Sentences with phrase «know nothing about climate»

All you are proving here is that you are totally ignorant about how we get real winds and weather, you prove you know nothing about climate.

The fact that most people who know nothing about climate science think they know everything about it.

I know nothing about climate.

Tim G: I know nothing about climate.

I know nothing about climate science, but just reading your post I wonder if it is possible that the decrease in measured ocean heat content is mostly a factor of having better tools (the ARGO floating profilers)?

You clearly know nothing about climate models.

So, when I was reading this book, and I'm embarrassed to say this now»cause at this time I knew nothing about climate change, but I was flying in a jet that belonged to this friend of mine, and I said «You should read this», so I handed it to him, and about an hour later he said, «What should we do about this?»

This would certainly lead to arguments about the prior data, and would hardly settle the issue, but it might also, in my view, put the evaluation of new evidence on a slightly firmer basis than an assumption that we knew nothing about climate influences until the latest study was reported.

Thus, I share the story how I knew nothing about climate change, but park visitors were starting to ask me about it global warming thing as I was narrating boat tours in Everglades National Park.

Whenever someone encounters Senator Whitehouse, the safest assumption is that he knows NOTHING about climate science.

One other item, another of the commenter Friends at Gelbspan's Facebook post is Desmogblog financier John Lefebvre, the person owning the private jet that Desmogblog co-founder James Hoggan was flying on when he declared — as I detailed here — that he (Hoggan) knew nothing about climate change but felt compelled to start Desmogblog in order to expose skeptic climate scientists, which he knew to be liars as a result of reading Gelbspan's 2004 «Boiling Point» book.

Then you offer up some wiki definitions of climate science and meteorolgy to make your case that Lindzen «knows nothing about climate.»

I've already detailed the way Desmog's founder James Hoggan essentially torpedoes his site's entire existence with the way he first admits he knows nothing about climate science, but is certain that skeptic climate scientists are liars, the latter of which he derives entirely from Ross Gelbspan, the «Pulitzer - winning investigator» who Al Gore says discovered the supposedly leaked Western Fuels Association «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) PR campaign's sinister strategy to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

Myron Ebell spoke on BBC Radio 4, calling Sir David King «an «alarmist with ridiculous views who knows nothing about climate change.»

Not exact matches

We won't know definitively until 2090, but essentially there's nothing we can do about it at that point in time and it changes the climate system dramatically.»

Nothing, Coulson says, is known about the people who carved the animals (except that they didn't live in a desert; at the time the engravings were made, the Sahara enjoyed a much more temperate climate than today).

7It is particularly ironic that Lomborg would offer such a ridiculously precise estimate of the cost of the impacts of climate change from carbon dioxide emissions, inasmuch as the entire thrust of his books chapter on «global warming» is that practically nothing about the effects of greenhouse gases is known with certainty.

Even more curious, Carlin appears to be a big fan of geo - engineering, but how this squares with his apparent belief that we know nothing about what drives climate, is puzzling.

The absurd disdain for calculating the real effects of UHI by the Ipcc, Real Climate et al - a very measurable effect known about since Ancient Rome - do nothing to help the case of the warmists.

I know nothing about micro climate but I think you managed to make the best of it.

Let's not be ignorant and accept the fact that we know little or maybe even nothing about polar bears, climate, etc..

I know a lot about the scientific merits of Peak Oil, but next to nothing (at this stage) about the scientific merits of climate change.

I clearly have a bias (in that I believe based on the evidence I've seen that AGW is both real and dangerous enough to warrant strong action), but when I see a reference to a climate mechanism I know nothing about (the PDO in this instance), I tend to want to look at the available literature before leaping to conclusions based on my bias.

And as long as businessmen with a vested interest (Exxon / Mobil, Peabody Coal, power companies), and economists with a political bias (CEI, Heartland, Cato, Wall Street), and lawyers (Bachmann, Cornyn, Cantor) believe that they know more about global warming than climate scientists, nothing will get done to combat global warming.

Anyone who claims that «climate change is nothing to worry about» or conversely that «we're in for a major disaster» is overstepping the bounds of what is known.

Thank goodness the Trump Train has not or will not be derailed by people like McCarthy, who obviously knows - infinity (not just nothing but boundlessly and harmfully wrong) about either global warming (aka climate change) or economics.

For example, many people associated with WGIII will know nothing about what I would call «climate science».

Lorne Gunter of the National Post disgraced himself yet again this weekend with another outrageously inaccurate column about something he apparently knows nothing about: climate science.

Based on nothing more than dubious computer models, these people pretend to know what the future holds (climate change of such magnitude that it's worth worrying about).

Modes of natural climate variability are those forces of nature by which people who know nothing about modes of natural climate variability can explain everything.

Ebell called Sir David «an alarmist» who knew «nothing about climate change».

There is one thing likely about most of these people, 97 percent of them know little or nothing about climate change.

My criticism of IAMs [Integrated Assessment Models] should not be taken to imply that, because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more.

But the author may know nothing about energy balance or transient climate sensitivity or the attribution problem.

And if Don is right about climate models, and I think he has a major point, then we know nothing whatsoever about what is going to happen to climate in the future.

I never said he knows «nothing» about climate.

You know nothing about science yet you come to this site and pretend that you know that all climate science is wrong and that climate scientists are dishonest fraudsters.

An observation on the discussion on agnotology: as I read the arguments of TonyG, for example, the implication of his argument about what we know and need to know about climate change before we do anything seems to be that unless we have totally complete and utterly accurate knowledge of some matter relevant to an issue, say the reality of climate change, we should do nothing.

Here is an example of what I'm getting at: * Climate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thClimate change is a myth or conspiracy - The temperature record is phony - the consensus is just politics * Climate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thClimate change is unproven - The models are wrong - One hundred years isn't enough evidence * It's not our fault - Volcano's emit way more CO2 - It could be natural variation * A warmer climate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thclimate is nothing to worry about - It was warmer in the middle ages - A warmer climate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me thclimate is a good thing * Mitigation will destroy the economy - We don't know enough to act - Reducing fossil fuel will destroy us * It's too late or someone else's problem - Kyoto is too little too late - The US absorbs more CO2 than it emits This is very rough example, but if you think it is headed in the right direction, I'd be happy to go through your guide in more detail and come up with something concrete - just give me the word.

For example, we know that if the climate wasn't changing, it would be broken, since the evidence tells us that the climate is in a state of continuous change, moreover; nothing about contemporary change is unusual compared to the paleo record, and this is even true when we compare changes in recent 5 year averages to the changes in multi-century averages recorded in ice cores.

Nothing we know about solar geoengineering should distract you from the task of agreeing deep and binding cuts in CO2 emissions, and effective support for adaptation to climate change.

Even if they read nothing else at all about climate change this is what they wanted Blair and Bush and their officials to know.

It's new project, «Seven things to know about climate change», does nothing to restore it.

Mostly the article simply repeats old nonsense, but there is one new deceptive argument typical of those like Jacoby who know nothing and whose stock in trade is bluster about everything including climate change.

So we know exactly the climate within the Stevenson Screen but nothing about global climate.

At the end point you're dealing with statistics and climate scientists have shown they know nothing about statistics.

Anyone who knows this could have made the same «prediction», and it says absolutely nothing about the Met Office's ability to make statements about climate change which are consistent with reality.

We can describe a lot about some systems that are in equilibrium; we can even describe how they might transition from one «state» to some other state; but one thing we know for sure about earth's climate, is that nothing in it is in equilibrium.

George E. Smith (11:38:13):...» but one thing we know for sure about earth's climate, is that nothing in it is in equilibrium.

My criticism of IAMs should not be taken to imply that because we know so little, nothing should be done about climate change right now, and instead we should wait until we learn more.