Sentences with phrase «climate science side»

Yet the NY Times and WaPos of the world would like us to believe that such reporting * is * their forte... yet... they've really done little (if anything) to expose as false claims that there are two legitimate scholarly sides to the «climate debate», and at times add credibility to claims that indeed perhaps the climate science side is the side playing games (climategate coverage, etc) rather than the McI's, Wegman's, and RP [J / S] rs of the world.

Jim D: I don't think the climate science side are having any trouble communicating except to a few hold - outs.

I don't think the climate science side are having any trouble communicating except to a few hold - outs.

Not exact matches

Clearly there is a balance to strike between doom - ridden messages and «bright - side» opportunities, and uncertainties around the science and the expected effects of climate change must be factored in too.

In the amicus brief, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund sides with the university arguing that E&E Legal Institute's efforts «are part of a broader trend of harassment that threatens the core of the scientific endeavor.»

In a paper published in the current Journal of Political Economy, Bård Harstad, an associate professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, argues that the most effective strategies to combat climate change do not focus on demand - side solutions such as carbon taxes or emission caps.

For 5 hours, opposing sides in a closely watched climate change lawsuit pitting the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against some of the world's biggest oil companies offered Alsup their accounts of the history and current state of climate science.

This one - sided incentive was already criticized in the comprehensive climate protection report for agriculture and forestry conducted in 2016, to which employees of the Chair of Wood Science also contributed.

You suggest that activists saw climate change as a «golden opportunity to further a political agenda: reining in corporations, regulating free markets and imposing environmental legislation», and that these have prematurely politicised the science and caused «pushback» from the other side.

The research in Science and Nature Climate Change, although on two different topics, fits into a growing body of knowledge about the side effects of ice loss.

In that environment, it's been easy for the other side to pour millions of dollars into a campaign to debunk climate - change science.

Thirdly, and most scientifically, it has to be said that the impacts side of climate science is its weakest.

For most climate researchers science went out the window a long time ago, it is such a biased one sided aregument these days that people like me are terrified of being branded a heretic for even challenging the accepted so - called evidence.

«I am reminded of debates in economics, investing, politics, religion and climate science where a good heuristic is if the person you are reading only points to evidence of one side and never raises or represents the better aspects of the opponents side.

If it's presented properly, it should be understandable by people with a technical background other than climate science — and there are quite a few of those people — and many of them are on the conservative side of politics.

Your very presence on the other side of the climate debate does more to validate the science than anything else you could do.

Andrew Revkin Boy, Michael, if my writing and blogging has allowed even one person (you) to step out of the fog of competing messages and obfuscated science in the climate arena, I feel it's been worth the hassles (and all that «scorching» you refer to, which has come from folks on all sides of this issue at one point or another).

You are presupposing that climate science is like a courtroom, each side is advocating for a course of action and it is the jury's job to see who presents the best case.

We believe this is necessary if science is to move on, and we hope that all those involved on all sides of the climate science debate will adopt this approach.

... but we can't ignore that the science is being used a weapon by both sides of the climate change issue...

John Holt, who was a member of the committee when the primer was written, said in an interview that the document was aimed at clarifying distortions of the science on all sides of the climate debate.

how refreshing to know that there can still be a civil discourse between «advocates on both sides of the charged debate over climate science and its implications for society.»

That first paper by Soon and Baliunas was so flawed I was able to figure it out, and I have zero skills WRT the technical side of climate science.

They are solid points that hold lessons for advocates on both sides of the charged debate over climate science and its implications for society.

Alex Katarsis: «I realize it's a political point, but we can't ignore that the science is being used a weapon by both sides of the climate change issue.»

I realize it's a political point, but we can't ignore that the science is being used a weapon by both sides of the climate change issue.

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.

Sometimes it's easy to get the impression that public opinion on climate change is split down the middle, with concerned advocates for climate action on one side and science - denying conspiracy theorists on the other.

When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science — Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing poScience — Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing poscience, and, therefore, in a losing position.

You write: «I am not a scientist [a] I have looked at both sides of the AGW issue [b] I am of the opinion that the «science is not settled» and that more verification of the climate models is necessary [c] I am concerned that, in our rush to reduce CO2, we may pass a climate bill that devastates our country's economy» [d]

I would rather spend my time on site that are hearing from voices on many spectrums: mainstream papers that have top - notch science coverage and a climate focus, or open - minded debates between environmentalists on both sides of the political arena.

But a one - sided debate, with all the noise from the denialists, is only going to solidify, in the public mind, the dodgy soft - science of the climate skeptics.

Funny thing that, everybody seems to have a favorite data store («Temps Are Us») that conveniently always has exactly the data we need to support OUR hypothesis in stock, and everybody is quite certain that the crappy data store on the poor side of town is selling garbage data...... Frankly if we turn over the label on most climate science data we see a «Made in China» sticker...

She has her own interest though in climate science being thought of as a science, so she's slightly on the other side as well.

A National Academies of Science (NAS) report warned that the potential side - effects of this type of climate hacking are not well understood or quantified.

Unless you have had a few years of climate science from those trained in the field, or spent several thousand hours studying it from all sides (as I have), I think you ought to consider this possibility:

Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science -LSB-...]

Instead, all sides must be covered in highly debatable and important topics such as climate change, because authoritarian science never will have all the answers to such complex problems.

Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time.

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.

Note how he just comes right out and admits what everyone already suspects to be the case: that his slurring of climate science as «junk science» is rooted in nothing more scientific than his understanding of which side his bread — and Cody's — is buttered on.

Third, the major impediment, I'm convinced, to constructive public engagement with climate science is not how much either side knows or understands scientific evidence of it.

They may have a vested interest in side - lining the climate science away from the interface and using them as a targetted resource for providing the data that they need for their theories.

My view is that the broad statement «AGW is true» and the related related null hypothesis «AGW doesn't exist» are not part of good scientific discussion, because the issue is not an independent scientific theory or hypothesis, but a side result of climate science.

Of course, «the truth,» according to Inhofe, is that climate change is a myth: «The science is still out on what effect CO2 might have in terms of what they call global warming and the science is more on our side than on their side.»

If you follow the history of Eugenics and make a side - by - side comparison to Climate Science, you will see for yourself the parallel, only taking place in the late 20th and early 21st Century: Fewer people on the planet; better people that are left; and, as an overriding imperative of course, the few who are designated to decide.

Is Plimer the climate version of Harvey Dent (aka Two Face from Batman), flipping a coin to decide which side of the science to present?

This is the kind of climate science question that you have called a «side issue», though the answer is integral to answering one of your favorite questions: Granting that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, how much warming can result from and increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

«Climate change has taken on political dimensions... That's odd because I don't see people choosing sides over E = mc2 or other fundamental facts of science.»

The curious guys choose to be curious about something else, given the bureaucratic organizations occupying the climate science field, meaning both sides.