Not exact matches
This way, it is still quite palatable to accept
climate science research that demonstrates the non-zero existence
of various aspects
of AGW while retaining a skepticism
of the
areas that were always
of real
interest.
Given your
interest in the state
of climate science, we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to better understand your perspective and rationale for the proposed activity; and to discuss
climate science, including which
areas are at the frontiers
of scientific knowledge and which are well - established because
of thousands
of studies from multiple lines
of evidence.
I do continue to enjoy and find
interest in those too few threads that involve analysis
of published papers relating to
climate science — such as we obtain from Nic Lewis — and to those general analyses
of an
area of climate science when well researched and presented by poster.
The [track] record
of climate «
science» is awful while you can not question that is
area has a massive vested
interest in keeping one particular view
of CAGW going.
Research challenges are broad
areas of climate science that are societally important, reflect the
interests of the scientific community and funding agencies, and typically extend US CLIVAR beyond its traditional research agenda.
This is an
area of current
interest to the
climate science community which the historic record might be able to throw some light on.
We'll present a couple illustrations before we'll get to the actual publication we hope to discuss — one that compares methodology
of science - based and «
science - denying»
climate websites but that also touches on a subject we personally find far more
interesting: what's actually going on in the Arctic, an
area that is not only experiencing major physical consequences
of climate change, but that is subsequently also set to be a stage for a cascade
of ecological consequences
of this
climate change — both in the Arctic tundra biome and in the adjacent Arctic marine ecosystem.