Sentences with phrase «industry as a climate scientist»

Get a sneak peak into a family divided by the fossil fuel industry as a climate scientist struggles to tell the truth about global warming, his daughter struggles to save the frogs, while his sister wants to frack, with this live reading of excerpts from the upcoming play from the award - winning Three Theatre Collaborative.

Not exact matches

Focali - Forest, Climate, and Livelihood Research Network December 8, 2017 - Göteborg, Sweden Marcus Schaefer will represent the Rainforest Alliance as a speaker at this meeting on imports without deforestation with scientists, practitioners and industry.

Over the last two years, scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden have examined projections and current data to identify ways in which the dairy industry may respond to challenges such as population growth, urbanisation, and climate change, in order to meet increased demand for dairy products over the next half century.

«With the headcount constraints in today's economic climate, industry needs to hire leaders as well as technically excellent scientists,» says Scott Reines, newly retired vice president of pharmaceutical research and development at Johnson & Johnson, a pharmaceutical company based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

What's more, scientists say the plant's extraordinary sensitivity to temperature makes the industry a strong early - warning system for problems that all food crops are expected to confront as climates continue to change.

Aerosols in urban air pollution and from major industries such as the Canadian tar sands are of concern to scientists because they can affect regional climate patterns and have helped to warm the Arctic.

Given his history as an oil and coal industry consultant who ignores 97 % of working climate scientists worldwide, why doesn't Arizona State consider it a problem for Dr. Balling to promote his political positions as if they were factual?

As I wrote then: A folk singer — in this case Pete Seeger — has just as legitimate a place at the table as a first grader, a retiree, a coal - industry lobbyist, a climate scientist or one of the diplomats negotiating in Bali over how to revive an ailing climate treatAs I wrote then: A folk singer — in this case Pete Seeger — has just as legitimate a place at the table as a first grader, a retiree, a coal - industry lobbyist, a climate scientist or one of the diplomats negotiating in Bali over how to revive an ailing climate treatas legitimate a place at the table as a first grader, a retiree, a coal - industry lobbyist, a climate scientist or one of the diplomats negotiating in Bali over how to revive an ailing climate treatas a first grader, a retiree, a coal - industry lobbyist, a climate scientist or one of the diplomats negotiating in Bali over how to revive an ailing climate treaty.

However, as a climate scientist I remain much more concerned about the fossil fuel industry than I am about Arctic methane.

But actually, a folk singer — in this case Pete Seeger — has just as legitimate a place at the table as a first grader, a retiree, a coal - industry lobbyist, a climate scientist or one of the diplomats negotiating in Bali over how to revive an ailing climate treaty.

In my previous blog post, I showed how one anonymous op - ed writer tried to casually drop the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase into his piece to insinuate skeptic climate scientists received illicit industry money in exchange for the promise to lie to the public.

And wouldn't those talking points pack a fatal punch with reporters if you could say a Pulitzer winning investigative reporter discovered a leaked coal industry memo which was proof for skeptic climate scientists being paid to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

In my prior piece about the spread of Ross Gelbspan's accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by the fossil fuel industry to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact ``, I barely skimmed the surface of the sheer number of repetitions of it.

Yet journalists continued to report updates from the best climate scientists in the world juxtaposed against the unsubstantiated raving of an industry - funded climate change denier - as if both were equally valid.

The larger and arguably fatal problem is that in order to make the case that skeptic scientists» climate assessment reports are worthless, the skeptic scientists must be portrayed as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry.

New Scientist covers their work only to show it up as scientifically flawed, politically motivated, the result of industry - funded misinformation and bad moral fibre, just as they did when they reported on Willie Soon's paper challenging received wisdom that climate change is imperiling polar bears.

So let's be clear about the facts: Galileo had the courage to speak truth to the powerful interests of his day in the Roman Catholic Church, just as two generations of scientists have tried to speak truth about climate change to executives and lobbyists in the fossil fuel industry.

However, Kelly Sims Gallagher is not merely a coincidentally handy local Tufts University professor, she has direct connections with the same set of leaked industry memo phrases seen within the growing numbers of California global warming lawsuits — the «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» strategy phrase and the «older, less - educated males» / «younger, lower - income women» targeting phrases — which are widely repeated elsewhere as proof that the fossil fuel industry «pays skeptic climate scientists to participate in misinformation campaigns» undermining the certainty of catastrophic man - caused global warming (despite those memos being worthless as evidence, but that is another matter).

Today I offer this post as a «Summary for Policymakers» regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists.

Ross Gelbspan, as a self - described reporter who was angered by the discovery of skeptic climate scientists being «paid sort of under the table by the coal industry» to spread «false information,» has had entire second career promoting the idea that we could be making better headway in stopping man - caused global warming it it weren't for the industry funded coordinated misinformation campaign.

Industry - funded front groups such as the Global Climate Coalition and the Global Climate Council commissioned scientists to produce reports that muddied the facts about climate Climate Coalition and the Global Climate Council commissioned scientists to produce reports that muddied the facts about climate Climate Council commissioned scientists to produce reports that muddied the facts about climate climate change.

Declarations that skeptic climate scientists knowingly lie about the certainty of man - caused global warming as paid shills of the fossil fuel industry appear devastating...... but dig deep into the details, and all those claims look more like a «Keystone Kops - style» farce.

I did a study on the money involved in climate science vs. the money involved in fossil fuel related industries and found that any money - motivated scientist was better off working for industry than laboring away as a government or academic scientist.

The current global warming industry generates billions of dollars annually for research, which helps to explain why 36 percent consider climate scientists» research findings as being influenced by a desire to «advance their careers.»

It's conceivable that reporters and administrators at NPR may uniformly be able to summarize the collective global warming issue as «we can ignore climate deniers because the science of man - caused global warming is settled and because Michael Oreskes» sister proved denier scientists are paid industry money to lie about it being not settled.»

... along with myriad other problems surrounding Naomi's efforts to portray skeptic climate scientists as «paid shills working for the fossil fuel industry.»

--(That Dr Schneider, the person who featured Ross Gelbspan two pages later as someone who indicted skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption via leaked documents — notwithstanding that Dr Schneider got the leaked documents bit wrong.

Moreover, by applying the term «denial» (with all its loaded undertones) to sceptical scientists; by referring to them inaccurately as «well funded» by the oil industry; and by likening those who stress the uncertainties of climate science to unprincipled lobbyists for tobacco companies, Lord May enters on the field of personal vilification — not a suitable place for a distinguished former President of the Royal Society.

* (For a good reason, too — there are so inordinately few somewhat qualified or learned and somewhat credentialed individuals on this subject who take the manufactured «anti Climate Change theory: view one that should be pursued by nearly every scientist on the planet were it to have merit, as it is a far better end result if true, yet nevertheless is not, but persists in fact due to the enormous ideological, macroeconomically frightened (and myopically presumptive), and «good thing going» industry based pressures, behind it.)

The «skeptic scientist accusation» is what I consistently refer to in all of my writings as the idea that their climate assessments are fabricated under a top - down directive by fossil fuel industry executives.

«Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming» chews up these sound bites, such as: «97 percent of scientists agree» with the conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change; or, skeptics of the «consensus view» are paid off by big fossil fuel iScientists Disagree About Global Warming» chews up these sound bites, such as: «97 percent of scientists agree» with the conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change; or, skeptics of the «consensus view» are paid off by big fossil fuel iscientists agree» with the conclusion that humans are causing catastrophic climate change; or, skeptics of the «consensus view» are paid off by big fossil fuel industries.

The suggestion you've offered, an expansion of the nuclear power industry, is exactly the same one offered by such climate scientist as James Hansen.

Likewise, since before I ever became a skeptic, the establishment climate scientists and their supporters have been characterizing, ad infinitum, the skeptical community as shills of the oil industry and other large industrial concerns, and especially as paid - off pawns of right - wing think tanks and right - wing concerns.

As per the Climate Action Plan — written in 1998 as a blueprint for sceptic industry action — the think tanks gathered together a group of hand - picked «independent» scientists who were «not usually published in the mainstream journals»As per the Climate Action Plan — written in 1998 as a blueprint for sceptic industry action — the think tanks gathered together a group of hand - picked «independent» scientists who were «not usually published in the mainstream journals»as a blueprint for sceptic industry action — the think tanks gathered together a group of hand - picked «independent» scientists who were «not usually published in the mainstream journals».

A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue.

the Michigan Tech scientists focussed only on deaths from air pollution linked to coal - burning power stations: they did not make a calculation about the economic costs of chronic illness linked to polluted air, nor did they estimate the health costs that might be linked to the entire coal industry, nor include the estimates of deaths that might be attributed to climate change as a consequence of prodigal fossil fuel combustion.

So, what we have here from Bud Ward is little more than half the story, with the basic idea of trusting Gelbspan as some kind of highly regarded investigative journalist who found smoking gun proof that skeptic climate scientists are shills paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie to the public.

Apparently in the same manner that he glommed onto the notion that skeptic climate scientists are paid illicit industry money under instructions to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», it seems he didn't check the veracity of the more recently repeated «3000 IPCC scientists» figure.

Importantly, the Michigan Tech scientists focussed only on deaths from air pollution linked to coal - burning power stations: they did not make a calculation about the economic costs of chronic illness linked to polluted air, nor did they estimate the health costs that might be linked to the entire coal industry, nor include the estimates of deaths that might be attributed to climate change as a consequence of prodigal fossil fuel combustion.

Last but not least, there was Frontline's 2007 «Hot Politics» program, in which Ross Gelbspan appeared, followed with an assertion that skeptic climate scientists «attack science» under the same playbook as the old tobacco industry.

They were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled [skeptic] scientists as stooges of the fossil - fuel industry... [and] when [a European skeptic] was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism.»

In contrast, when the same magazine, in the same month, reported on Harvard scientist Willie Soon's paper in the journal Ecological Complexity, which challenged received wisdom that climate change is imperilling polar bears, the scientific argument was ignored in favour of speculation about Soon's alleged links to the oil industry, and that the research was part of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the environmental movement's use of the polar bear as an icon (New Scientist 1scientist Willie Soon's paper in the journal Ecological Complexity, which challenged received wisdom that climate change is imperilling polar bears, the scientific argument was ignored in favour of speculation about Soon's alleged links to the oil industry, and that the research was part of an orchestrated campaign to undermine the environmental movement's use of the polar bear as an icon (New Scientist 1Scientist 1.7.2007).

What I found in late 2009 almost always led me to myriad praise of Gelbspan as the discoverer of leaked industry memos containing the awkward «strategy» phrase «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact,» which proved skeptic climate scientists were on the payroll of «Big Coal & Oil.»

The science of catastrophic man - caused global warming is settled, no need to pay attention to what skeptic climate scientists say about the science or its political angles, such as the «97 % consensus» because they are paid illicit industry money to lie....

People could dismiss this as a glitch involving just one person among all those accusing skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption, if Gelbspan was the only person with such problems.

It's the only weapon in the enviro - activists» arsenal to indict skeptic climate scientists as industry - paid shills.

The tobacco industry was caught red - handed with a secret memo strategy saying «doubt was their product ``; catch skeptic climate scientists in a similar conspiracy with Big Coal & Oil where the strategy is to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» and you'll have the public so outraged that they will never trust a word those skeptics have to say.

First, the setup for Ron's article: Back late 2009, in my efforts to figure out where the infamous «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact» phrase came from — the line spelled out in Al Gore's movie and in Ross Gelbspan's book «The Heat is On», which they portray as a sinister top - down industry directive that skeptic climate scientists are paid to follow — I ran across Naomi Oreskes» widely repeated Powerpoint presentation from 2008 where she said the leaked memo set containing that phrase was in the archives of the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

My role as Chairman of the IPCC is not to trust or mistrust any of the participants in the climate - change debate, whether they belong to environmental groups, industry associations or individual scientists.

• what's with his mention of Kert Davies, one of the old Ozone Action guys as a source for information on corrupt industry funding of skeptic climate scientists?