Sentences with phrase «science around climate change»

He goes on to suggest that while the science around climate change may be truly terrifying, using fear as a motivator has severe limitations (see my post on disasterbation turning you blind for my perspective on that one...).

The same memo also urged the administration to question the certainty of science around climate change:

Apparently you are wrong with your opinion in this matter, because the same methods — sometimes from the same people were used to discredit the science around climate change.

I don't know how Ceri Thomas, head of programmes at BBC News, has the brass neck to argue that their coverage of the science around climate change is impartial and balanced (19 April, p 33).

The report was released on time, and it definitively affirms that the science around climate change is robust and the problem is urgent.

Not exact matches

Clearly there is a balance to strike between doom - ridden messages and «bright - side» opportunities, and uncertainties around the science and the expected effects of climate change must be factored in too.

That representation matches the public discourse around global warming, in which previous studies have shown that media characterize climate change as unsettled science with high levels of scientific uncertainty.

Such a transition has been made possible by the convergence of several factors: a stream of new science showing an accelerating pace of climate change and its impacts; the everyday experience of people witnessing the change around them (and seeing it on the evening news); the compelling portrayals of what is happening and why, such as Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and the shifting stances of constituencies as diverse as evangelical Christians (who argue for protecting the climate on grounds of stewardship of God's creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national secclimate change and its impacts; the everyday experience of people witnessing the change around them (and seeing it on the evening news); the compelling portrayals of what is happening and why, such as Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and the shifting stances of constituencies as diverse as evangelical Christians (who argue for protecting the climate on grounds of stewardship of God's creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national secuchange and its impacts; the everyday experience of people witnessing the change around them (and seeing it on the evening news); the compelling portrayals of what is happening and why, such as Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and the shifting stances of constituencies as diverse as evangelical Christians (who argue for protecting the climate on grounds of stewardship of God's creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national secuchange around them (and seeing it on the evening news); the compelling portrayals of what is happening and why, such as Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the 2007 reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and the shifting stances of constituencies as diverse as evangelical Christians (who argue for protecting the climate on grounds of stewardship of God's creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national secClimate Change; and the shifting stances of constituencies as diverse as evangelical Christians (who argue for protecting the climate on grounds of stewardship of God's creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national secuChange; and the shifting stances of constituencies as diverse as evangelical Christians (who argue for protecting the climate on grounds of stewardship of God's creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national secclimate on grounds of stewardship of God's creation) and military leaders (who argue on grounds of national security).

Conference chair Katherine Richardson, a biological oceanographer at the University of Copenhagen, told the opening plenary session that the conference would ensure that policymakers would pay attention by providing compelling messages in three broad areas: how bad the climate science is [that is, how bad the impact of climate change will be], the «good news» that's out there in terms of new ways of mitigating carbon emissions, and the prospects for adapting to the proliferating impacts that scientists are seeing around the world.

Scientific research can inform policies aimed at addressing the needs of communities displaced by climate change, something that is already happening in the United States and around the world, according to experts at a 25 - 26 July meeting of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition.

According to the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, news coverage of climate change in 50 newspapers around the globe dropped by more than half in late 2009 to 2010.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sent a strongly worded message to policymakers around the world early today: The new science of the past 6 years has only reinforced the already - confident conclusions of the 2007 IPCC assessment report.

Once that is done and a «new nexus of research» begins to form around how climate science and the climate change movement can increase racial and ethnic diversity, those fact - based findings can be used to guide public climate advocacy and policy reform efforts.

He writes about lawmakers» attitudes on climate change and tracks efforts by political groups to promote and stigmatize the science around warming.

Why is it that as the science gets stronger around climate change, public belief gets weaker?

Partnerships are built around various drivers: for example supporting the Polar regions in a period of rapid change; educating the public about polar sciences and climate; contributing to climate change awareness; mitigation and adaptation; defining and implementing CSR action plan; implementing technology solutions for low carbon emissions.

Ways of Seeing Climate Change brought over 100 artists and scientists together to share ideas around science and cliClimate Change brought over 100 artists and scientists together to share ideas around science and climateclimate...

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.

As the policy debate around western water and climate change intensifies, it'll be ever more important to discriminate spin from science in assessing factors shaping droughts, as Roger Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado has been trying to stress.

As has been hinted at here there is resistance to factual debate on climate change that amounts to intrigue — as Sir David King said, he was «being followed around the world by people in the pay of vested - interest groups that want to cast doubt on the science of climate change».

Alistair I suspect that part of the answer is that weathermen, as a general rule, have a pretty limited background in science (at least as evidenced by what comes out of the mouths of those on CNN and the various news stations around DC) and expecting them to be able to explain what is causing climate change would be sort of like expecting an EMT to explain brain surgery.

The science has long been settled, climate change is real and it's happening all around us right now.

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change - related science.

Back on topic, reconciliation on the climate science isn't possible with the likes of Trenberth for whom everything around them is evidence of catastrophic climate change.

More than 650 scientists from around the world dispute the claims made by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore about global warming, saying that science does not support that climate change is a manmade phenomenon, according to a posting on the Senate environmental committee's press blog.

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.

If Dr Curry's scientific position is «there is a considerable amount of uncertainty, therefore we should at least be able to draw some boundaries around them before pushing for a consensus on certainty» (I hope my paraphrase is close to the mark), then advocating for a change in the process of conducting climate science follows logically.

In a letter published in Science the researchers compare the recent furore around the so - called «climate-gate» stolen emails to the Communist witch hunts of the 50s led by Joseph McCarthy «We urge our policy - makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un-restrained burning of fossil fuels,» they... Read more

In a letter published in Science the researchers compare the recent furore around the so - called «climate-gate» stolen emails to the Communist witch hunts of the 50s led by Joseph McCarthy «We urge our policy - makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un-restrained burning of fossil fuels,» they

There are many institutions and organisations around the world researching climate science, how our climate is changing, and ways of responding.

The most popular climate change story across social media in the past six months was not some diligently researched piece from one of the many very good science journalists writing for major news organisations around the world.

In 2001, when Dr. Donald Kennedy was editor - in - chief of Science Magazine, he argued, «Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic [climate change] is rare in science.Science Magazine, he argued, «Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic [climate change] is rare in science.science.»

I was told by one semi-expert climate scientist (someone who was in the process of changing fields to climate science from a different numerical modeling field, as so possibly still catching up) that although globally aerosols played the most important role in this period, there was also around the same time period (maybe beginning slightly earlier?

There is a lot of money being thrown around and a lot of politics involved; I actually applaud those who choose to challenge the mainstream ideas of Climate Change; true science is skepticism.

Sen. Boxer — Time TBD — Hoover Institution, Reason Foundation, Pacific Research Institute Sen. Coons — Time TBD (or Monday)-- Group TBD Sen. Schatz — 5 pm — Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Heartland Institute Sen. Franken — 5:15 pm — Heritage Foundation Sen. Warren — 5:30 pm — Science and Public Policy Institute Sen. Heinrich — 5:45 pm — American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Shaheen — 6 pm — Competitive Enterprise Institute, Energy and Environmental Legal Institute Sen. Reed — around 6 pm — SEC climate change disclosures and the dangers of climate change denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke InsChange, Heartland Institute Sen. Franken — 5:15 pm — Heritage Foundation Sen. Warren — 5:30 pm — Science and Public Policy Institute Sen. Heinrich — 5:45 pm — American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Shaheen — 6 pm — Competitive Enterprise Institute, Energy and Environmental Legal Institute Sen. Reed — around 6 pm — SEC climate change disclosures and the dangers of climate change denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke Inclimate change disclosures and the dangers of climate change denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke Inschange disclosures and the dangers of climate change denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke Inclimate change denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke Inschange denial from a national security perspective Sen. Markey — 6 pm to 6:30 pm — Acton Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Lexington Institute, Global Climate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke InClimate Coalition Sen. Peters — 6:30 pm — Cato Institute Sen. Blumenthal — Time TBD — Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council Sen. Whitehouse — Time TBD — The Advancement of Sound Science Center, Chamber of Commerce, Committee for Constructive Tomorrow, Franklin Center for Government and Policy Integrity, James Madison Institute, John Locke Foundation, Locke Institute

For instance, US Senator James Imhofe of Kansas called climate change «the greatest hoax ever» (Johnson, 2011) To claim that climate change science is the greatest hoax ever is at minimum, if not a lie, reckless disregard for the truth given the number of prestigious scientific organizations that have publicly supported the consensus view, the undeniable science supporting the conclusion that if greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere some warming should be expected, the clear link between rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and increases in fossil fuel use around the world, as well undeniable increases in warming being that have been experienced at the global scale.

The show — I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change — took a climate science denier and a climate advocate around theClimate Change — took a climate science denier and a climate advocate around theclimate science denier and a climate advocate around theclimate advocate around the world.

The climate science misinformation promotion unit at the Institute of Public Affairs, a Melbourne - based «free market» think tank, are currently passing the hat around to raise cash to publish a book on climate change.

In his testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in July 2009, OSTP Director John Holdren took note of the National Research Council recommendation to restructure the (USGCRP) around «`... the end - to - end climate change problem, from understanding causes and processes to supporting actions needed to cope with the impending societal problems of climate change.

In advance of the COP21 summit in Paris this December, Al Gore will be joined by world - class scientists, strategists, communicators and technical specialists to discuss the science of climate change, the direct costs climate impacts are having on communities around the world and the solutions available to solve the climate crisis.

This includes ventilation about blocking access to climate data, data manipulation, investigating climate scientists, squashing dissent, selective science, end runs around Congressional intent, etc... sort of like a catalog of what they have been doing since climate change went prime time in 1988.

On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences, 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change whose conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic wscience of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences, 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change whose conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic wScience, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences, 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change whose conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.

On what specific basis do you disregard the conclusions of the United States Academy of Sciences, and numerous other Academies of Sciences Around the World including the Royal Academy of the UK, over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations whose membership includes those with expertise relevant to the science of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change which conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic wscience of climate change, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change which conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic wScience, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society, and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate change which conclusions hold that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are already being experienced in parts of the world, and that the international community is running out of time to prevent catastrophic warming.

«Climate change should to be tackled by reducing emissions, not by altering ocean ecosystems,» said Dr Paul Johnston, Head of Greenpeace International's Science Unit, «Planktos is intending to conduct this reckless experiment in waters around the Galapagos Islands which are globally significant in biological terms and should be designated as fully protected marine reserves.»

Last year some observers were impressed that Campbell appeared to accept the science of climate change − around ten years after the rest of the world.

-- Muller believes humans are changing climate with CO2 emissions — humans have been responsible for «most» of a 0.4 C warming since 1957, almost none of the warming before then — IPCC is in trouble due to sloppy science, exaggerated predictions; chairman will have to resign — the «Climategate» mails were not «hacked» — they were «leaked» by an insider — due to «hide the decline» deception, Muller will not read any future papers by Michael Mann — there has been no increase in hurricanes or tornadoes due to global warming — automobiles are insignificant in overall picture — China is the major CO2 producer, considerably more than USA today — # 1 priority for China is growth of economy — global warming is not considered important — China CO2 efficiency (GDP per ton CO2) is around one - fourth of USA today, has much room for improvement — China growth will make per capita CO2 emissions at same level as USA today by year 2040 — if it is «not profitable» it is «not sustainable» — US energy future depends on shale gas for automobiles; hydrogen will not be a factor — nor will electric cars, due to high cost — Muller is upbeat on nuclear (this was recorded pre-Fukushima)-- there has been no warming in the USA — Muller was not convinced of Hansen's GISS temperature record; hopes BEST will provide a better record.

Although ordinary individuals may have no duty to go beyond their own personal opinion about the science of climate change, government officials who have the power to enact policies that could present catastrophic harm to millions of people around the world may not as a matter of ethics justify their refusal to support policies to reduce the threat of climate change on the basis of their uninformed opinions on climate science.

Please let me (very seriously and sincerely) that in regard to climate - change science, Judith Curry's sustained commitment to open public discourse is among valuable contributions of any scientist, and that (as it seems to me) the name «Curry» amply deserves to be on the short list of prize committees around the world.

Because a high percentage of the arguments made by most proponents of climate change policy have been focused on adverse climate impacts that citizens will experience where they live, while ignoring the harms to hundreds of millions of vulnerable poor people around the world that are being affected by GHG emissions from all - high emitting nations, along with claims that mainstream climate science is credible and has been undermined by morally reprehensible tactics, there is a need to make more people aware of:

Options and costs of adaptation to climate change will vary greatly around the globe and among developed and developing nations, and science has much to contribute to understanding these factors.