Sentences with phrase «less climate science»

The Impact Group observed that Canada collects «less climate science data per - square - kilometer of any other major country.»

Not exact matches

John Beddington, the UK government's chief scientific adviser, says that climate scientists should be less hostile to doubters who question man - made global warming, and that public confidence in science depends on more openness to varied opinions.

In today's intellectual climate, where so many who invoke science in support of Christianity seem to do so in more or less veiled forms of creationism (for example, in the «Intelligent Design» school of thought), and where the prevailing mindset is a complacent presumption that science has disproved religion, it is a matter of pressing urgency to proclaim from the housetops how the magnificent success of modern science points unambiguously to the existence of the supreme Mind of the Creator, and how the trajectory of thought which begins there leads convincingly to Jesus Christ as Lord of the Cosmos.

Those who know more about climate science, for example, are slightly more likely to accept that global warming is real and caused by humans than those who know less on the subject.

For Republicans, the more knowledge they have about climate science the less likely they are to accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming (whereas Democrats» confidence goes up).

In another 2017 study published in Advances in Political Psychology, «Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing,» Landrum and her colleagues found that liberal Democrats were far less likely than strong Republicans to voluntarily read a «surprising climate - skeptical story,» whereas a «surprising climate - concerned story» was far more likely to be read by those on the left than on the right.

«What we've seen in the last ten years is a polarization of views, with Democrats clearly becoming more supportive of climate science and Republicans less supportive.»

According to a 2013 study of California farmers, factors like exposure to extreme weather events and perceived changes in water availability made farmers more likely to believe in climate change, while negative experiences with environmental policies can make farmers less likely to believe that climate change is occurring, said Meredith Niles, a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard's Sustainability Science Program and lead author of the study.

In the House, key lawmakers have made headway with the notion that the social sciences and climate research contribute less to the nation than «pure» disciplines, such as physics, biology, engineering, and computing.

Less than two weeks after the state's senate passed a climate science - squelching bill, research shows that sea level along the coast between N.C. and Massachusetts is rising faster than anywhere on Earth

«There is a potential risk that if you cool the planet by albedo modification, it could provide less incentive to reduce reliance on fossil fuels,» says Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist, current editor - in - chief of Science and chair of a committee that evaluated climate intervention techniques for the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

«If the IPCC comes out with significantly less than 100 cm of sea level rise, there will be people in the science community saying we don't think that's a fair reflection of what we know,» said Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, speaking to Associated Press.

«The U.S. [in 2011] experienced a record fourteen weather - related disasters each in excess of a billion dollars — and many more disasters of lesser magnitudes,» reports the non-profit Climate Science Watch (CSW).

Steering around the politics In red states where residents are generally less supportive of climate science, transportation departments are more hesitant to engage in mitigation activities, she said.

The study also finds that Tea Party supporters with higher levels of education are less likely to trust scientists or accept scientific consensus on topics like evolution or climate change, which runs opposite to the positive effect education has on trust in science among Independents and Democrats.

Through an ensemble modeling approach, we were able to show that without anthropogenic effects, the droughts in the southwestern United States would have been less severe,» says co-author Axel Timmermann, Director of the newly founded IBS Center for Climate Physics, within the Institute for Basics Science (IBS), and Distinguished Professor at Pusan National University in South Korea.

Our changing climate presages a world with less coffee, more cases of tropical disease, and more adorable Adélie penguins — but the science of which species will win and which will lose is a work in progress.

The US National Science Foundation's investments directed toward climate change research have increased substantially since 1987, but biodiversity expenditures have increased much less and have held steady since 2004.

My only concern with climatedebatedaily is that no attempt is made to differentiate peer reviewed science from a wide range of opinion pieces, leaving the reader with the impression that mainstream science is far less resolved on the climate change issue than is actually the case.

There is no analog for climate change as humans have triggered it, so our sensitivities are even less sure than the science suggests, even with Earth System Sensitivity since it also presumably doesn't account for rate of change nor the preconditioning the human presence has resulted in.

• Cover / Contents LITERACY STATIONS • Compound Word Match • Syllable Sort • Parts of Speech Sort MATHS ACTIVITIES • Greater / Less Than Rainbows • Weather Patterning GAMES • Matching Games SIMPLE WORKSHEET ACTIVITIES, GAMES and PUZZLES • Discussion Weather Wheel • Scrambled Weather Words • Word to Picture Match • Weather Words Missing Letters • Seasonal Weather Drawing • Alphabetical Order • Wordsearches x 2, plus keys • Weather Words Shapes • Weather Words Opposites • Favourite Weather • TOU / Credits PAGE COUNT: 56 ********************************************************** RELATED RESOURCES What's the Weather Part 1: Climate and Weather Presentation / Definitions / Posters / Display What's the Weather Part 2: Activities What's The Weather Bundle Integrated Unit ********************************************************** Teacher's Toolkit Science

You don't seem to understand that, with a less than half - baked understanding of climate science, you've stumbled into a discussion with some extremely knowledgeable people, and then wonder why they don't buy into your «equal time for opposing views» viewpoint.

One of the major attacks on climate science has been the denigration of models, now in less than two weeks two very public model predictions based upon science have proven spectacularly true.

[Response: Experiments and observations in climate science are far less controlled than the neutrino experiment, and yet you think that they somehow rise to the level of unchallengeable?

There are areas of climate science that are more and less certain.

I was beginning to realize that my beat was less and less a noun — environment, climate, science — and more a question: «Nine Billion People + One Planet =?»

Could someone who knows, please recommend the best climate science or policy textbooks in comments here at Less Wrong (link)?

I was depicted as «less than honest about», «simply making unfounded assertions», «had any credibility in criticizing climate science».

As I was interviewing as many scientists and other experts as I could find, I came to realize that the science around biomass's climate impacts is much less murky than it's made to seem.

RC is somewhat of a well of clear factual information about climate science and by nearly inevitable connection to a lesser extent about energy topics.

But the tussle in Washington, according to an awful lot of contacts who are immersed there, is less about the overall picture painted by climate science and more about choosing the science that suits one's politics or pocketbook.

One was a paper published in Science a week ago, by Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University and colleagues, that generated cheers from doubters of global warming because the authors concluded the climate was less responsive to a big buildup of greenhouse gases than some previous work had concluded.

It was a good deed to give Dennis Schmitt a forum to respond to Patrick Michaels since Michaels doesn't offer one, we need to see less of the tug of war and more of the real evolving science as scientists strive to fill in gaps in data and missing links in climate models, and to understand feedbacks and the coupled dynamics of land, air and water.

She's co-authored a recent paper — «The early bear gets the goose: climate change, polar bears and lesser snow geese in western Hudson Bay» — showing that bears in that region are foraging increasingly on shore, eating grasses and particularly relishing (apparently) snow geese and their eggs [UPDATE: Ms. Gormezano described grass (and kelp) foraging in my Science Times story but that's not in the paper; her co-author properly rejected the use of the word «relished»].

There's obviously less interest in the older videos in a field that has progressed as quickly as climate science.

In terms of the gold that a climate science denier might find in the paper, at the very least, they could argue that the fact that the troposphere isn't warming more quickly than the surface shows that the climate models are unreliable — even though the models predict just the pattern of warming that we see — with the troposphere warming more quickly than the surface over the ocean but less quickly than the surface over land.

I am sure that people paid as environmentalist journalists don't necessarily like to hear such things, because of their pockets, but it is true that the climate science should be getting roughly 10 times less attention in the media than what it is getting now if the rules about the complexity and space in the media were consistently followed.

Another way of saying it: Although we are seeing less outright false balance in climate coverage than a decade or two ago, bias against mainstream science understanding persists in the relatively subtle form of selective reporting of eyebrow - raising claims, which strengthen the impression that scientists are always changing their story, in which case, shrug.

These science / environment stories compete for attention with stories not just in science but across other political and social issues: the Holland / Webster study came out at comparatively less crowded time for climate issues than the Vecchi / Soden study.

While I have no problems whatsoever with evolution, I think we shall be much less sure about climate science.

My sense is increasingly that what's under attack is less and less the merits of the climate consensus and more and more the credibility and integrity of scientists and science itself.

Turned out the event was less about science than it was about communications — and the challenges of communicating about climate change were never more visible, or more daunting.

Perhaps they are even less of a story that climate science!

I'm less concerned with whether he's wrong under the letter of the existing bylaws as whether such a communication approach is useful in getting countries to seriously consider the science pointing to a human - disrupted climate.

In the last year, my discussions with people who resent AGW talk have more and more been about science and scientists that people disresepct, and less and less about climate arguments and facts that they disbelieve.

Although, FWIW, my take was from the POV that Nurse appears to have acquired his «knowledge» — both of climate science and of skeptics — from no less a tutor than the world - renowned «expert» (and erstwhile RS employee), Bob < fast - fingered obsessive whiner par excellence > Ward!

Why waste time discussing with someone who clearly don't understand climate, science and are even less interested in the facts?

The BBC's viewers and listeners could soon be hearing a lot less hot air from climate change skeptics, under new guidance warning of the risk of «false balance» in science reports.

But the uncertainties in the science of climate impacts — and they are legion — make the future more perilous, not less.

Climate science is no more or less vulnerable to such community influences or potential outcomes.