Sentences with phrase «confusion about climate»

Probably too much to hope for, given the recent history of corporate backed voices sowing confusion about climate science.

Seemingly content to let the world burn, the denizens of Denial - a-Palooza work year - round to sow doubt and confusion about climate change among the public - aided by Fox News and other friendly media outlets - so that no action is taken to limit heat - trapping gasses in the atmosphere.

These companies have known for decades that their products — coal, oil, and natural gas — cause harm, yet even today they continue to fund front groups and trade associations who seek to sow confusion about climate science and block policies designed to reduce the heat - trapping emissions that cause global warming.

Rather than «rock the debate,» Climate Hustle is just another attempt to spread doubt and confusion about climate change science.

If Revkin really wants to explain the confusion about climate change, then why doesn't he explain and report on why the New York Times never ran a story on corporate campaign to create this confusion.

«This book explains how the propaganda generated by self - interest groups has purposely created confusion about climate change.

It seems to me that some earlier comments in this thread reflect confusion about climate models — for example, are model runs «experiments»?

Public confusion about the climate — Is it changing?

One of Soon's contacts at Southern Co. was Robert Gehri, who helped develop a 1998 plan led by the American Petroleum Institute to create confusion about climate science.

A big part of the public confusion about climate change comes from sloppy language.

There is also considerable public confusion about climate science and possible remedies.

Not exact matches

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be responsible for confusion about recent global warming

It also stirred confusion about the governor's legal authority and what will happen to the carbon trading program, which caps utility carbon dioxide emissions in 10 Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states, at a time when national climate legislation appears dead on Capitol Hill.

«Hopefully the new map will clear up a lot of confusion about what's happening to the climate,» said Nardozzi.

About our estimates of the climate transfer sensitivity to solar variations at 11 years and 22 years, Dr. Benestad makes again a great confusion by misquoting and misunderstanding our paper.

Dr Benestad talks about climate sensitivity, Stefan - Boltzmann law, non-linear physics, and I think he makes a great confusion.

England's exit from the EU could potentially postpone renewable energy projects planned for the region and cause confusion about how to interpret the Paris Climate Agreement.

We discuss climate models a lot, and from the comments here and in other forums it's clear that there remains a great deal of confusion about what climate models do and how their results should be interpreted.

[Response: I suspect another common confusion here: the abrupt glacial climate events (you mention the Younger Dryas, but there's also the Dansgaard - Oeschger events and Heinrich events) are probably not big changes in global mean temperature, and therefore do not need to be forced by any global mean forcing like CO2, nor tell us anything about the climate sensitivity to such a global forcing.

Unfortunately whilst certain political commentators / manipulators and leaders sow confusion about the issue of climate change and anthropogenic emissions, and also state that taking formal action would be «bad for our economy», the firm policy required at global / regional level, the correct signal to society / industry and the global action needed will not happen.

That lack of reporting has led to a lot of confusion, even among experts, over what's really going on, which has led to confusion about what it all means for the climate.

After I gave a talk at Pennsylvania State University not long ago, a professor there asked if I could share the slide I use to describe one source of confusion and disputes when people are yelling about «global warming» or «climate change.»

As an example, discussions of «climate change» have become complicated by confusion about definitions offered by various groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Framework Convention on Climate Change [link], as emphasized by a previous «Dot Earth» story written by climate change» have become complicated by confusion about definitions offered by various groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Framework Convention on Climate Change [link], as emphasized by a previous «Dot Earth» story written by Climate Change and the Framework Convention on Climate Change [link], as emphasized by a previous «Dot Earth» story written by Climate Change [link], as emphasized by a previous «Dot Earth» story written by Revkin.

It's useful to think of this as an example of Bayesian priors in action — given that 99 % of the criticisms we hear about climate science are bogus or based on deep confusions about what modeling is for, scepticism is an appropriate first response, but because we are actually scientists, not shills, we are happy to correct real errors — sometimes they will matter, and sometimes they won't.

The fact that this paper helps dispel confusion about the onslaught of continuing climate change and should help dispel complacency about doing anything about it.

given that 99 % of the criticisms we hear about climate science are bogus or based on deep confusions about what modeling is for

shows exactly the confusion about accuracy vs. precision evidenced by all my climate modeler reviewers.

Ahead of the event, Cook spoke with the Standard - Examiner about climate change confusion, the current political climate and how to counter alternative facts.

Evans follows up his misunderstanding of climate sensitivity estimates by demonstrating an extreme degree of confusion about the tropical troposphere «hot spot»:

This general confusion about terminology makes it hard to even begin a sensible discussion about climate change.

More to the point, we can see as much confusion about what the consensus is from climate scientists, world leaders, and activists as we can see from any group of sceptics.

Further, the corporate - funded campaign to play up uncertainties in climate science, carried out through industry associations like the American Petroleum Institute and front groups like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, has done its part to sow public confusion about the level of consensus in climate science.

This is a deliberate tactic to sow confusion in the minds of the public about the climate change science, just as the tobacco industry did about the link between smoking and cancer, Amstrup said in an interview with Motherboard.

In multiple U.S. states and territories — including New York, California, Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands — state Attorneys General are investigating Exxon's depth of knowledge regarding the climate impacts of burning fossil fuels, and whether the company broke the law by fueling anti-science campaigns through corporate contributions to organizations and individuals working to sow doubt and confusion about global warming.

Spreading factual untruths and confusion about smoking or climate science is neither research nor education in the public interest.

Well all I can say is that if the comments here are a reflection of the confusion currently existing amongst professional scientists then there is no surprise about the media panics arising from virtually all new observations of natural real world changes, not just climate shifts.

This has created much confusion about the nature and causes of Holocene abrupt climatic changes and has given many the false impression that the Holocene is characterized by long periods of climate stability.

On the same day, coverage of the story by the Canadian Press included a fundamental error that is already contributing to public confusion about the reality of climate change.

TCRP blames them for trying «to sow denial and confusion about the science of climate change, ignore its impacts and create apathy among our leaders.»

-LSB-...] Change» (NIPCC), a collection of climate change deniers who have been criticized by many climate scientists for their attempts sow doubt and confusion about the firmly - established scientific -LSB-...]

But there is also growing confusion about what «reporting» actually is, and what venues for climate news still exist.

Singer is the founder of the Heartland Institute's «Nongovernmental International Panel On Climate Change» (NIPCC), a collection of climate change deniers who have been criticized by many climate scientists for their attempts sow doubt and confusion about the firmly - established scientific findings of the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Change» (NIPCC), a collection of climate change deniers who have been criticized by many climate scientists for their attempts sow doubt and confusion about the firmly - established scientific findings of the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate change deniers who have been criticized by many climate scientists for their attempts sow doubt and confusion about the firmly - established scientific findings of the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate scientists for their attempts sow doubt and confusion about the firmly - established scientific findings of the United Nations» Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Climate Change (IPCC).

According to the film's synopsis on its website, Merchants of Doubt «lifts the curtain on a secretive group of highly charismatic, silver - tongued pundits - for - hire who present themselves in the media as scientific authorities — yet have the contrary aim of spreading maximum confusion about well - studied public threats ranging from toxic chemicals to pharmaceuticals to climate change.»

The current situation for the climate sciences has been described as «a struggle about the truth of the state of climate» (Romm 2010), and a number of books even claim that climate science myths have been introduced to society in a distorted way, causing more confusion than enlightenment (Oreskes and Conway 2008; Gelbspan 1997; Hoggan et al. 2009; Mooney 2006).

The fact that GHGs act as both climate forcings, which lead climate change, and climate feedbacks, which lag climate change, has been used by «contrarians» to sow confusion about global warming.

The net result of the conflicting media reports and criticism will likely be a greater confusion about the relevant science, and an overshadowing of what is at heart a good contribution to understanding climate history and that is a shame.

They have focused on looking at the warmer climates of the Cenozoic (the Pliocene, etc.) to avoid the confusion from the response of ice sheets to orbital forcing during the ice age cycles of the Pleistocene, but obviously have significant uncertainties due to less precision about ancient greenhouse gas levels.

There is confusion based on the fact that when most climate scientists talk about a net positive feedback, they do not mean that in the same sense that it is used in systems theory (or control theory or whatever you want to call it).