Sentences with phrase «climate scientists on all sides»

When a batch of climate scientists on all sides of the hurricane - climate question issued a letter warning that the main issue related to hurricanes is coastal vulnerability, not climate change, I wrote about it, but hardly anyone else did.

Both perspectives miss the stratified structure of the data and how it affects the analysis — hence, the wrongheadedness of the discussion by climate scientists on both sides.

Rather than being divisive, I think the idea would cause climate scientists on both sides to move toward the center in an effort to secure votes and not overstate their own position.

This assessment has nothing to do with my knowledge of physics, statistics, etc., or lack of same, but represents the widely accepted consensus among climate scientists on both sides of the fence.

Not exact matches

Climate scientist Jon Foley of the University of Minnesota, who is part of a team of researchers that defined safe limits for 10 planetary systems, including climate, argues for erring on the side of cClimate scientist Jon Foley of the University of Minnesota, who is part of a team of researchers that defined safe limits for 10 planetary systems, including climate, argues for erring on the side of cclimate, argues for erring on the side of caution.

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate «crisis» appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was «pretty dull» and at «a sharp disadvantage» against the skeptics.

The fact is, many scientists on both sides of the debate are not climate scientists, they are earth scientists, astrophysicists, palaeontologists, economists, statisticians, and here in Australia, one of the most vocal pro-AGW commentators is a professor of psychology.

Actually before RC came on line I was despairing that either the climate scientists were going over to the dark side in droves (to the contrarians), possibly for filthy lucre, or were afraid to speak out due to various repercussions they might face at their universities or gov institutes.

Time is not on our side and we are going to see the consequences of climate change faster than predicted by scientists at the cost of mankind.

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.

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 position.

Don't think Happer will come to an NBC programme to get grilled, especially if there's a real climate scientist of stature on the other side of the table.

He's about the only working climate scientist left on the denialist side.

«[Climate Scientist] Oppenheimer and his colleagues argued that the IPCC tends towards caution and errs «on the side of least drama.»

Scientists on both sides of the climate debate have been critical of Karl's paper and the adjustments made to temperature in the new data set, particularly the ocean data analysis.

Scientists say the record drought is due in part to the expansion of the Hadley Cell — the atmospheric regions on both sides of the equator that circulates warm tropical air poleward — which is known climate change signal.

On the bright side, while he took some predictable pot - shots (thanks to Mansbridge's feeding of very convenient questions) at critics, notwithstanding all the press he's received in which he's dubbed as «world's leading authority on climate change», he admitted that he's «not a climate scientist»On the bright side, while he took some predictable pot - shots (thanks to Mansbridge's feeding of very convenient questions) at critics, notwithstanding all the press he's received in which he's dubbed as «world's leading authority on climate change», he admitted that he's «not a climate scientist»on climate change», he admitted that he's «not a climate scientist».

I agree on very many issues with you, but I can not avoid the impression that the animosity in both ways between you and some of the other climate scientists is due to unwillingness to understand, what the other side is really saying.

This senseless name calling of the scientists on both sides of the political fence, and infighting over the details of the amount of the sensitivity of the climate will soon come to an end, as the experiment on the Earth is continued with out any possible controls by the IPCC policy makers, who only want it to proceed as is, with ADDITIONAL FUNDS taken from taxes paid by the developed world, to hasten to transfer of wealth to the third world, while weakening the Western government systems through self imposed bankruptcy.

The problem is that climate scientists on the pro-global warming side don't have any humility.

On the other side, organizations including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Clean Air Task Force have argued that the new standards will offer an economic boost by encouraging investment in clean energy and efficiency, along with desperately needed action on emissions that will help address climate change and reduce health impacts from air pollutioOn the other side, organizations including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Clean Air Task Force have argued that the new standards will offer an economic boost by encouraging investment in clean energy and efficiency, along with desperately needed action on emissions that will help address climate change and reduce health impacts from air pollutioon emissions that will help address climate change and reduce health impacts from air pollution.

In my reflecting upon your report of anecdotal episodes by some climate scientists «on the side» comments in support of your critiques, I recall and old adage:

While religious doctrine and science have often been at odds, the pope's message that global warming trends are caused by human activity puts him firmly on the side of 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists.

The sands of the climate debate are surely shifting rapidly, with major implications for those who are active in the public debate — scientist / advocates on both sides, environmentalists and the libertarian think tanks, the media, and policy makers and politicians.

It could be a relatively cheap, effective and quick way to cool the planet by mimicking the natural effects on climate of large volcanic eruptions, but scientists concede there could be dramatic and dangerous side effects that they don't know about.

Brysse et al. (2012) suggests that the IPCC and climate scientists in general tend to be too conservative in their predictions because they are «erring on the side of least drama» (ESLD).

In the climategate emails it was also noted that scientists conspired on both sides of the Atlantic to adjust historic ocean temperatures to make them appear more like their flawed climate models.

If I were a climate scientist on the warm side of the debate, I'd find it excruciatingly embarrassing to be associated with this kind of nonsensical fear - mongering.

But arguments over the precise value of climate sensitivity duck the wider point, which is that even if we're lucky and climate sensitivity is on the low side of scientists» estimates, we're still heading for a substantial level of warming by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions aren't addressed, as the IPCC has highlighted.

In another distortion of history, Bean excludes the dénouement of the Climategate story — that every accusation of misconduct and malpractice was subject to the most rigorous investigation, by nine official inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic, all of which exonerated the scientists involved and concluded that nothing had dented the authority of climate science.

Since the climate scientists clearly lack the training to understand the role of a prediction in the validation of a scientific theory, the two sides are doomed to talk past each other on this.

The principal groups speaking for climate scientists have played a central role in making «who are you, whose side are you on?»

From some on the CAGW side they are particularly against it at all and we all wonder if your paper is so sound why in a lot of cases are you so afraid of data and code being examined by other climate scientists no matter what their belief in CAGW is.

It's a bit cheap, given that there's no evidence or even likelihood, that actual climate scientists are responsible for this hoax, to say that jumping to very firm conclusions on very little evidence, and indeed fraudulently improving the evidence that doesn't quite show what you want it to, are characteristic of one side of this debate rather than the other.

This seems a good reason for erring on the side of caution, but doesn't seem a valid attack on climate scientists nor a reason to hype up short term equilibrium climate sensitivity which correctly avoids the issue by dealing with CO2 levels.

McKitrick is considered by many on the «skeptical» side of the debate to be an absolutely key player in the debate about climate change, and the veracity / viability climate scientists and the work they produce.

i think that's inaccurate shx, the scientists did their work, and from what i could gather tried very hard not to overstate their case, the media did the scare - mongering and the media have then turned like the whores they are in the other direction, al gore's film upped the tempo and although it seemed like a good thing at the time, i think with hindsight it was a poisoned chalice, but lets be clear, doing research in multiple areas and having the results point to potentially catastrophic climate change and asking for changes to be made to avert this is not scare - mongering, its common sense, accepting that their is margin for error but erring on the side of caution since the stakes are life on earth as we know it is not scare - mongering, it is the application of the precautionary principle and common sense

Over the past several months, the Arctic Ocean on the opposite side of the world has also seen record - low sea ice — a new nadir in a decades - long decline that, climate scientists say, is one of the many fingerprints of humans» hand in warming Earth's atmosphere and oceans through the burning of fossil fuels.

You address your question to ``... those on the co2 AGW side of the debate», and this confuses me because the IOP is clearly not addressing the science behind climate change in their submission, but rather the behavior of scientists and research institutions.

In other words, the claims should be heard, along with the relevant context, and not just the one sided claims in a vacuum, or «balanced» by non balancing he said / she said statements like; «climate scientists on the other hand say the earth is slowly warming and is likely to increasingly do so in the future.»

These sort of questions can be safely ignored coming from someone like me, but when a bona fide climate scientist such as Judith - who has always been firmly on the consensus side - suddenly starts expressing doubt then such dissent must be squashed as it can't be ignored..

The global temperature empirical evidence is so clear cut, and verified, that two of the most prominent climate scientists on opposing sides of the global warming issue agree on the science fundamentals: there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years.

So if sceptics are dishonest then so are a whole tonne of climate scientists mostly on your side who use the words «pause» and «hiatus».

One of the great oddities of the debate about climate science is the contempt for scientists displayed by the lay cheerleaders on both sides.

Imagine the fallout if he was to become fully informed about Oreskes, Al Gore, Ross Gelbspan, and so many others on that side of the issue who deceived the public when they seemingly obscured the collective truth about skeptic climate scientists.

It has been criticized from many sides, including naturally numerous skeptics but also climate scientists like Schellnhuber, evidently for reasons that are in some ways opposite to those of the skeptics, but may also coincide on some points.

On one side of the issue are some meteorologists and climate scientists who in their studies have found correlations between the vanishing Arctic sea ice and snow cover (collectively known as the cryosphere) and weather patterns that can lead to extreme weather events.

It's a sad comment on our education system when PhD climate scientists think skepticism is the other side's job.

very quickly the tactics of smear and data hiding on the climate scientists side, sickened me.

In the report appendix, under «Dedication and Acknowledgments,» Roberts lists «scientists, activists, writers, broadcasters and politicians on both sides of the climate debate.»