Sentences with phrase «reports about climate change science»

Meanwhile, reports about climate change science are increasingly gloomy.

Not exact matches

A new government report on the science of climate change has made it past the Trump White House unscathed with forceful statements about humanity's role in rising temperatures and their severe threat to the United States.

«The evidence before the committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming,» the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote in its report on the matter in December 2007.

The IPCC draft report is the third and final study in a U.N. series about climate change, updating findings from 2007, after the Japan report about the impacts and one in September in Sweden about climate science.

A magnitude - 9 earthquake in Japan, a momentous climate change summit, reports on future global «hyperwarming», and rumblings about some of the first geoengineering field trials all made 2011 a remarkable year for the environmental sciences.

Cally Carswell, a contributing editor at High Country News, won NASW's Science in Society Award for science reporting for a local or regional market in 2014 for this tale of dying trees in New Mexico — and what they tell us about the future impact of climate Science in Society Award for science reporting for a local or regional market in 2014 for this tale of dying trees in New Mexico — and what they tell us about the future impact of climate science reporting for a local or regional market in 2014 for this tale of dying trees in New Mexico — and what they tell us about the future impact of climate change.

A group of Iowa high school students helped report a statewide investigation into classroom science instruction that found that «nearly half of teachers surveyed by IowaWatch journalists teach climate change «as theory, informing students about the variety of thought that exists.

But, it said, about three in 10 middle and high school science teachers «reported telling their students, wrongly, that the causes of recent climate change are the matter of scientific debate.»

Last month, the New York Times reported that Phil Cooney, a former oil industry lobbyist working for the White House, edited scientific climate change reports to significantly exaggerate uncertainty about the science behind global warming.

A few days ago I was interviewed about the challenges and opportunities in reporting on complicated, but consequential, science (climate change being a prime example) for the Journalist's Resource project of Harvard's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

However, there are plenty of science articles that are just interesting, reporting events and explorations in the Arctic and elsewhere that give a fascinating view into how early scientists were coming to an understanding about climate change and processes.

As I explained last winter in my Issues in Science and Technology essay, I've unlearned almost as many things as I've learned about human - caused climate change in more than a quarter century of reporting on the issue.

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

In fact, during an hour long June briefing to launch a major government climate change report, a panel that included White House science adviser John Holdren and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco mentioned greenhouse gases just once â $» instead warning about the perils of â $ œheat - trapping gasesâ $ or â $ œheat - trapping pollutants.â $

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.

In summary, there is little new about climate science in the report, and nothing at all new about attribution of past warming and extreme weather events to human activity, projections of future warming and its effects, or potential for catastrophic changes.

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.

Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science say incorporating observational data of «Earth's top - of - atmosphere energy budget» shows the «warming projection for the end of the twenty - first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius)... relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.»

The IPCC's claims about these things have been thoroughly refuted by the recent report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, which cites nearly 5,000 peer - reviewed scientific articles that contradict the IPCC's claims.

Martin Manning talks about some of the challenges faced by the IPCC and its scientists from his perspective as head of the Support Team for the IPCC Working Group I (Science of Climate Change) for the Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007.

The mainstream media reports the follies of the Right, but less often those of the Left — which are highlighted by their increasing abandonment of science in their quest to alarm the public about climate change.

Yale's «Six Americas» report found that the highly skeptical are more informed about climate change science than those who report a high degree of concern about it (the latter of whom still regularly confuse climate with the ozone hole, etc.).

In 2005, during the peak of climate hysteria and the drive to create an international political response to climate change, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challeclimate hysteria and the drive to create an international political response to climate change, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challeclimate change, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challenchange, the Royal Society entered the political debate forcefully and published A Guide to the Facts and Fictions About Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challengAbout Climate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challeClimate Change — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challenChange — a report which spoke unequivocally about official climate science and those who dared to challengabout official climate science and those who dared to challeclimate science and those who dared to challenge it.

In the rest of this response, I will show, first, that the indicated quote from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) about U.S. droughts is missing a crucial adjacent sentence in the CCSP report, which supports my position about drought in the American West.

In a hard - hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists» suspicions that there is a well - funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of «spreading inaccurate and misleading information» about climate science and clean energy companies.

According to the book Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, the most frequently cited source for a «consensus of scientists» is Oreskes» a 2004 essay for the journal Science, in which she reported examining abstracts from 928 papers published in scientific journals in 1993 and 2003 she found using the keywords «global climate change.»

«While the UK media, including the BBC, has some of the best science and environment correspondents in the world, who provide insightful and factual reporting about climate change, too many editors are willing to publish or broadcast inaccurate and misleading information, seemingly on the grounds that atmospheric physics should be treated as just a matter of opinion,» Mr Ward said.

(September) Review by Tony Allan published in People and Science (17 July) Review by Joseph Bast at American Thinker (16 July) Review by Max Boykoff published by Nature Reports Climate Change (11 July) Blogged by Roger Pielke jr at his personal blog (20 June) Review on celsias website Why we disagree about climate change (29 May)-LClimate Change (11 July) Blogged by Roger Pielke jr at his personal blog (20 June) Review on celsias website Why we disagree about climate change (29 May)-LSChange (11 July) Blogged by Roger Pielke jr at his personal blog (20 June) Review on celsias website Why we disagree about climate change (29 May)-Lclimate change (29 May)-LSchange (29 May)-LSB-...]

DeSmog Blog was founded, is funded, and is run by a convicted and self - confessed crook, and furthermore that crook is now in the business of running a solar energy corporation (I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF J. LEFEBVRE»S SOLAR INVESTMENTS, BUT TIM LAMBERT AT THE SCIENCE BLOG DELTOID REPORTS HERE THAT MONCKTON IS TALKING ABOUT THE WRONG JOHN LEFEBVRE) and therefore has a direct vested interest in peddling the climate change scare.

Susan was the Senior Science Writer on all three National Climate Assessments, authoritative reports written in plain language to better inform policymakers and the public about climate change and its effects on our Climate Assessments, authoritative reports written in plain language to better inform policymakers and the public about climate change and its effects on our climate change and its effects on our nation.

In 1991, Western Fuels, a $ 400 - million coal consortium, declared in its annual report it was launching a direct attack on mainstream science and enlisting several scientists who are skeptical about climate change — specifically Drs. Robert Balling, Pat Michaels and S. Fred Singer.

At a time when The Guardian just reported another poll showing a drop in concern about climate change, and a New York Times front page this week described Britons» growing doubts about the science, its worth taking a look at that anti-science campaign, which was waged by Einstein's critics because like today's climate denial movement, the anti-relativity movement had some success too.

In addition to concealing the known risks, Exxon and Suncor... directed, participated in, and benefited from efforts to misleadingly cast doubt about the causes and consequences of climate change, including: (1) making affirmative and misleading statements suggesting that continued and unabated fossil fuel use was safe (in spite of internal knowledge to the contrary); and (2) attacking climate science and scientists that tried to report truthfully about the dangers of climate change.

Newsweek reported: «the leaders accepted the science of climate change and agreed to work together to do something about it.»

Even before Indiana's top enforcer of federal and state environmental regulations was advising coal companies on how to continuing polluting our air and water, it appears that denial of basic climate science is the state's official position on global warming — Indiana's 2011 «State of the Environment» report rehashes tired climate denier arguments such as global temperature records having «no appreciable change since about 1998.»

Gadget Guy: -LSB-...] And none of the problems have been with the actual science that underlies climate change (which is what the Working Group 1 Report is all about).

«We are alarmed by reports stating that Exxon (becoming ExxonMobil in 1999) hid the truth about the role of fossil fuels in influencing climate change and intentionally spread disinformation about climate science,» according to the letter (PDF) signed by 45 Democratic representatives.

The most recent report was published in 2014 and represents «the most comprehensive and authoritative synthesis of knowledge about global climate - change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability ever generated,» according to a statement by President Obama's science advisor when the report was published less than four years ago.

But the real key is that if you find something wrong with WGII or WGIII, you're not attacking the science of climate change, because those reports aren't about science.

More around social tipping points than a scientific ones (though the first tipping point is science)... the Climate Institute Australia released their report «The Top Ten Tipping Points on Climate Change» the other day and I've written about it in this article...

He has reported from the 2015 Paris climate negotiations, the Northwest Passage, and the Greenland ice sheet, among other locations, and has written four books about science, politics and climate change.

We are an independent, non-partisan science organization that researches and reports the facts about climate change impacts, such as extreme weather, drought, flooding, wild fires, and sea level rise, as well as alternative energy systems and transportation.

Both TIME mag and NYT are poised to report news of new literary and movie genre dubbed «cli fi» — coined by yours truly from my earlier «polar cities» work, one things leads to another — and the NYT story will be about «climate science education» issues and «climate change education» issues in higher education in USA and overseas...... so it's a story that interview academics and professors of science education etc...... and TIME mag will be about new NOAH movie by Darren A set 5000 years ago and TIME is calling it a «cli fi movie» on its cover March 24 issue, get ready.

Heartland reports it will consist of «concurrent panel sessions exploring what real climate science is telling us about the causes and consequences of climate change, and the real consequences of choices being made based on the current perceptions of the state of climate science.»