Sentences with phrase «real science of climate change»

Well, maybe Dr. Holdren does conflate the real science of climate change with his views about appropriate political solutions — I wouldn't know.

The fossil fuel industry continues to try to confuse the public about the real science of climate change, and Congress has dragged its feet on the issue.

I want to inspire you not believe this myth and challenge you to be more open to the real science of climate change.

Not exact matches

Historic Environment Scotland report that Ewan Hyslop, Head of Technical Research and Science at HES, said: «Climate change poses a number of very real threats to Scotland's historic environment, from an increased frequency of extreme and unpredictable weather events to rising sea - levels.»

In his speech, Kerry noted that the president «has repeatedly questioned the underlying science of climate change and attempted to reignite the debate over whether the threat is real.»

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA — In the run - up to national elections on 21 August, the country's top science body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperscience body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperScience (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperatures.

The Climate Science Special Report lays out the most recent scientific evidence of climate change, once again confirming that climate change is real, it's happening now, and human activity is the primary cause.Climate Science Special Report lays out the most recent scientific evidence of climate change, once again confirming that climate change is real, it's happening now, and human activity is the primary cause.climate change, once again confirming that climate change is real, it's happening now, and human activity is the primary cause.climate change is real, it's happening now, and human activity is the primary cause.»

The Centre for Interdisciplinary Science was set up in 2005 to develop new approaches to the teaching of undergraduate university science through real world problems, such as climate change, which do not fit into a single scientific discipline and require research across subject speciScience was set up in 2005 to develop new approaches to the teaching of undergraduate university science through real world problems, such as climate change, which do not fit into a single scientific discipline and require research across subject speciscience through real world problems, such as climate change, which do not fit into a single scientific discipline and require research across subject specialisms.

While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.

Suddenly, we seem to live in a time dominated by «fake news», «alternative facts», conspiracy theories, scepticism of scientific research, partial accounts parading as «the real truth which has hitherto been concealed from us, the people», revolts against allegedly smug academic elites and distant political elites — a time where YouTube videos claiming research into climate change to be a scam get far more viewers than videos presenting the science of climate change.

This crowd - funded, DIY model of science research is important, because while climate models have done a good job of predicting what will occur as we heat up the climate, some things are changing so fast and to such a severe degree that research may need to be done as catastrophes are occurring in real - time.

The activity title is «Making Sense of Climate Science Denial» Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate?

«For climate negotiators to do their job, they have to realize what climate science is telling them: climate change is real and urgent and requires strong action now,» said one of the signers, Richard Somerville, a climate scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and an I.P.C.C. author.

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?

It may be of interest to some that in our «perspective piece» in Science last year (Osborn and Briffa, The real color of climate change?

Most climate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEchange communication, like Showtime's Years of Living Dangerously and the American Academy for the Advancement of Science's What We Know campaign, websites like Climate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Central and Real Climate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate, or academic programs like Yale's Project on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEChange Communication and George Mason University's Center for Climate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMClimate Change Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEChange Communication, is predicated on the belief that if people know the facts about climate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMclimate change and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMEchange and finally understand just how serious the problem is, they will surely raise their voices and demand that our governments and business leaders DO SOMETHING!

1) We climate realists deny no science, you peddlers of CatastrophicAGW - by - CO2 are the real deniers, of the science and empirical data which shows natural climate change.

``... are the real deniers, of the science and empirical data which shows natural climate change.»

This means we're putting a man who has written an entire book calling climate change a hoax, who has used scripture to refute climate science, who truly seems to believe that environmental groups are a «political machine» dedicated to «misleading the American public regarding their purely politically partisan agenda under the guise of environmental protection» and who has insisted, with a straight face, that CO2 is not a «real pollutant,» in charge of solving climate change.

Unfortunately, despite this real climate science, Democrats will continue to demagogue the climate change issue for their billionaire donor - cronies, based entirely on the quack anti-science position that reducing current U.S. CO2 emissions would actually accomplish anything of climate - impact substance.

When climate change appeared, it typically showed up in the final third of the biology and chemistry books, where authors explained how science can be applied in the real world.

regulars and those responding to this thread in particular may be interested in the class assignment I presently have underway: students are required to select an environmental issue of interest to them and compare the blogging from three sites that reflect a stasist perspective (command and control, science certainty, centalised government, precautionary principle) with the blogging from three dynamist sites (libertarian, individual responsibility, free market, adaptation over prevention, non-dogma): I expect that several of the students will use climate change as a topic and would expect that climate audit, real climate and prometheus will be prominent in the analysis.

Hence, Mann pretends first that the debate divides on the meaningless proposition, «climate change is real», and then that it is a matter of science vs anti science.

Science has presented us with an overwhelming amount of solid evidence that current climate change is real, caused primarily by us, it is real, it is bad, almost 100 % of climate scientists agree with this science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we Science has presented us with an overwhelming amount of solid evidence that current climate change is real, caused primarily by us, it is real, it is bad, almost 100 % of climate scientists agree with this science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we science, and we can limit the impact of climate change if we choose.

«Everybody understands that the real question is, are we going to accept the new science on climate change and are we going to act in a way to address that with the needs of the next couple of generations in mind?

«My most enduring heresy was saying that climate change was real,» said Bob Inglis of South Carolina, who became convinced of climate reality on a science committee trip to Antarctica.

They start with a premise of proving the overwhelming consensus on climate science wrong, whereas the real IPCC simply summarizes the best science to date on climate change.

«Safe Coast Virginia: Climate Change Threats and Practical Solutions for Coastal Virginia» contains no big surprises, but CCAN director Mike Tidwell said it is the first to aggregate the latest science, tell the stories of real people experiencing climate change and recommend 10 achievable ways to mitigate and adapt to the inevitable impacts of a rising sea and subsiding coaClimate Change Threats and Practical Solutions for Coastal Virginia» contains no big surprises, but CCAN director Mike Tidwell said it is the first to aggregate the latest science, tell the stories of real people experiencing climate change and recommend 10 achievable ways to mitigate and adapt to the inevitable impacts of a rising sea and subsiding coasChange Threats and Practical Solutions for Coastal Virginia» contains no big surprises, but CCAN director Mike Tidwell said it is the first to aggregate the latest science, tell the stories of real people experiencing climate change and recommend 10 achievable ways to mitigate and adapt to the inevitable impacts of a rising sea and subsiding coaclimate change and recommend 10 achievable ways to mitigate and adapt to the inevitable impacts of a rising sea and subsiding coaschange and recommend 10 achievable ways to mitigate and adapt to the inevitable impacts of a rising sea and subsiding coastline.

This recent post via Real Climate Science on NASA tampering of Sea - level rise highlights the blatant malfeasance that these government funded institutions will undertake in order to push the man - made global warming climate change agenda, and keep the «Greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history» rolling and the billions upon billions of taxpayer funds floClimate Science on NASA tampering of Sea - level rise highlights the blatant malfeasance that these government funded institutions will undertake in order to push the man - made global warming climate change agenda, and keep the «Greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history» rolling and the billions upon billions of taxpayer funds floclimate change agenda, and keep the «Greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud in history» rolling and the billions upon billions of taxpayer funds flowing...

Stern, The Economics of Climate Change, 4 — 5, 11 — 16, 95, 193, 220 — 34, 637, 649 — 51; «Evidence of Human - Caused Global Warming is Now «Unequivocal,»» Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com; Browne, «The Ethics of Climate Change,» 100; Spratt and Sutton, Climate Code Red, 30; Editors, «Climate Fatigue,» Scientific American 298, no. 6 (June 2008): 39; Ted Trainer, «A Short Critique of the Stern Review,» Real - World Economics Review, 45 (2008), http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue45/Trainer45.pdf, 54 — 58.

This episode of Emoji Science Lab is about climate change in which Bill Nye explains why climate change is a real deal in a fun way using emojis.

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

Insofar as climate change goes, the real science suggest that natural variation of ± 2 °C is to be expected from within the dynamics of the system itself, and that ice ages of considerable depth and length are also well documented.

When I am proven right, the Climate Change Department will be swept away; Britain's annual deficit will fall by a fifth; the bat - blatting, bird - blending windmills that scar our green and pleasant land will go; the world will refocus on real environmental problems like deforestation on land, overfishing at sea and pollution of the air; the U.N.'s ambition to turn itself into a grim, global dictatorship with overriding powers of taxation and economic and environmental intervention will be thwarted; and the aim of science to supplant true religion as the world's new, dismal, cheerless credo will be deservedly, decisively, definitively defeated.

It is astounding that dangerous man - made global warming fanatics like Obama and Prince Charles, in addition to all those climate change charlatans at various academies of science such as The Royal Society, prefer to ignore real word observational data on climate and solar activity, in favour of psuedo - science and climate models that consistently have failed in their scenarios and projections.

Climate science has been reviewed for decades, by the national academies of dozens of countries, relevant professional societies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and many other entities with real domain expertise.

It is no wonder 97 percent of climate scientists and all of the national academies of science in the world agree climate change is real, it is happening now, it's caused by humans, and is cause for immediate action before it is too late.»

A comprehensive new U.S. government report released today confirms the well - established science behind climate change: it is real, it is human - caused, it is happening faster than predicted and it poses a tremendous threat to America and the rest of the world.

The claim that science has shown that «climate change is real and is happening» leads to an array of political arguments from environmentalists, as though all that need be shown to legitimise drastic action (the more drastic the better) is that mankind has influenced the climate.

Rather than trying to analyze Trump's well - established refusal to accept climate science, media should be telling stories of how climate change is happening here and now, how it's affecting real people, and how the EPA and other agencies are ripping up climate regulations.

Thirty years ago, when the basic understanding of global climate change was being formulated, there was no real cause for the use of vitriolic dialog in climate science.

R Gates Yeah I do trust my own evaluation»cause apparently I'm an «individualist» not a «communitarian» Also I read Tonyb, Judith Curry, the Pielkes and many others who aren't part of the «consensus» but really, reading damn near everything on Sks and Real Climate turned me into a «denier» plus, my weak mind was warped by the Koch bros. and fossil fuel industry propaganda... and don't forget Limbaugh perhaps if I audit John Cook's class on the «science of climate change denialism» I can rehabilitateClimate turned me into a «denier» plus, my weak mind was warped by the Koch bros. and fossil fuel industry propaganda... and don't forget Limbaugh perhaps if I audit John Cook's class on the «science of climate change denialism» I can rehabilitateclimate change denialism» I can rehabilitate myself

Yet who despite lack of relevant expertise, do not welcome the appraisal of experts — and on this topic the experts are those scientists in directly related fields who professionally study this issue — but often, at least with the more general anti climate change efforts that have massively skewed the «discussion,» in fact often expend a great deal of effort to find any possible fault, real or imagined with anything they assert, then erroneously turn that into a refutation of the broader issue, along with, often, denigrating climate science efforts, and often climate scientists.

As we have documented in numerous articles on the disinformation campaign on this website, although responsible scientific skepticism is necessary for science to advance, the climate change disinformation campaign has been involved not in the pursuit of responsible scientific skepticism but in tactics that are morally reprehensible including: (a) telling lies about mainstream climate scientific evidence or engaging in reckless disregard for the truth, (b) focusing on unknowns about climate science while ignoring settled climate change science, that is cherry - picking the evidence, (c) creating front groups and Astroturf groups that hide the real parties in interest behind claims, (d) making specious claims about «good science», (e) manufacturing science sounding claims about climate change by holding conferences in which claims are made and documents are released that have not been subjected to scientific peer - review, and (d) cyber bullying journalists and scientists.

The room is nearly empty when I ask Inhofe, finally, if he could imagine the possibility, however remote, that science could provide any amount or type of evidence that could convince him that human - caused climate change could be real.

GREAT BOOK: «The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming» may lean one direction, but it calls in to question much of the «science» and methodology used to promote the idea that «WE» are responsible for the climate change which seems to be the only real constant.

Which coincidentally is the same PR technique that Friends of Science is using to delay action on climate change; creating the public perception of a scientific debate in order to undermine support for the Kyoto accord or for any real public policy action.

By calling the science «still incomplete,» Bush also lent new credibility to the tiny handful of industry - sponsored «greenhouse skeptics» who have been thoroughly discredited by the mainstream community of climate researchers — including the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and other blue - ribbon scientific groups that deem global warming to be real, immediate and oclimate researchers — including the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and other blue - ribbon scientific groups that deem global warming to be real, immediate and oClimate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and other blue - ribbon scientific groups that deem global warming to be real, immediate and ominous.

While Heartland continues politicizing science, demonizing credible scientists and using tobacco industry tactics to forge doubt over global warming, Americans are feeling the real toll climate change is already taking on society, by increasing the severity of storms like hurricane Sandy or pushing droughts, wildfires and heatwaves to new extremes.

He calls Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.&Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science «partisan pseudoscience,» yet immediately follows this claim by parroting the silliest of claims made by the truly partisan advocates of pseudoscience: «We know 97 % of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real.climate change is real.&change is real.»