Sentences with phrase «not about climate science»

NB: This mongraph is 224 pages and is not about climate science.

This book is not about climate science.

It's not about climate science, nor Saving the Earth from «carbon emissions» of fossil fuels.

I note that this paper is NOT about climate science.

As you might of noticed, unless you just made the classic mistake of not reading the article, Ben's blog is about the politics of those who talk of climate science (sometimes they are «climate scientists»), not about climate science.

And Climategate was not about climate science per se, but about the corruption of it in the service of a politics agenda.

There is a lesson here about media hyping a pseudo-issue but not about climate science suddenly needing to be rewritten.

It is not about climate science as such, it is about physics.

if you think it isn't all about climate science.

The content of WGI's SPM is mostly «scientific» insofar as it purports to examine the «physical science basis», and this blog isn't about climate science as such.

It wasn't about climate science.»

Gyptis, this blog isn't about climate science — there are plenty of other blogs for that.

The issue isn't about Climate Science from the general publics perspective in the US, the issue is about waste and inadequate thinking.

Not exact matches

As someone working somewhere in the midst of that nexus of «science, values, ethics and politics» you describe (economics, international relations, technology... the climate policy list goes on), I do recognise what you're talking about, but I really don't see that we should very much care.

The format of the initiatives meant that they not only learnt about the science of environmental problems such as climate change, but were also engaged in considering solutions and how to bring them about, both in terms of their own lives and community and the wider political context.

The letter, which included a statement on climate science by the leaders of 18 scientific societies, stated, «Although debate about policy options exists, climate change is not a scientifically - controversial topic.»

«People have thought about how forest loss matters for an ecosystem, and maybe for local temperatures, but they haven't thought about how that interacts with the global climate,» said co-author Abigail Swann, a UW assistant professor of atmospheric sciences and of biology.

She became almost evangelical about climate change — something she had previously described as «not an exact science» — and implored her counterparts in the other river states to plan for the threat it posed to Southwestern cities.

Concerns about peat fires worsening climate change Mike Flannigan, director of the University of Alberta's Western Partnership for Wildland Fire Science who was not involved with the analysis, said it's important to note that wildfires are a part of northern boreal forests» ecology.

Schultz, a professor of synoptic meteorology, and co-author Dr Vladimir Janković, a science historian specialising in weather and climate, say the short - term, large variability from year to year in high - impact weather makes it difficult, if not impossible, to draw conclusions about the correlation to longer - term climate change.

«We're not spending money on that anymore,» Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney recently told reporters about climate science.

«Environmental science, climate change, feeding the poor, global health — those are all issues that diplomats didn't worry about 20 years ago.

Although the amendments may elicit politically tantalizing information about lawmakers» views on climate science, they don't address the underlying questions about the pipeline: Will the project contribute greatly to the warming problem?

«We can't run away from this issue,» argued Senator Bernard Sanders (D - VT), who also tried to systematically challenge Inhofe's doubts about climate science.

And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?

Obviously, people like Michael Mann are offended by what I'm saying [about the shortcomings of climate science], and I have received an e-mail from one of the people involved in the East Anglia e-mails who's not happy with what I'm doing.

Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question - and - answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.

The reason that Keystone got so much attention is not because that particular pipeline is a make - or - break issue for climate change, but because those who have looked at the science of climate change are scared and concerned about a general lack of sufficient movement to deal with the problem.

«If you haven't had proximity to these glaciers, if you haven't thought about where water comes from, it would be easy to understate or underestimate the implications of glacial ice loss in a state that has predominantly a semi-desert climate and certainly by contemporary climate models is going to be pretty significantly impacted by climate change,» said Jacki Klancher, a professor of environmental science at Central Wyoming College.

(The full Statement of Task appears in Appendix A.) Normally, a technical issue such as surface temperature reconstructions might not generate widespread attention, but this case brings interesting lessons about how science works and how science, especially climate science, is communicated to policy makers and the public.

«If you know carbon dioxide is a «greenhouse gas» but think it kills the things that live in greenhouses,» Kahan said, «then it's safe to say you don't know much about climate science.»

It marks the world's acceptance that climate change, driven by humans» greenhouse gas emissions, is about as close to a certainty as science can ever get — and that conclusion can not be covered up or waved away.

In fact, typing a couple of phrases from Mr. Holder's comment into scroogle.org turned up about a dozen identical posts in late 2009 to early 2010 in response to articles about the UEA e-mail theft, at mostly obscure and varied websites (i.e., ones where the audience isn't likely to have much knowledge of climate science) rather than the most prominent climate websites.

«Misconceptions about climate science are rife with those who confuse weather with climate... the presence of large El Nià ± o events before 1850 AD does not mean that climate change has no effect.»

The Copenhagen Diagnosis is about climate change science, not policy.

Students watched An Inconvenient Truth — former U.S. Vice President Al Gore's documentary about global warming — and studied the science behind climate change (including arguments that it is not a crisis humans caused).

This article and the paper says a lot but not a word about climate science or how to improve the world and focus on sustaining life.

Climate Scientists are not in fact responsible for what is done about their Science.

The public can't be expected to turn to the scientific literature for an educated referee about such a technically complex issue as climate science.

It's probably conservatives trying to seize the attack ground in view of a possible pending debate about climate change in Washington, but the chorus of denialist opinion is so coordinated and their «logic» so simple it is convincing many, even among educated people (science PhDs) who can not be bothered to look deep into things but try to form an opinion based on a few journalistic pieces.

Having taken us to task for somehow not properly handling the uncertainties in climate science — an error we did not commit, as I document above — he then proceeds to offer a horrifically misleading summary of what the IPCC actually found about the achievability and cost of meeting the 2 degree goal.

As I've reminded Mr. Roger, this discussion is not about me, but about the actual science of climate change.

I suppose in the abstract this would be dull as doornails if not unhelpful, and so probably it's best to explain it with examples and in the context of climate modeling, but I wanted to describe it in the abstract, just because I think what keeps a lot of people from appreciating climate science (or even why it's hard to appreciate) has to do with very basic ideas about not just «the scientific process» but with the narrower or perhaps more easily describable process of modeling.

In light of the hard - won scientific consensus developed by the IPCC, has the time not yet come to «center» our discussion on what we know of climate change, based upon good science, and talk about what we are going to do in order to address the human - driven predicament in which humanity finds itself in these early years of Century XXI?

And we don't see a dishonest, intentional effort to hoodwink the populace about the danger of earthquakes, etc, as we do with climate science.

How about this observation: PhDs in science, and working climate scientist here on RC either do not know about it either and / or if they do know they DO NOT report / comment ACCURATELY nor FULLY on what Hansen (and the dozens of his co-author climate scientists) have been saying for YEARS NOW in his published peer - reviewed papenot know about it either and / or if they do know they DO NOT report / comment ACCURATELY nor FULLY on what Hansen (and the dozens of his co-author climate scientists) have been saying for YEARS NOW in his published peer - reviewed papeNOT report / comment ACCURATELY nor FULLY on what Hansen (and the dozens of his co-author climate scientists) have been saying for YEARS NOW in his published peer - reviewed papers?

If different groups of scientists have a public bet running on this, this will signal to the public that this forecast is not a widely supported consensus of the climate science community, in contrast to the IPCC reports (about which we are in complete agreement with Keenlyside and his colleagues).

Frankness about the uncertainties won't please the headline writers, but is essential to the credibility of climate science.

If the many queries I have asked recently, but especially this one about 27,000 workers in the field of climate science is not appropriate for posting to RC as a question and a request for help, then I honestly do not know what would be.

I am not specifically talking about climate / weather, just science.»