Sentences with phrase «read about climate science»

As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked.

Started reading about climate science when the world was talking about saving the planet from human - induced warming.

(In my case, I am a physicist for which reading about climate science has become a hobby.)

Not exact matches

Read all about climate denial scientist Willie Soon's dirty money from petrochemical billionaire Charles Koch, coal utility Southern Company, oil giant ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies to deny the science of climate change!

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.

Realclimate, which was launched largely defensively in 2004 (you can read an explanatory note in, you guessed it, the East Anglia e-mails) has matured into a valuable resource for anyone trying to gauge what science has, and has not, revealed about a human influence on the climate system.

I know nothing about climate science, but just reading your post I wonder if it is possible that the decrease in measured ocean heat content is mostly a factor of having better tools (the ARGO floating profilers)?

Over all, he wrote, «My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do.»

I read this website to become more acquainted with the science of climate change (I'm also attending Prof. Archer's Coursera class on climate change right now), and because this website seems trustworthy to me as someone who doesn't know enough about climate science to decide for myself who's right or wrong about this subject.

IMO when someone hears or reads something about climate science they should be careful about taking things at face value, consider that climate change science does have major regulatory / economic / environmental repercussions, realize that the source may be motivated by these potential repercussions, and look at the past behavior of the source (have they usually said accurate statements?).

Thus, the media articles about 1970s climate science should read «Scientists warned of runaway deglaciation in the early 1970s», shouldn't they?

We first heard about The Science Museum's new climate change gallery back in March this year when we read an exasperating report in The Times saying the museum was «revising the contents of its new climate science galScience Museum's new climate change gallery back in March this year when we read an exasperating report in The Times saying the museum was «revising the contents of its new climate science galscience gallery to

Which basically brings us back to my original recommendation that you do a lot more open minded reading, or go to school for climate science for a while, if you wish to write intelligently about it.

We would at least start looking around, get names of former employees, read newsletters and case studies and papers, to home in on what the industry knew about climate science and when.

The only downside to this whole issue is that I have already broken my 2016 resolution to quit spending valuable time reading and thinking about climate science.

Phil Mote, director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University, is skeptical of McPherson's predictions: «I've been connected to national and international assessments of the state of the science of climate change, and although my colleagues and I are generally very concerned about what challenges climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University, is skeptical of McPherson's predictions: «I've been connected to national and international assessments of the state of the science of climate change, and although my colleagues and I are generally very concerned about what challenges climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.climate change, and although my colleagues and I are generally very concerned about what challenges climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.climate change is bringing to humankind, no expert that I have read has used language like «extinction of the human race.»

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 →

Those dismissive comments sounded laughable to folks who read Skeptical Science and know the scientific understanding about climate change.

While recent headlines about the woes of U.N. - led efforts to assemble a comprehensive picture of the science have caused gleeful headlines on The Drudge Report and other skeptical media outlets, the vast weight of the evidence — from melting glaciers to warming oceans to satellite temperature readings, and much more — still points to a changing climate caused by human activity.

Climate science Do you accept the views of climate scientists Read more about Questionnaire for council candidates -LClimate science Do you accept the views of climate scientists Read more about Questionnaire for council candidates -Lclimate scientists Read more about Questionnaire for council candidates -LSB-...]

Jonathan Koomey, independent analyst and Consulting Professor at Stanford University, comments on our July 2010 interview with Stephen Schneider on climate science expert credibility, and their exchange on clarifying a point about the need for policy expertise in deciding what... Continue reading →

Read more about this methodology for setting corporate emission reduction targets in line with climate science: The Sectoral Decarbonization Approach (SDA)

If you want to know what I think about the science of climate change, then you should read what Mojib (if my name weren't Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif has to say about the relationship between natural variability and long - term climate change (which includes, very prominently, the discussion about natural variability «swamping» mean surface temperature on a short - term basis).

That review could consist of nothing more than reading the news stories detailing Exxon's climate research and its history of sowing doubt about the science to performing a detailed inquiry, he said.

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ - Read about the science of climate change, the impacts it will have and the mitigation strategies needed to reduce its effects.

4 Aug: Crikey: Ellen Sandell: Abbott's European holiday might make him hot and bothered Abbott seems to still be confused about the science of climate change, moving between «climate change is absolute crap» and aligning himself with the climate deniers, and at other times accepting that climate change is a problem, but just not one worth acting efficiently on... All of this will be news to most Europeans, who have long accepted the science of climate change and have been measuring their CO2 emissions in tonnes through the trading scheme, and are benefiting from climate change solutions... Studies predict an increase of up to 6.1 million jobs in 2050, and the EU - wide emissions trading scheme is expected to generate between $ 143 billion and $ 296 billion over the next six years... Maybe on the plane on the way home to Australia, Abbott could use the time to catch up on some reading.

I think you could also read his 2009 book as sidelining certain disputes about climate science as illegitimate, or just being about values rather than the science as purported.

In Reading, where I am professor of climate science at the University, nearly 160 millimetres of rainfall fell over the three - week period between December 15th and January 5th, about a quarter of our annual expected rainfall.

After reading Linzden's article I found nothing that throws any real doubt on climate Science — It's all about discrediting the motives of those doing work that has been accepted and endorsed by the top scientific institutions of the world.

From my reading of the popular science journal, Scientific American (to which I have subscribed for about 35 years), I can say that it shows a similar preponderance of articles relating climate change to human activities; while it does (correctly) give consideration to some of the more reasonable of the contrary opinion.

I'm against Ocean Acidification theory because I've done loads and loads of background reading... about the lack of credible scientific evidence that it represents any kind of problem... in the eyes of all those undecideds who can't make up their mind whether they agree with me on climate science or whether I'm talking bollocks...»

They knew about it because T.R.Wigley introduced information about the 19th century readings to the climate science community in 1983.

Now that I have read a bit about climate science and the denialist propaganda, I am really against him!

Right now academia, the media, and think tanks are working very hard and the new Next Generation Science Standards require (I read the NAS workshop program that came out recently) that the focus be on changing beliefs about climate change and new values in ways that discredit the rational mind completely.

OTOH, those same people can pick up any climate science textbook and read about the DALR, and most of the competent ones (in climate research) can probably derive the DALR from its base assumptions rather easily, cold.

Andy, Its interesting for folks who have spent a lot of time with literature, with patterns of thought, with Jung, cambell, frye, etc, to read the climate debate «as if» it was not about the science.

As you might of noticed, unless you just made the classic mistake of not reading the article, Ben's blog is about the politics of those who talk of climate science (sometimes they are «climate scientists»), not about climate science.

I'll dig through the archives too — I've read quite a bit about how science and psuedo - science are «framed» along with doubt and skepticism regarding the Evolution / Creation debates — that's a whole «nuther monster with many of the same qualities as the climate debate.

On the handful of mornings that I've flipped through the paper instead of reading the Globe and Mail on the Internet (journalism of much higher quality, and it saves money and paper), I've seen far too many op - eds and letters to the editor saying very strange things about climate science.

I recommend your reading about Max Weber and climate science

Actually it reflects more than editorial agendas.The problem is the broader expectation that science can be instructive; that «what to do about climate change» can be simply read off from clear scientific evidence.

Dan Kahan of Yale University and four colleagues have just published an article in Annals of the AAPS titled: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization Testing a Two - Channel Model of Science Communication that investigates the effect on study participants» attitudes to climate change after reading an article about geoenginClimate Change Polarization Testing a Two - Channel Model of Science Communication that investigates the effect on study participants» attitudes to climate change after reading an article about geoenginclimate change after reading an article about geoengineering.

Climate Science is weird (Not that I don't enjoy reading about it).

But then again, we do read often in these threads about the great danger to the purity of science and our society in general as the result of climate change «alarmism.»

We've given Mike Hulme of the Tyndall Centre a bit of stick in our time, but he's very good in this — «The real issues are about why we disagree about what to do about climate change, and science can not provide us with the script from which we all read from» — as are Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey, Hans Von Storch, and Joe Kaplinsky.

Although I am not a climate scientist I have been following the debate quite closely for about four years and during that time I have read many hundreds of articles regarding climate science.

In spite of troubling predictions about Earth's climate, many young people are addressing the problems in positive ways, according to Lynne Cherry, acclaimed author of 30 - plus environmental books for children, whose latest book explores the science of global warming at an eighth - grade reading level.

Thanks... to be honest my «skepticism» of climate science hasn't changed much over the years — if you read Chapter 1 of TCF I have a lot of time for climate science, and I interact with climate scientists just about every day (being in CIRES, a leading global institute).

For Canadians who want to read one book about climate science and policy, I recommend University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaverâ $ ™ s book: Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World.

Climate scientist Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and Chris Mooney, science and political journalist and author, talked with CSW about how climate scientists communicate complex research findings to the public in an atmosphere of fierce politicization and competing... Continue reClimate scientist Ben Santer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and Chris Mooney, science and political journalist and author, talked with CSW about how climate scientists communicate complex research findings to the public in an atmosphere of fierce politicization and competing... Continue reclimate scientists communicate complex research findings to the public in an atmosphere of fierce politicization and competing... Continue reading →