Sentences with phrase «done by climate scientists»

The current adjustments and hyperventilation about the biblical sanctity of the temperature and models are being done by the climate scientists and modellers who have till date not shown any skills or capability to do that job fairly and ethically and especially present results as they are, without spinning or putting a slant on them or» adjusting» them.

THE ANALYSIS I DID IS IN FACT UTTERLY CLEAR AND SIMPLE, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS 20 YEARS AGO, AND THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT DROPPED THEN.

Look at all the significance tests and tests of the null hypothesis done by climate scientists.

I don't know if the presentation will be done by climate scientists or by lawyers.

Not exact matches

As he explained to the Financial Times: «[Granata and I] were both very concerned by climate change and we wanted to do something about it, so we started meeting scientists at the Polytechnic University of Milan and started research to develop that technology.»

«I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,» the first term senator said Sunday on ABC «This Week,» after being asked by ABC News» Jon Karl whether humans were contributing to the heating up of the planet.

«Quantifying the Risk of Extreme Events Under Climate Change» by Eric Gilleland, project scientist at the Research Applications Laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; Richard W. Katz, senior scientist at the Institute for Mathematics Applied to Geosciences at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Philippe Naveau, senior scientist at the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (LSCE) at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique

An analysis by New Scientist finds scant evidence of data abuse, but does show persistent efforts to suppress work by climate sceptics.

While some may see evidence of rapid glacier thinning in the past and again today as evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is nearing a collapse driven by human - caused climate change, Steig said at this point, scientists just don't know whether that is the case.

Scientists still do not fully know the precise reasons for the extinction of many species; it probably took place due to a combination of climate change and hunting by humans.

Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs.

«I've heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they're not scientists; that we don't have enough information to act,» he continued, in a comment clearly aimed at Republican politicians who have used that line in an effort to avoid taking a position on the reliability of climate science.

But he does suggest that the scientists» ability to understand climate change — whose impact is far more pronounced in the Arctic — is hampered by their tendency to sneer at anecdotal evidence.

Some scientists react by avoiding talk of the complexity and uncertainties in climate prediction, says Joussaume, but she does the opposite.

Given today's severe pressure for productivity, and universities» propensity to judge scientists» value by the length of their publication list, Higgs said to The Guardian, he finds it «difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964.»

37 - percentage point gap over whether climate change is mostly caused by human activity — 87 % of AAAS scientists say it is, while 50 % of the public does.

The consequences of global sea level rise could be even scarier than the worst - case scenarios predicted by the dominant climate models, which don't fully account for the fast breakup of ice sheets and glaciers, NASA scientists said today (Aug. 26) at a press briefing.

«CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry did not really change from 2014 to 2016,» says climate scientist Pierre Friedlingstein at the University of Exeter in England, and an author of the 2017 carbon budget report released by the Global Carbon Project in November.

On a more serious note, I'm afraid you are confusing «actual [climate] research done by actual scientists» with «valid, replicable, scientifically - based climate research».

I think you and others could do more to change attitudes in the U.S. on global warming by joining forces in putting pressure on NOAA administrators and NWS supervisors to educate the 5,500 meteorologists in 120 National Weather Service offices so the NWS scientists can help other government people and other meteorologists who enter people's private living rooms better understand climate change.

These analyses, whilst not disproving the anthropogenic global warming theory, do show that the climate we are in today is not unusual in recent history, and therefore the possibility of natural variability causing the warming can not be ruled out, as it seemingly has been by many «independent» scientists, and the IPCC.

98 % of actual climate scientists (a distinction Dr. Willie Soon does not earn) agree that global warming is real and primarily drive by humans burning fossil fuels like coal and oil.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are presently increasing every year at an accelerating rate, and it is extremely unlikely that humanity will collectively do what is necessary to not only stop that growth in CO2 emissions, but reverse it, and then reduce emissions by 80 percent or more within 5 to 10 years, which is what mainstream climate scientists say is needed to avoid the worst outcomes of anthropogenic global warming.

Compare what they and many others do, with this Goal Mission «RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.»

Why don't scientists and other experts contributing to the fifth assessment by the climate panel self organize and create a public Web portal?

But even if climate scientists should see Crichton's book as a sign of progress or even as a back - handed compliment, I don't see how that should change the approach taken by this site.

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 thScientists 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 thscientists 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.

If you don't know much about climate science, or about the details of the controversy over the «hockey stick,» then A. W. Montford's book The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science might persuade you that not only the hockey stick, but all of modern climate science, is a fraud perpetrated by a massive conspiracy of climate scientists and politicians, in order to guarantee an unending supply of research funding and political power.

A climate scientist who did good science which showed that climate change was not a problem would get supported by the usual sources and would also get a lot of industry support.

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

The trouble is, given the increased marginal cost of mitigation, the economic headwinds, and beliefs by many that scientists don't have the climate thing right (per the great post of yesterday regarding Mooney's «Unscientific America») or that the Divine will simply «take care of good people» no matter, I don't see pursuit of mitigation as being something people or politicians are going to back either.

You may be of the opinion that all climate science is merely being done to further our own personal interests and therefore nothing that is said by any of us can be trusted --(though if that were the case, I'd be writing studies on how short, balding, rotund scientists are really the best lovers).

Then, usually, one finds out (by listening to the more detailed report, or going to the source document itself) that the scientist involved doesn't really disagree that climate change is happening, that human activity is a substantial cause, and that some sorts of big problems will likely result.

James E. Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who has long had a habit of pushing past where many colleagues dare go in describing the risks posed by global warming, has done it again.

Do you think it's respectable to rebunk undead AGW - denialist memes long since decisively debunked by working climate scientists?

Scientists are judged by their peers and not politicians, the only time we will be doing something is either by accident such as when Oil becomes economically to expensive and hence new technologies get their chane or when a climate catastrophe happens such as many hurricanes in a single season battering the same place repeatedly and that place being significant.

Over all, he wrote, «My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do.»

In the report released today by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's top scientists warned that global warming is unequivocally man - made and will become irreversible if we do not act now to reduce the amount of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere.

Well, one thing they don't have in common is that the vast majority of working, publishing climate scientists have concluded that global warming is real, is caused by us, and will have drastic consequences for millions of people in the next few decades.

I was wondering for some time now, how much the findings of the work of scientists, be it the IPCC, be it the PIK in Potsdam or what have you, can be taken for granted in order for policy makers to make valuable decisions (e.g. cutting carbon emissions by half by 2050) and if the uncertainties in the models might outweigh certain decisions to reduce carbon emissions so that in the end it might happen that these uncertainties make these decisions obsolete, because they do not suffice to avoid «dangerous climate change»?

I said no it didn't & he'd better check out RealClimate.org to see its critique by real climate scientists (luckily you're on that topic again, in case he visits here).

And this geological time scale has little to do with the current push by many climate scientists to curb such emissions to avoid dangerous warming in the next century or two.

Finesse in public discourse does not seem widely possessed by climate scientists, although there are some notable exceptions.

Please don't get me wrong: I'm all for more and improved communication of climate science, both by scientists and journalists.

A climate scientist with impeccable credentials claims that we can safely keep the earth cool for many decades in the same way that volcanic eruptions do — by putting sunlight - blocking material in the stratosphere.

BALI, Indonesia — An international team of scientists skeptical of man - made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to «have the courage to do nothing» in response to UN demands.

Last summer, government scientists predicted that, as a result of climate change, polar bears may disappear from the U.S. and its waters entirely by 2050 — and that estimate doesn't even take into account potential effects from new oil and gas activities.

United Nation Climate change, Bali Skeptical Scientists Urge World To «Have the Courage to Do Nothing» At UN Conference By EPW Blog Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The open question I have is what has the IPCC or other climate science body publicly done to counteract the falsity about the «science» and about the IPCC itself, and working climate scientists, as expressed by John Howard and others?

More than 650 scientists from around the world dispute the claims made by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore about global warming, saying that science does not support that climate change is a manmade phenomenon, according to a posting on the Senate environmental committee's press blog.