Sentences with phrase «other than climate scientist»

In short, do people other than climate scientist and regular visitors to real climate understand that its all bunk?

is there any precedent of any other type of govt employed scientists, other than climate scientists, thinking their work email is somehow not covered by basic employment law i.e disclosable in the absence of it being classified secret?

Extremes on both ends... who would've guessed it (other than climate scientists and those who listen to them)?

Now you're attempting to shift focus to «the system,» which is nothing other than climate scientists plus a handful of professional administrators.

Worst Case Climate Change consists of negative changes not seen in everyday life, other than climate scientists, and therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, for ordinary people to understand the gravity of this situation.

Not exact matches

The other side of the «green» argument against nuclear power is the fear by some climate scientists that carbon emissions in New York could increase by more than 31 million metric tons during the next two years, if a number of nuclear power plants close.

The results — along with a recent Dartmouth - led study that found air temperature also likely influenced the fluctuating size of South America's Quelccaya Ice Cap over the past millennium — support many scientists» suspicions that today's tropical glaciers are rapidly shrinking primarily because of a warming climate rather than declining snowfall or other factors.

Udall, a senior water and climate scientist / scholar at CSU's Colorado Water Institute, said, «The future of Colorado River is far less rosy than other recent assessments have portrayed.

Moreover, the impacts of that warming, including sea level rise, drought, floods and other extreme weather, could hit earlier and harder than many models project, said study co-author John Fasullo, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

When the foundation severed ties, its decision was less influenced by the removal of Jewish scientists from major posts than by the destabilising effect that this and other political interventions had on the general research climate.

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.)

Deforestation may have far greater consequences for climate change in some soils than in others, according to new research led by Yale University scientists — a finding that could provide critical insights into which ecosystems must be managed with extra care because they are vulnerable to biodiversity loss and which ecosystems are more resilient to widespread tree removal.

Kahan and other social scientists previously have shown that information based on scientific evidence can actually intensify — rather than moderate — political polarization on contentious topics such as gun control, climate change, fracking, or the safety of certain vaccines.

Such trends mean scientists and policymakers will have to factor in how synthetic climate forcers other than greenhouse gases will change temperature, rainfall and weather extremes.

It also means that scientists and other experts are going to have to monitor measures other than just atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases to catch catastrophic climate change developing.

These are the erroneous predictions ascribed to the most recent report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-- a document reviewed by some 2,500 scientists and other experts as well as vetted by more than 190 countries.

I'm not even an amateur climate scientist, but my logic tells me that if clouds have a stronger negative feedback in the Arctic, and I know (from news) the Arctic is warming faster than other areas, then it seems «forcing GHGs» (CO2, etc) may have a strong sensitivity than suggested, but this is suppressed by the cloud effect.

In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

Located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the NERSC Center serves more than 6,000 scientists at national laboratories and universities researching a wide range of problems in combustion, climate modeling, fusion energy, materials science, physics, chemistry, computational biology, and other disciplines.

«We hope that other scientists will use these data to answer questions such as why, unlike humans, some plants do not deteriorate as they age, why some environments are better for agriculture than others, and how fast plant populations will move in response to climate change,» said Yvonne Buckley, professor of Zoology in Trinity College Dublin's School of Natural Sciences.

«The key finding of the study is that they get a larger amount of sulfur and a smaller amount of carbon dioxide ejected than in other studies,» said Georg Feulner, a climate scientist at the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Gclimate scientist at the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in GClimate Impact Research in Germany.

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).

As I was interviewing as many scientists and other experts as I could find, I came to realize that the science around biomass's climate impacts is much less murky than it's made to seem.

In the action, more than 1,200 campaigners, scientists (including NASA's Jim Hansen), students and other concerned citizens — mainly brought there by the project's climate impacts — sat down and waited for handcuffs:

But while plenty of other climate scientists hold firm to the idea that the full range of possible outcomes, including a disruptively dangerous warming of more than 4.5 degrees C. (8 degrees F.), remain in play, it's getting harder to see why the high - end projections are given much weight.

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).

If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated.

As part of the investigation, Cucinelli sought access to University records concerning state - funded research grants that Mann worked on, as well as correspondence between him and more than two dozen climate scientists at other institutions.

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.

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.

As a scientist, I can say, we don't know whats going on other than than our climate fluctuates dramatically and sometimes very rapidly in either direction.

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.

Just as a hypothetical example: If climate scientist will tell me that recent pause in global warming is due to the effect of an inactive sun (which is the reality as reported by following) http://www.spaceweather.com and that they will go back and improve their models to account for this, then I would be more inclined to believe their other claims... Instead the IPCC doubles down on their predictions and claim the future effects will be worst than they originally thought?

And, when it comes to perceptions of other influences on climate research, Republicans with high or medium levels of science knowledge are more likely than those with low science knowledge to say that climate scientists» political leanings influence their research findings.

Scientists say the record was all the more striking as 2007 had near perfect climate patterns for melting ice, but that the weather this year was unremarkable other than a storm in early August.

James Hansen, former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and known as the «father of global warming,» speaks at a climate change protest in Washington D.C. Hansen, together with 16 other scientists, will publish a paper this week claiming that the threat of global warming is far greater than anyone has suspected.

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.

In a climate case, more so than any other policy - related case, courts need to inform themselves of the range of scientific opinions, the specific points of agreement and disagreements, the assumptions made by scientists, their theories and reasoning, the validity and accuracy of the models used, the unknowns, uncertainties, and gradations, etc..

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.

«More than two - thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC's 2007 climate - science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other... the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence on climate significant enough to be damaging to the planet were unrepresented in the authorship of chapter 9.»

I believe climate scientists are far more «green'than scientists in other fields, and that this biases the work done in the field.

In order to avoid the most devastating impacts of global warming, climate scientists have warned that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases need to be cut in order to keep the increase in average global temperature to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius).

So, meteorologists should know the science behind the causes of climate change better than most other scientists.

More than 31,000 scientists across the US, «including more than 9,000 PhD.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting «global warming,» the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

The AVHRR data was made available only after a Materials Complaint to Nature (which, despite criticism, is taking a harder line on data obstruction by climate scientists than Science and some other journals.)

The jurors may well be so indoctrinated with the orthodoxy of climate change that any suggestion that Mann is anything other than a great scientist trying to save the planet will fall on deaf ears and no amount of evidence or appeal to reason will shake them of the notion.

It's a bit cheap, given that there's no evidence or even likelihood, that actual climate scientists are responsible for this hoax, to say that jumping to very firm conclusions on very little evidence, and indeed fraudulently improving the evidence that doesn't quite show what you want it to, are characteristic of one side of this debate rather than the other.

Why is it ok to do it with climate scientists — who are, after all, nothing other than applied physicists who focus their research on the atmosphere and ocean?

As a result, he said, the world may find it easier and less costly to slow climate change than he and other scientists had thought, at least in the short term.