Sentences with phrase «put on climate scientists»

But I do know that the path to reconciliation is neither one where the blame is exclusively put on climate scientists.

Not exact matches

This view is at least congruent with his belief that human - caused climate change is a hoax, which puts him at odds with pretty much every climate scientist on the planet and the majority of the U.S. public.

Oppenheimer and his co-authors use a technique known as «structured expert judgment» to put an actual value on the uncertainty that scientists studying climate change have about a particular model's prediction of future events such as sea - level rise.

I think you and others could do more to change attitudes in the U.S. on global warming by joining forces in putting pressure on NOAA administrators and NWS supervisors to educate the 5,500 meteorologists in 120 National Weather Service offices so the NWS scientists can help other government people and other meteorologists who enter people's private living rooms better understand climate change.

Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity projections are not best estimates of possible future actual temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?

I have also worked closely with other social scientists at NCAR [see for instance a book I put together for the Global Change Instruction Program: Effects of Changing Climate on Weather and Human Activities].

A nonpartisan research team, drawing on recommendations from scientists, business leaders, environmental foundations and others, has put together a proposed action plan for the next president's first 100 days in office, aimed at fostering climate and energy security.

Rabbeting on about climate scientists should do this and they should not put up with data of dubious quality is completely missing the point that they are not in charge of the data.

The centerpiece of the article was Dr. Holdren's description of the evolving arguments put forward by public figures, including some scientists, challenging climate science as they fight restrictions on greenhouse gases:

[March 3 Update: Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists put it this way in a new Times article on trust in climate research: «We need to acknowledge the errors and help turn attention from what's happening in the blogosphere to what's happening in the atmosphere.»]

Iâ $ ™ d still like to see Willis and his fellow AGW recalcitrants start a fresh debate over there so I can see them put those wacky climate scientists in their place and teach them a thing or to about real science, the type that doesnâ $ ™ t impact on business profits.

If Americans make the wrong choice and elect a man who's dangerously uninformed and believes climate scientists are just messing with us, Trump's «energy plan» might put the world on a path to catastrophe in which we're forced to resort to geoengineering, or at least begin dangerous field experiments.

The US is firing many climate scientists and putting illegal federal gag orders on the rest.

Some scientists were complicit in thwarting the scientific method by participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the political vehicle set up to put all the focus on CO2.

Probably it is not a crime to totally make up what government officials say; still, FBI officials probably do not look kindly on climate change denialists who put words in their mouths and more than climate scientists do.

His refusal to understand the debate he comments on even leads him to put mainstream climate scientists into the same category as «deniers».

The scientists also put paid to claims that global warming has «stopped» because global temperatures in the past 15 years have not continued the strong upward march of the preceding years, which is a key argument put forward by sceptics to cast doubt on climate science.

Short summary: scientists sought political relevance and allowed policy makers to put a big thumb on the scale of the scientific assessment of the attribution of climate change.

Then, in 2009, the exposure of emails between the «scientists» responsible for the data the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was putting out to scare the pants off of everyone about «global warming» — since dubbed Climategate — revealed they were not only rigging the computer models, but were increasingly worried that the planet had entered a new, perfectly natural, cooling cycle.

«This may not be our climate rubicon, but we're certainly standing on the shores of disaster, 400 ppm is well past the point of safety which many scientists put at 350 ppm.»

While religious doctrine and science have often been at odds, the pope's message that global warming trends are caused by human activity puts him firmly on the side of 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists.

It seems that the definition of «consensus» varies by field, just as the decision - making framework does, with unanimity or near unanimity expected from the scientific community, even including those scientists who in many cases have not really embedded themselves in the literature nor been required to put together a coherent assembly and analysis of scientific knowledge (and even including, somehow, CEI's [Competitive Enterprise Institute] lawyers with their ExxonMobil support, who are often quoted as the contrary view in papers on the science of climate change).

It's not helping the credibility of scientists or the trust that the public puts into climate scientists and therefore on the science because it's hard for the public to understand the nuances of such a complex subject — it's hard for the scientists to even understand — so [members of the public] have to trust the experts on some level and when the experts behave like this it's a big loss of credibility for the whole climate science enterprise.

To help put a stop to the squabbling, two dozen scientists and citizen - scientists from three continents — including Sarah Green, professor and chair of chemistry at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Mich. - analyzed the abstracts of nearly 12,000 peer - reviewed scientific papers on climate change published between 1991 and 2011.

The climate scientists whose private emails were recently hacked and put on the web for the world to read might disagree.

Now, I believe there are no climate scientists that would put their name on all the items in the list (Gore not being a scientist, of course) and very few that would agree with more than 5 of them.

If scientists can demonstrate to policymakers that we would see significantly fewer and less intense extreme weather events by putting the brakes on our emissions then it might lead to the necessary action to protect society and the environment from the worst outcomes of climate change.»

A cadre of the world's top climate scientists have seen enough evidence of prospective runaway climate change that they are now sounding the alarm, putting the world on notice that an extinction event may be in the cards.

This question is designed to expose that those politicians who refuse to reduce their government's ghg on the basis that they are not scientists can not ethically justify non-action on climate change on this basis because once they are put on notice by respected scientific organizations that ghg from their government jurisdiction are harming others, they have a duty to prevent dangerous behavior or establish credible scientific evidence that the alleged dangerous behavior is safe.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Cclimate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on ClimateClimate.

It's surely not the job of a climate scientist to work out in a bottom up way what factors are responsible for how much weight a tree puts on each year and how much of that is allocated to the cambium and gets converted into a tree ring.

«One major concern about wildfires becoming more frequent in permafrost areas is the potential to put the vast amounts of carbon stored there at increased risk of being emitted and further amplify warming,» said Todd Sanford, a climate scientist at Climate Central and lead author of the group's newly released report on Alaskan wildfires, by climate scientist at Climate Central and lead author of the group's newly released report on Alaskan wildfires, by Climate Central and lead author of the group's newly released report on Alaskan wildfires, by e-mail.

«These are specialized computer scientists who apply statistics to computer data, and we need them to find better ways to put together climate data, social network data, financial data, and so on.»

Put another way, how can an expert on this course topic also be a climate scientist?

People have every right to take issue with the inane and offensive things you have said on blogs, your innuendo, your unsubstantiated claims, and your uncritical and unskeptical acceptance of all sundry of accusations put forth by so - called «skeptics» against climate scientists.

Posted in Development and Climate Change, Green House Gas Emissions, Health and Climate Change, News Comments Off on Climate Change is Putting World at Risk of Irreversible Changes, Scientists Warn

And on the same day, a second team of scientists emphasised the same conclusion: work with nature to confront climate change and improve the lives of people in the developing world, put at risk by climate change driven in part by the despoliation of the forests and the degradation of the land.

We need to put our very best climate scientists workers on this problem.

By Richard Ingham (AFP)-- 3 hours ago PARIS — A leaden cloak of responsibility lies on the shoulders of UN scientists as they put the final touches to the first volume of a massive report that will give the world the most detailed picture yet of climate change.

Given Watts» past history of lies, disinformation and slander of climate scientists you would actually believe anything he puts on the Web?

Shorter version: «some guys did stuff that annoyed me, so I am going to put my fingers in my ears and never ever listen to any serious scientist on climate ever again».

At that point, Climate Scientist who have put too much emphasis on CO2 will be completely discredited.

What I think is lost on those skeptics who read the IPCC selectively is that no AGW would not be a black swan to most climate scientists: to put it in reference to probability distributions for the climate sensitivity, every serious climate scientist has a probability distribution with some density at 0.

Indeed, they call themselves «The Right Climate Stuff Research Team» to emphasize that they are among the scientists and engineers who put men on the moon.

Or they could just start reaching out to more scientists — ones who are putting out peer - reviewed research on climate change and, we can only hope, aren't being funded by fossil fuel industry — and let them do the talking.

If the true purpose of the IPCC and climate scientists were to characterize the amount of heat that is attributable to CO2 the first thing would be (assuming a model could not be constructed that was shown to be trivially robust and powerful) would be to put bounds on all the other possibilities.

According to the WWF, top climate scientists have looked at the information and found that the effects of the melting ice on climate is going to more severely impact temperatures worldwide than other projections put forward so far, including even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 asseclimate scientists have looked at the information and found that the effects of the melting ice on climate is going to more severely impact temperatures worldwide than other projections put forward so far, including even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 asseclimate is going to more severely impact temperatures worldwide than other projections put forward so far, including even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 asseClimate Change's 2007 assessment.

The current adjustments and hyperventilation about the biblical sanctity of the temperature and models are being done by the climate scientists and modellers who have till date not shown any skills or capability to do that job fairly and ethically and especially present results as they are, without spinning or putting a slant on them or» adjusting» them.

Tallbloke really must be naive: As he presented Curry with that «trash» t - shirt and he allowed the presentation to be filmed and then put on You - Tube: search «Tallbloke Gives Judith Curry Climate Scientist Of The Year Award» Don't forget that this event was supposedly intended to facilitate reconciliation!!!

As one of my colleagues (who had best remain nameless) put it, «serves you right for talking to these **** s.» But if climate scientists refuse to talk to Mail on Sunday correspondents, then their only information sources left are bloggers and David Whitehouse.