Sentences with phrase «lives than climate science»

Not exact matches

Suddenly, we seem to live in a time dominated by «fake news», «alternative facts», conspiracy theories, scepticism of scientific research, partial accounts parading as «the real truth which has hitherto been concealed from us, the people», revolts against allegedly smug academic elites and distant political elites — a time where YouTube videos claiming research into climate change to be a scam get far more viewers than videos presenting the science of climate change.

That was part of the logic for why so many folks have been keen to make a big push on soot and other SLCPs [short - lived climate pollutants]-- the piece that Charlie Kennel, Ram Ramanathan and I had in Foreign Affairs a couple years ago lays out the POLITICAL logic for action in that area as well as the new science showing that SLCPs are more important than previously thought.

A larger mystery than either missing carbon or the influence of clouds / water vapor on climate change models is why the physical and life science community and the (in theory) science - based climate change advocates have not taken the time to adequately consult the evidence or experts (albeit exceptions certainly do exist) on communication about environmental issues, risk, or environmental and health literacy.

Rather than focussing on the important but inherently incremental developments in the science behind the issue, the media would do us all a favor by maintaining a consistent message regarding the underlying issue (i.e. human action is causing climate change, and climate change has the potential to do great harm to our way of life) and focus on how ordinary people can take steps in their own lives to help address the problem in ways that don't require inordinate sacrifice.

With the exception of Dr. Curry, and possilby Paul Haynes, none of the individuals who has responded so far appears to do climate science for a living, and few are knowledgeable enough to state more than very tentative judgments.

Once you see and dismiss the official climate establishments» «97 % consensus» as nothing more than propaganda, you can only conclude that climate science is either politically - motivated or it is the product of a personal problem — e.g., a problem that is similar to those who suffer from medical maladies they do not actually have, who waste their lives looking for remedies that do not exist.

John Carter August 8, 2014 at 12:58 am chooses to state his position on the greenhouse effect in the following 134 word sentence: «But given the [1] basics of the greenhouse effect, the fact that with just a very small percentage of greenhouse gas molecules in the air this effect keeps the earth about 55 - 60 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be, and the fact that through easily recognizable if [2] inadvertent growing patterns we have at this point probably at least [3] doubled the total collective amount in heat absorption and re-radiation capacity of long lived atmospheric greenhouse gases (nearly doubling total that of the [4] leading one, carbon dioxide, in the modern era), to [5] levels not collectively seen on earth in several million years — levels that well predated the present ice age and extensive earth surface ice conditions — it goes [6] against basic physics and basic geologic science to not be «predisposed» to the idea that this would ultimately impact climate.»

I would have as many disagreements discussing climate change with a «denier» as I would with a firm believer in CAGW or someone who shares my general beliefs but is a firm believer in the precautionary principle which roughly states the even if the science is not settled, we should treat CAGW as a real threat and focus on preventing it rather than living with it.

Or perhaps the science of climate change (which has been the most politically manipulated science in living memory), will finally be based on literature that encompasses all view points, rather than just the «fast and convenient» 97 % junk literature currently being mass produced at an unprecedented rate.

My climate enemies have done scientific and other academic frauds; they've destroyed, withheld and pretended to misplace scientific data in order to prevent the human race discovering things about nature; they've forged documents to frame people they don't like; mendaciously and publicly accused innocent people of deplorable crimes that carry prison sentences; betrayed the trust reposed in their professions by fraudulently abrogating to themselves the magical competence to diagnose entire swathes of the (perfectly healthy) population with thought disorders just to score points in an academic bitch fight; deliberately and self - servingly lied to * massive * audiences about the way science itself works — than which I can't for the life of me think of a greater crime against humanity in the recent history of the developed world, can you Joe?

Live Science: «Climate Records Shattered in 2013» — By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer LiveScience.com — July 18, 2014 — «The climate is changing more rapidly in today's world than at any time in modern civilization,» said Thomas Karl, director oClimate Records Shattered in 2013» — By Becky Oskin, Senior Writer LiveScience.com — July 18, 2014 — «The climate is changing more rapidly in today's world than at any time in modern civilization,» said Thomas Karl, director oclimate is changing more rapidly in today's world than at any time in modern civilization,» said Thomas Karl, director of NOAA.

For a climate science communicator life is much easier than for these established paleoclimatologists.

The routine assumption that the analyses put forward of innumerate bloggers are just as valid as (in fact more valid than) as those of scientists who have devoted their life to the relevant field is one aspect of this, as is the constant demand to «teach the controversy» on evolution, climate science, wind turbine health scares, vaccination and so on.