awesome acoustics.

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.

I had a bit of an «a-ha» moment reading this paper by the excellent Australian political scientist Clive Hamilton, in which he argues that a great many American conservatives have come to see climate science as a threat to their core ideological identity.

With climate - related challenges such as unusually high rainfall being compounded by the impact of human activities such as boating, agricultural runoff, tourism, aquaculture, ports, energy projects and housing, the scientists argue that we need broad and coordinated action to stem the destruction.

Whereas as I understand it, some climate scientists like Kerry Emanuel are arguing that they are increasing in intensity but not frequency.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

The scientists and environmentalists argue in their letter that Diablo Canyon must be treated as part of a holistic strategy to deal with climate change.

Q: It could be argued that climate scientists may be predisposed to seeing climate change as more serious, because they want more funding.

The proposition that «science» somehow dictated particular policy responses, encouraged — indeed instructed — those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue about the science.36 So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if «science» and «policy» were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.

I'm not a scientist but couldn't one accept Dr T's null hypothesis and argue as follows: Untestable Null Hypothesis: Humans are dangerously influencing climate.

He said he did not know the details of Dr Pearman's case, but if a scientist were to join a group that argued against government policy as the Australian Climate Group did on carbon trading he or she would contravene CSIRO's media policy.

Powell argues that if there were a small percentage of dissenting scientists, even as low as 3 %, the public perception would be that those scientists could turn out to be a group heralding a coming paradigm shift in climate science.

In his defense, Ball argued that the article was obviously opinion and was mostly about climate scientists as a whole rather than Weaver, specifically.

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.

Climate Change has almost 100 % Scientific Consensus As science writer Graham Wayne wrote on Skepticalscience.com, «Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.»

And as I argued above, the problem is by no means limited to climate scientists.

Many «skeptics» seem to argue from an unwritten assumption that warming happened, climate scientists saw it, asked «what caused this warming», discovered Co2 as a good candidate and the AGW theory was born.

To argue otherwise would be like dismissing M&M's debunking of the hockey stick as irrelevant because they aren't «climate scientists.»

The same Shabecoff who is also described here (full text here) as being one of the founding members of the Society of Environmental Journalists, a place I argue is one of the earliest promulgators of the notion that skeptic climate scientists do not deserve fair media balance.

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.

I had this thought today recalling how often I've read people arguing that scientists «arrogantly» assume man can affect something so big as the climate.

For example, the constant refrain about how «the consensus» was wrong about plate tectonics is useful for «skeptics» to exploit - and then argue that the existence of a «consensus» on climate change isn't meaningful - when they don't also consider just how pervasively we all trust the product of scientists» work, and by extension the power of shared opinion among experts, as we live our daily lives.

So while I expect that climate scientists will argue against «empirical AR1» coefficients as too severe a pseudoproxy test, I, for one, do not think that «empirical AR1» coefficients are too severe a test — if anything, they are probably not severe enough.

First it's; «momentum is building behind the controversial view that the numbers don't add up» then «A rising chorus of literature in the world's best scientific journals and most prestigious opinion pages has argued the climate change math is flawed» and «For climate scientists, irritating questions from «sceptics» about the «pause» have now become peer - reviewed papers...» which is the intro for Michael Asten as the first quote for the article.

Solar irradiance, for example, has neither been significantly up nor down, and most climate scientists argue that solar irradiance is not a factor at all in the climate (to which I disagree, as a conclusion, since I think they define it too narrowly).

SkS authors can argue authoritatively, but as with other scientific disciplines, «actual debate» on climate - science issues does take place elsewhere: in the laboratories of working climate scientists, and the journals, conferences, and other professional venues where they expose their work to peer - review.

Just as I would lack the same when speaking to models used to predict the financial markets — you do not see climate scientists trying to argue that the economists and financeers methods are incorrect.

From our collective experience as physical and social scientists working at the intersection of climate change and society, we argue it is time for a shift in the objectives and implementation of climate change assessments — from making what amounts to a general case for «action,» to characterizing specific risks to help people develop, select, carry out, and monitor specific actions that ultimately have greater benefits than costs.

From his perch in environmentalist haven Seattle, he argues that climate movement heroes such as writer Bill McKibben of 350.org and former NASA scientist James Hansen are basically full of it.

We argue that an «applied forward reasoning» approach is better suited for social scientists seeking to address climate change, which we characterize as a «super wicked» problem comprising four key features: time is running out; those who cause the problem also seek to provide a solution; the central authority needed to address it is weak or non-existent; and, partly as a result, policy responses discount the future irrationally.

Roberts attempted to argue that because the experts had commented on how carbon dioxide causes global warming, this constituted engineering advice the trio were not qualified to give, and so contravened the state's Professional Engineers Act (essentially, Roberts was reclassifying the world's climate scientists as engineers in order to complain about them).

Of course, it is interesting that many of those same «skeptics» also make contradictory arguments that suggest that they have great certainty about the magnitude of the effect (that it definitely isn't as large as the range estimated by the IPCC), and / or argue that none of the ways that climate scientists have measured the effect are valid.

We are so quick as scientists, non experts, the lay public, some ill informed undergrads, ad infinitum, to argue in this blog, however, you as a first hand expert modeling paleoclimate and modern climate trends and obviously with a handle on chemistry and physics, also have a vested interest in our planet and though you do the modeling for a living, I do not doubt it has helped you gain inisghts and opened up your eyes to the complexity and current to future detriments and potentialities we all face as humanity.

Let's wait and see is by far the predominant opinion of the majority of climate scientists as shown by their collective professional inaction and overt personal preferences to argue about anything and everything for as long as humanly possible.

While environmental groups have kicked - off a campaign to target this «climate silence,» the lack of discussion on climate change is a part of a larger trend in the U.S. where media coverage of the issue has declined even as scientists argue that impacts are increasing.

I'm not a climate scientist, so I do hesitate to argue with your claim of the climate sensitivity range [2x CO2] being as high as 1 - 10deg C (90 % conf limits).