Sentences with phrase «other than the climate science»

If it's presented properly, it should be understandable by people with a technical background other than climate science — and there are quite a few of those people — and many of them are on the conservative side of politics.

I think you should follow your own advice - «I would advise focusing on something other than climate science» because this is a science forum and your manufactured dire predictions are not appropriate.

Your basic problem seems to be a childlike confusion between how science ought to work — and how sciences other than climate science (with no political dimension) work — and how climate science is actually financed and works.

Any area other than climate science that impacts government policy should be subject to these rules also.

What to say about this, other than the climate science world is upside down?

Has it every been used in any field of science other than climate science?

Not exact matches

Some subpopulations of yellow warblers may be genetically better equipped to adapt to climate changes than others, according to a new study in the January 5 issue of Science.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

To this kind of lie, there is no effective reply other than to put out positive reliable information about climate science.

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.

For example, some states prohibited districts from spending Title I on school climate supports, counselors, science, or other costs other than reading and math, even though that wasn't required by federal law and didn't reflect state policy priorities.

These three climate phenomena have produced the uniquely long - lasting surge in water temperature that is attracting tuna and other fish much closer to shore — and much farther north than they would normally swim, said Toby Garfield, director of the environmental research division at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Southwest Fisheries Science Center in La Jolla.

While there was a lot of interesting science in this paper (the new methodology, the range of results etc.) which fully justified its appearance in Nature, we were quite critical of their basic conclusion — that climate sensitivities significantly higher than the standard range (1.5 — 4.5 ºC) were plausible — because there is significant other data, predominantly from paleo - climate, that pretty much rule those high numbers out (as we discussed again recently).

Your very presence on the other side of the climate debate does more to validate the science than anything else you could do.

That was part of the logic for why so many folks have been keen to make a big push on soot and other SLCPs [short - lived climate pollutants]-- the piece that Charlie Kennel, Ram Ramanathan and I had in Foreign Affairs a couple years ago lays out the POLITICAL logic for action in that area as well as the new science showing that SLCPs are more important than previously thought.

This tribal theory applies to peoples political affiliations such as liberal or conservative, or membership of other social groups, and we know liberals do tend to accept climate science more than conservatives from polls by Pew Research etc, although its not black and white.

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.

Or, perhaps, NCAR believes that institutions other than itself would be better suited to enter into discussions on how science should be applied in formulation of national policies or should influence individual household decisions when either climate or weather is a factor.

He's both wrong in how he portrays my views of climate science and, to my mind, failing to recognize there can be more than one approach — in communication, technology, politics and other arenas — aimed at a common goal: in this case improving humanity's intensifying two - way relationship with the climate system.

So, allow me to bounce the question back to you: Is there anything * skeptics * agree upon other than «climate science (and / or the IPCC summary of the current state of knowledge of climate) is wrong»?

I mean after all, conservative authorities like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Beck, Malkin and others know far more about climate science than....

These science / environment stories compete for attention with stories not just in science but across other political and social issues: the Holland / Webster study came out at comparatively less crowded time for climate issues than the Vecchi / Soden study.

The other point is that so far, it seems to me that the progression of assessment reports and climate science studies in general seems to keep indicating «it's worse than we thought.»

3) Ad Hominem (questioning the motive rather than the facts): The fact that some people use the issue of climate change to pursue other agendas has no relevance to the accuracy of the science.

[Dr. Carling has] the complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the -LSB-...] erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to -LSB-...] other [than CO2] forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

• disagreement in climate science is more violent than other fields where there is much disagreement and high societal stakes (e.g. economics).

Rather than genuflecting about how the scientific method should work, just step up to the plate, cast off the veil of infallibility so common to climate science and work with others to improve the state of knowledge.

Each of the four authors of the Science Bulletin paper has a lively and expert academic interest in our subject, and we wrote our paper because we considered — rightly, as events have turned out (for there have already been more than 22,500 downloads either of the abstract or of the full paper)-- that other researchers would find our simple model of the climate interesting and helpful.

Disagreement in climate science is certainly more violent than in (at least most) other fields.

Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science -LSB-...]

Moreover, the error was spotted initially by none other than Steve McIntyre, who has been a thorn in the side of the IPCC and climate science generally for a long time.

Whether peer review is climate science is any worse than in other physical sciences is another question.

Now everyone who follows climate science a bit, would probably agree that next to climate sensitivity the other important field where research suggests we may need to think in slightly different numbers than we used to is sea level rise.

5) To what extent is climate science different than any other research field, or even any other profession, w / r / t the level of «intimidation» people feel about expressing their opinions when they run against more prevalent viewpoints within their profession?

But 73 percent of museum visitors said that they would like to learn more about climate change and that they trusted informal science institutions more than any other source to provide that information.

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.

Corn ethanol receives billions in subsidies despite conclusive science indicating its inefficient production provides little or no additional energy other than what is used for its production, and its ecological destructiveness in terms of land, water and climate.

I doubt that in general that climate science and the politics related to it are any different than that for other sciences.

I do it in my own time and off my own back, but I like to think that someone somewhere will occasionally believe me rather than you when I say that your and other's characterisation of software quality in climate science is inaccurate.

In May, 2015, Advertising Standards Canada, a voluntary industry group that does not enforce its decisions other than through public suasion ruled, following 96 public complaints, that two Friends of Science billboards in Montreal stating: «The Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change.

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.»

Climate science has unintentionally become one of the most significant fronts in the socioeconomic - political struggle to develop a sustainable better future for humanity, a struggle to correct incorrect developments that have developed powerful defences, particularly through regionally temporarily successful misleading marketing appeals to developed temptations for more potential personal benefit rather than desiring to be more helpful to others and the future of humanity.

For instance, Monbiot has it that «Between 2000 and 2002 [TASSC] received $ 30,000 from Exxon», and that this same organisation (The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition) «has done more damage to the campaign to halt [CLIMATE CHANGE] than any other body»... If donations of just $ 10,000 dollars can buy the effect Monbiot is claiming TASSC achieved with it over three years, why on earth would anyone pay for far more expensive comment drones?

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.

The other 80 % [in mainstream climate science] though does disprove the theory that the earth is not warming, that moonbeams are a stronger influence on climate than CO2 etc. etc..

My climate enemies have done scientific and other academic frauds; they've destroyed, withheld and pretended to misplace scientific data in order to prevent the human race discovering things about nature; they've forged documents to frame people they don't like; mendaciously and publicly accused innocent people of deplorable crimes that carry prison sentences; betrayed the trust reposed in their professions by fraudulently abrogating to themselves the magical competence to diagnose entire swathes of the (perfectly healthy) population with thought disorders just to score points in an academic bitch fight; deliberately and self - servingly lied to * massive * audiences about the way science itself works — than which I can't for the life of me think of a greater crime against humanity in the recent history of the developed world, can you Joe?

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.)

Seems to me in hindsight that some prominent properties of current sceptics include — worked many years evaluating technical reports, commonly to approve or reject budget requests from others — many from industry or military rather than academia — careers that promote you for delivering the goods, like making profit — worked in positions requiring accountability — often with a degree in humanities as well as science / engineering, allowing interest in social conduct — education more often degrees short of PhD — old enough to have gained some wisdom — realistic about the horror of climategate and its whitewashes — appreciative of the rigour and good spirit of Climate Audit