Sentences with phrase «facts about climate change science»

Concern about policies based on science is understandable and can be used to create better policies, but in many cases the concern about policies is prompting some to misrepresent the facts about climate change science.

Not exact matches

Scientists have made the science section of the National Climate Assessment public before it is officially due to be released, citing concerns that the administration may attempt to change some of the facts it presents about climate Climate Assessment public before it is officially due to be released, citing concerns that the administration may attempt to change some of the facts it presents about climate climate change.

February 15, 2015 — Science deniers try to change the facts about climate http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/02/science-deniers-try-to-change-facts.html

I don't claim to know anything about social or psychological sciences to elaborate, but this might just be a consequence of the fact that climate change operates on timescales much larger than a political term or the time it takes to schedule your son's soccer practice.

Most climate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEchange communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEChange Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEChange Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEchange and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHING!

There are not that many «facts» about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.

In fact, during an hour long June briefing to launch a major government climate change report, a panel that included White House science adviser John Holdren and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco mentioned greenhouse gases just once â $» instead warning about the perils of â $ œheat - trapping gasesâ $ or â $ œheat - trapping pollutants.â $

On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay - sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence.»

We're not offering a «counter-claim» about the science, because our position is that even the concrete, incontrovertible, unassailable fact of human influence on global warming and climate change does not, by itself, make a case for action.

The statement you object to is in fact accurate, and is based on a simple calculation starting with what is understood by science about man - made greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.

Though not CMOS's first public statement, it was one of the most «vocal about climate change of late» due to the fact «that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May [2006]» and because «a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media,» Leahy wrote.

It's just to say that the logic of demanding that those who want to speak about climate change have qualifications in climate science in fact excludes climate scientists from making statements about society, and the bases on which it has been built.

Some of the arguments against climate change policies based upon scientific uncertainty should and can be responded to on scientific grounds especially in light of the fact that many claims about scientific uncertainty about human - induced warming are great distortions of mainstream climate change science.

In 2005, during the peak of climate hysteria and the drive to create an international political response to climate change, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challeclimate hysteria and the drive to create an international political response to climate change, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challeclimate change, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challenchange, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challengAbout Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challeClimate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challenChange — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challengabout official climate science and those who dared to challeclimate science and those who dared to challenge it.

A list of scientific facts about CO2, global warming, and climate change showing how misinformed we are by the «official climate science» of the IPCC.

We will steadfastly present the facts about natural and manmade climate change, and insist absolutely that environmental policies must reflect genuine science and the needs of human beings.G

(ii) Saying that the cost - benefit analysis has to be performed on the basis of criteria from outside the sciences merely acknowledges the fact that the decision to choose among several ways of reacting to or anticipating climate changes invokes genuine moral values that science can — and indeed should — be neutral about.

Judith often writes about the «uncertainty monster» but it seems to me there is an even bigger beast «the exaggeration monster» which takes snippets of possible facts or unlikely statements and turns them into «science is settled» papers that reinforce the climate change narrative demonstrating AGW.

the United States media has almost always failed to communicate this fact when discussing controversies about climate change science.

to that level, it might turn out to be the case that the Heartland documents supply evidence that Heartland is, in fact, engaged in coordinated attempts to discredit legitimate science and mislead both the public and decision makers about the underlying scientific facts of human - caused climate change.

In spite of his own errors, May is deeply suspicious of any attempt to subject claims about the future of the world's climate to scientific scrutiny, and he steps further outside the realm of material fact to speculate that those guilty of not respecting the facts belong to an «active and well - funded «denial lobby»» that is «misinforming the public about the science of climate change».

One of the most interesting things about the climate debate is that in one place it involves people arguing about point A (in this case sensitivity), by assuming that B is well known (in this case temperature change), while not far away people are hotly debating B. Most of AGW science, including F&G, is based on assuming that the surface statistical model means are facts.

May is asking us to respect factoids and unrepresentative evidence dressed up as fact, yet he assures us that it is the oil companies that are «misinforming the public about the science of climate change».

Its basic logic seems sensible: As good children of the Enlightenment, we should turn to science to establish the facts about problems such as climate change before deciding what policies to implement.

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.

In March 2007, Hansen told the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, «The effect of the filtering of climate change science during the current administration has been to make the reality of climate change less certain than the facts indicate, and to reduce concern about the relation of climate change to human - made greenhouse gas emissions.»

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

We are an independent, non-partisan science organization that researches and reports the facts about climate change impacts, such as extreme weather, drought, flooding, wild fires, and sea level rise, as well as alternative energy systems and transportation.