Sentences with phrase «qualified as any climate scientist»

http://www.mtu.edu/chemistry/department/faculty/green/ - While Dana Nuccitelli's career as a minute taker at EPA remediation site meetings doesn't qualify him as a climate scientist (or rater) his education is not so far off the mark.

If you can still convince yourself that your odd theory that heat somehow trapped by greenhouse gases is causing sea level rise or fall, and that you can somehow account for things like totally unknown vertical displacements in sea beds in your measurement, you can probably qualify as a climate scientist.

They embrace conspiracy theories regarding the IPCC and are genuinely convinced that a few weeks reading the comments on climateaudit qualify them as climate scientists.

An important fact to remember is that many high profile critics you see in the news do not qualify as climate scientists when these standards are applied.

Not exact matches

When I Google that expression I get an awful lot of denialist sites come up; nobody on the first page of hits looks like a climate scientist — unless for example you're counting Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, whose scientific qualifications end at O - level (if he even got an O - level); or perhaps Joanne Nova, who has more scientific qualification, but isn't a climate scientist unless a bachelor's degree in microbiology qualifies her as such?

Outside of this lone exception, the dispute has involved people who are not climate scientists whose flawed work slipped through a sloppy peer - review process (as discussed in False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick) and elsewhere on this site, or highly qualified people like Michael Crichton.

Joseph D'Aleo was one of fourteen Amici, described as «well - qualified climate scientists,» who claimed that the «EPA's endangerment finding is not «rational» and therefore arbitrary and capricious.»

As we discovered a year ago, for example, when Professor Andrew Dessler wrote on Grist that the IPCC consisted of thousands of climate scientists, all uniquely qualified to look after the sick planet, and that we ought to ignore social scientists and computer programmers.

[3] I explain in my presentations that as a scientist who is fully qualified to understand climate change, I seem dumber than the people who say they «know» the answers because I do not profess to know the future, especially of something so complicated as the global climate.

As to being confused about the properties of the RE statistics, that would qualify you to be a climate scientist.

First, a climate scientist who is qualified as an expert can make any of the assertions that the consensus is supposed to embrace on his or her expertise alone.

It strikes me as curious in the extreme that somebody — even someone with a climate scientists disdain for uncertainty — would not qualify this comment in terms like «the earliest comment we've yet discovered».

Simply because you feel that these seven claims qualify as «disinformation» doesn't mean that the mass of climate scientists and actual experts agree with you.

Nevertheless, climate scientists realized a half century ago that human carbon emissions qualify as pollution due to the dangers they pose via climate change.

* (For a good reason, too — there are so inordinately few somewhat qualified or learned and somewhat credentialed individuals on this subject who take the manufactured «anti Climate Change theory: view one that should be pursued by nearly every scientist on the planet were it to have merit, as it is a far better end result if true, yet nevertheless is not, but persists in fact due to the enormous ideological, macroeconomically frightened (and myopically presumptive), and «good thing going» industry based pressures, behind it.)

William Happer was one of fourteen Amici, described as «well - qualified climate scientists,» who claimed that the «EPA's endangerment finding is not «rational» and therefore arbitrary and capricious.»

These alarmist scientists eagerly accept future climate simulations as empirical evidence, bizarrely not realizing the model output is «simulated», not even possibly qualifying to be considered empirical evidence.

The above «Climate of Doubt» program qualifies as such with its blatant insinuation about skeptics corrupted by illicit money, as does its prior 2008 program «Heat», in which only unidentified skeptic scientists were shown while the narrator said «Not only have big oil companies not invested much in renewables, but for years they were among the largest contributors to so - called climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.Climate of Doubt» program qualifies as such with its blatant insinuation about skeptics corrupted by illicit money, as does its prior 2008 program «Heat», in which only unidentified skeptic scientists were shown while the narrator said «Not only have big oil companies not invested much in renewables, but for years they were among the largest contributors to so - called climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.climate change denier groups, groups like the Heartland Institute, the organizer of this 2008 convention.»

Belivers use the word consensus as a shorthand to refer specifically to the oft quoted 97 % — a consensus among a very small group of selected «qualified» «climate scientists».

Ball doesn't qualify as much of a climate scientist in my view.

Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy.To the denialists, the scientists» scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial «smoking gun»: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.

Gavin Schmitt (computer scientist originally) qualifies as a climate expert according to this standard, as does Ray Pierrehumbert (electrical engineer originally).

Perhaps Prof Emanuel will add his opinion here, but as a (much less eminent and well - qualified) working climate scientist, let me say this loud and clear:

Roberts attempted to argue that because the experts had commented on how carbon dioxide causes global warming, this constituted engineering advice the trio were not qualified to give, and so contravened the state's Professional Engineers Act (essentially, Roberts was reclassifying the world's climate scientists as engineers in order to complain about them).

It does not qualify as a Black Swan, since it claimed ascendancy only by ignoring conflicting evidence and blackballing climate scientists who had such evidence.

So, am I qualified to speak on climate, as citizen scientist?