Sentences with phrase «on real climate science»

Not exact matches

Those who know more about climate science, for example, are slightly more likely to accept that global warming is real and caused by humans than those who know less on the subject.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA — In the run - up to national elections on 21 August, the country's top science body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperscience body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperScience (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperatures.

While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.

If one does climate science, one has to be up on all the contributing disciplines at least to the extent that one knows the basics, the real experts, and could at least review a paper for general interest in the field.

Real climate maybe failing to convince that CA website which is full of skeptics but on the whole this website has been scientific at all times and hence faithful to the data, the models and the climate science.

but all that is generally on the margins for a website like real climate that is about climate science, so I just plunk the broader perspective in occasionally in a throw - away line.

As most people on Real Climate will know, Hansen has done a magnificent job not only on the science but also on fighting the argument through the various establishments.

Real Climate Climate science is one of those fields where anyone, regardless of their lack of expertise or understanding, feels qualified to comment on new papers and ongoing controversies.

Found at Tenney Naumer's blog if you want more info: http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2011/03/congressional-hearing-climate-change.html «Congressional hearing: «Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy,» on March 31, 2011, to have real time commentary by leading climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)climate-change.html «Congressional hearing: «Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy,» on March 31, 2011, to have real time commentary by leading climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy,» on March 31, 2011, to have real time commentary by leading climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)climate scientists in order to correct misleading and inaccurate testimony — available to journalists — additionally, a teleconference follows hearing (with Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, and Gary Yohe)»

Question: before talking about simulating climate CHANGE, how long does the climate science community expect it to take before GCM's can reproduce the real world climate PRIOR to human induced CO2 perturbation in terms of: — «equilibrium point», i.e. without artificial flux adjustment to avoid climatic drift, — «natural variability», in terms of, for instance, the Hurst coefficient at different locations on the planet?

It's useful to think of this as an example of Bayesian priors in action — given that 99 % of the criticisms we hear about climate science are bogus or based on deep confusions about what modeling is for, scepticism is an appropriate first response, but because we are actually scientists, not shills, we are happy to correct real errors — sometimes they will matter, and sometimes they won't.

Real Climate, particularly through Schmidt's data - centered and non-ideological posts, has developed into a must - track node in the Web conversation on climate science and its meaning to socClimate, particularly through Schmidt's data - centered and non-ideological posts, has developed into a must - track node in the Web conversation on climate science and its meaning to socclimate science and its meaning to societies.

Real scientists can and do improve on all areas of climate science.

Most climate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHING!

A Dot Earth reader, J. Connors, reacted to my piece on the post-election prospect for hostile hearings on climate science by posting a spot - on comment about the real threat to such science in the new political climate:

This dialogue about him being full of pontifical nonsense flows one way, without a response, this silence is a buffer extending his life span as a legitimate skeptic by default, since he can't stand the heat from real climate scientists left on the way side, crushing legitimate science away from any chance to reach a badly mislead audience, simply because he is more popular in the fringe right wing media world dwelling on sound bites and stupidity.

Iâ $ ™ d still like to see Willis and his fellow AGW recalcitrants start a fresh debate over there so I can see them put those wacky climate scientists in their place and teach them a thing or to about real science, the type that doesnâ $ ™ t impact on business profits.

I gave up on Real Climate after a 2 day attempt to communicate about science there.

So, we can choose to believe a commenter on a political blog claiming people who understand that there is a broad, clear understanding of the primary driver of the observations are «alarmists», «climate cult ``, «duped doomsday climate cultist», «real deniers, of the science and empirical data»,» peddlers of CatastrophicAGW - by - CO2 ``,.

Perhaps the real division needs to be to create a subject which is the application of climate science — to create clear (melted ice) between climate science which is based on the scientific methodology and the null hypothesis and «climate prediction» where the «best» predictions are made based on the balance of evidence but there is no pretence that these predictions have or even can be tested (except by comparison to what happens... which I have to point out isn't climate «science's» / forecasters strong card!)

Posted in Adaptation, Advocacy, Capacity Development, Carbon, CLIMATE SCIENCE, Development and Climate Change, Disaster and Emergency, Disasters and Climate Change, Ecosystem Functions, Global Warming, Green House Gas Emissions, Health and Climate Change, International Agencies, IPCC, Mitigation, News, Research, Resilience, Vulnerability Comments Off on Climate Change Is Real, Yet The US Press Is Not Reporting On The CLIMATE SCIENCE, Development and Climate Change, Disaster and Emergency, Disasters and Climate Change, Ecosystem Functions, Global Warming, Green House Gas Emissions, Health and Climate Change, International Agencies, IPCC, Mitigation, News, Research, Resilience, Vulnerability Comments Off on Climate Change Is Real, Yet The US Press Is Not Reporting On The Climate Change, Disaster and Emergency, Disasters and Climate Change, Ecosystem Functions, Global Warming, Green House Gas Emissions, Health and Climate Change, International Agencies, IPCC, Mitigation, News, Research, Resilience, Vulnerability Comments Off on Climate Change Is Real, Yet The US Press Is Not Reporting On The Climate Change, Ecosystem Functions, Global Warming, Green House Gas Emissions, Health and Climate Change, International Agencies, IPCC, Mitigation, News, Research, Resilience, Vulnerability Comments Off on Climate Change Is Real, Yet The US Press Is Not Reporting On The Climate Change, International Agencies, IPCC, Mitigation, News, Research, Resilience, Vulnerability Comments Off on Climate Change Is Real, Yet The US Press Is Not Reporting On The Urgenon Climate Change Is Real, Yet The US Press Is Not Reporting On The Climate Change Is Real, Yet The US Press Is Not Reporting On The UrgenOn The Urgency

Unfortunately, despite this real climate science, Democrats will continue to demagogue the climate change issue for their billionaire donor - cronies, based entirely on the quack anti-science position that reducing current U.S. CO2 emissions would actually accomplish anything of climate - impact substance.

That climate modellers nevertheless think those models are good enough to base public policy on shows that they lack the self - criticism inherent in real science.

topal - Nobody rejects science when it's real science??? Please tell that to climate deniers who say that CO2 isn't being increased by anthropogenic activity, that it has no effect on temperatures, that it's all some unknown long term cycle, that it's cosmic rays, that all of the science is a malicous plot by the Illuminati, etc. etc. etc..

Hence, Mann pretends first that the debate divides on the meaningless proposition, «climate change is real», and then that it is a matter of science vs anti science.

Despite virtual unanimity among scientists that climate change is real, and that it is caused by human activities, people who cast doubt on climate science continue to dominate the debate.

«Everybody understands that the real question is, are we going to accept the new science on climate change and are we going to act in a way to address that with the needs of the next couple of generations in mind?

«My most enduring heresy was saying that climate change was real,» said Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who became convinced of climate reality on a science committee trip to Antarctica.

They start with a premise of proving the overwhelming consensus on climate science wrong, whereas the real IPCC simply summarizes the best science to date on climate change.

He currently runs the blog Real Science, where he comments on climate research and political news.

Why the precise rotation of the Earth varies I could speculate though not in the complicated statistical way used here.I think that statistical speculation is replacing real science in climate science, because it is impossible to to experimentally test any theory apparently, then everything is judged on how clever your computer models are.

Your concern for genuine science and for the poor requires a more cautious approach, one that carefully considers the scientific evidence regarding the real, not merely the theoretical, effects of human action on global climate, and carefully considers energy technology and economics in seeking to protect the poor from harm.

Click on the headline Real Files or Fake and it takes you to a Web site called the Blackboard, where a blogger named Lucia mentions e-mails «between various bloggers and climate science illuminati» but isn't sure whether they're some sort of scam.

This recent post via Real Climate Science on NASA tampering of Sea - level rise highlights the blatant malfeasance that these government funded institutions will undertake in order to push the man - made global warming climate change agenda, and keep the «Greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history» rolling and the billions upon billions of taxpayer funds floClimate Science on NASA tampering of Sea - level rise highlights the blatant malfeasance that these government funded institutions will undertake in order to push the man - made global warming climate change agenda, and keep the «Greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history» rolling and the billions upon billions of taxpayer funds floclimate change agenda, and keep the «Greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history» rolling and the billions upon billions of taxpayer funds flowing...

I would have as many disagreements discussing climate change with a «denier» as I would with a firm believer in CAGW or someone who shares my general beliefs but is a firm believer in the precautionary principle which roughly states the even if the science is not settled, we should treat CAGW as a real threat and focus on preventing it rather than living with it.

The independent climate researcher behind Real Science, a whistleblower who worked on U.S. government contracts to create climate models and goes by the name Steven Goddard, seems to have been the first to notice the discrepancy.

It appears likely that this is because the CIC does not believe there should be any real debate on climate science or any other science - based issue coming before EPA and that the SAB should only hear the views of those who closely support the tenets of those who are willing to overthrow science - based environmental regulation in favor of climate alarmism and environmental extremism.

When I am proven right, the Climate Change Department will be swept away; Britain's annual deficit will fall by a fifth; the bat - blatting, bird - blending windmills that scar our green and pleasant land will go; the world will refocus on real environmental problems like deforestation on land, overfishing at sea and pollution of the air; the U.N.'s ambition to turn itself into a grim, global dictatorship with overriding powers of taxation and economic and environmental intervention will be thwarted; and the aim of science to supplant true religion as the world's new, dismal, cheerless credo will be deservedly, decisively, definitively defeated.

The frontpage implies that climate science to date has not been «real,» while the many errors made by the speakers as well as their serious credibility issues (Willie Soon's infamous paper, another paper more recently with Noah Robinson that made up data, Spencer's flawed book on climate sensitivity, Singer's history since about 1990, Schmitt's uncorrected error in a NASA paper, Bast and Taylor's lies in defense of Schmitt, and so on) suggest the opposite — the speakers at the ICCC are the ones attempting to falsify the science.

As others have noted, the IPCC Team has gone absolutely feral about Salby's research and the most recent paper by Dr Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama (On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance), for one simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't useOn the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance), for one simple reason: both are based on empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't useon empirical, undoctored satellite observations, which, depending on the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't useon the measure required, now extend into the past by up to 32 years, i.e. long enough to begin evaluating real climate trends; whereas much of the Team's science in AR4 (2007) is based on primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't useon primitive climate models generated from primitive and potentially unreliable land measurements and proxies, which have been «filtered» to achieve certain artificial realities (There are other more scathing descriptions of this process I won't use).

It is astounding that dangerous man - made global warming fanatics like Obama and Prince Charles, in addition to all those climate change charlatans at various academies of science such as The Royal Society, prefer to ignore real word observational data on climate and solar activity, in favour of psuedo - science and climate models that consistently have failed in their scenarios and projections.

Climate science has been reviewed for decades, by the national academies of dozens of countries, relevant professional societies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and many other entities with real domain expertise.

Posted in CLIMATE SCIENCE, Ecosystem Functions, Experts Speak, Government Policies, Lessons, M - 20 CAMPAIGN, MOUNTAIN ISSUES, Mountainvoice, POLICY ADVOCACY Comments Off on Will the Real Montologist Please Stand up?

Because of the invidious domination by the politically - driven, I suspect climate science would have been better off without such models, allowing the participants to concentrate on observation, theorising, and testing in the real world.

Everything I've read on the subject leads me to accept that the high level of confidence expressed by the IPCC on the broad questions of whether AGW is real and likely to be a threat is representative of the view of the large majority of climate scientists and of the underlying science itself.

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.

I will not go into depth here but for anyone wanting some real and honest science rather than cult faith you should look into the whys and wherefores of clouds, and not just the work of Svensmark but all reputable scientific sources who do not have an agenda of self - interest (usually income or reputation based on past work — pride is a great influence on perception) with regards to the ever variable climate.

My real point in all this, aside from pointing out a Cognitive Dualism, is that I think most thinking observers see that many discussions about climate change on BOTH SIDES are infused with a desperation to change minds, and are couched in terms that one would not normally associate with dispassionate science.

R Gates Yeah I do trust my own evaluation»cause apparently I'm an «individualist» not a «communitarian» Also I read Tonyb, Judith Curry, the Pielkes and many others who aren't part of the «consensus» but really, reading damn near everything on Sks and Real Climate turned me into a «denier» plus, my weak mind was warped by the Koch bros. and fossil fuel industry propaganda... and don't forget Limbaugh perhaps if I audit John Cook's class on the «science of climate change denialism» I can rehabilitateClimate turned me into a «denier» plus, my weak mind was warped by the Koch bros. and fossil fuel industry propaganda... and don't forget Limbaugh perhaps if I audit John Cook's class on the «science of climate change denialism» I can rehabilitateclimate change denialism» I can rehabilitate myself

You can read some good detailed discussion of GCR's and climate on the Real Climate blog If you wish to better understand the science and avoid the politics I recommend the IPCC report (link in side bar) Thanks for the cclimate on the Real Climate blog If you wish to better understand the science and avoid the politics I recommend the IPCC report (link in side bar) Thanks for the cClimate blog If you wish to better understand the science and avoid the politics I recommend the IPCC report (link in side bar) Thanks for the comment!