Sentences with phrase «nothing about climate science»

Not long after, Ebell stirred the wrath of the British Parliament by declaring in a BBC radio interview that the U.K.'s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, had made a «ridiculous claim» on global warming despite knowing «nothing about climate science.»

New TV ads released during last week's blizzards by Gore's climate advocacy group say nothing about climate science.

I've already detailed the way Desmog's founder James Hoggan essentially torpedoes his site's entire existence with the way he first admits he knows nothing about climate science, but is certain that skeptic climate scientists are liars, the latter of which he derives entirely from Ross Gelbspan, the «Pulitzer - winning investigator» who Al Gore says discovered the supposedly leaked Western Fuels Association «Information Council for the Environment» (ICE) PR campaign's sinister strategy to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact.»

The fact that most people who know nothing about climate science think they know everything about it.

Whenever someone encounters Senator Whitehouse, the safest assumption is that he knows NOTHING about climate science.

I know nothing about climate science, but just reading your post I wonder if it is possible that the decrease in measured ocean heat content is mostly a factor of having better tools (the ARGO floating profilers)?

Not exact matches

Complex Science Made Accessible: the Fog Lifts from Climate Change - Environmental Critique - July 30, 2016 There is nothing simple about Climate Change.

Jeff Holmstead, the former head of EPA's air office under President George W. Bush, said he found nothing to dispute about the latest EPA document's assessment of the climate science.

Somehow, even though numerous climate scientists have endeavored at length, with great patience, to help her clear up her various «misunderstandings» of the science, she has managed to remain steadfastly confused, and always in the direction of finding nothing worth worrying about — and certainly nothing worth DOING anything about.

MR: The «essays» that Victor is promoting have nothing to do with science — and the focus of this thread (as noted in the comments above) is supposed to be about climate science.

The «essays» that Victor is promoting have nothing to do with science — and the focus of this thread (as noted in the comments above) is supposed to be about climate science.

First, when people say the science is settled, they do not mean that we have nothing left to learn about climate.

When I mentioned the flag you have unfurled, I meant that of the peculiar sort of climate science denier — and in your case, broad - spectrum environmental science denier — who says «OK it's happening, but it's nothing to worry about because, look, a black bear!

It appears the hostility about position statements has nothing to do with the associations making them or climate science.

If you think it is - that climate change is nothing to worry about - then you are on the wild fringes of the debate: not a single government or science academy agrees with you.

For example, many people associated with WGIII will know nothing about what I would call «climate science».

Lorne Gunter of the National Post disgraced himself yet again this weekend with another outrageously inaccurate column about something he apparently knows nothing about: climate science.

Most of the climate skeptics I have run into think that scientists should say nothing about risk until disciplinary norms of the sciences have been met.

In summary, there is little new about climate science in the report, and nothing at all new about attribution of past warming and extreme weather events to human activity, projections of future warming and its effects, or potential for catastrophic changes.

Big Oil and Big Coal funded sympathetic think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and also outright front groups with names like Friends of Science and the Global Climate Coalition, all of which came up with an endless stream of arguments for why global warming wasn't happening and even if it was, nothing should be done about it.

Let me state what I believe to be fact, which has nothing to do with climate science, CAGW, or what this blog is all about.

tempterrain says «There's nothing particularly different about climate science in this respect.

Since the theme of that Heartland junk science junket is «Restoring the Scientific Method,» perhaps the attendees will query Dr. Soon about the ethics of accepting a million dollars from polluter interests while claiming that climate change is nothing to worry about.

There's nothing particularly different about climate science in this respect.

As noted elsewhere on this page, the HF seem generally to deny climate science and TCW herself thinks that ocean acidification is nothing to worry about.

That review could consist of nothing more than reading the news stories detailing Exxon's climate research and its history of sowing doubt about the science to performing a detailed inquiry, he said.

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

Bob Ward, policy and communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, claims the link between extreme weather events and climate change is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006 because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spoClimate Change and the environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, claims the link between extreme weather events and climate change is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006 because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spoclimate change is clear, and that criticisms about the evidence for an increase in disaster losses is nothing new and is merely a repetition of criticisms that date back to 2006 because the IPCC's procedures for reviewing scientific work is currently under the spotlight.

After reading Linzden's article I found nothing that throws any real doubt on climate Science — It's all about discrediting the motives of those doing work that has been accepted and endorsed by the top scientific institutions of the world.

You know nothing about science yet you come to this site and pretend that you know that all climate science is wrong and that climate scientists are dishonest fraudsters.

Then you offer up some wiki definitions of climate science and meteorolgy to make your case that Lindzen «knows nothing about climate.»

This comment says nothing new or of interest about the climate science debate but says it all about the dysfunctional ethics of another prominent AGW proponent.

Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, wants us to believe that UN emissions reductions negotiations are about nothing more than pure science.

The strategy of pretending climategate indicates nothing negative about climate science is losing more the more it is chosen.

There is nothing especially esoteric about climate science — it is just a blend of Earth sciences, physics, fluid dynamics (particular non-linear dynamics) atmospheric sciences, ocean studies, etc..

This spectacular man - made global warming / climate change / climate «fragility» fraud has been about nothing except the «political question» ever since the SEEMING of «science» began to be used by the political left — emphasis on the «tranzi» transnational progressives — to perpetrate the pillage and destruction of industrial civilization more than thirty years ago.

You are being logical, and there is nothing logical about «climate science.»

Putting James Hansen aside, the whole logic that «climate scientists got it wrong in the 70's so they must be wrong now» is a flawed ad hominem argument that says nothing about the current science of anthropogenic global warming.

Your post says absolutely NOTHING about how a certain climate model has incorrect science.

Because of the Climategate scientists fraudulent science, and their propaganda of imminent world catastrophes if nothing was done about CO2 emissions immediately, it caused all the focus to be on a questionable, nebulous problem with an impossible political / economic solution, instead of actually focusing on real world climate and environment problems that could be solved.

Yet another example of Mr. Meyer proving nothing specific about climate science or climate science attitudes.

«They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science,» said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

Your statements on climate science are based on nothing more than your own personal beliefs about people you have never met, upon scientific reports you don't understand, and upon personal incredulity that anyone could disagree with your «consensus».

I've been waiting for a number of hours to see if the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology was really going to respond to a fairly uncontroversial statement about climate science with «this is exactly the argument that I do not buy» and nothing else.

These are people who deliberately ignore and / or misconstrue the science in an attempt to convince the public that humans aren't affecting the climate system or that it's nothing to worry about.

There is nothing that any Guardian journalist can say about Shell's sponsorship of the Science Museum, or its climate exhibitions.

Meanwhile a prominent segment of the climate science community say that the waves of bad press since Climategate broke in November is much ado about nothing.

if you went to a cardiologist and there were no engineers, the cardiologist would tell you of an irregular heartbeat and say sorry there is nothing we can do.really an absurd arguement... keep talking about the money and remember: «The US Government has spent more than $ 79 billion of taxpayers» money since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, blah blah blah and you know where this came from so i leave out the note peace, rich