Sentences with phrase «hand by a climate scientist»

For those who'd like to get the basics of climate change explained first - hand by a climate scientist, here are two video lectures.

Not exact matches

Political scientist Keith Brownsey of Mount Royal University argues the Liberals paid close attention to the many fumbles made by Harper's Tories on the energy file: failing to build solid relationships with First Nations, allowing environmental groups to seize the public - relations initiative, not asserting federal authority and handing provinces like B.C. and Quebec control of the political agenda, keeping Canada outside of the international consensus on climate change, and ignoring legitimate criticisms of the federal review process.

In cooperation with scientists from the Thünen - Institut and the Ecuadorian Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, a team from TUM compared the predicted loss of area of tree species caused by deforestation on the one hand and by predicted forest losses in an extreme climate change scenario on the other.

On the one hand there was a quest by scientists to find the world's funniest joke, and on the other, dire warnings about the dangers of mobile phones, an increase in the incidence of new variant CJD, climate change, and cosmic threats to Earth in the shape of asteroids and gamma ray bursts.

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.

It's an interesting hobby for Objectivists with time on their hands, but as has been proved again and again by the few climate scientists who have braved the CA gauntlet, in the end it's a complete waste of their time.

To get a sense of the tutorials they received, click here to review the marvelous hand - drawn slides presented at the White House (and in various hearings) by Daniel Albritton, then a top government climate scientist.

On the other hand, along with improved agricultural efficiency, this more favorable growing climate has allowed us to feed a rapidly growing global population despite Stanford scientist Paul Ehrlich's dire predictions we would experience mass starvation by the 1970s.

The idea of there being scientists on the one hand, opposed by irrational sceptics on the other has been established so concretely that few editors, peer - reviewers or journalists even bother to ask questions about the content of the consensus, much less about how it is contradicted by the substance of climate sceptics» arguments.

The questioner, the physicist about whom I'm writing today — let's call him Denier 3 — raised his hand at the end and asked if the speaker had considered the criticisms of climate models made by a scientist not present at this conference, a climate scientist famous for his denialist position (let's call him «Famous Denier»).

Spectral analysis, unless properly understood may lead to very misleading conclusions, here are shown four essential things one needs to be aware of all the time: On the other hand there are again unnoticeable data curiosities, this graph shows an unusual configuration within one of the top five temperature data sets used by the climate scientists in their calculations, predictions and computer models.

Hang on... we've been told for years by apparent top climate scientists to expect less snowfalls, climate models predict warmer winters, ex-politicians claiming ice - free polar caps, hand - wringing news articles of children who would never experience snowfalls, on and on... but now we're expected to believe exactly the opposite because that's what's happening now.

If the predictions by climate scientists are accurate and true, as a global unit, all of us need to sign on with all hands on deck to avert disaster.

In other words, the claims should be heard, along with the relevant context, and not just the one sided claims in a vacuum, or «balanced» by non balancing he said / she said statements like; «climate scientists on the other hand say the earth is slowly warming and is likely to increasingly do so in the future.»

When I first began to work with my Ph.D. adviser Barry Saltzman in the early 1990s, he, like many other climate researchers at the time, remained unconvinced that there was yet a detectable human influence on the climate... other scientists, such as NASA's James Hansen and Stanford University's Stephen Schneider, were convinced by the evidence already in hand that human - caused climate change was indeed now upon us.

In an embarrassing display of scientific illiteracy and political gullibility, news organizations have repeatedly played into the deniers» hands: Implicitly endorsing their unfounded accusations of fraud against scientists whose emails were stolen, by portraying a single error in a thousand - page Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as reason to question all of mainstream climate sClimate Change report as reason to question all of mainstream climate sclimate science.

Years in the making, the resulting agreement was described by the U.S. Secretary of State as «a victory for all of the planet and for future generations,» while world - renowned climate scientist, James Hansen, on the other hand, has said that it is «a fraud really, a fake.»