(2) What is the effect
on climate science of public advocacy for the message of disastrous anthropogenic global warming (AGW)?
Q: People say, well, if we had more science literacy — more clarity
about climate science for example — then everyone would get more engaged.
It still remains the case that most of the findings
from climate science suffer from lack of formal, rigid error analysis.
The
mainstream climate science community has provided a well - developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing.
That means requiring full transparency of data and methods used in
climate science research, and third party review of the data, analysis, and models.
Even the casual observer would, I think, see the lack of «private» comments outside the secrecy constraints of peer review on certain
climate science papers.
I encourage educators and students to weigh in both here and on their Web page about
how climate science and policy are handled in school.
That makes both of them authors of the less than 3 % of peer -
reviewed climate science papers rejecting the consensus on human - caused global warming.
Someone doesn't understand a certain aspect of
climate science which is understandable considering the complexities of our climate.
As the world's
best climate science makes crystal clear, to preserve any safe and sane climate the vast majority of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground.
The paper showed that there is a 97 % consensus in the peer - reviewed
climate science literature that humans are causing global warming.
In a new paper that is currently in press we found that consensus increases with the degree of
climate science expertise of the populations studied.
Their opinion about
climate science seems to be driven by their political opinion, rather than vice versa.
Phrases with «climate science»