Sentences with phrase «most other climate scientists»

Unlike most other climate scientists, Hansen has never been shy out speaking out about what's at stake.

Michaels and Balling are labeled «skeptics» because they don't believe the warming is likely to be as severe or as disruptive as most other climate scientists, but they readily accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming.

The contrarian arguments have not been widely accepted by most other climate scientists with appropriate credentials.

Not exact matches

A new study by scientists from WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society) and other groups predicts that the effects of climate change will severely impact the Albertine Rift, one of Africa's most biodiverse regions and a place not normally associated with global warming.

Earth's average temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001, despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — a trend that has perplexed most climate scientists.

These are the erroneous predictions ascribed to the most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-- a document reviewed by some 2,500 scientists and other experts as well as vetted by more than 190 countries.

Other scientists disagree with this kind of activism, most notably Susan Solomon, who was the co-leader of the 2007 I.P.C.C. assessment of climate trends.

Most climate scientists became convinced during that time, and they managed to convince a great many others, including many very influential people in politics and the media.

«Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93 % of each group indicating their concurrence.Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93 % of each group indicating their concurrence.climate change and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93 % of each group indicating their concurrence.climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93 % of each group indicating their concurrence.»

«But with the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well - publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human - made climate change,» he added.

As a result of my analyses that challenge IPCC conclusions, I have been called a denier by other climate scientists, and most recently by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

Seems that Muller can't win with anybody; most scientists knew he was misconstruing climate science / scientists the whole time, now the «skeptics» and some of his colleagues think he's misconstruing the other way.

For example, the widely touted «consensus» of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC's report.

FWIW — many «skeptics» claim that mechanism doesn't explain how most «skeptics» formulate their views on climate change — but they think other mechanisms are explanatory, such as a common sense insight that climate scientists are trying to bamboozle them.

Scientists connect seawater chemistry with climate change and evolution TORONTO, ON — Humans get most of the blame for climate change, with little attention paid to the contribution of other natural forces.

In order to avoid the most devastating impacts of global warming, climate scientists have warned that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases need to be cut in order to keep the increase in average global temperature to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius).

Keeling's record of data from Mauna Loa is considered one of the best and most consistent climate records anywhere, though scientists also use other sources for atmospheric data, including samples of air trapped in polar ice, to analyze CO2 levels in past millennia.

So, meteorologists should know the science behind the causes of climate change better than most other scientists.

My guess would be that the incentive that trumps most of the others in this case is climate scientists» fear of missing career opportunities if they don't embrace the «consensus».

Climate scientists could make far more money in other careers - most notably, working for the oil industry.

On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences, 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change whose conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.

On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences Around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change which conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.

Gavin Schmidt, a senior climate scientist at NASA, examined them and found that most are 24 - carat bafflegab, while the rest have already been answered by other means (9).

-- Post-1950s stratospheric cooling — Post-1950s mesospheric cooling — Post-1950s thermospheric cooling — Horizontal / regional distribution of warming and the temporal pattern of warming [DOI: 10.1175 / BAMS - D -11-00191.1, pages 1683 and 1684]-- Climate sensitivity estimates, where even the low range estimates would end up with CO2 causing most of the post-1950s warming — Exclusion of other likely causal factors, such as the Sun [ex: solar - induced warming causes warming of the stratosphere, mesosphere, and thermosphere, yet scientists observed cooling in these layers].

Personally, I dodn't findy Curry's «style» to be all that different from her «warmist opponents» (if by which we mean other climate scientists blogging and op - ed - ing, most of whom, oddly enough, differ with her).

Most of the people Hamilton and others call «geoengineering boosters» are policymakers, security professionals, and scientists who read an article such as this and are silently haunted by the image of Pakistan as a failed state, with an already - strained political system exacerbated by climate change to the point of no return.

Most scientists are basically honest, but the people identified in Wegman's climate science clique are either slackers who don't bother to critically review the work of others in their clique, or their negligence is deliberate, because when their own paper is reviewed by the same small clique they want the same peer approval that generally results in increased funding requests.

Today, I doubt one scientist in thirty willingly participates in climate discussions in other than the driest, quietest and most distant privacy.

I think like most people who have looked into it, including many climate scientists in their emails with colleagues, (see Steyn's book with quotes from other scientists on Mann) think that Mann's work is often not totally believable.

The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 percent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades» worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly.

The statement about most expert climate scientists is unproblematic and true, as just about anyone who reads the literature or goes to the meetings should know — even if they are unaware of the convergent findings from research measuring the degree of agreement through widely different methods by Cook, Anderegg, Doran, Oreskes and others; or of the statements by every major organization of scientists.

Perhaps surprisingly, climate scientists are the most trusted group (70 %), followed by other kinds of scientists (64 %), TV weather reporters (60 %) and personal primary care doctors (57 %).

There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in climate science, and while most climate scientists and many others understand this and operate rationally with this understanding, it is a huge political issue.

Within that group they determined how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change — in other words the key parts of WG I.

In June the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics carried a paper by James Hansen and others clarifying the question of what is dangerous human - induced climate change.1 Hansen is widely recognised as the world's most eminent climate scientist.

It sounds like you are saying that the IPCC is all out of date, most climate scientists are way behind the times, and that you and a few others know that global temperatures in the past rose (and therefore can) 7 degrees in a decade, proven in part with, among other things, 3 - 5 million year old tree rings uncovered from a peat bog in the Canadian Arctic.

Noting that energy efficiency measures alone could get us to reduce emissions 80 % by 2050 (the amount most scientists say we need to cut in order to avoid the worst of climate change), he pointed out that there's an entire potential workforce ready to be trained to retrofit buildings and do other green jobs — and that it makes perfect economic sense.

While I have my own area of technical knowledge, including some basic physics and biology, it does not extend to the core science of AGW, and so I make no direct comment on it, other than to say it has been one of the most intensely studied and debated scientific issues in history and I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of climate scientists have got it completely wrong.

In the next few days, the jury who will decide the fate of one of the UK's most prominent climate scientists will take their places... There are three clear charges: that Prof Jones and others tried to subvert the scientific peer - review process; that he attempted to conceal data that others requested; and that some data were manipulated.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1 Earth - orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale.

@TerjeP (say Tay - a) Most of the scientists working in climate related science are not on a «side», they are not all in total agreement with each other and they are not all putting forward a narrow unifying theory, despite the way they are being grouped into a straw man by mischief makers.

«Because grassland ecosystems are the most vulnerable to extreme climate events, we examined data collected by many other scientists to try and understand the relationship between rain events and drought on the potential productivity of grasslands,» said Chuixiang Yi of City University of New York.

Most historians of science have painted a different picture, focusing their writings on a handful of scientists in other fields who speculated about climate.

While Maibach's formulation may be the most compelling one, it would be fraudulent to use it without evidence that all 97 % of climate scientists based their opinions on their own independent evaluation of the evidence, rather than on the opinions of other climate scientists whom they trusted.

Plus, even the most fervent climate change scientists are reluctant to attribute any one isolated heat wave or drought specifically to it, as there are numerous other potential «natural» causes as well.