Sentences with phrase «leading climate scientists about»

Secretary Kerry has long paid attention to the concerns expressed by the leading climate scientists about human - caused global climatic disruption.

Not exact matches

The deafening silence around climate change in the US presidential campaign has left leading climate scientists baffled by the absence of debate about the «greatest issue of our time».

AAAS leads intersociety letter expressing «grave concern» about congressional inquiry that unfoundedly called into question federal climate scientists» integrity [November 24, 2015]

Leading U.S. scientists have complained about threatening communications and abusive e-mails as a result of their research on the climate impact of heat - trapping gases from human activity.

His concerns about the 1991 paper are shared by a number of leading climate scientists.

The methane hydrates with the highest climate susceptibility are in upper continental margin slopes, like those that ring the Arctic Ocean, representing about 3.5 percent of the global methane hydrate inventory, says Carolyn Ruppel, a scientist who leads the Gas Hydrates Project at the USGS.

Scientists use data from the SGP to learn about cloud, aerosol, and atmospheric processes, which in turn leads to improvements in models of the Earth's climate.

In four presentations, leading scientists Andrew H. Knoll of Harvard University, Naomi Oreskes of the University of California, San Diego, and Daniel P. Schrag of Harvard University guide us on an exciting exploration of the history of life on Earth and discuss present - day concerns about climate change.

Think about leading climate scientists like Kevin Anderson in the UK, or the German expert John Schellnhuber, who spoke at the «Four Degrees or More» conference in Australia in 2011.

Just as there is consensus about the human role in climate change, the perception that our species is now piloting the planet has led scientists to declare a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene or the Human Age.

Perhaps you would care to explain exactly how these alleged «past exaggerations of climate predictions» compelled numerous GOP elected officials to deliberately and repeatedly lie about climate science, while seeking to abuse their positions of authority to defund climate research and attack and destroy the careers of leading climate scientists.

Until our schools teach about climate change, share the fears of leading scientists, and start to create an understanding of how we can each be part of the greater solution, I am afraid we have no hope of changing our rather bleak future.

But what in fact appears to happen is that the concerns at least of some of those worried about these types of actions, have led them to try and convince society by attacking the science of the majority of climate scientists and to use scientific arguments that on the whole are rather weak and unconvincing, and nearly always involve the cherry - picking of data.

Neither Gelbspan nor anyone repeating his accusation ever proved the money trail led to an industry directive to lie about global warming science; none of them have proved skeptic climate scientists were instructed to mimic tobacco industry tactics; journalists have demonstrably not offered overall fair balance in to skeptic climate scientists; the «wedge» being driven is one arguably pounded by enviro - activists who push the «skeptics don't deserve fair media balance» talking point; and Gelbspan was not the first one to bring up this talking point.

I appreciate the bold scientists who maintains the debate about scientific methods of climate change research; however, I miss a mention of the first challengers, McIntyre and McKitrick, who were the first scientists who questioned the statistical methods leading to hockety stick shape of paleoclimate reconstructions.

A broad array of leading climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change climate scientists and policy specialists were also criticizing the panel for the exact opposite reason: They believe the main conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change Climate Change (IPCC) may be too general and too conservative to convey a clear message about the grave threat of warming and to inform policies to address local climate change climate change issues.

4) Is there something characteristic about the specific scientists who have expressed a concern about «intimidation» that, apparently, leads them to sacrifice the integrity of their science due to the politics related to the climate wars?

While the Democratic leadership of the waning 111th Congress failed to get legislation passed into law to address climate change, the House global warming committee, led by Rep. Ed Markey (D - MA), convened dozens of important hearings and briefings featuring top climate scientists and national security experts to educate Congress and the public about the need for swift action to secure America's energy independence, create clean energy jobs and mitigate climate change emissions.

Le Monde, one of the leading (and predictably leftist) French daily didn't say a word about Climategate for weeks only to dismiss it as a conspiracy to derail Copenhagen by Russian or whatever hackers paid by big oil to steal private correspondance between honnest and hard - working climate scientists (translation, nothing to see here).

curryja - When I hear a panel of the nation's leading neuro - scientists admit that they know so very little about the human mind and are not ashamed to express some humility about their lack of complete knowledge, and then I read how so many climatologists use such absolutist terms in what is going on with our climate, it stretches credulity.

Q Along with leading climate scientist, Katharine Hayhoe, for this conversation about how we can make real progress on this issue.

It's not just that climate change isn't real, or isn't certain — it's that the world's leading climate scientists and climate organizations (who are all in agreement about it) are perpetrating what Senator James Inhofe calls The Greatest Hoax.

These werenâ $ ™ t just a few renegade scientists; in the following months, damning information came to light about the worldâ $ ™ s leading climate alarmists and their work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Stern Report, the U.S. National Climate Data Center and eveclimate alarmists and their work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Stern Report, the U.S. National Climate Data Center and eveClimate Change (IPCC), the Stern Report, the U.S. National Climate Data Center and eveClimate Data Center and even NASA.

It could have led to a different approach to evolving the discourse between scientists and users of information — a freer relationship and one less constrained than is the current process by political gatekeepers concerned with controlling the flow of communications about climate change and its implications for the United States.

A team of international scientists is due to set off for the world's biggest iceberg, fighting huge waves and the encroaching Antarctic winter, in a mission aiming to answer fundamental questions about the impact of climate change in the polar regions.The scientists, led by the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), are trying to reach a newly revealed ecosystem that had been hidden for 120,000 years below the Larsen C ice shelf on the Antarctic peninsula.In July last year, part of the Larsen C ice shelf calved away, forming a huge iceberg - A68 - which is four times bigger than London, and revealing life beneath for the first time.

«One major concern about wildfires becoming more frequent in permafrost areas is the potential to put the vast amounts of carbon stored there at increased risk of being emitted and further amplify warming,» said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at Climate Central and lead author of the group's newly released report on Alaskan wildfires, by climate scientist at Climate Central and lead author of the group's newly released report on Alaskan wildfires, by Climate Central and lead author of the group's newly released report on Alaskan wildfires, by e-mail.

The paragraph below, from the poll, links increasing skepticism in the US with reduced trust in climate scientists due to climategate, «raising questions about the objectivity of some leading climate science researchers» (see last sentence:

The impacts of climate change are becoming more frequent and devastating [1], and the world's leading scientists have issued stark warnings about the scale of the planetary emergency.

In the discussion about whether the Earth has warmed the «climate scientists» seem to be completely unable to speak the truth because the truth casts doubts on the «CO2 is increasing and will lead to temperature increases which will be bad» theory.

While scientists aren't certain about whether climate change has led to more hurricanes, they are confident that rising sea levels are leading to higher storm surges and more floods.

In November, 2015, the three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — wrote a small book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimaScientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climascientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate Change.

Previously, I wrote about a new study from top U.S. climate scientist Ken Caldeira and leading tech guru Nathan Myhrvold.

Within the last two years, a number of leading scientists — including Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), British ecologist James Lovelock, and NASA scientist James Hansen — have all declared that humanity is about to pass or already has passed a «tipping point» in terms of global warming.

«The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Climate Accountability Institute brought together about two dozen leading scientists, lawyers and legal scholars, historians, social scientists, and public opinion experts for a June 14 − 15, 2012, workshop at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Scientists and the Climate Accountability Institute brought together about two dozen leading scientists, lawyers and legal scholars, historians, social scientists, and public opinion experts for a June 14 − 15, 2012, workshop at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, scientists, lawyers and legal scholars, historians, social scientists, and public opinion experts for a June 14 − 15, 2012, workshop at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, scientists, and public opinion experts for a June 14 − 15, 2012, workshop at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA.»

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4 C above the 1961 - 1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

The current forecast from climate scientists is that both the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets will melt 10 times faster than what they have been in recent decades, and this will lead to 10 feet (~ 3 meters) of sea level rise by about 2065.

Ben Kirtman, a climate scientist at the University of Miami and a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment, said he and other scientists have tried talking to politicians in Florida about these risks, including both Scott and Rubio, who is a possible presidential contender iclimate scientist at the University of Miami and a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment, said he and other scientists have tried talking to politicians in Florida about these risks, including both Scott and Rubio, who is a possible presidential contender iClimate Change's latest assessment, said he and other scientists have tried talking to politicians in Florida about these risks, including both Scott and Rubio, who is a possible presidential contender in 2016.

Tie this all together, and what we have is Gelbspan's central bit of «evidence» not proving a sinister industry directive exists where skeptic climate scientists are paid to lie, and the collective narratives about what led him to investigate skeptics has too short of a timeline to be feasible, with details so inconsistent that it looks more like a fabrication hiding the true details of the entire situation.

I try to convince those, who do know better about the issue, that a lot of people really don't know better, and or are led by zealous belief and a confusing and often self selectively reinforcing world of misinformation out there and a lot of great rhetoric that has really discredited climate scientists, and it is still somewhat, sometimes, like arguing with a stone wall.

No pathetically obvious industry - led conspiracy leaps from that material where skeptic climate scientists were paid to manufacture doubt about the certainty of cataclysmic man - caused global warming.

Nonetheless, even scientists who believe that climate change is likely to lead to more events like the Joplin tornado hesitate to draw conclusions about what is going on with the weather right now.

Leading scientists, including climate change experts, complain about opinion piece akin to «dentists practising cardiology»

Thanks... to be honest my «skepticism» of climate science hasn't changed much over the years — if you read Chapter 1 of TCF I have a lot of time for climate science, and I interact with climate scientists just about every day (being in CIRES, a leading global institute).

How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate presents clear science and outstanding photos of the evidence gathered by leading scientists all over the world.

Among other things, the authors state that [1] «scientists do not know how large the greenhouse effect is, whether it will lead to a harmful amount of global warming, or (if it will) what should be done about it» (p. 560); [2] that «profound disagreements» about global warming exist within the scientific community (p. 560); [3] that so - called «activist scientists» say that the earth's climate is warming (p. 560); [4] that «science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect Is, if it exists at all» (p. 569); [5] and that global warming is «enmeshed in scientific uncertainty» (p. 573).

A group of retired NASA scientists and engineers led by Dr. Harold H. Doiron, a mechanical engineer who is best known for his work on eliminating unstable vibrations in liquid propellant rockets, has decided that these models simply can't be used to make rational decisions about earth's future climate.

An international collaboration of scientists, led by the University of Leicester, has investigated Earth's climate over half a billion years ago by combining climate models and chemical analyses of fossil shells about 1 mm long.

But it wasn't the lead in, and the reason is that the article was about Dr. Wood's belief that climate scientists have become hysterical doomsayers, with the last part as a throw - in.

A paper led by former NASA scientist James Hansen that spawned criticism about climate change impacts and the peer - review process before it was published was released online yesterday by the open - access journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

The day that the leading climate scientists (and some politicians) of the world are as knowledgeable, as expert and as skilled in linguistics as Lakoff and Mirowski are about the real issues, maybe then something might begin to change for the better.