Sentences with phrase «comments about climate science»

His comments about climate science reviews were purely speculative.

JUDITH Curry's sensible comments about climate science would have been condemned as heresy before 2010, such was the ferocity of the global warming creed («Consensus distorts the climate picture», 21-22/9).

Not exact matches

He also asked about comments she made that likened acceptance of climate change science to a «kind of paganism» and suggested that top United Nations climate policy advocates were effectively supporting communism.

In fact, typing a couple of phrases from Mr. Holder's comment into scroogle.org turned up about a dozen identical posts in late 2009 to early 2010 in response to articles about the UEA e-mail theft, at mostly obscure and varied websites (i.e., ones where the audience isn't likely to have much knowledge of climate science) rather than the most prominent climate websites.

How about this observation: PhDs in science, and working climate scientist here on RC either do not know about it either and / or if they do know they DO NOT report / comment ACCURATELY nor FULLY on what Hansen (and the dozens of his co-author climate scientists) have been saying for YEARS NOW in his published peer - reviewed papers?

Frankly, I worry about the number of journalists commenting on climate who appear to have little understanding of the science.

Watch the first 1 to 2 minutes section of the UP Stream Pt 4 doco / research prject specifically being directed at all Climate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sClimate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sclimate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sclimate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the science.

MR: The «essays» that Victor is promoting have nothing to do with science — and the focus of this thread (as noted in the comments above) is supposed to be about climate science.

I would like to add to your comment about the varying ability of the general public to understand climate science, that I also think that an even more important function is communication between scientists.

The «essays» that Victor is promoting have nothing to do with science — and the focus of this thread (as noted in the comments above) is supposed to be about climate science.

Thanks for your comment in 249 on if the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) press release (link below) is an example about how to, or how not to, write a press release dealing with climate Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) press release (link below) is an example about how to, or how not to, write a press release dealing with climate climate change.

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

It was amusing, in a sad sort of way, to see Romm zero in on my comment on NPR about mistakes in 2009, as if that showed how little I can be trusted to convey the seriousness of climate science.

A Dot Earth reader, J. Connors, reacted to my piece on the post-election prospect for hostile hearings on climate science by posting a spot - on comment about the real threat to such science in the new political climate:

Considering Carlin's comments based on his expertise and education — i.e. seperating the wheat from the shaft: Debunking Carlin's comments about the «science of climate change» because he is an economist not a climatolgist, in addition to his association with political groups, is a critical point.

For years, skeptics have filled comments with dismissive views of climate science to sow doubts about the consensus that fossil fuels are responsible for global warming — dominating that space, according to the group.

On top of that, Cook's fake comments misrepresented Motl's views about climate science - in other words, Cook just made up lies stuff.

But the trouble for those academics is the fact that, if the academy's standard is so low as is necessary to admit Lewandowsky's work, it says something about the standards of every discipline that Lew comments on, from psychology outwards, to climate science.

Those dismissive comments sounded laughable to folks who read Skeptical Science and know the scientific understanding about climate change.

About twelve hours later, a comment linking to the same file but located on a Russian FTP server was posted to WattsUpWithThat.com stating «We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps» and listing a «sample» of 19 email file names and snippets.

Greenpeace and WWF might want to comment because they support certain outputs, but I doubt that outputs are going to be in question here, and the committee will undoubtably begin with some preamble about how climate science is fundamentally sound, and the climate crisis is worse than ever.

Jonathan Koomey, independent analyst and Consulting Professor at Stanford University, comments on our July 2010 interview with Stephen Schneider on climate science expert credibility, and their exchange on clarifying a point about the need for policy expertise in deciding what... Continue reading →

A note about religious and conservative people that will be part of my comment on «Climate Science Denial Explained: The Denial Personality».

The world of climate science and policy has some mighty important decisions to take — and it's not clear from the comments across the board about the Gleick incident that this has been faced.

Comments up thread (eg Zajko Sept 15 2:13 pm) mentioned polls of scientists, some of which are frequently used in the media and elsewhere to support claims of near concensus about AGW in the climate science community specifically, and prevailing in earth science in general, for example Doran and Zimmerman of U of Illinois.

This comment says nothing new or of interest about the climate science debate but says it all about the dysfunctional ethics of another prominent AGW proponent.

Your comment is thoughtful and wise, at least in the general case, but in the case of climate science, I object to holding those that the likes of Judith, Marc Morano and Richard S. Lindzen disparage as «the Team» and worse, responsible to be so sensitive about what «will further polarize the debate» when it is the deniers and their oily sponsors that are 100 % responsible for polarizing the debate.

«And constantly inserting distractors like «what about water vapor» into your arguments is also very useful given that we are discussing the validity of Jelbring, etc.» — is in comment on the state of play in «climate» science.

We are not supposed to centre our comments on individuals and morals, or to use this blog to vent feelings, but to concentrate on facts that get unfolding and being revealed about how climate science has been conducted lately.

Does anyone think that this sort of behavior serves either science or society properly: in a July 2010 comment James Annan referred to one of the «Zickfeld 14» climate scientists who had urged fellow scientists to exaggerate, er... lie, about their climate sensitivity estimates, in order to «encourage action»....

as an unwashed mass, I can't help but comment about John Cook «this course examines science of climate change denial» oh great, a new junk science I can't believe anyone takes this seriously SkS puts up a post and 2 people comment CE gets 300 comments before noon (most of them readable and informative)

In this post I write about the criticism, also expressed to me in comments after my New York Times op - ed, that climate models (or the tools and methods of climate science more broadly) have been disproved by observations, so we should ignore them.

Hint: keep things on misconduct proceedings and don't forget about the Open Thread # 7 for other climate science comments.

A reader recently asked my opinion about this post at Skeptical Science, which is a comment on Ambaum 2010, Significance Tests in Climate Science, J. Climate, doi: 10.1175 / 2010JCLI3746.1.

When told of Mr Howard's comments, climate scientist Tim Flannery said it was unclear which particular aspects of the science the former prime minister was doubtful about.

Except in a few cases where the writers tried to carryout a discussion about whether there are dogmas per se in climate science, most of the comments were attempts at being dogmatic about their perspective of truth (1st definition above).

What is truly shocking about the many, many insights provided by the climate science establishment over the past decade is the lack of comments from established, tenured faculty who are specifically granted that privilege to defend unpopular views without fear for their career.

For example: in an article about the policy response to climate change, comments about the science of climate change will be considered off topic.

If you, Jim, Mosher really want to communicate this idea about Unicorn Hunting, which you all seem to think is important enough to mention over and over again in the comments sections of climate blogs, and / or let everyone in on the news that there already exists a «sufficient explanation» for the climate, and explain what exactly a «sufficient explanation» is in the world of Science, then I am prepared to help with the editing to get your essay (s) ready for publication here at Climate Etc. or elsclimate blogs, and / or let everyone in on the news that there already exists a «sufficient explanation» for the climate, and explain what exactly a «sufficient explanation» is in the world of Science, then I am prepared to help with the editing to get your essay (s) ready for publication here at Climate Etc. or elsclimate, and explain what exactly a «sufficient explanation» is in the world of Science, then I am prepared to help with the editing to get your essay (s) ready for publication here at Climate Etc. or elsClimate Etc. or elsewhere.

Dr. John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama — Huntsville: [comments from debate on 11 Feb., 2009]: — Our ignorance about the climate system is enormous, and policy makers need to know that.

After having read the many comments here, I see that the discussion is «getting wrapped around the axle» on the definition of a «black swan», rather than staying on the main topic of how uncertainties and potential major outliers in our knowledge of climate science should affect our conclusions of what is likely to be the human impact on climate and what should be done about it.

Consider the previous comment about «speculative» threats — no scientific point is made (it's just assumed that climate «science» has no authority at all, but no alternative take on the science, with real evidence and real calculations, is presented at all).

I wish that I were struggling to stay focused on climate science today rather than commenting on the vigorous discussion in last night's US presidential debate about the ongoing, huge and escalating economic impacts of climate change...

In his comments he adds a good deal of intensity to the issue, writing about «blacklists» and «possible loss of grants» This is just as over-the-top as the PNAS paper, and just as unhelpful — if Pielke's concern is to improve the role of climate science in policy and politics

I am grateful when people take the time to comment and, yes, criticize, but I also think this writer oversells the certainty we should feel about alarmist climate science and its conclusions.

With all due respect, as your comments on this site have consistently demonstrated, what you don't know about climate science could fill a book.

His comment, «The science about climate change is very clear.