Sentences with phrase «presented by the climate science»

... Why face the difficult truth presented by the climate science?

Not exact matches

The United States» top independent science experts have blessed a draft Obama administration climate science report — left behind for the Trump administration to finish — that presents a strong contrast to inaccurate scientific claims by the current president's top environmental official.

While large - scale climate research models offer a systems view of what the transport sector, for example, could contribute to climate protection in comparison to the energy sector, the study presented in Science, however, examines transport - related issues within the sector by using more recent and more specific data on how people commute and travel.

«Conservative think tanks, conservative media, corporations, and industry associations (especially for the fossil fuels industry)-- domains dominated by conservative white males — have spearheaded the attacks on climate science and policy from the late 1980s to the present,» McCright and Dunlap concluded in their study.

So he sexes up his narrative by presenting it as a battle between the «short, professorial looking» Emanuel, a «nuanced and sophisticated» man who talks in complete sentences, and the obdurate William Gray of Colorado State University, «a towering figure of American hurricane science,» who has for many years produced remarkably accurate forecasts of the upcoming Atlantic hurricane season and who repeatedly and loudly denies — in congressional hearings and everywhere else — that humans have any role in climate change.

Climate science still faces the dilemma articulated by the late Steve Schneider and misrepresented by his adversaries — how do we best ensure that the public arrives at an accurate understanding of climate change, when the «sound bite» limits on our speaking time to the media force us to choose between making a few points with all the appropriate caveats, vs presenting details of all the points we believe important but without acknowledging uncertaClimate science still faces the dilemma articulated by the late Steve Schneider and misrepresented by his adversaries — how do we best ensure that the public arrives at an accurate understanding of climate change, when the «sound bite» limits on our speaking time to the media force us to choose between making a few points with all the appropriate caveats, vs presenting details of all the points we believe important but without acknowledging uncertaclimate change, when the «sound bite» limits on our speaking time to the media force us to choose between making a few points with all the appropriate caveats, vs presenting details of all the points we believe important but without acknowledging uncertainties?

Suddenly, we seem to live in a time dominated by «fake news», «alternative facts», conspiracy theories, scepticism of scientific research, partial accounts parading as «the real truth which has hitherto been concealed from us, the people», revolts against allegedly smug academic elites and distant political elites — a time where YouTube videos claiming research into climate change to be a scam get far more viewers than videos presenting the science of climate change.

In 2012, with the support of an Artistic Innovation and Collaboration grant from the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, the second Marfa Dialogues program considered the science and culture of climate change, with Michael Pollan, Rebecca Solnit and Dr. Diana Liverman leading discussions concurrently with Carbon 13, a visual arts exhibition curated by David Buckland of Cape Farewell and presented at Ballroom Marfa.

In 2012, with the support of an AIC grant from the Robert Rauschenberg Foundation, the second Marfa Dialogues program considered the science and culture of climate change, with Michael Pollan, Rebecca Solnit and Dr. Diana Liverman leading discussions concurrently with Carbon 13, a visual arts exhibition curated by David Buckland of Cape Farewell and presented at Ballroom Marfa.

For the longest time there's been a presumption among environmental campaigners and some scientists that if the fog of misinformation and disinformation on climate could be cleared, if the science could be laid out better, if the link between present energy choices and future climate risks could be absorbed better by the public, people would jump aboard the decarbonization express, leading the world to a climate - safe future.

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.

In this piece, Broad attempts to discredit Gore's «An Inconvenient Truth» by exaggerating the legitimate, but minor, criticisms of his treatment of the science by experts on climate science, and presenting specious or unsubstantiated criticisms by a small number of the usual, well - known contrarians who wouldn't agree even if Gore read aloud from the latest IPCC report.

Munshi badly represents climatology by stating that with the findings of Emanuel (2005), «it remained for climate science only to tend to the details of presenting the data in the appropriate format.»

I would be particularly interested in evidence, as published by climate scientists in peer - reviewed science journals, that demonstrates the existence of climate - change risks so great that the present generation has no moral right to impose these risks on future generations.

I conjecture that three changes in the way in which the climate problem is presented by the experts to the general public would make the conversation go better: acknowledge that climate constraints are unwelcome (thereby establishing empathy with general audiences, as a doctor does when conveying bad news), present the science as unfinished (thereby taking away the surprise factor that accompanies every new wrinkle — cf. the cosmic ray stories of a couple of weeks ago), and admit that no solution is wonderful (something hard for much of our community, which loves some strategy and hates at least one of the others).

«If the global numbers come out as CRU has presented over the years, then it will strike a blow to skepticism about global temperature trend records produced by CRU and restore a good deal of credibility to this area of climate science.»

The Discovery of Global Warming (2003) by Spencer Weart presents the accomplishments of climate science as they evolved historically.

For more on Alaska's variable, but warming climate, scan «Climate of Alaska: Past, Present and Future,» a recent presentation by Uma S. Bhatt, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alaska, Faiclimate, scan «Climate of Alaska: Past, Present and Future,» a recent presentation by Uma S. Bhatt, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alaska, FaiClimate of Alaska: Past, Present and Future,» a recent presentation by Uma S. Bhatt, an associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

An article in Science (11 Nov 2005) by Scott L. Wing, et al., concludes:... «The PETM provides an important analog to present - day anthropogenic global warming, because the two episodes are inferred to have similar rates and magnitudes of carbon release and climate change (6)».

Through relentless pressure on the media to present the issue «objectively,» and by challenging the consensus on climate change science by misstating both the nature of what «consensus» means and what this particular consensus is, ExxonMobil and its allies have confused the public and given cover to a few senior elected and appointed government officials whose positions and opinions enable them to damage U.S. credibility abroad.

Science has presented us with an overwhelming amount of solid evidence that current climate change is real, caused primarily by us, it is real, it is bad, almost 100 % of climate scientists agree with this science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we Science has presented us with an overwhelming amount of solid evidence that current climate change is real, caused primarily by us, it is real, it is bad, almost 100 % of climate scientists agree with this science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we choose.

Climate Science Whistleblower Award: Alan Carlin, EPA economist (retired) Presented by the Don't Tread on My Business Foundation

Climate change presents a profound challenge to this cautious centrism because half measures won't cut it: «all of the above energy» programs, as U.S. President Barack Obama describes his approach, has about as much chance of success as an all of the above diet, and the firm deadlines imposed by science require that we get very worked up indeed.

Climate science results will simply be by - passed because of the ever - present small uncertainties inherent in all predictions.

4) A statement of what other serious theories regarding recent climate changes are on the table — some have been presented here at Climate Etc. 5) A confession that many have been doing lots of science seriously compromised by confirmation bias, due to funding preclimate changes are on the table — some have been presented here at Climate Etc. 5) A confession that many have been doing lots of science seriously compromised by confirmation bias, due to funding preClimate Etc. 5) A confession that many have been doing lots of science seriously compromised by confirmation bias, due to funding pressures.

The Niskanen Center, which calls itself a libertarian think tank, has a Center for Climate Science directed by Dr. Joseph Majkut, a climatologist who previously served on the staff of Brulle's ally Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.52 The think tank R Street is so well known for its friendliness to a carbon tax that when we published a study critical of the carbon tax, we invited it to contribute a defense of the tax.53 And as the present study goes to press, prominent Republicans at the Hoover Institution like George Schultz and James Baker are advocating vigorously for a carbon tax.54

Here we have a post written by a climate scientist in order to complain about the biasing effect of a politicization of climate science, in which she openly embraces an analysis that presents a completely politicized picture of science, without even a cursory attempt to present objectively collected and analyzed evidence in support..

The panel talk, Public Perception of Climate Change — Past, Present and Future was led by the independent science journalist and former CNN science reporter Miles O'Brien.

The research presents a distinct echo of an investigation of Exxon's climate record published by InsideClimate News almost two years ago, and casts significant new light on the duration and depth of industry's climate research — and how electric companies that use fossil fuels responded to the emerging science from the 1960's onward.

What hasn't been reported is the complementary role of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has peddled laws written by corporate lobbyists through state legislatures that make it easy for its dirty energy members, such as Exxon, Koch Industries and Peabody coal, to influence how climate science is presented to students.

C: increase in atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial to present is anthropogenic (D / A) S: best guess for likely climate sensitivity (NUM) s: 2 - sigma range of S (NUM) a: ocean acidification will be a problem (D / A) L: expected sea level rise by 2100 in cm (all contributions)(NUM) B: climate change will be beneficial (D / A) R: CO2 emissions need to be reduced drastically by 2050 (D / A) T: technical advances will take care of any problems (D / A) r: the 20th century global temperature record is reliable (D / A) H: over the last 1000 years global temperature was hockey stick shaped (D / A) D: data has been intentionally distorted by scientist to support the idea of anthropogenic climate change (D / A) g: the CRU - mails are important for the science (D / A) G: the CRU - mails are important otherwise (D / A)

(emphasis added)» 1 As presented here before, the extinction of the Golden Toad illustrates the great abyss that separates the rigor of good medical science from the opportunistic models trumpeted by a few articulate and adamant climate scientists.

If you are an adherent of sound scientific method, you must NECESSARILY be a skeptic in this as in all other areas of inquiry, and the «climate scientists» complicit in the push for the abrogation of scientific method are by definition NOT «doing science, gathering data, testing,» but rather presenting the seeming of scientific investigation while all the while using that masquerade to advance public policy measures predicated upon malicious nonsense.

«The science of climate dynamics: continues to publish findings about solar / climate relationships and internal variability of the climate system that invalidate the account of the Earth's climate dynamics presented by the IPCC; predicts the likelihood of an extended period of global cooling, if the emergent solar cycle 24 has a low amplitude, as seems increasingly likely on the basis of current science,» Mackey explained.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has peddled laws written by corporate lobbyists through state legislatures that make it easy for its dirty energy members, such as Exxon, Koch Industries and Peabody coal, to influence how climate science is presented to students.

The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) and the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S), implemented by ECMWF, will be presenting their activities at the three - day annual Wissenswerte conference at the Science and Congress Center in Darmstadt, Germany.

I do continue to enjoy and find interest in those too few threads that involve analysis of published papers relating to climate science — such as we obtain from Nic Lewis — and to those general analyses of an area of climate science when well researched and presented by poster.

I think it should be recognized that probably the one site that has done the most damage to the AGW matra is not here, or WUWT or Climate Audit, it is Steven Goddards site real science who has carefully documented all the fraud and lies through data analysis of raw data, adjustments and yes newspaper articles from the past and present time, carefully documenting every statement made by these fraudsters, and of course Paul Homewood, more recently and Mahorasy in Australia..

In his latest analysis, Steve McIntyre turns his attention to the «Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of Session 2009 - 10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change by Command of Her Majesty&climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change by Command of Her Majesty&Climate Change by Command of Her Majesty».

Climateprediction.net «s Dr Friederike Otto presented on climate attribution science to Chinese and Brazilian early career researchers today, as part of a week - long workshop for the LOTUS project being hosted by the Oxford e-Research Centre.

Dr. Arthur Robinson, a distinguished chemist and cofounder / president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), was honored recently in Las Vegas at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC9) with the Voice of Reason Award presented by The Heartland Institute.

Infact Coby, there is hardly related to SCIENCE much of the supposition presented by the OPINION (related as a supposed consensus) «marketed» as «climate science» and the supposed «climate experts» too often present opinion that is disassociated from SSCIENCE much of the supposition presented by the OPINION (related as a supposed consensus) «marketed» as «climate science» and the supposed «climate experts» too often present opinion that is disassociated from Sscience» and the supposed «climate experts» too often present opinion that is disassociated from SCIENCESCIENCE.

You will ALL find that the fields listed (60 signatories include mathematicians, economists, anthropologists, geneticists, chemists, engineers and other interesting fields) ALL present situations that present SCIENCE that is contradicted by the attempts to platform a supposed «greenhouse effect» and the illusion of «science activity» made to appear as «climate science research&SCIENCE that is contradicted by the attempts to platform a supposed «greenhouse effect» and the illusion of «science activity» made to appear as «climate science research&science activity» made to appear as «climate science research&science research».

Diane Cassell is presented by playwright Richard Bean as the lone figure of integrity who has the courage to stand up to the climate science establishment, scientists who are cravenly manipulating their research to stay on the gravy train.

The study by Heartland Institute, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) says «mankind will be much better off in the year 2100 than it is today and therefore able to adapt to whatever challenges climate change presents.»

«The NIPCC's new report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, fires a scientific cannon shot across the bow of the quasi-religious human - caused global warming movement by presenting data, facts, and scientific method constructs of climate change sClimate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, fires a scientific cannon shot across the bow of the quasi-religious human - caused global warming movement by presenting data, facts, and scientific method constructs of climate change sScience, fires a scientific cannon shot across the bow of the quasi-religious human - caused global warming movement by presenting data, facts, and scientific method constructs of climate change sclimate change sciencescience.

An industry of denial, abetted by news media and «info - tainment» broadcasters more interested in selling controversy than presenting facts, has duped half the American public into rejecting the facts of climate science — an overwhelming body of rigorously vetted scientific evidence showing that human - caused, carbon - based emissions are linked to warming the Earth.

«While Dr. Ball presents his central thesis that climate science has been corrupted by politics, the Article offers little in the way of support for that thesis, apart from vague references to missing or falsified data and political manipulation, unsubstantiated and erroneous references....»

And the problem is exacerbated because to the extent that there is a viable scientific community that presents «skeptical» science about climate change, the lines between that community and the community driven by partisanship, religious doctrine, or corporate interests is very blurry indeed.

Good science demands we examine how climate changed naturally in the past, not to uncritically dismiss the possibility of CO2 — caused warming, but to understand to what degree present climate change is driven by historical cycles.