Sentences with phrase «many uncertainties in the science»

Surely if we have to err in gauging uncertainty in science, it's better to err on the side of overestimating it.

The biggest bludgeon the skeptics have is that there is uncertainty in the science.

The uncertainty in the science makes it difficult for policy - makers to see how much investment is justified, and what kind, says van Scheltinga.

On the general question at hand — uncertainty in science should not be a cause for great comfort.

Drs Leonard Smith and Nicholas Stern wrote poignantly about how policy is nearly always set in the context of uncertainty, and that even incomplete scientific assessments can be of great value («Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy», http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2011/460/presentations/Smith.pdf).

«Uncertainty in science is a form of knowledge.

It was his caustic honesty about the complex nature of global warming, and the inherent uncertainties in the science, that kept me returning to him for input from 1988 onward.

So, while their certainty has increased from 90 to 95 per cent, the margin of uncertainty in the science on which this is based has nearly doubled, in complete contradiction.

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

As Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University said a couple of months after your proclamation about the up - coming ice - age QUOTE: There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don't know anything much useful about processes or drivers» (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

By way of further explanation... Warren's paper seems to suggest that a significant % of the public formulate their views about climate change based on what climate scientists do or don't say about uncertainties in the science.

I have no problem with focusing the debate on the current uncertainties in the science — which a reputable scientist that Curry claims to be would do — but this tripe shows a colour of anti-science denialism that is truly shameful

The implication is that uncertainty in the science isn't a big driver for the policy choice between A and B.

It seems you are echoing this statement in Dr. Curry's post, «The implication is that uncertainty in the science isn't a big driver for the policy choice between A and B.»

But most crucially of all: The uncertainty in the science that prevents any rational conclusion that our emission are safe.

«Skeptics» are approaching uncertainty in science with a massive bias.

Meanwhile, the good news (if further research bears it out) that the world's warming has been slowed, at least for a few years, needs to be leavened with the realisation, yet again, that there are significant uncertainties in science's understanding of the climate — and thus unquantifiable risks ahead.

Facts about a debate that's turned up more questions than answers,» includes a statement by then Exxon CEO Lee Raymond trumping up uncertainty in the science behind global warming as well as the cost of a carbon - restricted market.

Scientists need a much better understanding of the policy process, the role that science plays, and how complexity, pluralism and uncertainty in science is accommodated in the policy process.

I think everyone would prefer closer to 400 ppm than 800 ppm even if uncertainties in the science are considered.

These issues are the fundamental basis for uncertainty in science.

By looking at these different areas he will dig into the difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty in science, the communication of this uncertainty, and the difficulties when science meets policy and the media.

Crispin in Waterloo — Yes, there are uncertainties in both science and religion.

Interesting strategy by Mr. Mann: first producing publications, achieving notoriety, obtaining funding, getting tenured professor position, and the last is the admission that there is large uncertainty in his science.

There is always uncertainty in science, if there is no uncertainty then it is religion.

The experts you quote speak of the uncertainties in the science.

What concerns me more is the failure to acknowledge deep uncertainty in the science.

«Independent summary shows new UN climate change report refutes alarmism and reveals major uncertainties in the science,» CNW.

If anything, what this thread highlights is the degree to which there is uncertainty in the science around global warming.

However it reminds me of a thought I had that it might be a good idea to have a guest article on this blog that deals with the ozone layer issue, uncertainties in the science, ramifications of the policies that were implemented, and implications for addressing the possibility of AGW — or not.

You've picked an odd forum to come out against the Italian Flag Model, and recognizing Uncertainty in Science.

Under mounting pressure from climate catastrophists to ignore uncertainties in the science and to produce definitive statements that can be used as calls for government interventionism, the UN will apparently release a new «warning» this week:

This does not mean that there is no more science to be done, but instead that, in the risk - based framework that society uses in its decision - making, the uncertainties in the science are now small enough to justify public action that will prevent more serious changes in the future.

The model's output also highlights uncertainties in the science.

Unfortunately, denialism is less about refuting the science than creating the perception of uncertainty in the science in order to manipulate public perception.

They acknowledge their own limitations and ignorance, and the uncertainties in the science.

This meeting follows on from the 2010 Anniversary Discussion Meeting on «Handling Uncertainty in Science» but with a focus on weather and climate prediction and downstream applications.

My guess is that WUWT folks, including Ron Cram, are misrepresenting the discussion at this March 2010 meeting entitled handling uncertainty in science:

which pretty much agrees with the second part of your question, namely that this is not the time for mitigation action in view of all the uncertainties in the science supporting CAGW.

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

Thus, the handling of uncertainty in science is central to its support of sound policy - making.

One has to be careful when communicating uncertainty in science, especially in politicized areas such as climate science.

In Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy, Lenny Smith and the Blair Government's climate economist, Nicholas Stern attempt to give this form of politics some justification in the face of questions about «uncertainty».

There are many uncertainties in the science and the occasional finding that pokes holes in details, but claims that warming stopped in year X, there is an ice age imminent, etc. are given undue prominence when there is no real evidence for this sort of position, just as there is no real evidence that tobacco isn't a health hazard, or HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

As a rider I always have to add that uncertainty in the science does not provide a compelling rationale for neglecting greenhouse gas emissions.

As best we know, the global carbon budget for this century is between 1,320 and 2,200 gigatons (There are too many uncertainties in the science to be more precise than that.)

So the uncertainty in science doesn't mean we haven't got enough information to present policy makers with what they need to make policy.

Boutrous reiterated multiple times that there was «a great deal of uncertainty in the science until about 2000.»

Not exact matches

As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on «remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth's climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,»» White House spokesperson Raj Shah said Friday in a statement.

The indeterminacy that science has found at the levels of matter (uncertainty), life (chance mutations), and human existence (freedom) are essential cosmological ingredients if the autonomy of the world is not to collapse into the being of the Creator - God (in which case it would no longer be a world distinct unto itself).