Sentences with phrase «not on climate science»

Not on climate science or anything else.

It is a referendum not on climate science but on who should make climate policy.

Not exact matches

On Monday, as Irma weakened over Georgia, Bossert used a White House briefing to offer more hints of an emerging climate resilience policy, while notably avoiding accepting climate change science: «What President Trump is committed to is making sure that federal dollars aren't used to rebuild things that will be in harm's way later or that won't be hardened against the future predictable floods that we see.

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.

Climate change scepticism is not official party policy, but Wilson has stated: «I think in 20 years» time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.Climate change scepticism is not official party policy, but Wilson has stated: «I think in 20 years» time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.»

On the issue of Republicans and Democrats in New York State hiding behind the old «waiting for the science to come in» line that politicians have used to not answer questions on everything from climate change to Pebble Mine, Hawkins did give the Democrats a bit of a pass... «The Republicans want to repeal the enlightenment — the Democrats just want to repeal the New Deal.&raquOn the issue of Republicans and Democrats in New York State hiding behind the old «waiting for the science to come in» line that politicians have used to not answer questions on everything from climate change to Pebble Mine, Hawkins did give the Democrats a bit of a pass... «The Republicans want to repeal the enlightenment — the Democrats just want to repeal the New Deal.&raquon everything from climate change to Pebble Mine, Hawkins did give the Democrats a bit of a pass... «The Republicans want to repeal the enlightenment — the Democrats just want to repeal the New Deal.»

On Sunday, February 18 at 5:15 p.m., atmospheric scientist Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, will discuss «When Facts Are Not Enough.»

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.»

«A grandstand play, put on by people who don't like Trump or the GOP, regardless, that has nothing to do with climate change, alternative fuels or any other science.

The AfD did not make election statements on science, and declined to answer Nature's questions before the election, but party leaders have previously expressed climate scepticism and distrust of genetic engineering.

«A trained scientist understands the broader context, but many segments of the general public may not,» said Seth Darling, a nanoscientist at Argonne National Laboratory who has written a book on communicating climate science to the general public.

His work has shown that people's cultural identity, not their knowledge of science, drives their opinion on climate change.

«The result is not a surprise, but if you look at the global climate models that have been used to analyze what the planet looked like 20,000 years ago — the same models used to predict global warming in the future — they are doing, on average, a very good job reproducing how cold it was in Antarctica,» said first author Kurt Cuffey, a glaciologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and professor of geography and of earth and planetary sciences.

A push for oil sands oversight and new climate targets Harper has been a target of environmentalists for most of his tenure — they say he turned Canada into an international pariah by not regulating greenhouse gases from oil and gas, cutting clean energy and climate science programs, withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol, «muzzling» scientists, pressing aggressively on Keystone XL and fossil fuels, and allowing the country's emissions trajectory to spiral away from targets under the Copenhagen Accord.

National emissions targets based on the science of climate change «would be a significant difference,» said Dale Marshall, an energy analyst at Environmental Defence Canada, which has not endorsed a candidate.

In a paper published in the current Journal of Political Economy, Bård Harstad, an associate professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management, argues that the most effective strategies to combat climate change do not focus on demand - side solutions such as carbon taxes or emission caps.

The authority's report favors political feasibility over environmental effectiveness «and makes recommendations that are not soundly based on climate science,» Hamilton, an economist at Charles Sturt University near Canberra and climate scientist Karoly of the University of Melbourne in Australia, charge in their dissent.

Since climate change is already leading to higher average temperatures overall, the finding that extremes are also more likely was not surprising, said Sophie Lewis, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne and the climate system science center and the lead author on the paper.

«This administration clearly has an anti-science agenda, and within that it has a very energized anti-climate-science agenda that's very visible in the cuts that are being prioritized,» she said, adding, «Climate science requires these satellites; not just NOAA scientists but scientists around the world depend on the data that NOAA generates.»

The reality (at least according to current science) is that the effects of climate change on extremes won't be detected for many decades.

«The goal we're all chasing as climate scientists is a way of reversing the impacts of harmful gases on our atmosphere — this technology, which could see those harmful gases not only removed but converted into renewable fuels for use in poorer countries is the Holy Grail of climate science.»

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

The groups alleged that Soon, a prominent critic of mainstream climate science and opponent of government action on climate change, had not disclosed funding from corporate sponsors to journals that published his work, potentially violating journal policies.

The massive projects needed now — such as devising a model of climate change detailed enough to be truly predictive or batteries efficient enough to compete with gasoline — can not wait or depend on chancy funding, he believes.He added that a strong national commitment to goal - centered basic science could help solve other important problems by drawing America's talented young people into scientific work and providing them with better opportunities for aspiring researchers to build careers with a realistic chance of making both a significant scientific contribution and a decent living.

For Tom Osborne of Reading University, senior research scientist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science who models the global impacts of climate change on agriculture, farmers have no choice; they have to adapt where they can and change where they can't.

-LSB-[Italic part for written statement only, not to be read aloud]-RSB- I've published papers on climate change in Science, Nature, and other refereed journals; I am the author of a technical book on the subject.

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?

«I've heard some folks try to dodge the evidence by saying they're not scientists; that we don't have enough information to act,» he continued, in a comment clearly aimed at Republican politicians who have used that line in an effort to avoid taking a position on the reliability of climate science.

Recent headlines linking heat waves to climate change «were not based on science,» he said.

And the environment committee, which plays a central role in writing climate and energy legislation, hasn't held a hearing on climate science since early 2009.

Although the United States seems to be entering a new era of climate politicization, the chasm between Republicans and Democrats on climate science might not be as large as it seems, Schuldt said.

The court acknowledged that it is has no scientific expertise in climate change — but it didn't really need to, because the science itself was not on trial.

It is not clear whether or not Romney accepts the science on the pace and causes of climate change, but he promises to amend the Clean Air Act to specifically exclude regulation of carbon emissions.

A significant number of Americans already do not use science to inform their opinion on controversial topics from genetically modified crops to climate change, according to a January poll by the Pew Research Center.

In fact, Salmon doesn't think that the National Science Foundation (NSF) should be funding her research on tea as a model system for understanding how a warming climate is putting stress on specialty crops and the impact of those changes on farmers.

Titanic international projects that are just kicking off, including the National Science Foundation - funded Ocean Observatories Initiative and Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling project, promise to pile on reams of new data and knowledge in the coming years — not all of it expected to be postcard pretty.

I can't comment on any similarities between Wall St and climate models, and I'm not sure that climate science is quite as intimate a community as Wall St.

The U.S. press is either woefully ignorant of the state of the science, or is deliberately trying to find explanations for various regional weather and climate changes that don't involve any mention of «global warming» — and that approach relies on the «natural cycle» argument.

Much in the spirit of the Fraser Institute's damp squib we reported on last year, S. Fred Singer and his merry band of contrarian luminaries (financed by the notorious «Heartland Institute» we've commented on previously) served up a similarly dishonest «assessment» of the science of climate change earlier this year in the form of what they call the «NIPCC» report (the «N» presumably standing for «not the» or «nonsense»).

What was not mentioned was that Goreham does not have an education in climate science, nor has he published any peer - reviewed articles on the topic.

Speaking at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Barnett said climate models based on air temperatures are weak because most of the evidence for global warming is not even there.

[T] he idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world's leading authority on climate science, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.climate change is strongly rejected by the world's leading authority on climate science, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.climate science, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.Climate Change, which found in its latest (2013) report that «There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.»

In 2015, Huelskamp revealed to the Huffington Post that he thought the science surrounding climate change was not «settled,» stating «I don't think there's a scientific consensus on that.»

The judge in the case did not, in his specific questions to the parties, ask if there was a consensus on the science, or whether climate change would present catastrophic risks.

Because I don't know enough science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.

«Climate science shows that the sun does have an influence on climate; this is not controvClimate science shows that the sun does have an influence on climate; this is not controvclimate; this is not controversial.

that he thought the science surrounding climate change was not «settled,» stating «I don't think there's a scientific consensus on that.»

The team did not only look at specific events however but also published a number of conceptual papers on attribution as a science, CPDN as a unique capability and climate modelling in general (10 - 15).

Anyway while Al Gore should not be conflated with a climate scientist, he gets far more right on the science than he gets wrong.

Climate impacts research is in its infancy compared to science on the physical climate, for a number of reasons: attributing cause and effect isn't easy; neither is collecting data over timescales and regions long and large enough such that it's possible to draw any meaningful trends from their anClimate impacts research is in its infancy compared to science on the physical climate, for a number of reasons: attributing cause and effect isn't easy; neither is collecting data over timescales and regions long and large enough such that it's possible to draw any meaningful trends from their anclimate, for a number of reasons: attributing cause and effect isn't easy; neither is collecting data over timescales and regions long and large enough such that it's possible to draw any meaningful trends from their analysis.