Sentences with phrase «if climate change science»

Cato and the people and groups it represents are worried if climate change science is widely accepted regulations will be based on it.

Not exact matches

If climate change zealots simply changed their language and stopped implying there is absolute truth in science I would be happy.

If the effects of climate change weren't included in the model, the trends toward bigger seasonal variations in CO2 at Arctic latitudes disappeared, researchers report online today in Science.

«We looked into the question of whether — and if so, to what extent — the public's attitude to climate policy and the risks of climate change can be influenced,» explains Thomas Bernauer, professor of political science at ETH Zurich.

Last week, House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R - Texas) subpoenaed the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts, who are each investigating if Exxon Mobil Corp. misled investors and the public about climate change threats, and several environmental groups (ClimateWire, July 14).

Catherine Matacic — online news editor for Science — talks with Sarah Crespi about how geoengineering could reduce the harshest impacts of climate change, but make them even worse if it were ever turned off.

Schultz, a professor of synoptic meteorology, and co-author Dr Vladimir Janković, a science historian specialising in weather and climate, say the short - term, large variability from year to year in high - impact weather makes it difficult, if not impossible, to draw conclusions about the correlation to longer - term climate change.

And, by the same token, evidence that meets the rigorous demands of science is often discounted if it goes against what people want to believe, as illustrated by widespread dismissal of scientific evidence of climate change.

If climatologists» warnings are correct, a changing climate could produce more extreme weather patterns, which could then have an effect on opioid overdoses and deaths, said Goetz, who worked with Meri Davlasheridze, assistant professor in marine sciences, Texas A&M at Galveston.

«In the case of the climate, of course, there is only one Earth, so we can't do experiments with multiple Earths and formulate the science of climate change as if it's an entirely observationally based, controlled experiment.

«The Lancet report underscores the terrible consequences for human health if we don't start reducing the dangerous carbon pollution fueling climate change — and dramatic benefits for people the world over from taking action now,» echoed Kim Knowlton, senior scientist and deputy director of the Science Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in a release.

If science can nail climate change as a probable cause of deadly weather events, like the heatwave that hit Europe in the summer of 2003, then global warming becomes a matter for product liability law.

There is climate change but the reality is the science indicates most of it, if not all of it, is caused by natural causes.

«It has been demonstrated by science that if you develop agroforestry it has the potential to buffer the impact of climate change.

«If you haven't had proximity to these glaciers, if you haven't thought about where water comes from, it would be easy to understate or underestimate the implications of glacial ice loss in a state that has predominantly a semi-desert climate and certainly by contemporary climate models is going to be pretty significantly impacted by climate change,» said Jacki Klancher, a professor of environmental science at Central Wyoming CollegIf you haven't had proximity to these glaciers, if you haven't thought about where water comes from, it would be easy to understate or underestimate the implications of glacial ice loss in a state that has predominantly a semi-desert climate and certainly by contemporary climate models is going to be pretty significantly impacted by climate change,» said Jacki Klancher, a professor of environmental science at Central Wyoming Collegif you haven't thought about where water comes from, it would be easy to understate or underestimate the implications of glacial ice loss in a state that has predominantly a semi-desert climate and certainly by contemporary climate models is going to be pretty significantly impacted by climate change,» said Jacki Klancher, a professor of environmental science at Central Wyoming College.

Now, if by impacts, he means the impacts to ecosystems, etc., it seems unlikely that climate scientists jockeying for funding would be trying to change the topic of interest from climate science to these other fields (which I guess gets back to your point that funding self - interest would dictate continuing to emphasize uncertainty).

The judge in the case did not, in his specific questions to the parties, ask if there was a consensus on the science, or whether climate change would present catastrophic risks.

(Inside Science)-- Climate change is alarming enough if you only consider temperature changes.

If state standards are up to par with national science standards, writing a curriculum that denied climate change would be tough, said Julie Lambert, an associate professor of science education at Florida Atlantic University.

It's set in a near future where overpopulation and global climate change has been catastrophic for the food supply and the culture has become hostile to science, as if it's the cause of the problems rather than the only hope to solve them.

Some people have been saying Barry Rithotz's writing has been going downhill of late (here), and we did like the old non-Bloomberg Barry a little better ourselves if truth must be told — but one of his most recent pieces is a peach, where he ties in volatility, investing, science, and climate change together.

However, if our adaptation is informed by science cherry - picked to support a particular standpoint on «dangerous climate change» then this risks leading to wrong decisions on adaptation.

If I read the some of the conclusions in the latest report on Abrupt Climate Change from the US Climate Change Science Program http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/default.htm, in particular Chapter 2, it would seem possible to come up with multiple feet of sea level rise due to the understanding of ice dynamics.

Found at Tenney Naumer's blog if you want more info: http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/03/congressional-hearing-climate-change.html «Congressional hearing: «Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy,» on March 31, 2011, to have real time commentary by leading climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)climate-change.html «Congressional hearing: «Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy,» on March 31, 2011, to have real time commentary by leading climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy,» on March 31, 2011, to have real time commentary by leading climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)»

We discussed the many hurdles in the newsroom that impede effective coverage of climate change — from the potentially distorting lure of the front - page thought to the distorting power of journalistic balance, if applied blindly in coverage of complicated science.

Now, if there's a single take - away from this summary, it would be that the science on the relationship between fossil fuel combustion, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide, and global warming and climate change was really settled by 1979.

Moreover, if the thinks the whole globe is going to simply become «tropical,» I would suggest that he does not in fact understand the science behind climate change.

If there is one thing that I think is clear about the science of global climate change, it is that it will never be certain.

Thanks for your comment in 249 on if the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) press release (link below) is an example about how to, or how not to, write a press release dealing with climate Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) press release (link below) is an example about how to, or how not to, write a press release dealing with climate cChange Science Program (CCSP) press release (link below) is an example about how to, or how not to, write a press release dealing with climate climate changechange.

If the public does not support the science they will not support the enactment of climate change regulation, and the climate change opponents will achieve their goal.

A host of surveys show that most Americans remain doubtful, disengaged, or confused about the basic science pointing to centuries - long changes in climate patterns and coastlines if greenhouse gas emissions from burning fuels and forests are not reduced.

It would've been better if the timing had been reversed, given the signs that many of the science findings of the extremes report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are largely not reflected in the statements from the leaders in Dhaka.

G&T managed to get their work out there; publishing it in Nature or Science would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist wouldScience would not have changed the fact that they're arguments just don't hold any water (they didn't do any new science, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist wouldscience, they just took what was already known, and then tried to use that to argue against what is already known — a search for logical inconsistency, which might have been worthwhile if they'd known what they were doing and if they'd gone after contrarian «theory»)-- unless it were edited, removing all the errors and non-sequitors, after which it would be no different than a physics book such as the kind a climate scientist would use...

The discussion Chris Mooney's Washington Post piece has rekindled about why the public «doesn't get it» about science, and your question, «What if the public had perfect climate change information,» both presume there is some ideal «It» to «get»... some «perfect» knowledge, some unassailable truth.

If Mann had wanted to point to an opposite end to the spectrum of ways in which scientists can contribute to public discourse on global warming science and risks, a better choice (in my view) would have been Susan Solomon's handling of the rollout of the 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If, indeed, climate scientists predicted a coming ice age, it is worthwhile to take the next step and understand why they thought this, and what relevance it might have to today's science - politics - policy discussions about climate change.

Most climate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEchange communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEChange Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEChange Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEchange and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHING!

The common belief has been that if people understood climate change science they would want to do something about it.

[May 19, 8:50 p.m. Update Dan Kahan posted an invaluable update examining what the science of science communication points to if your goal is to have information on climate change matter.]

If you had three pieces of advice for those who are interested in promoting more constructive engagement with climate change science, what would they be?

Anyone who follows climate science, solutions, and politics knows that climate change is in the process of emerging as the story of the century — and that's only if every major country pulls together to rapidly transform the global economy to avoid catastrophe.

I haven't had time to sift the panel's 2013 climate science report for a similar section to see if things have changed.

If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails,» Gray, who wrote the book «The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of «Climate Change 2001,» said.

A paper on «hedging» that I publishedin Science in 2004 with Natasha Andronova and Michael Schlesinger (see Dot Earth for a discussion and link) indicated that starting mitigation now would be the right choice even if our analysis included a significant chance that doing nothing would turn out to be (in 2035) the right choice — that is, even with a 20 % chance that climate change would turn out to be a hoax.

Brimming with enthusiasm, David spoke of finding out if the oil industry had tracked climate change science over the years.

The problem is that climate change has been swept up into political and ideological battles that have little if anything to do with science per se.

If Dr Curry's scientific position is «there is a considerable amount of uncertainty, therefore we should at least be able to draw some boundaries around them before pushing for a consensus on certainty» (I hope my paraphrase is close to the mark), then advocating for a change in the process of conducting climate science follows logically.

«If the manuscripts of climate change skeptics are rejected by peer - reviewed science journals, they can always send their studies to Energy and Environment.»

The proposition that «science» somehow dictated particular policy responses, encouraged — indeed instructed — those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue about the science.36 So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if «science» and «policy» were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.

The science is clear to me and to most experts in the various fields associated with climate science: Humans are causing most of the observed global warming in the past several decades and, if we continue emitting GHGs under a «business as usual» scenario, it will become increasingly difficult and costly to adapt to the changes that are likely to occur.