Sentences with phrase «other climate scientists like»

Not exact matches

Extreme weather events like Harvey are expected to become more likely as Earth's climate changes due to greenhouse gas emissions, and scientists don't understand how extreme weather will impact invasive pests, pollinators and other species that affect human well - being.

Eberle and Kim said the early - middle Eocene greenhouse period from 53 to 38 million years ago is used as a deep - time analog by climate scientists for what could happen on Earth if CO2 and other greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere continue to rise, and what a «runaway» greenhouse effect potentially could look like.

It seems to me that Cooks focus has been on «educating / supporting» providing tools for active climate scientists to understand and apply, and more broadly academic students and those engaged in the topic, including media journos PR folks etc., and for people like you and other regular users of websites like RC here.

Climate scientists should remember that their audience is not the folks who flock to their speeches, but those who avoid them like the plague (other than to heckle or protest).

We laypersons, on the other hand, would strive to avoid the false negative... So in my books, as a layperson & not a scientist, it looks like climate change has contributed to food prices going off the charts, and the poor in many parts of the world becoming all that more desperate.

The fund is designed to help scientists like Professor Michael Mann cope with the legal fees that stack up in fighting attempts by climate - skeptic groups to gain access to private emails and other correspondence through lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests at their public universities.

It is double speak for a climate scientist to assert (correctly I might add) that natural variability like ENSO will alter the TOA radiative imbalance through changes in clouds, humidity, evaporation, rainfall, ect., but then out of the other side of the mouth imply that natural variability doesn't really matter to the multi-decadal projections.

I'd like to understand why the perfect has become the enemy of the good and why Mr. Hansen's credentials as a climate scientist extend him credibility in other areas which are not his field of study.

Pt 7, «Cancerous Greenpeace / Desmogblog / Gelbspan Stuff»: What's detailed in this post is how Dave Rado's Ofcom complaint is first and foremost pushing absolutely nothing more than guilt - by - association «evidence» to indict skeptic climate scientists of industry - funded corruption, and secondly, how Rado, much like any other prominent accuser, is enslaved to an accusation narrative which ultimately relies on sources who repeat material which inevitably traces back to Ross Gelbspan and the clique of enviro - activists surrounding him when he and they got the first real media traction for the accusation.

I'd like to ask you, as a climate insider, whether climate scientists privately recognise the shortcomings of their subject — such as the hockey stick, or the poor quality temperature data — or whether they simply refuse to look at what Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and others have unearthed.

But let's get one thing straight, Oreskes is little more than yet another «cog in the wheel» when it comes to accusing skeptic climate scientists of being paid shills of the fossil fuel industry, enslaved just like all the other cogs to the same single source for the accusation, Ross Gelbspan.

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.

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

The founder of the advocacy organization 350.org collaborated with 10 other Canadian and American like - minded luminaries — including author and farmer Wendell Berry, actor Danny Glover and NASA climate scientist James Hansen — to issue a three - page plea for support.

In a press release dated July 18, 2002, Bob Mills defended climate change skeptics like the Friends of Science and Richard Lindzen: «The fact that Dr. Lindzen and thousands of other scientists disagree with the Canadian government's one - sided view of climate change in no way invalidates their valuable contributions to understanding this complex science.»

The physical evidence for man - made global warming has never been demonstrated - evidence that many of us trained in the sciences have been waiting.When some scientists suggest that other forces other than man - made CO2 may be involved with the climate, like the Sun, the clouds, the oceans, natural sources of CO2, etc., they are met with scorn and derision.

Some of the meteorological threats, like extreme downpours and heat waves, are sure to worsen in a human - heated climate, with warming from elevated levels of heat - trapping carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases seen by many climate scientists as already contributing to the severity of rains like those over Texas in recent days and Louisiana last year.

«As an influential blogger on climate change, among other subjects, I'd really like Paul to meet you and chat to you about your views — how you see your role and that more generally the influence of the internet in changing the debate; your views on climate-gate and how that was handled by the media; the failings or otherwise of scientists in communicating the science.»

But, if you're a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you'll be cut off like Briffa's tree rings.

CSLDF is confident that this Congressional investigation, like the earlier ones against other climate scientists, will ultimately be exposed as baseless.

Like many other conference speakers and attendees, Secretary - General Ban cited the recent droughts, floods, and Tropical Storm Sandy as proof of the dire consequences of man - made global warming, even though many studies and scientists (including scientists who usually fall into the climate alarmist category) have stated that there is no evidence to support claims that «extreme weather» has been increasing in frequency and / or magnitude in recent years, or that extreme events (hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, etc.) have anything to do with increased CO2 levels.

They rely, in other words, on narrowing the range of acceptable public debate to the point that even alleged havens of free inquiry like Columbia University begin endorsing the unleashing of legal force against critics of publicly funded climate scientists.

For people like Borenstein, the one last thing to ask in this whole exercise is what the breaking point must be for him and other mainstream media reporters regarding their faith in Gelbspan's ability to defend his basic accusation against skeptic climate scientists and all his narratives surrounding it.

i think that's inaccurate shx, the scientists did their work, and from what i could gather tried very hard not to overstate their case, the media did the scare - mongering and the media have then turned like the whores they are in the other direction, al gore's film upped the tempo and although it seemed like a good thing at the time, i think with hindsight it was a poisoned chalice, but lets be clear, doing research in multiple areas and having the results point to potentially catastrophic climate change and asking for changes to be made to avert this is not scare - mongering, its common sense, accepting that their is margin for error but erring on the side of caution since the stakes are life on earth as we know it is not scare - mongering, it is the application of the precautionary principle and common sense

Scientists surveyed people in 25 countries around the world, and found there's no country quite like the U.S, where climate denial is much more closely tied to one's political persuasion than any other country.

«I am not interviewing a lot of the main climate sceptical scientists because I feel like they have been interviewed by many other people and their stories have been told.

There's ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, the architects of the leaked 1998 master plan to publicly attack climate science and scientists, which included ALEC itself and other ALEC members like DCI Group.

As James Hansen and three other notable climate scientists urged in an open letter earlier this month: «Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but those energy sources can not scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the global economy requires.

The other reason why climate scientists were dogmatic was there was no correction or clarification or challenge to people like Gore who lied through their teeth.

The NIPCC and a lot of outher scientists are making the case that the obsession with CO2 ignores many other factors that make up climate... like the sun and clouds.

I think like most people who have looked into it, including many climate scientists in their emails with colleagues, (see Steyn's book with quotes from other scientists on Mann) think that Mann's work is often not totally believable.

*** Of course, Dr. Curry could handle such comments in the forthright, time - honored climate change blog manner of censoring comments, deleting them, or banning posters as we find at blogs like RealClimate, ClimateSight and others run by real scientists.

In other words, the claims should be heard, along with the relevant context, and not just the one sided claims in a vacuum, or «balanced» by non balancing he said / she said statements like; «climate scientists on the other hand say the earth is slowly warming and is likely to increasingly do so in the future.»

It's fascinating that, like vultures searching the ground for a carcass, some viewers look at one study (which is as yet unverified by other climate scientists) and claim it puts the final nail in the coffin of AGW.

if only climate «scientists» exhibit the ethics you and others like Steve McIntyre exude, we could be spending money to explore space or feed the hungry instead of studying a non-problem.

With some scientists saying that the tipping point for devastating sea - level rise and other abrupt climate change events is only ten years away, fast - action climate strategies like the 2007 Montreal Protocol adjustment are critical to buying world leaders more time to negotiate a long - term post-2012 climate treaty.

In addition to providing details on the evolving cloud population critical to the MJO, the findings may also help illuminate how the MJO interacts with other climate patterns, like El Niño, allowing scientists to better predict and prepare for weather events around the world.

Similar to other like - minded material, «Climate Cover - Up» breaks no new or independent ground to prove skeptic climate scientists are paid industry Climate Cover - Up» breaks no new or independent ground to prove skeptic climate scientists are paid industry climate scientists are paid industry shills.

If all scientists were to limit thier views only to 10 years of data, we would not know anything worthwhile about the climate other than it acts like weather and you can't predict it.

You mean like «there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident» or «the Lusatania was carrying Arms & Ammunition» or «critical information was witheld from the commanders at Pearl Harbor» or «19 men armed with box - cutters hijacked 4 airplanes on 9/11/2001» or «the woman attesting to Iraqi atrocities against Kuwait was the daughter of a Kuwati diplomat» or «some Germans tried to assassinate Hitler in 1944» or «insider climate scientists communicated with each other to help obstruct the publication of papers skeptical of CAGW»

If you're a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you'll be cut off like Briffa's tree rings.

Anytime climate scientists of the stature of a Gavin Schmidt or Eric Steig (etc.) take time out of their schedule / day to engage other scientists (or enthusiasts) on issues like these... it should be thought of (IMO) as worthy and reasonable (even with the emotions).

This argument has also been made repeatedly on Fox News.1, 2 Other researchers like Dean Dr. Mark H. Thiemens say this «has nothing to do with reality».1, 2,3 The following is a list of quotes from scientific organizations, academies, scientists, industry spokesmen, etc supporting the existence of man made climate change and the need to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It sounds like you are saying that the IPCC is all out of date, most climate scientists are way behind the times, and that you and a few others know that global temperatures in the past rose (and therefore can) 7 degrees in a decade, proven in part with, among other things, 3 - 5 million year old tree rings uncovered from a peat bog in the Canadian Arctic.

So, in other words, his history is that for years he believed every story he was told by the likes of Watts regarding the honestly and professionalism of climate scientists.

Mapleleaf, You are obviously unfamiliar with the many criticisms of the IPCC by mainstream climate scientists like Pielke, Curry, Christy and others.

Bob Ludwick, quoting Gary M: I have observed, year in and year out, that ALL of the «research» conducted by climate scientists funded by governments / (green) foundations is focused laser like on producing «data», often tortured to the extreme, that will support the original «settled science» and / or DISCREDIT any data collected by anyone OTHER than those supported by governments / foundations.

I have observed, year in and year out, that ALL of the «research» conducted by climate scientists funded by governments / (green) foundations is focused laser like on producing «data», often tortured to the extreme, that will support the original «settled science» and / or DISCREDIT any data collected by anyone OTHER than those supported by governments / foundations.

Which seeing certain climate scientists make unfounded claims interesting in that it gives the other side ammunition about trust and bias, and makes the scientists look like «no - nothings.»

In a poll of scientists in different fields by Doran and Kendall Zimmerman (2009), 97 % of those who published at least half of their peer - reviewed research in the climate field agreed that human activity was significant in changing global temperature; at the other extreme, only 47 % of economic geologists (typically employed by oil companies and the like) concurred.