Sentences with phrase «good climate scientists who»

For some additional context, see Climate and Statistics Workshop @ NCAR, 2007, which had both good climate scientists who did statistics and statisticians generally involved with climate and / ore geospatial work, on this agenda.

As we have seen, there are bad climate scientists who rig the computer models representing a huge rise in the Earth's overall average temperature and there are good climate scientists who have waged a long and increasingly successful effort to debunk the greatest hoax of the modern era.

Not exact matches

But beyond that, it's also a good time to ask because of a... let's just call it a spirited debate that recently broke out between two groups of scientists who work on climate and energy.

While this is bad news for the planet, it's good news for climate change scientists who have — for the last two decades — puzzled over warming trends in ocean surface temperatures for nearly 20 years.

I would like to share with you the work of our senior economist Marc Lee, who heads up our Climate Justice Project, as well as the work of one of our research associates, veteran earth scientist David Hughes (who spent 32 years working for the Geological Survey of Canada, where he focused on unconventional gas, coal and oil research).

The strident attempt to silence the skeptics who question the popular thesis that humans are adversely affecting the earth's climate hit a new high over the past couple of weeks with the release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (BEST) report from a group of scientists centered....

He agrees with other scientists who think that the U.S. must begin a series of talks with the European Commission and the European Space Agency as well as with counterparts in India, China and Japan to find a way to develop an international climate observing system.

Will Steffen, a climate scientist and executive director of the Australian National University Climate Change Institute, who was familiar with the study, said the research methodology used was very well - estabclimate scientist and executive director of the Australian National University Climate Change Institute, who was familiar with the study, said the research methodology used was very well - estabClimate Change Institute, who was familiar with the study, said the research methodology used was very well - established.

«Looking at changes in the number of dry days per year is a new way of understanding how climate change will affect us that goes beyond just annual or seasonal mean precipitation changes, and allows us to better adapt to and mitigate the impacts of local hydrological changes,» said Polade, a postdoctoral researcher who works with Scripps climate scientists Dan Cayan, David Pierce, Alexander Gershunov, and Michael Dettinger, who are co-authors of the study.

Coastal sea ice formation takes place on relatively small scales, however, and is not captured well in global climate models, according to scientists at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who conducted the study.

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.

Unless climate scientists can nail down with reasonable accuracy the implications of climate change for good or bad then who is really listening?

They have tracked the rotten ice to a depth of nearly 3 feet below the surface — a finding that could help scientists who develop climate models to better understand how ice sheets are losing mass.

Dr. Schmidt's tweets will be much appreciated by climate scientists and others who are already well - informed and already convinced that global warming is a problem.

Here's an excellent example of how to write really well and thus communicate effectively to the public and others in authority the issues related with climate science denial and the few academics and scientists who choose the other team.

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.

The reception to my comments was especially cold... not one supporter, though a couple of scientists did say I had a «lot of guts» to stand up and say what I said before 140 L.A.s. I was (and still am) calling for the AR5 to be a more open scientific assessment in which those of us who are well - credentialed and have evidence for low climate sensitivity (observational and theoretical) be given room to explain this.

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.

I think that the vast majority of lay readers who read the headlines and the text of stories on climate sensitivity do not know this and they simply presume that the scientists concerned are talking about their absolute best estimates of the possible temperature increases which may be faced.

The best recent representation of Sachs's views is the paper he and others co-authored with James E. Hansen, the longtime NASA climate scientist who now has a climate policy position at Columbia, in which they build on Hansen's longstanding call for a rising price on carbon.

There's quite a contrast between Curbelo's position and the shape - shifting views of presidential hopeful Senator Marco Rubio, who in 2014 said, «I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,» and continues, at best, to offer oblique, meaningless replies when the issue comes up.

And while it's easy to fill 100 «name here» slots on an ad questioning climate clarity, my guess is it'd be hard to find more than a handful of scientists working on the intertwined climate and energy challenges who would say that fossil - fueled business as usual is the best approach to getting humanity through its 21st - century growth spurt in great shape.

By 2010, digging through the cache of climate scientists» e-mail exchanges revealed in the incident that became best known as Climategate, Inhofe was using Senate committee time and resources to probe the actions of 17 climate scientists who Inhofe said should be investigated as potential criminals.

In the words of Carl Mears, assessing the contribution to climate science of G.S. Callendar, «The scientists who brushed aside Callendar's claims were reasoning well enough.

-LSB-...] everyone that the best - selling author who has become a hero to Deniers — even bringing his trash talk against U.S. climate scientists to a Senate hearing — doesn't seem to know the first thing about global warming -LSB-...]

I know of no climate scientist who would do experiments fixing land temperatures and observing the atmospheric response, and with good reason.

Updated, 4:54 p.m. «If You See Something, Say Something,» is the headline on a Sunday Op - Ed article by Michael E. Mann, the Penn State climate scientist who, after years of attacks from groups fighting restrictions on greenhouse gases, has become a prominent climate and political campaigner, as well.

The I.P.C.C. continues to be dominated by natural scientists who may be well intentioned but seem not to be aware that there are equal level (i.e., academic, «scientific») studies of communication and that such a discipline, together with other social sciences, can give crucial contributions to understanding the current and future realities of climate change.

A good friend of mine (who's a scientist in an area far removed from climate) was arguing some time ago that the climate models are useless because they don't include clouds at all or in such a crude way that their effect is totally meaningless.

Unless climate scientists can nail down with reasonable accuracy the implications of climate change for good or bad then who is really listening?

AGW pseudo-skeptics who aren't trained climate scientists (and even some who are) are, at best, in denial of their Dunning - Kruger affliction.

The researchers are Raymond Pierrehumbert, a climate scientist at the University of Chicago, and Richard A. Muller, a physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is best known of late for his research corroborating the extent of recent climate warming.

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.

The scientists who communicate about climate change may regard these standards as wrong - headed or at best irrelevant, but scientists don't get to decide this in a democratic debate.

KevinM, who has mistakenly equated climate scientists with fund managers, needs to read; a good start would be Chu - Carroll, here, who points out among much else cherrypicking numbers and ignoring risk as foolish financial moves.

Why won't you, Crook, Lomborg, Pielke, and other highly intelligent, well - informed people listen to two climate scientists with impeccable credentials, Wigley and Budyko, who claim that for $ 10 billion per year we can keep the earth cool for decades, long enough for us to curb greenhouse gas emissions without clobbering the world's economy?

So please, if you think that the whole community (thousands) of scientists that work on climate research are not doing a good job of auditing one another, you better come with a very good idea of who should audit their work.

Here is why I think it matters: 1) Actively subverting FOIA intent 2) Admitting a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve is right, b) hide decline was dishonest, c) climate models are pretty bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message 3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author 4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern) 5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting «the cause» — Mann especially All the above subverts the official messages of «overwhelming consencus» and «science is settled», world's best scientists just doing their science, and that it would be «absurd» to see a conspiracy.

So this is not really the «debate» that the contrarians would like to make it out to be, and most scientists, as well as people who have accepted that climate science points to the need for stronger action, have no more interest in letting the Heartland and NIPCC folks hijack the public discourse and getting the media to frame the narrative in their terms.

And his followers at R&S believe that he's shown the work of Steve and others to be flawed and that climate scientists are just good folks doing good work, but who happen to be targets of some industry funded campaign to smear their good names.

Joseph D'Aleo was one of fourteen Amici, described as «well - qualified climate scientists,» who claimed that the «EPA's endangerment finding is not «rational» and therefore arbitrary and capricious.»

from «deniers» who want the public to be confused over climate change, according to the world's best - known climate scientist.

Glenn (13:47:49): «Christopher Monckton was on a national breakfast show here in Australia yesterday morning, «debating» some climate scientist who defended the glacier - problem on the basis of «well, one mistake doesn't make the rest of the report invalid».

These scientists (and, for that matter, anyone with a public profile who has anything critical to say about global warming) are whores — «industry shills», «corporate toadies», or part of the «well funded denial machine» — who not only prostitute themselves, but also sell us all out to an apocalypse for dirty, dirty dollars... Those who «deny» climate change are in fact, denying a «holocaust ``.

What you are talking about is a hypothesis by Ruddiman, who is a well - respected climate scientist.

For heaven's sake, won't any of you «climate scientists» accept that your understanding of basic radiation physics, which professional engineers and physicists like me who have worked decades in practical heat transfer, know very well.

While those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer - reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human - induced climate change, mainstream media was, until very recently, covering the story (in more than half the cases, according to the academic researchers Boykoff and Boykoff) by quoting one scientist talking about the risks and one purported expert saying that climate change was not happening — or might actually be a good thing.

I think part of this comes from scientists, both those working in that specific area of climate science and particularly those from outside that area, speaking not as scientists with their inherent tendency not to claim something conclusive without a good deal of statistically tested certainty, but speaking as someone who has been imposed upon or volunteered to give a scientific best guess without bothering the public with the details of uncertainties.

Do you really think that climate scientists are actively trying to be the ones who decide how best to respond?

This is designed specifically to be useful to journalists covering climate change, energy and related subjects, but it should work as well for everyone who wants to communicate facts objectively — scientists, for example.