Sentences with phrase «discussions about climate science»

Some of these big Universities also have» Climate Change» departments and during lunch breaks at staff canteens, I have made it a point wherever possible to go engage them in discussions about climate science.

It is the decoupling of dispassionate from skepticism that makes public discussions about climate science and environmental issues in general so uninformative.

The discussion about the climate science is fairly brief, but I think that the book would have been even more convincing by citing more broadly, rather than keeping referring to a handful of central people.

«The Pause» has a very limited purpose in a serious discussion about climate science agenda setting and fraud.

Perhaps the IJOC got what they wanted, but it seems that what they wanted is not a full debate and discussion about climate science.

In 1996 I defined the turning point of the discussion about climate science (the point where we could actually start talking about policy) as the date when the Wall Street Journal would acknowledge the indisputable and apparent fact of anthropogenic climate change; the year in which it would simply be ridiculous to deny it.

On the BBC program Sunday Politics, Andrew Neil hosted UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey for a discussion about climate science and policy.

Not exact matches

Another expert, University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd, said that «while we have to be careful about knee - jerk cause - effect discussions, the National Academy of Science and recent peer - reviewed literature continue to show that some of today's extremes have climate change fingerprints on them.»

Rather than arguing over the science of climate change, public discussion should be about actions needed to address it, he said.

Diffenbaugh said the congressman and the scientists had «a very pleasant and positive discussion about the level of scientific understanding that we have about the climate system, the institutions of science by which we conduct our day - to - day work and the peer - review process, and how public decisions are made within the context of scientific understanding.

I am old enough (Ph.D. 1978 in Atmospheric Science, Colorado State U.), to remember the discussions going on about climate cooling at the time.

Nine years later, his name appeared on a list of scientists proposed to the Environmental Protection Agency as arbiters of climate science for a national debate meant to provide Americans «true, legitimate, peer - reviewed, objective, transparent discussion about CO ₂.»

I think your discussion about anthropogenic global warming is a little «off topic» in this blog entry, which is about due diligence in climate science, but with the permission of those running the blog, I'd like to explore it a little further.

A wide range of different presetations about different national weeks such as anti-bullying week, Science week, Climate Change Week, Christian Aid Week, Interfaith Week, Road Safety Week... lots of different visual images to help start a wide range of different discussions about each topic.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think that doing the basic analysis is so easy that it ought to be required of anyone who wants to be taken seriously in a discussion of climate in which math, data, and science are involved.

As I've reminded Mr. Roger, this discussion is not about me, but about the actual science of climate change.

In light of the hard - won scientific consensus developed by the IPCC, has the time not yet come to «center» our discussion on what we know of climate change, based upon good science, and talk about what we are going to do in order to address the human - driven predicament in which humanity finds itself in these early years of Century XXI?

There were a lot of quite diverse perspectives and many discussions about the what's, why's and how's of climate science communication.

I traded e-mails this morning with a communications director from a major climate NGO who said this about the whole current «discussion»: Kind of symbolic of how much time the community spends talking about how to communicate science versus actually trying to communicate science.

The discussion Chris Mooney's Washington Post piece has rekindled about why the public «doesn't get it» about science, and your question, «What if the public had perfect climate change information,» both presume there is some ideal «It» to «get»... some «perfect» knowledge, some unassailable truth.

If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science - politics - policy discussions about climate change.

Since the release in mid-February of a series of documents related to the internal strategy of the Heartland Institute to cast doubt on climate science, there has been extensive speculation about the origin of the documents and intense discussion about what they reveal.

I was engaged in a discussion with Monckton about his views of climate science and some disputes we'd had over stories I'd written when Brad Johnson, a climate blogger and editor at the liberal Center for American Progress, walked by — creating one of those volatile moments, as if matter and anti-matter had come a bit too close for comfort.

He follows a president who consistently stressed the unknowns about global warming and whose minions sometimes downplayed established science; whose negotiators at climate - treaty talks were instructed to enter into any kind of discussion, but no negotiations.

Stern has now offered a reaction to the discussion last week of Princeton researcher Robert Socolow's call for a fresh approach to climate policy that acknowledges «the news about climate change is unwelcome, that today's climate science is incomplete, and that every «solution» carries risk.»

Many readers with varied views have rightly criticized the prolonged debates about basic points in climate science that frequently spring up on Dot Earth posts where science is not the main point of discussion.

In the last year, my discussions with people who resent AGW talk have more and more been about science and scientists that people disresepct, and less and less about climate arguments and facts that they disbelieve.

WebHubTelescope: It's strange that any discussion with a contrarian about climate science invariably ends up being about economics.

John, On the «Presentation: Precautionary Principle...» thread you told me that you think it's «unhelpful to conflate discussion of climate - science issues like the modelling of SO2, about which none of us here know very much, with discussion of economic projections, where we can have a useful discussion.»

WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) July 6, 2014 at 4:29 pm It's strange that any discussion with a contrarian about climate science invariably ends up being about economics.

The line - by - line approval sessions... ensure that there is no more discussion about the science in the climate negotiations... (p. 583)

In addition to raising doubts about climate science and about the need to slow climate change by reducing emissions, the company site omits any discussion of the costly consequences of climate change, choosing instead to focus exclusively on high - end estimates of the costs of reducing emissions.

There are active discussions in climate science — they're just not about this.

I realize I was trespassing with anecdote in a discussion about science and climate, which requires more than a decade to begin to show trends, but it seems to me that as recent incidents display to some extent climate change under way, it is unwise to ignore the future, which might just accelerate rather than boinging back to neutral.

Pick randomly among the thousands of ClimateGate emails, and you see discussions among IPCC scientists about finely detailed climate science matters.

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

What I find odd is that I have yet to see any discussion of what climate change science might say about the wisdom of continued US «participation» in the Paris «treaty.»

Finally, you talk about how to «build confidence» in the models... this is just like our prior discussion about building confidence in climate science.

Although it was advertised as a discussion about an «attack on science», the Horizon film was dominated by the climate change debate.

Given how pervasive has been the ideological censorship and filtering by Wikipedia of discussion and content about anything to do with «Climate Science», I surprised anyone would actually cite it without some kind of qualification or caveat... In this arena, at least, Wikipedia's more like a Chinese Official News Agency than an open venue for discussion.

I think your discussion about anthropogenic global warming is a little «off topic» in this blog entry, which is about due diligence in climate science, but with the permission of those running the blog, I'd like to explore it a little further.

My real point in all this, aside from pointing out a Cognitive Dualism, is that I think most thinking observers see that many discussions about climate change on BOTH SIDES are infused with a desperation to change minds, and are couched in terms that one would not normally associate with dispassionate science.

Why on earth Mr Lacis raves on about the ins and outs of the technical issues under discussion in the area of climate science / global warming when it is the issue of the ethical and legal aspects of Gleick's actions that are the immediate issue.

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).

As Chris Mooney writes in his post about the discussion between Drs Francis and Trenberth, «The biggest debate in climate science may be over whether global warming will create more winters like this one.

Any fruitful discussion of what to do about climate change — however serious a problem it turns out to be — must first recognise that it is this background of degraded political aspirations that has provided the ground on which environmental politics has been able to flourish and onto which the science of climate change, resource use, and biodiversity has been superimposed.

UPDATED Sept. 5 I encourage anyone interested in climate change science and policy to explore the rich discussion below about geoengineering, in this case mainly focused on managing incoming solar radiation to counter CO2 - driven global warming — particularly in the context of the long (and building) commitment to warming already baked into the climate system.

For its part, the Democratic national platform fails to provide any detail about the science in its discussion of climate policy.

Whereas he was saying that the public are too vulnerable to be exposed to discussions about uncertainty in scientific debates with implications for policy, the Guardian journalist — as is Guardian journalists» want — read it as a message that there was no uncertainty or controversy in climate science.

If this skeptical view from above average educated respondents prevails and grows we need a discussion about how to repair the damage to the science profession from the bad climate science of past years.