No less
a figure than climate scientist, Professor Mike Hulme, founding director of the Tyndall Centre, joined the debate.
Not exact matches
On the other hand, if the
climate scientists are right about AGW happening, and the contrarians are wrong, and we act as if AGW is not happening, then not only will we lose all those other benefits, but we will allow the world to sink into great catastrophe (greater
than you may think, when we
figure how people may start turning nasty against each other as their material lives deteriorate — Katrina gave us a microcosm of that).
They claim our supplemental code was not usable, but in fact we provided a turnkey R script for every single
figure in our submission — something not true of their code, so that is a little cheeky of them [as is declaring that one of us to be a mere blogger, rather
than a
climate scientist; — RRB --RSB-.
After I first posted, Georgia Tech
climate scientist Judith Curry argued that the relevant
figure for the Stenhouse et al study is much less
than 78 %.
Apparently in the same manner that he glommed onto the notion that skeptic
climate scientists are paid illicit industry money under instructions to «reposition global warming as theory rather
than fact», it seems he didn't check the veracity of the more recently repeated «3000 IPCC
scientists»
figure.
First, the setup for Ron's article: Back late 2009, in my efforts to
figure out where the infamous «reposition global warming as theory rather
than fact» phrase came from — the line spelled out in Al Gore's movie and in Ross Gelbspan's book «The Heat is On», which they portray as a sinister top - down industry directive that skeptic
climate scientists are paid to follow — I ran across Naomi Oreskes» widely repeated Powerpoint presentation from 2008 where she said the leaked memo set containing that phrase was in the archives of the American Meteorological Society (AMS).
The AEO 2017 Reference case features marginally lower emissions
than AEO 2016 (a cumulative decrease of 1 percent between 2017 and 2030), and features 2050 emissions over four times higher
than is recommended by
climate scientists (see
Figure 5).