Sentences with phrase «large number of climate scientists»

Eighth, you don't seem to understand just how significant it is that such a large number of climate scientists (84 %) reaching a consensus that «human - induced warming is occurring.»

Those supporting emissions trading — and there are many who don't, including a large number of climate scientists — say the profit motive will inspire entrepreneurs to come up with ideas for capturing and banking carbon dioxide.

Not exact matches

My prediction is that a large number of mainstream IPCC climate scientists were invited to the meeting, but refused to attend when they learnt who else had been invited.

The new volumes in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report are comprehensive and authoritative — authored and reviewed by a large number of scientists.

We believe that policymakers, the media, and the public should pay attention to scientific expert credibility and the well - vetted comprehensive assessment reports prepared by a large number of the leading scientists — in particular the new IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, along with the National Academy of Sciences (4 - volume America's Climate Choices report) and the National Climate Assessment forthcoming from the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

A growing number of climate scientists and environmentalists have advocated for nuclear, which is the largest source of low - carbon electricity in the USA and other countries [1].

Surveys and signed petitions show they enjoy extensive support by climate scientists as well as the larger number of scientists who are expert on some parts of the climate change puzzle.

The number of governments, private corporations, organizations, scientists and technologies concerned with meeting the challenge of climate change and global warming have increased beyond expectations in the past decade and continues to create an army of «green fighters,» like Green Peace, but the impact on large numbers of people have not reached a critical mass to reverse the present warming trends.

A majority of survey respondents disagreed that the government has done a good job funding climate science, and a large number of scientists warned that inadequate levels of funding are harming the capacity of researchers to make progress in understanding the causes and effects of climate change.

Despite the lack of an El Niño effect, 2017 is set to be the second or third hottest year on record; hurricanes unprecedented in their power pummelled the U.S. and Caribbean; the largest wildfires California has seen burned deep into the Northern Hemisphere winter; scientists warned the «Arctic shows no sign of returning to the reliably frozen region of recent past decades»; studies revealed an ecological armageddon amongst insect populations; droughts fuelled famine and insecurity across East Africa and the Middle East; the U.N. warned the number of chronically undernourished people has risen for the first time since the turn of the century due in large part to climate impacts.

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition).

WASHINGTON — The number of large - scale projects to capture and bury carbon dioxide has fallen to 65 from 75 over the last year, a worldwide survey has found, despite a consensus among scientists and engineers that such projects are essential to meet international goals for slowing the buildup of climate - changing gases.

The trick behind the Oregon Petition is that anyone with a Bachelor of Science degree or higher can sign it, which allows climate denialists to both tout it as «a list of scientists» and also obtain a seemingly large number of signatories (over 31,000).

Taking a neutral stance at this point on work from «NIPCC» (Fred Singer et al.), suggesting that this kind of effort «competes» with the work of several of the world's climate scientists and a large number of multidisciplinary specialists contributing to IPCC reports combined with the additional scientists and many others who raise real questions that result from reading, reviewing, evaluating and evolving the information in both IPCC summaries and domestic science and discussion of the science, is just not credible, in my humble opinion.

Nevertheless, as pieces of evidence accumulated, a growing number of scientists found it plausible that the climate over large regions, if not the entire world, had sometimes changed markedly in a thousand years or even less.

Those same large numbers of scientists have turned out to be wrong about the Mann Hockey Stick as a scientifically plausible reconstruction of past climate.

The reason why Hansen gets a larger value is that there are feedbacks in the climate system and these feedbacks in essence modify (and, in most climate scientists» opinions, increase) the number of W / m ^ 2 increase that occur due to the change in CO2 levels alone.

Despite the press releases of James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann and others claiming the debate is over, there are a large number of of scientists who are no less qualified and are more qualified in climate science and the atmospheric sciences who strongly dispute such claims.

Yet it is not the case that even «most» scientists at the IPCC are climate scientists, but exactly the «large number of social scientists, computer programmers, engineers, etc., without any specialist knowledge on this problem» about whom Dressler complains.

So climate scientists simulate regional changes by zooming in on global models — using the same equations, but solving them for a much larger number of grid points in particular locations.

We are deeply troubled by a large number of appointments by President - elect Trump that deny the science of climate change, and we are alarmed that he has expanded his team to include people who target individual scientists.

And to get such a large number of scientists to participate by rating their own papers - that in itself is an indication of the respect that active climate scientists give to the team and the leadership of John Cook.

The article, criticized by climate scientists and environmental groups, says that the field of climate science is dominated by opportunists and that «a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.»

Had climate scientists «brainstormed» decades ago about the large number of diverse causes, their relative contributions, the evidence in hand and the evidence needed, before starting the alarmist crusade, this essay would likely not have been written.

A very, very small number of vocal climate scientists and a somewhat larger group of what I would call advocates and bureaucrats really determine what you hear in the media about AGW science.