Sentences with phrase «conclusions about global climate»

Sadly, this doesn't stop many people from reaching conclusions about global climate change based on their local weather, but the best way to fight that is education.

And I suggest you google «confirmation bias» before attempting to draw conclusions about global climate from your own personal observations.

Not exact matches

«The evidence before the committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming,» the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote in its report on the matter in December 2007.

As for the paper's conclusion that removing atmospheric carbon is necessary in order to achieve the 2 ˚C target, climate scientist Richard Moss of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, says that's a nearly impossible goal «with what we know about today.»

I had just been in a discussion of climate change on a messageboard where someone had triumphantly put up links to various blogs (including one that you noted here) drawing conclusions about the cause of the global warming here on earth on the basis of these recent measurements of Mars's south polar cap!

In parallel to the Rio +20 gestation process, the UN Secretary - General and his senior advisors, after more than two years of wholehearted efforts to bring about a major global agreement on climate change, had come to the conclusion that climate change was part of a broader package of global sustainable development challenges, and could probably be better addressed in conjunction with the rest.

The new research is a regional climate study of historical sea level pressures, winds and temperatures over the eastern Pacific Ocean and draws no conclusions about climate change on a global scale.

Therefore, it is a (by some deliberately promoted) misunderstanding to draw conclusions from such a short trend about future global warming, let alone climate policy.

[UPDATE 3/6, 1 p.m.:] Isaac Held, a climate modeler at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., responded today with some caution about seeking relationships between the ocean and atmospheric changes around the tropics, and also drawing conclusions about their relationship to global warming.

It draws no conclusions about the effect of AGW on hurricanes (neither «climate change» nor «global warming» occurs in the paper).

According to a report at the time by Sovereignty International, Professor Robert Watson, the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was asked in a press briefing in 1997 about the growing number of climate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man - induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic conseqClimate Change (IPCC), was asked in a press briefing in 1997 about the growing number of climate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man - induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic conseqclimate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man - induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic consequences.

He maunders on to accuse «climate denialists» of drawing inconvenient conclusions from the recent temperature record about the rate of global warming.

In 1997 during the Kyoto Protocol Treaty negotiations in Japan, Dr. Robert Watson, then Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was asked about scientists who challenge United Nations conclusions that global warming was man - made.

Although different theories of distributive justice would reach different conclusions about what «fairness» requires quantitatively, most of the positions taken by opponents of climate change policies fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny given the huge differences in emissions levels between high and low emitting nations and the enormity of global emissions reductions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

They refer to the «scientific consensus» of the 2,000 or so scientists connected to the IPCC — even though probably no more than 100 of those are true climate specialists; many are actually social scientists and government functionaries; and the list includes some skeptics of global warming who have expressed doubts about the IPCC's conclusions.

I have spent much of the past 2 years analyzing and re-constructing some of the basic studies used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in turn, to promote policies on climate Climate Change (IPCC) to support their conclusions about global warming and, in turn, to promote policies on climate climate change.

The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

The IEA finding followed a similar conclusion about global emissions from an international team of climate scientists, headed by Corinne le Quere of the University of East Anglia in England, reported during the Paris climate conference last December.

Although different theories of distributive justice would reach different conclusions about what «fairness» requires quantitatively, most of the positions taken by opponents of climate change policies fail to pass minimum ethical scrutiny given the huge differences in emissions levels between high and low emitting nations and individuals and the enormity of global emissions reductions needed to prevent catastrophic climate change.

That 40 % number is a falsehood - there is about a 98 % consensus of all scientists who study this phenomena that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, and every major scientific institution in the world supports the conclusion of man caused global warming.

«Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming» chews up these sound bites, such as: «97 percent of scientists agree» with the conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change; or, skeptics of the «consensus view» are paid off by big fossil fuel industries.

All these years Steve has maintained a very clear (and always polite) stance: he proposed himself to audit some data, models, procedures and conclusions, while not defending or declaring any particular position about the claims made by Climate Science regarding anthropogenic climate change, global warming and other similar Climate Science regarding anthropogenic climate change, global warming and other similar climate change, global warming and other similar issues.

The inevitable conclusion of this is that we are depending on the various climate codes to be nearly 100 % perfect in removing this warming shift, of being insensitive to it, for the assertions about global warming to be real.

Grijalva's investigation into climate scientists who scrutinize conclusions about man - made global warming comes after the New York Times published a piece critical of Harvard - Smithsonian scientist Wei - hock Soon for not disclosing his funding from energy companies in his research.

Peiser has long opposed mainstream science's conclusions about anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine, claiming 100 % of peer - reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global warming.

The letter requested that NASA in general and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in particular stop publishing the scientific conclusions about the human - driven causes of global climate disruption.

That conclusion is based not on climate models or recent trends in forest fires, but rather on records of forest fires that occurred more than a millennium ago, during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a period when global temperatures were comparable to what they are today, and about half a degree warmer (on the Celsius scale) than they had been for several centuriesclimate models or recent trends in forest fires, but rather on records of forest fires that occurred more than a millennium ago, during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a period when global temperatures were comparable to what they are today, and about half a degree warmer (on the Celsius scale) than they had been for several centuriesClimate Anomaly, a period when global temperatures were comparable to what they are today, and about half a degree warmer (on the Celsius scale) than they had been for several centuries prior.

How is it that the conclusions of climate scientists can be called into question as a result of supposedly dubious statistical techniques, but the long history of nonsense from the skeptics, (such as the Robinson et al paper that accompanied the politically motivated Oregon Petition, the corporate funded propaganda campaigns of the Global Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of cclimate scientists can be called into question as a result of supposedly dubious statistical techniques, but the long history of nonsense from the skeptics, (such as the Robinson et al paper that accompanied the politically motivated Oregon Petition, the corporate funded propaganda campaigns of the Global Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of clGlobal Climate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of cClimate Coalition, and the recent urban myth that Martian «global warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of clglobal warming» disproves a human influence on earthly climate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of cclimate) tells us nothing about the integrity of the skeptic theory of climateclimate?

«In this case the assessment reaches conclusions inconvenient for political advocates on both sides — but that is how science works,» said Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political science professor at the University of Colorado — Boulder, who's been writing on the evolution of the global change research office since its early days and has frequently been called on by Republicans in Congress to testify about climate policy.

Waston was asked in a press briefing about the growing number of climate scientists who challenge the conclusions of the UN that man - induced global warming is real and promises cataclysmic consequences.