Sentences with phrase «including uncertainty in science»

Not exact matches

The practice of science, which includes the packaging of findings from science for use in the public - policy arena, is governed by an unwritten code of conduct that includes such elements as mastering the relevant fundamental concepts before venturing into print in the professional or public arena, learning and observing proper practices for presenting ranges of respectable opinion and uncertainty, avoiding the selection of data to fit pre-conceived conclusions, reading the references one cites and representing their content accurately and fairly, and acknowledging and correcting the errors that have crept into ones work (some of which are, of course, inevitable) after they are discovered by oneself or by others.

It is a rather composite course including elements of «How Science works» in addition to ks3 chemistry Material covered includes: Definitions, diffusion, hydrocarbon, pH, graphing and tabling skills, calculating percentage increase and decrease, fuel triangle, experimental accuracy and uncertainties.

My best guess from browsing Chapter 8 of the Physical Science Basis is that given the high uncertainty in the indirect effect on aerosols, the decision was to report GWPs that don't include these effects.

It is very difficult to explain science in a generally understandable way and in a way that includes the uncertainties.

Professor Curry has led debate in the science community about the process of reviewing climate change, including giving testimony before the US house subcommittee on environment this year, remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.

What we have NOT seen is an improvement in the science itself, in it's openness, in sharing data and code, in admitting uncertainty, in including dissenting views in synthesis reports.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

Facts about a debate that's turned up more questions than answers,» includes a statement by then Exxon CEO Lee Raymond trumping up uncertainty in the science behind global warming as well as the cost of a carbon - restricted market.

These interests intersect in climate change, as rational choice of the best course of action requires our best effort at understanding the science of climate, including an appreciation of the uncertainties.

Medicine is interesting from a number of perspectives including uncertainty, science, rules - of - thumb, ethics, etc., and it has been a significant area of interest over the years for decision theory and artificial intelligence researchers in part because it has non-trivial elements of uncertainty, serious outcomes, extra-medical considerations, etc..

On the last question, Koonin stresses, as I often have, that that there are many uncertainties, including in projecting the future, and that climate science can not yet answer» the difficult and important questions.»

Some of the gaps in Chapter 3 on ethical issues raised by climate change policy - making include: (1) ethics of decision - making in the face of scientific uncertainty, (2) whether action or non-action of other nations affects a nation's responsibility for climate change, (3) how to spend limited funds on climate change adaptation, (4) when politicians may rely on their own uninformed opinion about climate change science, and (5) who is responsible to for climate refugees and what are their responsibilities.

a) First, understand any relevant science enough, including the ways in which scientists write and especially describe uncertainties and bounds thereof.

The difference between Professor Nordhaus's optimal carbon tax policy and a fifty - year delay policy is insignificant economically or climatologically in view of major uncertainties in (1) future economic growth (including reductions in carbon emissions intensity); (2) the physical science (e.g., the climate sensitivity); (3) future positive and negative environmental impacts (e.g., the economic «damage function»); (4) the evaluation of long - term economic costs and benefits (e.g., the discount rate); and (5) the international political process (e.g., the impact of less than full participation).

My guess is that WUWT folks, including Ron Cram, are misrepresenting the discussion at this March 2010 meeting entitled handling uncertainty in science:

... presenting the science in a more open way, in terms of a variety of options and their consequences, and including the scientific uncertainties.

It sets out to explain the current situation in climate science, including where there is consensus in the scientific community and where uncertainties exist.

They include those items ignored, glossed over, or deliberately misrepresented; projections are consistently wrong; the science has not advanced, a 2007 paper in Science by Roe and Baker concludes; «The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem»; and claims of impending disasters that simply do not make scientificscience has not advanced, a 2007 paper in Science by Roe and Baker concludes; «The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem»; and claims of impending disasters that simply do not make scientificScience by Roe and Baker concludes; «The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem»; and claims of impending disasters that simply do not make scientific sense.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutor - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.