Sentences with phrase «questions about climate science»

It should also have questions about climate science.

The success in climate skepticism (in terms of climate skeptics» ability to take advantage of Climategate and to raise questions about climate science).

I suggest anyone who has real questions about climate science should: 1.

Interestingly the other day I had occasion to answer some school children's questions about climate science.

As our scientists determined at the time, many important questions about climate science remained unanswered, and more research was required.

Scott McClellan didn't talk about climate change in his book, What Happened — but we recall the press briefing on June 8, 2005, when he had to fend off a barrage of questions about climate science and the oil industry... Continue reading →

To measure success, a media tracking service would be hired to tally the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing view.

It would measure progress by counting, among other things, the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing views.

Not exact matches

The intergovernmental science panel faces questions about its future role in addressing climate change

«This study raises new questions about what climate change will do to severe thunderstorms and what is responsible for recent trends,» says Tippett, who is also a member of the Data Science Institute and the Columbia Initiative on Extreme Weather and Cclimate change will do to severe thunderstorms and what is responsible for recent trends,» says Tippett, who is also a member of the Data Science Institute and the Columbia Initiative on Extreme Weather and ClimateClimate.

Join an online chat with SA's David Biello, who has covered the energy and climate beat since 1999 and will answer your questions about the science behind this week's heat wave in the eastern and midwestern U.S.

Given the Trump administration's questioning of climate science, the nuclear industry is hoping states will follow through with financial support while fending off a surge of cheap gas and questions from the right about whether at - risk reactors should receive federal support.

Democrats on the Senate committee pressed Perry about past statements in which he questioned mainstream climate science.

President Trump's nominee to lead the premier science office at the Interior Department sidestepped a question yesterday about whether climate change is a core mission of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Although the amendments may elicit politically tantalizing information about lawmakers» views on climate science, they don't address the underlying questions about the pipeline: Will the project contribute greatly to the warming problem?

And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?

Tillerson refused to answer questions from Kaine about Exxon's past and current relationship with climate change science.

Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question - and - answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.

«Our study raises new questions about what climate change will do to severe thunderstorms and what is responsible for recent trends,» said co-author Michael K. Tippett, an associate professor at Columbia University's Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science.

Unless they are arguing that actual BAU emissions will be so low as to prevent CO2 from any further significant build up (or at least stay under a doubling), this is a detail entirely irrelevant to climate science, and almost entirely irrelevant to the question about «reasonable anticipation of endangerment».

CO2 growth rates (CEI, p. 11): arguments about what growth rates for CO2 emissions that some models use are besides the point of what the science says about the climate sensitivity of the earth system (emissions growth rates are if anything an economic question).

I've addressed this question before in various ways, but was prompted to dig into my ideas and feelings about the building greenhouse effect with new rigor when two very different magazines, Issues in Science and Technology (the magazine of the National Academies) and Creative Nonfiction, invited me to write an essay on my 30 years of climate inquiry.

From his questions it seems Judge Alsup has a sincere interest in learning about climate science.

If the many queries I have asked recently, but especially this one about 27,000 workers in the field of climate science is not appropriate for posting to RC as a question and a request for help, then I honestly do not know what would be.

NONE of them have questioned the science behind climate change for more than a decade; they may argue about which policies are the best way to address the problem, what mix of government regulations and private sector actions is best, but not one challenges the science.

I've written in the past about other issues related to setting a numerical limit for climate dangers given both the enduring uncertainty around the most important climate change questions and the big body of science pointing to a gradient of risks rising with temperature.

They are fascinated by the science, asking questions about the climate history of the Tibetan plateau and the chances of reaching environmental tipping points, as well as questions about western environmental thought and policy.

And before I start hearing again about how stupid my questions are and how little I understand about climate science, this is in fact a concern expressed by many of the climate scientists I've been reading and listening to.

And, as I blogged recently, the media definitely have a tendency to get seduced by the «front page thought» when dealing with questions about climate and, say, hurricanes, and thus can miss the legitimate questions still surrounding the science that explores links of that sort.

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

Question: before talking about simulating climate CHANGE, how long does the climate science community expect it to take before GCM's can reproduce the real world climate PRIOR to human induced CO2 perturbation in terms of: — «equilibrium point», i.e. without artificial flux adjustment to avoid climatic drift, — «natural variability», in terms of, for instance, the Hurst coefficient at different locations on the planet?

The discussion Chris Mooney's Washington Post piece has rekindled about why the public «doesn't get it» about science, and your question, «What if the public had perfect climate change information,» both presume there is some ideal «It» to «get»... some «perfect» knowledge, some unassailable truth.

The office of former Vice President Al Gore complained about my story on climate exaggeration the other day and now George Will, the other (very different) example in that piece, has weighed in as well with a column, «Climate Science in a Tornado,» defending his accuracy and questioning my compclimate exaggeration the other day and now George Will, the other (very different) example in that piece, has weighed in as well with a column, «Climate Science in a Tornado,» defending his accuracy and questioning my compClimate Science in a Tornado,» defending his accuracy and questioning my competence.

The open question I have is what has the IPCC or other climate science body publicly done to counteract the falsity about the «science» and about the IPCC itself, and working climate scientists, as expressed by John Howard and others?

So, questions will be around what interventions and policies are justified by what the current science already says — not just what it doesn't yet specifically know — about risks and implications of climate change.

I'm not a climate scientist, and I don't understand why you're not able to answer my questions unless I state my position on climate - science issues about which I don't know very much.

... Palin urged parents to teach their children to «ask those questions and not just believe what Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them» about climate change.

Dustin should also be contacted about Global Fishing Watch as well as general U.S. marine science and policy questions, including those related to fishing, climate change and pollution.

I continue to believe that in the bowels of the climate research laboratories in public and private institutions such as Georgia Institute of Technology there are scientists who in a humble spirit of self evaluation of their own work on climate science thoroughly question the accuracy of their predictions about climate changes and its effects.

And I understand that climate scientists regard sceptics asking endless questions about the science as some sort of personal attack.

If there's a question about an aspect of climate science, the first step should be to investigate and improve understanding of the science.

A first group — call them the professionals — has often raised legitimate questions, whether about methodology and transparency, and stuck more or less to a scientific critique about different aspects of climate science.

A proposed media - relations budget of $ 600,000, not counting any money for advertising, would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 «respected climate scientists» recruited expressly «to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the «prevailing scientific wisdom.»»

Greenpeace and WWF might want to comment because they support certain outputs, but I doubt that outputs are going to be in question here, and the committee will undoubtably begin with some preamble about how climate science is fundamentally sound, and the climate crisis is worse than ever.

There's a question about what would we do if things start getting worse, if climate change leads to some kind of crisis situation,» Ken Caldeira, one of the report's authors and a researcher at the Carnegie Institute for Science, said.

Science can not settle all arguments about how the world should respond to global warming, because the answer to that question involves values, varying perceptions of risk, and political ideology, in addition to what we know (and don't know) about the climate system.

It's an attempt to discourage people from asking too many questions about the bookkeeping system in climate change science.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, 1/23/24 — 6/3/13, R.I.P. I had the opportunity to answer questions from Senator Lautenberg about Bush administration political interference with climate science communication at a Senate hearing on Climate Change Research and Scientific Integrity iclimate science communication at a Senate hearing on Climate Change Research and Scientific Integrity iClimate Change Research and Scientific Integrity in 2007.

However what you are doing is simply the essence of science — to question hypothesis (and authority), that we may discover and understand more about the complex climate system.

ATTP, I think don't you understand that your kind of talk is similar in style to the hard core climate activists that go after the throats of anyone asking any questions about the science in order to drive policy (or is policy driving the science).