Sentences with phrase «credibility as a climate scientist»

None of these individuals has any credentials or credibility as a climate scientist, and Moore is something of a joke among environmentalists.

But for me his credibility as a climate scientist was most compromised with his assertion that «it would take only one research study to cause the global warming house of cards to collapse.»

Not exact matches

Although the scientific credibility of the film drew criticism from climate scientists, the scenario of an abrupt collapse of the AMOC, as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, was never assessed with a state - of - the - art climate model.

We offered the bet at the time as we were concerned that the failed forecasts would in the end cast a shadow on the credibility of climate science as a whole, so we felt a need to emphasise that other climate scientists disagreed with these forecasts.

Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle has weighed in with an excellent post on the letter, noting that none of the complainants are climate scientists; that NASA's position as an agency reflects the brunt of science pointing to a human - heated planet; and that the personal stances of high - profile NASA scientists, Hansen, for instance, are indeed likely to damage the agency's credibility in the eyes of a public divided on global warming.

There's been an ongoing thread on Dot Earth examining whether and how scientists can stake a position on climate policy while maintaining their credibility as objective pursuers of scientific knowledge.

I'd like to understand why the perfect has become the enemy of the good and why Mr. Hansen's credentials as a climate scientist extend him credibility in other areas which are not his field of study.

But how much longer can her credibility hold together, if even her own friends see her as someone who can't seem to get historical facts correct about her personal situation, combined with her claims of being attacked by US Senator James Inhofe being undercut by her own words, and her apparent failure to fact - check elemental details surrounding a core set of evidence she relies on to indict «corrupt skeptic climate scientists»?

It's bad enough that Columbia Journalism Review article writer Robert S. Eshelman made the mistake of labeling Ross Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner (which the CJR later deleted initially without explanation) in his May 1, 2014 piece, but when Eshelman dutifully recited an oft - repeated narrative of how Gelbspan dived into an investigation of «corrupt funding of skeptic climate scientists» — the narrative itself being one plagued with highly questionable contradictions — he basically handed Gelbspan a shovel to dig a deeper credibility hole.

Update: The site Climate Feedback, a network of scientists that evaluates media coverage of climate change, recently rated Holthaus» piece as «high» on the credibility scale and described it as both «accurate» and «alarmist&Climate Feedback, a network of scientists that evaluates media coverage of climate change, recently rated Holthaus» piece as «high» on the credibility scale and described it as both «accurate» and «alarmist&climate change, recently rated Holthaus» piece as «high» on the credibility scale and described it as both «accurate» and «alarmist».

As in the «settled science» is rife with unsettled contradictions, the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are corrupted by illicit money doesn't have a shred of physical evidence to back it up, and one of the main promoters of the accusation is a person apparently plagued with credibility problems.

And that, I think, is the real lesson here: climate scientists who act as policy advocates lose scientific credibility.

The statement by Mike McPhaden, President of the AGU, comes down pretty hard on Peter Gleick for having «betrayed the principles of scientific integrity» and thereby «compromised AGU's credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public's trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth's changing climate.»

I'd suggest that both are almost certainly untrue in general, even though there may well be some climate science that is bullshit and some climate scientists that are idiots, and in any event, getting the basic physics you're trying to call them on wrong simply destroys your own credibility as a reasoning participant in the debate.

Although the situation suggests overt dishonesty, it is entirely possible, in today's scientific environment, that many scientists feel that it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change as well as the credibility of models.

Formal academic credentials aren't the only measure of a scientists credibility but, since you want to play that game, who do you think should be more knowledgeable about climate - a guy with a PhD in meteorology or an oceanographer and computer programmer (Andy Weaver) who identifies himself as a «climatologist».

As a staff we at Climate Interactive have been discussing this question lately, inspired by a recent research paper on the relationships between a scientist's carbon footprint and his or her perceived credibility on climate Climate Interactive have been discussing this question lately, inspired by a recent research paper on the relationships between a scientist's carbon footprint and his or her perceived credibility on climate climate change.