Sentences with phrase «on public understanding of climate science»

Not exact matches

«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.

[Box 25] OIS correspondence, 1986 Foreign visitors, 1986 OIS staff meetings, 1986 OIS Committee on Arid Lands, 1986 China Exchange Program, 1986 Hewlett Packard project Interciencia Association Western Hemisphere Climate Program Denise Weiner PREP Meeting, April 1986 PREP, File «A» PREP, File «B» Science, Engineering and Diplomacy Fellows, 1986 Science Attache Programs Science Attache Seminars, File «A» Science Attache Seminars, announcements and invitations Science Attache, general Committee on Public Understanding of Science and Technology, 1986 National Science Week, Ben Franklin Lecture, 1986 National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists, 1986 Environmental Science and Engineering Fellows, 1986 Research and Development Budget and Policy Project, 1986 R and D Colloquium, 1986 Dean Wakefield Mass Media Science and Engineering Fellows, 1986 Mass Media Office of Opportunities in Science, 1986 Science, Technology and Education Committee on Arms Control and National Security, 1986 Program on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, 1986

Climate science still faces the dilemma articulated by the late Steve Schneider and misrepresented by his adversaries — how do we best ensure that the public arrives at an accurate understanding of climate change, when the «sound bite» limits on our speaking time to the media force us to choose between making a few points with all the appropriate caveats, vs presenting details of all the points we believe important but without acknowledging uncertaClimate science still faces the dilemma articulated by the late Steve Schneider and misrepresented by his adversaries — how do we best ensure that the public arrives at an accurate understanding of climate change, when the «sound bite» limits on our speaking time to the media force us to choose between making a few points with all the appropriate caveats, vs presenting details of all the points we believe important but without acknowledging uncertaclimate change, when the «sound bite» limits on our speaking time to the media force us to choose between making a few points with all the appropriate caveats, vs presenting details of all the points we believe important but without acknowledging uncertainties?

We are concerned that the incorporation of unsubstantiated theories into what the public understands to be the «scientific consensus» on global warming is eroding public confidence in climate science.

The article and particularly the comments on «The Register» and myriad other loci of discussion (for instance, NY Times climate blog) tell us that until we can improve our collective understanding of science as a concept we can expect to encounter a lot of friction in any attempt to make progress in public and industry policy responses to GW.

James Hansen reflects on 20 years of climate science and efforts to get the public to understand it and act:

Over all, he wrote, «My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do.»

That's an argument than even deeply non-technical non-scientists of the general public (and Congress / Senate) can understand - part of their «figuring out who knows what about science» mental toolkit that Dan so admires - which is probably why climate science communicators on the sceptic side are so keen to communicate it.

It's not helping the credibility of scientists or the trust that the public puts into climate scientists and therefore on the science because it's hard for the public to understand the nuances of such a complex subject — it's hard for the scientists to even understand — so [members of the public] have to trust the experts on some level and when the experts behave like this it's a big loss of credibility for the whole climate science enterprise.

Scientists seem to persist in thinking the problem is the public's understanding of climate science; if they only understood infrared radiative transfer, they would be on board with the inevitable policy prescription from that scientific understanding.

This document, authored by the American Petroleum Institute, laid out how groups, including CFACT, could cast doubt on climate science and inject doubt into the public's understanding of the issue.

We face a tremendous gap between what scientists warn about the dangers of global warming and what the public understands, and a discourse that has been hijacked by toxic, politically motivated attacks on the credibility of the climate science community.

«I fully support the efforts of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication of its latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.Climate Change (NIPCC) and publication of its latest report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, to help the general public to understand the reality of global climate change.climate change.»

ICN's eight - month investigation assembled details of Exxon's early understanding of the emerging science of climate change, casting a new light on the company's subsequent campaign to postpone aggressive climate policies by sowing public doubt about the science.

Being justifiably critical on scientific knowledge requires, however, fair amount of knowledge about that field of science, and understanding something about lapse rate is definitely one piece of knowledge justifiably required from everybody, who makes public statements about scientific understanding the atmosphere or climate.

The public thinks that the science is controversial and does not understand the degree to which the expert community is in agreement on the reality and seriousness of man - made climate change.

The complaint centred on the production of a free online course to help the public understand the rejection of climate science, which saw more than 10,000 people enroll when it was first launched last year.

«AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,» said Gerald North, chair of AGU's Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel.

Since we announced our application, we have been contacted by more than a dozen students from all over the world, keen to work with us on software to improve public understanding of climate science.

His public talk aims to promote understanding and discussion of how and why disproportionate media visibility has been provided for outlier views — particularly views often dubbed climate «contrarians,» «skeptics» and «denialists» — on various issues in climate science and governance.