Sentences with phrase «rather than climate science»

This blog has always identified itself as sceptical of environmentalism — environmental politics, especially climate politics — rather than climate science.

Not exact matches

«The chairman of the committee on Science Space and Technology is making what to us is a pretty ludicrous assertion, that rather than trying to protect the rights of citizens to ensure that business fraud, and could be very significant business fraud we could talk about inflating up assets by many billions of dollars, their claim is that this is a politically charged effort to silence descending views on climate,» Schneiderman said on a recent visit to Syracuse.

«Rather than trying to assess the probability of an extreme event occurring, a group of researchers suggest viewing the event as a given and assessing to which degree changes in the thermodynamic state (which we know has been influenced by climate change) altered the severity of the impact of the event,» notes Dorit Hammerling, section leader for statistics and data science at the Institute for Mathematics Applied to Geosciences, National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Rather than arguing over the science of climate change, public discussion should be about actions needed to address it, he said.

«It's hard to believe there are people running for president who still refuse to accept the settled science of climate change, who'd rather remind us they're not scientists than listen to those who are,» Clinton states.

In the end, the EPA dropped the entire climate change section rather than publish something that so inaccurately reflected the science.

Culberson initially supported Smith's efforts to designate funding for each research directorate (rather than only for the entire research account), and to disfavor the social sciences and climate research.

Rather than inheriting big brains from a common ancestor, Neandertals and modern humans each developed that trait on their own, perhaps favored by changes in climate, environment, or tool use experienced separately by the two species «more than half a million years of separate evolution,» writes Jean - Jacques Hublin, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, in a commentary in Science.

It is remarkable (and perhaps a novelty in the history of science) that the paper takes several graphs straight from climate sceptics PR material produced for lay - people, rather than basing its case on peer - reviewed scientific sources.

In fact, typing a couple of phrases from Mr. Holder's comment into scroogle.org turned up about a dozen identical posts in late 2009 to early 2010 in response to articles about the UEA e-mail theft, at mostly obscure and varied websites (i.e., ones where the audience isn't likely to have much knowledge of climate science) rather than the most prominent climate websites.

It is worth considering that at this point our salvation lies in putting pressure on the politics rather than in increasingly nuanced climate science discussions.

Having studied under - graduate political science at the University of Iowa, but without graduating, Version # 2 now also accepts the need to address and manage climate change impacts... and risks and accepts also the economic rationale, indeed necessity, for doing so now, rather than putting it off until... forever... as he long had argued for.

Given that despite the unprecedented joint statement by 11 national science academies, calls for the global treaty have been roundly ignored by the status quo, is it not time that climate scientists start discussing this requisite solution publicly, rather than just behind the politicians» closed doors?

Climate change and the subsequent rising sea levels are the culprit, but the film focuses on the devastating effect it is having and will have on the Kiribati citizens rather than the science behind why it's happening.

It's set in a near future where overpopulation and global climate change has been catastrophic for the food supply and the culture has become hostile to science, as if it's the cause of the problems rather than the only hope to solve them.

The Heartland Institute has been sending books, DVDs and pamphlets to science teachers across the country promoting its stance that climate change is caused by natural phenomena rather than human activities — a view rejected by nearly all climate scientists.

But I am very angry that the climate science community is «circuling the wagons» in defense, rather than trying to do an effective job of persuading people to act to combat global warming.

When discussing various observers» attitudes towards some body of objective data, such as the data underlying the science of climate change, those who evaluate the data without undue ideological bias might better be described as «impartial» rather than as «objective».

In planing for SLR, we should allow for contingency, in case the climate science has made a mistake and SLR occurs sooner, rather than later.

There is no such clash between modern physics and climate science; rather, AGW sceptics (even those few who may still deserve that title rather than «denialist») are in the position of Darwin's opponents in biology and geology — desperately hopping from one will - o» - the - wisp objection to another, without any sign of an overarching theory.

Given that despite the unprecedented joint statement by 11 national science academies, calls for the global treaty have been roundly ignored by the status quo, is it not time that climate scientists start discussing this requisite solution publicly, rather than just behind the politicians» closed doors?

But this is why J Cook is important, because he promotes awareness of how deceitful climate denialists are, rather than just talking only about the science flaws in what they say.

The discussion about the climate science is fairly brief, but I think that the book would have been even more convincing by citing more broadly, rather than keeping referring to a handful of central people.

According to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Upcoming-book-Climate-Change-Denial-Haydn-Washington-John-Cook.html the book is about refuting denialist arguments with climate science rather than about the psychology of denial itself.

That said, and regarding «AIT», much as I admire Al Gore's sentiment, I think the use of exaggeration and apocalyptic language actually works * against * the clarity of the climate science, such as it stands at present, rather than promoting clarity.

Nick Odoni wrote: «I think the use of exaggeration and apocalyptic language actually works * against * the clarity of the climate science, such as it stands at present, rather than promoting clarity.»

We can — and should — address the risk of climate change based on sound science without succumbing to the no - growth radicalism that treats climate questions as dogma rather than as situations to be managed responsibly.»

Progress is continuing apace; and when (I choose to use that word rather than «if») the science becomes more robust, and when (or if) the corresponding climate trends toward volatility of weather emerge clearly from the background noise of «natural» daily weather, then more and more governments will find motivation to act.

Rather than focussing on the important but inherently incremental developments in the science behind the issue, the media would do us all a favor by maintaining a consistent message regarding the underlying issue (i.e. human action is causing climate change, and climate change has the potential to do great harm to our way of life) and focus on how ordinary people can take steps in their own lives to help address the problem in ways that don't require inordinate sacrifice.

Victor, You say you are here to debate rather than learn about climate science.

We are attempting to do objective climate science, rather than to support a particular advocacy position, so direct communication would be greatly appreciated.

It is remarkable (and perhaps a novelty in the history of science) that the paper takes several graphs straight from climate sceptics PR material produced for lay - people, rather than basing its case on peer - reviewed scientific sources.

Rather than «leaping to the conclusion'that any climate science he doesn't understand must be deceptive, «Mr. Know It All» appeared on RC about a year ago with that conviction already firm in his mind.

Why not do some climate science and get it published in the literature rather than poking at studies online, having the blogosphere amplify or distort your findings in a kind of short circuit that may not help push forward understanding?

The» top ten» arguments employed by the relatively few deniers with credentials in any aspect of climate - change science (which arguments include «the sun is doing it», «Earth's climate was changing before there were people here», «climate is changing on Mars but there are no SUVs there», «the Earth hasn't been warming since 1998», «thermometer records showing heating are contaminated by the urban - heat - island effect», «satellite measurements show cooling rather than warming») have all been shown in the serious scientific literature to be wrong or irrelevant, but explaining their defects requires at least a paragraph or two for each one.

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.

Dear Moderator: When «climate science» prefers suppressing questions rather than answering them, civilization is indeed at risk.

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.

But rather than use agnotology to enhance an understanding of the complicated nature of the complex Earth's climate, the particular aim is to dispel alternative viewpoints to the so - called consensus science.

The tireless climate science fraud Dr. Tim Ball has run snarling from a challenge to place a small wager in support of his claims that the global average temperature will fall, rather than rise, in the next 20 years.

How about — «Until Climate «science» gets clear about its hypotheses, and is prepared to find their null, rather than torturing the data until it gives in and allows them as positive finding, all this climate alarmism is just hot air.Climate «science» gets clear about its hypotheses, and is prepared to find their null, rather than torturing the data until it gives in and allows them as positive finding, all this climate alarmism is just hot air.climate alarmism is just hot air.»

Unfortunately this thread has wasted a lot of time (and hot air) looking for «The single Null Hypothesis for climate science» (there is no such thing — just a series of alternatives, each with its null), rather than looking at the way Climate «Science» has treated the null in its past experiments (mostly «Null what?&climate science» (there is no such thing — just a series of alternatives, each with its null), rather than looking at the way Climate «Science» has treated the null in its past experiments (mostly «Null what?&science» (there is no such thing — just a series of alternatives, each with its null), rather than looking at the way Climate «Science» has treated the null in its past experiments (mostly «Null what?&Climate «Science» has treated the null in its past experiments (mostly «Null what?&Science» has treated the null in its past experiments (mostly «Null what?»)

It continues a dangerous president in climate science to make up data in regions that requires guess work rather than observations.

Climate science is the only science of which I'm aware (and my graduate training is in atmospheric science) where the observed data are consistently altered to conform to the theory, rather than the theory revised to conform to actual temperature observations and data.

Dr T goes to great lengths to suggest he is making a scientific argument e.g. he goes on to talk about Type II errors etc, and his speech is all about what the science should be doing (although I concede that some would say that climate science is a political endeavour rather than a scientific one).

«Climate science» rather than empiric science seems an odd sort of throwback to millennialist cults that emerge occasionally in human history.

Mhyre has been very poorly mentored by climate «scientists» to commit illogical rhetorical attacks rather than upholding true science by exploring ALL models and testing them against ALL data.

The problem with climate change science is it relies on naive inductivism rather than the method of hypothesis.

Rather than a bill proposed by a state legislature, in 2009, the Texas School Board passed an amendent calling for the «balanced» teaching of climate change, meaning both science and «skepticism.»

... On the road to climate progress, what we truly need are venues where there can be respectful, crosscutting discussion of science, policy and politics that challenges assumptions and widens the menu of options available to policymakers rather than narrowing them.