Sentences with phrase «ideas about climate science»

The three individuals you mention each have very different ideas about climate science and about mitigation.

One of life's mysteries, is why anyone would lend any credence to Willie Soon's ideas about climate science (or any number of others like him).

Not exact matches

In 2009 he said, when talking about climate change, that the «science is highly contentious, to say the least» and «the climate change argument is absolute crap», but did accept that precautionary action against it was a good idea.

It's an idea spawned on Reddit, where several scientists — concerned about the new president's policies on climate change and other issues, and hyped from the success of the Women's March on Washington — were discussing the best way to respond to what they feared would be an administration hostile to science.

• Produce and disseminate translated content about both science and innovation in multiple forms to spark new ideas and help build a climate in which innovators and early adopters will find support for their work and for constructive dissatisfaction with the status quo.

I've addressed this question before in various ways, but was prompted to dig into my ideas and feelings about the building greenhouse effect with new rigor when two very different magazines, Issues in Science and Technology (the magazine of the National Academies) and Creative Nonfiction, invited me to write an essay on my 30 years of climate inquiry.

I suppose in the abstract this would be dull as doornails if not unhelpful, and so probably it's best to explain it with examples and in the context of climate modeling, but I wanted to describe it in the abstract, just because I think what keeps a lot of people from appreciating climate science (or even why it's hard to appreciate) has to do with very basic ideas about not just «the scientific process» but with the narrower or perhaps more easily describable process of modeling.

Moreover, the arguments I made about «consensus messaging» on climate are all very specific to that controversy; I have zero idea what sorts of arguments someone would make about GM food science communication.

About 1980ish, some old ideas like the greenhouse effect were brought out of mothballs and re-examined with new tools and techniques; simultaneously several researchers and theoreticians released their notes, published, or otherwise got together and there was a surprising consilience and not a small amount of mixing with old school hippy ecologism on some of the topics that became the roots of Climate Change science (before it was called Global Warming); innovations in mathematics were also applied to climate thought; supercomputers (though «disappointing» on weather forecasting) allowed demonstration of plausibility of runaway climate effects, comparison of scales of effects, and the possibility of climate models combined with a good understanding of the limits of predictive power of weather Climate Change science (before it was called Global Warming); innovations in mathematics were also applied to climate thought; supercomputers (though «disappointing» on weather forecasting) allowed demonstration of plausibility of runaway climate effects, comparison of scales of effects, and the possibility of climate models combined with a good understanding of the limits of predictive power of weather climate thought; supercomputers (though «disappointing» on weather forecasting) allowed demonstration of plausibility of runaway climate effects, comparison of scales of effects, and the possibility of climate models combined with a good understanding of the limits of predictive power of weather climate effects, comparison of scales of effects, and the possibility of climate models combined with a good understanding of the limits of predictive power of weather climate models combined with a good understanding of the limits of predictive power of weather models.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

I don't have to know anything about climate science to know that having other people check the work is a good idea.

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

While climate science is most uncertain when it comes to the regional - scale impacts we care most about, we have a fair idea of the range of likely impacts in store for us now.

But in districts without such resources, science teachers can use the ample instructional ideas available on the web to prepare classroom activities and lesson plans about renewable energy and climate change.

As the UN's top climate science panel, the IPCC, prepares to criticise the idea of geo - engineering, one maverick geo - engineering company, Planktos Inc, has announced it is about to dump several tonnes of tiny particles into the waters around the Galapagos Islands, covering an area larger than Puerto Rico.

Nurse hasn't the foggiest idea about the key part of climate science, aerosols / water vapour interactions supposed to produce dangerous positive feedback.

Climate science might have a problem with the recent TSI downturn causing 0.2 C cooling, but you'd think the idea would be right at home for certain skeptics who decry climate science and bang on about obvious «big ol' yeller» in the sky all the time and how it influences climClimate science might have a problem with the recent TSI downturn causing 0.2 C cooling, but you'd think the idea would be right at home for certain skeptics who decry climate science and bang on about obvious «big ol' yeller» in the sky all the time and how it influences climclimate science and bang on about obvious «big ol' yeller» in the sky all the time and how it influences climateclimate so.

Many climate skeptics suspect that the climate science community is caught up in political conformity that leans toward alarmism, and that alternative ideas about the causes and risks of climate change can not break through peer review.

The overriding theme of what came into clearer focus as a result of «climategate» is that disagreements about climate change are not so much about the science, but rather about a clash of underlying values, ideas (e.g. related to risk perception) and ideals.

Regarding the 16 October 2007 - dated «How Climate Science Became a Victim of the Cold War» draft, it is 39 pages long in its main text, and its first eight pages are devoted to a setup about the settled science of man - caused global warming before it dives into the topic of the George C Marshall Institute, which is described as being opposed to the idea of global wScience Became a Victim of the Cold War» draft, it is 39 pages long in its main text, and its first eight pages are devoted to a setup about the settled science of man - caused global warming before it dives into the topic of the George C Marshall Institute, which is described as being opposed to the idea of global wscience of man - caused global warming before it dives into the topic of the George C Marshall Institute, which is described as being opposed to the idea of global warming.

Regarding my own presentation two days ago, my opening point was to inspire the audience to ask tough questions like I do, even if they have no science expertise, and I was going to follow that with a brief mention of how ordinary citizens know what contradictory climate science assessments look like and how their growing knowledge about those increasingly undermines the stability of the idea of man - caused global warming.

If you, Jim, Mosher really want to communicate this idea about Unicorn Hunting, which you all seem to think is important enough to mention over and over again in the comments sections of climate blogs, and / or let everyone in on the news that there already exists a «sufficient explanation» for the climate, and explain what exactly a «sufficient explanation» is in the world of Science, then I am prepared to help with the editing to get your essay (s) ready for publication here at Climate Etc. or elsclimate blogs, and / or let everyone in on the news that there already exists a «sufficient explanation» for the climate, and explain what exactly a «sufficient explanation» is in the world of Science, then I am prepared to help with the editing to get your essay (s) ready for publication here at Climate Etc. or elsclimate, and explain what exactly a «sufficient explanation» is in the world of Science, then I am prepared to help with the editing to get your essay (s) ready for publication here at Climate Etc. or elsClimate Etc. or elsewhere.

Scientific skeptics About 30 commenters accepted mainstream climate science and rejected Salby's wrong ideas from his lectures and 2012 book (see review).

I encourage and entreat you to set down the ideas which you have about climate science, and come at the field again with an open mind.

At this public hearing, I will not only be sharing my ideas and urging the EPA to follow through on their plan, but will also be voicing the concerns of 1.8 million youth across America who have been educated about climate science and solutions by ACE.

And in case you get any funny ideas about questioning this supposedly settled science, there's the ever - present threat of being smeared by future generations as a climate denier to silence dissent.

I agree that many of the issues I'd like to discuss do not imply directly climate science and should perhaps be discussed elsewhere, such as the amount of FF reserves, the effect of a tax, the discussion about the benefit - cost of fossils and so on, but they are nevertheless important in the debate, and many of you seem to have also some ideas about them.

Rather, the allegations are part of politically motivated character assassination attacks aimed at individual climate scientists, by people who don't really care about science at all, but who dislike climate policy and the idea of reducing emissions.