Sentences with phrase «other climate scientists about»

The authors included Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who for years has expressed skepticism about some of the more dire predictions of other climate scientists about the significance of human - caused warming.

Not exact matches

There are many honest, hardworking climate scientists who are trying to understand the effects of CO2 on climate, but their work has fallen under suspicion because of the hockey - stick scandal and many other exaggerations about the dangers of increasing CO2.

Others have become more sceptical after reading the work of scientists who refuse to accept the broad consensus in their community about climate change.

You just go in there and talk about what you care about and, in my case, say» I am a constituent in Arizona and I am a climate scientist and I am happy to be a resource and or be helpful to you and connect you to other resources.

The vast majority of our interviews on the subject are conducted with climate scientists, but it is important to hear other viewpoints about the extent of climate change and what should be done about it.

On the one hand there was a quest by scientists to find the world's funniest joke, and on the other, dire warnings about the dangers of mobile phones, an increase in the incidence of new variant CJD, climate change, and cosmic threats to Earth in the shape of asteroids and gamma ray bursts.

Talk about management by committee: one group of more than 800 scientist authors to cope with more than 9,000 scientific publications on climate change and more than 20,000 comments from «expert reviewers» (plus another 30,000 or so from various other interested parties.)

It's an idea spawned on Reddit, where several scientists — concerned about the new president's policies on climate change and other issues, and hyped from the success of the Women's March on Washington — were discussing the best way to respond to what they feared would be an administration hostile to science.

Read all about climate denial scientist Willie Soon's dirty money from petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch, coal utility Southern Company, oil giant ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies to deny the science of climate change!

It would measure progress by counting, among other things, the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing views.

As with perceptions of scientific consensus on other topics, public perceptions that scientists tend to agree about climate change tend to vary by education and age.

Since then, scientists have learned more about crop science, climate change and other factors.

For six weeks every summer between 1989 and 1993, Alley and other scientists pushed columns of ice along the science assembly line, labeling and analyzing the snow for information about past climate, then packaging it to be sent for further analysis and cold storage at the National Ice Core Laboratory in Denver, Colorado.

Time for climate scientists and their supporters to really listen to the scientific facts about the science of science communication from other scientists and academics.

Watch the first 1 to 2 minutes section of the UP Stream Pt 4 doco / research prject specifically being directed at all Climate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sClimate Scientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about thScientists about how important Values are, and why Listening to the community (the target market) is absolutely critical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM Watch how people (the general public) are treated by others (climate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sclimate scientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about thscientists included) on all climate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the sclimate blogs when they indicate they are not yet convinced of AGW or can't work out who to believe is telling the truth and in doing so reference someone else's «opinion»... and try and measure the level of paranoia exhibited by pro-agw folks about such negative comments about the science.

But this time the WSJ adds a twist: it specifically cites the climate - weather difference, but then broad - brush - accuses all opponents of having used the weather event Katrina to generalize about climate — which is a true charge, but not about RC and other serious climate scientists.

I think climate scientists know about these, but can't really make definitive claims, so they don't get into peer - reviewed articles much... or else other scientists might attack them with ferocity (even substracting denialists from the equation here).

The only thing that appears to be really true about climate change and climate scientists is that increased CO2 will arm the world but what the implications are of this warming scientists leave to other people.

As you point out other studies agree with the MBH study so I would have thought what amounts to a sudden global climate shift would be of major interest to climate scientists everywhere yet one sees relatively little written about it.

RC and the other climate scientists can not say definitively whether Hansen is «right» about 350; rather, I imagine, they're working as hard as they can to refine the science and the models, and they will be for years.

Read the «scientists who disagree with the orthodoxy,» page for other ideas about global warming and climate change.

It's a superb examination of what's known, and unknown, about what James Hansen, Susan Solomon and other climate scientists have described as a pause or hiatus in warming.

What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other's work.

Scientists, writers, politicians and other citizens gathered on Boston Common to express concern about climate change.

On the other hand, if the climate scientists are right about AGW happening, and the contrarians are wrong, and we act as if AGW is not happening, then not only will we lose all those other benefits, but we will allow the world to sink into great catastrophe (greater than you may think, when we figure how people may start turning nasty against each other as their material lives deteriorate — Katrina gave us a microcosm of that).

I get the sense that many scientists and other observers, including Randy Olson, attribute this at least in part to bad communication about climate science, both by scientists and journalists.

The climate scientist Eric Steig has written a long review of what's been learned about Greenland in warmer conditions (from this and other papers) for RealClimate.org.

I vote, among others, for Mike Hulme, the climate scientist who wrote «Why We Disagree About Climate Change,» and Spencer Weart, the physicist and historian who wrote «The Discovery of Global Warming.climate scientist who wrote «Why We Disagree About Climate Change,» and Spencer Weart, the physicist and historian who wrote «The Discovery of Global Warming.Climate Change,» and Spencer Weart, the physicist and historian who wrote «The Discovery of Global Warming.»

There's more in USA Today on whether climate scientists» concerns about their attackers are overblown, given other issues weighing on peoples» minds and blunting interest in climate change.

The open question I have is what has the IPCC or other climate science body publicly done to counteract the falsity about the «science» and about the IPCC itself, and working climate scientists, as expressed by John Howard and others?

Maybe some other scientists that know a lot about climate & earth sciences?

And on the other hand we have a growing band of so - called amateur scientists, who have firstly taken it upon themselves to challenge this consensus, and secondly learn, or claim they have learnt, about climate science in order to try to acquire some credentials.

Self styled climate scientists appropriated the term, either due to a misunderstanding about the nature of a greenhouse, or possibly because no other explanation of their bizarre hypothesis would be accepted by the general scientific community.

As climate scientist and communicator Katharine Hayhoe told Salon, «This time around, to its credit, the IPCC has gotten a lot more serious about improving its ability to communicate the report's message, through graphics and other ancillary products.»

Exxon spokesman Ken Cohen either misunderstood or misrepresented his selected chart the other day as he pushed back against an InsideClimate News investigation into what Exxon's own scientists knew about the emerging risks of climate change, and when they knew it.

Obviously there is, but as I tried to say before, there are probably a million different ways you could go about calculating a «global temperature» and some climate scientists (with possible financial encouragement from ExxonMobil or others intent on creating uncertainly as a stalling tactic) have apparently found a few of those million ways that don't happen to show much increase in temperature.

And to answer the other commenters about my opinion of climate scientists, whether they're scientists... they seem to be really bad ones.

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiClimate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

For six weeks every summer between 1989 and 1993, Alley and other scientists pushed columns of ice along the science assembly line, labeling and analyzing the snow for information about past climate, then packaging it to be sent for further analysis and cold storage at the National Ice Core Laboratory in Denver, Colorado.

With about 2,000 other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, including Michael Mann, he jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

However, as climate scientists issue warnings about the severity of unseasonable bushfires, other key public voices actively undermine this message.

Like other Republicans skeptical about man - made climate change, he said, «I'm not a scientist.»

Hansen, noted for his outspokenness on the topic of climate change and his willingness to venture into an advocacy role that many other climate scientists try to avoid, has previously voiced his concern about the 2 - degree warming benchmark, saying in 2011 at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) that, «the target that has been talked about in international negotiations for 2 degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long - term disaster.»

Andrew Bolt rarely makes a definitive statement about his own position on climate change, choosing instead to ask a multitude of questions, cherry - picking data to suggest climate scientists are wrong and criticising other journalists for failing to do research.

But after trying to follow EO's numerous claims about climate, in the particular case of (ii) at hand I have serious doubts as to whether climate scientists have anything at all to learn from rocket engineers other than that the latter should stick to rocket engineering.

Today I offer this post as a «Summary for Policymakers» regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists.

There's no Pulitzer Prize or any other similar journalism award to be won from regurgitating a worn - out 20 year - old + unsupportable accusation about crooked skeptic climate scientists, otherwise it would have already been awarded at least a decade or more ago.

EC: There are many Americans who are very skeptical about the subject of climate change and a lot of them are very mistrustful of scientists generally, so how are you and other folks at the Missouri Botanical Garden communicating the importance of science to the public?

ATMOSPHERIC and other climate - change scientists need to meet regularly to discuss and debate what is known and what remains to be discovered about climate change.

Those who push using RICO laws against «corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change» («other organizations» meaning conservative think tanks and any skeptic climate scientist having any association with such entities) are likely emboldened because they've never before encountered push - back on the very core of their accusation.