Sentences with phrase «happening in climate science»

David Appell: ««It amounts to nothing more than a betrayal of trust when an «expert» tilts the data and or presentation of that data to elicit a specific reaction from non-experts, and that is what has been happening in climate science since at least the 1980's.»

It amounts to nothing more than a betrayal of trust when an «expert» tilts the data and or presentation of that data to elicit a specific reaction from non-experts, and that is what has been happening in climate science since at least the 1980's.

This is a familiar pattern in health reporting (is coffee good for you / bad for you etc.), but in more recent times has started happening in climate science too.

But it's happening in climate science.

Dogma is very appropriate for what is happening in climate science.

Oh, goodness, dear lady, thank you very much, I needed a good laugh, the idea of that happening in climate science is hilarious.

Here is what frequently happens in climate science.

I was thinking about what has happened in climate science and beyond since the dark days of 2004 when it was touch and go that M&M 2005 would even be published, and what had happened to Soon and Baliunas two years previously.

Yes, it's just sheer co-incidence that this happened in climate science.

I expect the same will happen in climate science.

The potential for a bias to develop into a vicious circle is obvious; whether that has happened in climate science is a matter of debate.

A funny thing has happened in climate science to scientific inquiry: the usual ethics of free discussion and fact - based criticism have been discarded in favor of ad hominem attacks on critics of AGW theory.

That this hasn't happened in the climate science community is perhaps the most cause for concern

Not exact matches

Scientific research can inform policies aimed at addressing the needs of communities displaced by climate change, something that is already happening in the United States and around the world, according to experts at a 25 - 26 July meeting of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition.

«One of the big challenges we always face in getting people engaged and take action on climate change is they keep thinking this is going to happen to someone else, somewhere else, or to someone in the future, far away,» said Susanne Moser, an independent social science researcher on climate change analyzing the project's results.

The two most bizarre people in the climate debate have now had the most bizarre thing happen to them and their garbage science paper that basically become a peer reviewd smear of Dr. Susan Crockford..

The reason that this happens is that science isn't perfect, and someone may measure the nutrition levels of a certain type of conventional tomato, for example, compared against a different type of organic tomato, grown in a vastly different geographic area in vastly different soils and climate.

To give an example, a political science professor that I've communicated with believes that a good analogy for climate science and the «Kyoto clique» is what happened in totalitarian communist Russia when they accepted the theory of «Lysenkoism».

«Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening,» Dr. Pope wrote.

When I mentioned the flag you have unfurled, I meant that of the peculiar sort of climate science denier — and in your case, broad - spectrum environmental science denier — who says «OK it's happening, but it's nothing to worry about because, look, a black bear!

Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction» away from fears of a man - made climate crisis, Evans explained.

Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of the science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening.

I think Spencer is helpful by suggesting there is a much bigger story happening in the world of science, knowledge and cultural authority of which the climate change incidents of this moment are just part.

Keep in mind that war what happens when sensibility breaks down, and while I'm not an Al Gore hater, climate hoax believer, I do see where there is a lot of impetus to find solutions based on what we know now instead of doing what science ideally does, which is seek further to expand our understanding with new questions and new answers.

But what in fact appears to happen is that the concerns at least of some of those worried about these types of actions, have led them to try and convince society by attacking the science of the majority of climate scientists and to use scientific arguments that on the whole are rather weak and unconvincing, and nearly always involve the cherry - picking of data.

Which is also the main problem with climate science for every supposed horrible thing that ACC is doing all you have to do is go back in time and there is evidence that we have had exactly the same thing happen in the past for much longer periods of time and it didn't destroy the planet.

This is basic research at a down - to - earth level: climate science can't make sense of what is happening now without a better understanding of what has always happened, and of the swings in planetary temperatures over the past 4.5 billion years.

In the real world, people are laughing and pointing fingers at the various co-Emperors» lack of clothing, but they and the mainstream climate science folks are acting like nothing has happened and nothing is happening.

Scott McClellan didn't talk about climate change in his book, What Happened — but we recall the press briefing on June 8, 2005, when he had to fend off a barrage of questions about climate science and the oil industry... Continue reading →

Most people are aghast that this could have happened; and it is only because «climate science» exploded from a relatively tiny corner of academia into a hugely funded industry in a matter of mere years that the perpetrators were able to get away with it for so long.

The problem I think is the assumption that is implicit in the climate science activist community and that is somewhat reflected in the IPCC that models are adequate for «projecting» or «predicting» (depending on what rather irrelevant semantic nuances you want to use) what will happen in 100 years.

I think what happens is that because it's so difficult to quantify hypotheses in climate science, people make chains of small tests and assign them as a group to a symbolic p with an arbitrary q that they want to prove.

Attacking climate science and climate policy is the most visible front of this war, but it leaves open a vulnerability: in addition to emitting carbon dioxide, pollution from coal - fired power plants also happens to have negative health impacts that can kill people.

---------------------------------------------------------- High - Resolution Greenland Ice Core Data Show Abrupt Climate Change Happens in Few Years J. P. Steffensen et al., Science Express, 19 June, 2008

Nova is an Australian climate denialist and author of «The Skeptic's Handbook,» a crash course in false science claiming global warming isn't happening and isn't human - caused.

Also See: Watch Now: Climate Depot's Morano on Fox News Mocking «Climate Astrology»: «This is now akin to the predictions of Nostradamus or the Mayan calendar» — Morano: «There is no way anyone can falsify the global warming theory now because any weather event that happens «proves» their case... Man - made global warming has ceased to be a science, it is now the level of your daily horoscope» — Gore [in 2006 film] did not warn us of extreme blizzards and record cold winters coming»

I do not see people in the field of climatology stepping up to the plate and swinging at these transparently invalid methods, although a lot has changed in climate science since the blog started, so who knows what will happen.

But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well - paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

If there is no threat of catastrophe — and as I said, prior to the hockey stick nobody had the slightest bit of luck convincing anyone that the sky was falling because global climate today is geologically unremarkable in every single way except that we happen to be living in it instead of analyzing it in a geological record — then there is little incentive to fund the enormous amount of work being done on climate science.

They just encourage you to use your imagination, and that is happening way too often in climate science.

You don't happen to work in the climate science field by any chance?

Politicians will do the same, claiming they knew of no alternative opinions in climate science & seek to not let it happen again.

Tags: climate communication, common ground, conflict resolution, Greg Craven, science communication, what's the worst that could happen Posted in Communication, English 5 Comments»

It is no wonder 97 percent of climate scientists and all of the national academies of science in the world agree climate change is real, it is happening now, it's caused by humans, and is cause for immediate action before it is too late.»

However, the problem occurs when biases (advertent or inadvertent) overwhelm science because of value, which has been happening in the climate debate.

However, in spite of the title of the paper linking the idea that the moon landings were faked with scepticism of climate science, just 10 of 1145 respondents either «agreed» or «strongly agreed» with the statement «The Apollo moon landings never happened and were staged in a Hollywood film studio».

One can suggest that this reputational - damaging conduct is happening disproportionately in climate science areas.

That is why making a prediction of what is going to happen 100 years from now, or something which is so vague that it is not obvious it has occurred like «climate Change» are not acceptable in Science as they can not be verified.

Peaks happen and troughs happen, in weather and climate, but pointing to either as scientific proof of computer simulations is not science.

From «completely consistent with» to «ex cathedra attribution» in one swell foop is «consistent with» every other ex cathedra proclamation of attribution by «climate science» to ACO2 whenever an undesirable event, climate or otherwise, happens anywhere in the world.