Sentences with phrase «even as climate scientists»

But even as climate scientists shake their heads in distress, plant taxonomists may be holding their heads in despair.

Even as climate scientists, and the science underpinning global warming, have been vindicated (for the umpteenth time) the GOP has completed its descent into science - bashing and anti- «warmist» rhetoric.

The boom in unconventional fuels — such as bitumen extracted from Alberta's tar sands and oil extracted from North Dakota's Bakken shale formation by hydraulic fracturing («fracking»)-- has swelled global reserves even as climate scientists issue ever - sterner warnings that burning more than a small fraction of these reserves would be suicidal.

«Even I as a climate scientist am startled to see another potentially devastating storm in this region so shortly after Harvey,» said Anders Levermann from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Columbia University in a statement.

Not exact matches

«A full reading of Bernstein's email reveals an important point ---- his assertion that, in the 1980s, we never denied the possible role of human activity as a cause for climate change, and he further makes clear that, at that point in time, there was a great deal of uncertainty and lack of understanding of climate change, even among leading scientists and experts,» said Keil, adding that today, Exxon «believes the risk of climate change is clear, and warrants action.»

I think my question to those of you who couple atheism with evolution and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

I think my question to those of you who couple evil atheism with evolution, the big bang, and climate change is: how can we as scientists even start trying to inform you about the details of what you are arguing against if you automatically presume everything we say is a blasphemous lie?

An Ipsos Mori poll found many do not think climate change is as big a threat as scientists and politicians warn and are more concerned about terrorism, crime, graffiti and even dog mess.

While being publicized in the mainstream media certainly makes researchers a target, being picked up in the skeptic blogosphere, which includes widely read blogs such asWatts Up With That, Climate Audit and Morano's Climate Depot, can also lead to scientists receiving email barrages, even when, as in Norgaard's case, the research has not received mainstream media attention.

Many climate scientists see interacting with society as an important part of the job — even a moral responsibility.

Even as scientists and politicians from around the world debated in December how to deal with a practical problem of profound importance — global climate change — another international group of physicists was waiting with bated breath for a more esoteric development.

Even Hanson, though, is beginning to look downright optimistic compared to a new crop of climate scientists, who fret that things could head south as quickly as a handful of years, or even months, if we're particularly unluEven Hanson, though, is beginning to look downright optimistic compared to a new crop of climate scientists, who fret that things could head south as quickly as a handful of years, or even months, if we're particularly unlueven months, if we're particularly unlucky.

Thus, to get an accurate picture of what the climate might be like in coming years, scientists will have to continue back even farther in history to a period known as the Eocene.

The data they gather will set scientists up with a solid baseline to monitor future changes and predict what comes next as Antarctica's floating ice shelves retreat and even collapse due to climate change.

««The arid lands of southwestern North America will imminently become even more arid as a result of human - induced climate change just at the time that population growth is increasing demand for water, most of which is still used by agriculture,» said Richard Seager, Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont - Doherty Earth Observatory and one of the lead authors of the study.

Taking «backfire effect» as a starting point — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans has interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand the political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

Taking as a starting point the «backfire effect» — a phrase coined to describe how people often maintain or even strengthen their beliefs when given factual evidence against them — Tillmans interviewed scientists, politicians, journalists, and social workers in an effort to understand changes in the international political climate in recent decades, with a particular focus on right - wing populism and fake news.

The Climate Scientists know rainfall is going to change and can even make some decent guesses on those changes — but they are far from certain as yet.

Dr. Lovelock, who in 1972 conceived of Earth's crust, climate and veneer of life as a unified self - sustaining entity, Gaia, foresees humanity in full pole - bound retreat within a century as areas around the tropics roast — a scenario far outside even the worst - case projections of climate scientists.

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.

Imagine a man or woman being so arrogant, and selfish, that they'd take a job driving a CO2 belching truck, or dig for coal in a mine, or fish for salmon in the ocean, or fly a CO2 belching airliner, or flip beef patties that came from CH4 exhausting cows, or teaching a classroom of students all of whom belch CO2 and exhaust CH4 and whom will have offspring that produces even more of those evil gases, or working as a climate scientist in an office heated by CO2 belching FFs and occasionally traveling around the world by CO2 belching airliner — all the while using computers made from FFs and powered by CO2 belching FF power plants, or working as a Senator from Tennessee who was President of the USA for a few hours and who travels all over the world in CO2 belching airliners, or one of the millions of people who mine, process, manufacture and transport every product you have ever seen in your life and all the ones you haven't seen as well.

A particularly good example is that of abrupt climate change, as recorded in Greenland ice cores, which few scientists thought was likely, or even possible, prior to those discoveries.

Despite their appeal, such steps are almost meaningless when considering the grand challenge of limiting warming even as human numbers and energy appetites crest in coming decades, an array of climate scientists warn.

A team of scientists is pioneering new strategies for ensuring that polar bears can persist even as summer sea ice — a vital feeding platform — retreats under the climate change that is already in the pipeline no matter how aggressively societies tackle the greenhouse challenge.

In a culture too often dominated by expediency and self - interest, I came to view climate scientists as visionaries and altruists, flawed and flummoxed like all such people who are suddenly called by forces outside themselves to excel themselves, fighting not just their own reluctance to become publicly involved, and their own ill - adaption to public and activist lives, but, ultimately, fighting for the truth in the face of falsehood, not just because truth matters in some abstract or even in moral terms, but because the fate of the Earth itself, and all who live here, is ever more obviously at stake.

Dr. Sterman and other social scientists assessing climate science and climate policy say that a vital task for President Obama and his climate - energy team (and for scientists and the media), even as they weigh legislation and a treaty and technology, is to educate the public on the bathtub effect.

When I Google that expression I get an awful lot of denialist sites come up; nobody on the first page of hits looks like a climate scientist — unless for example you're counting Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, whose scientific qualifications end at O - level (if he even got an O - level); or perhaps Joanne Nova, who has more scientific qualification, but isn't a climate scientist unless a bachelor's degree in microbiology qualifies her as such?

Given what the world's leading climate scientists have been telling us for some time now, George Bush and his apologists will not have even such a threadbare excuse as that.

I would go so far, in light of the efforts of the current administration, the EPA, and of late even NASA to «manage» findings by climate scientists that someone intended for the press release from the USGS Newsroom to keep the public in the dark regarding this point as they proclaimed: «Century of Data Shows Intensification of Water Cycle but No Increase in Storms or Floods»

As they always have, news services began describing the embargoed findings earlier in the evening, prodded by environmental campaigners and some scientists who hoped the results would inspire diplomats preparing to gather next month in Bali for the latest round of climate - treaty talks.

After many interviews with biologists and climate scientists focused on the Amazon, as well as people like Bruce Babbitt, the former United States secretary of the interior who has spent a lot of time crisscrossing the Amazon, I remain convinced that there is a path to development for Brazil — even with the growing global appetite for soy and biofuels and roads to the Pacific — that can preserve a large fraction of the vast forest region.

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.

I don't think that sun spot activity is solely reasonable for climate change, just as most scientist do agree that humans are not the only or even the main cause.

Michael E. Mann sounds remarkably upeat these days considering that he has been under assault for more than a decade by investigations, criticisms, and even death threats for his work as a climate scientist.

Yes, the notion that scientists tow the global warming line in exchange for fame and money seems to ignore the many benefits of being a published climate scientist who tows the «skeptic» line, or even seems to sympathize with some of their talking points — who are valuable, as market theory would predict, because they are very scarce.

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»?

We understand that you berated our nominator at some length following the article for utilising anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, even though such data - for example allegorical paintings by Breughel - are frequently used by scientists such as Phil Jones and Professor Brian Fagan to usefully illustrate the deterioration in the climate in the 16th century.

Janković and Shultz even dare to reference the late Dr. Stephen Schneider's heartfelt rationalization for climate change advocacy by invoking his stated position that climate scientists must necessarily «offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have» so as to «capture the public's imagination» by «getting loads of media coverage» as a means to advance the cause.

Across the southern hemisphere, the data have proved even more devastating to what supposed «climate scientists» were caught referring to as their «cause» in the deeply embarrassing ClimateGate e-mails.

«Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly... [and] damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions.»

Whatever happens, one thing is clear: Even as scientists and policy experts suggest changes, they are clear that existence of the internationally accepted authority on climate science is vital.

Even when directly confronted with very basic issues, such as journals selectively enforcing data access policies, the response has generally been to solely support the wishes of the climate scientists.

His refusal to understand the debate he comments on even leads him to put mainstream climate scientists into the same category as «deniers».

WASHINGTON — A study on how much heat in Earth's atmosphere is caused by cloud cover has heated up the climate change blogosphere even as it is dismissed by many scientists.

Powell argues that if there were a small percentage of dissenting scientists, even as low as 3 %, the public perception would be that those scientists could turn out to be a group heralding a coming paradigm shift in climate science.

* Sereneti Strategy is necessary when there's widespread, even as high as a 97 % consensus of scientists knowing that climate - change is real.

Nonetheless, virtually every major national environmental organization continues to reject nuclear energy, even after four leading climate scientists wrote them an open letter last fall, imploring them to embrace the technology as a key climate solution.

Climate scientists have been examining different aspects of the drought, from the role that ocean conditions in far - flung places such as the tropical Pacific Ocean and even the Atlantic Ocean may have played in triggering it to how it falls into a broader historical context.

It seems that the definition of «consensus» varies by field, just as the decision - making framework does, with unanimity or near unanimity expected from the scientific community, even including those scientists who in many cases have not really embedded themselves in the literature nor been required to put together a coherent assembly and analysis of scientific knowledge (and even including, somehow, CEI's [Competitive Enterprise Institute] lawyers with their ExxonMobil support, who are often quoted as the contrary view in papers on the science of climate change).

As their «science» continues to be exposed and discredited by genuine scientists and astute researchers, we can expect their noisy chorus to get even noisier, in a desperate attempt to push through a new UN climate regime in Paris — before taxpayers completely pull the plug on their global - warming gravy train.