Sentences with phrase «talking about climate science»

I do follow this debate from a layman's perspective and the one thing I find really confusing is why when talking about climate science / climate change and the models being used, they never talk about weather modification programs that have been going on for over 70 years around the world.

And they took their eye off the ball in terms of public opinion, in talking about climate science and looking at what the denial machine was doing.

But we're not talking about space shuttle launches or moon landings here, we're talking about climate science.

Without the politicization then climate science just becomes scientists in a lecture theatre talking about climate science with no relavance to policy.

Latimer, Funny that I spend more time talking about climate science than oil depletion in this forum.

James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz professor of biological oceanography at Harvard, talks about climate science and testifying before Congress, and the collaborations between climate scientists and the national security community as well as with evangelicals.

How Do Big Oil Companies Talk about Climate Science?

Don't feed the trolls, ignore the theatrics, let's talk about climate science.

(I have to run out now to talk about climate science and journalism with students at a fantastic girls» school in the struggling city of Newburgh, N.Y.)

The truth is, if Heartland's deceptive and dishonest talk about climate science was aimed at the few aging contrarians that attended the latest meeting, it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

«Until now, fossil fuel companies have been able to talk about climate science in political and media arenas where there is far less accountability to the truth,» Michael Burger of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University told Grist.

Not exact matches

I remember watching his science videos in elementary school but now whenever I see him on the news talking about science it seems like he is politicizing science (when it comes to climate change) and promoting evolution as the only option to the creation of the world to try and discredit the religious community.

As someone working somewhere in the midst of that nexus of «science, values, ethics and politics» you describe (economics, international relations, technology... the climate policy list goes on), I do recognise what you're talking about, but I really don't see that we should very much care.

The EPA last night sent employees a list of eight approved talking points on climate change from its Office of Public Affairs — guidelines that promote a message of uncertainty about climate science and gloss over proposed cuts to key adaptation programs.

«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.

Scientific American executive editor Fred Guterl talks with Pres. Obama's science advisor, John Holdren, about climate science, space travel, the issue of reproducibility in science, the brain initiative and more.

Scientific American staffers Mark Fischetti and Robin Lloyd talk with podcast host Steve Mirsky about sessions they attended — including those about algae for energy, dissecting the astronomy in art, and attitudes about climate change — at the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Catherine Matacic — online news editor for Science — talks with Sarah Crespi about how geoengineering could reduce the harshest impacts of climate change, but make them even worse if it were ever turned off.

In 2009 he said, when talking about climate change, that the «science is highly contentious, to say the least» and «the climate change argument is absolute crap», but did accept that precautionary action against it was a good idea.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, Pres. Obama talked about climate change, energy and manufacturing technology innovation, and STEM education — that is, science, technology, engineering and math

We talked with the unexpectedly modest and soft - spoken Henrik Svensmark about his work, the criticism it has received, and truth versus hype in climate science.

«Scientists have talked about Arctic melting and albedo decrease for nearly 50 years,» said Ramanathan, a distinguished professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at Scripps who has previously conducted similar research on the global dimming effects of aerosols.

And it was great because there were three journalists on the panel who talked about what they were doing these days and covering climate science, including Elizabeth Shogren from NPR.

Solutions: Smart talking and media mastery Surveys show that most people want more information about climate science, Schmidt said, so scientists should engage in public forums such as blogs, question - and - answer sessions and public talks, provided they are not simply stacked with angry debaters.

The commentary, «Facing the diversity crisis on climate science,» was born when Schuldt and co-author Adam Pearson, an assistant professor of psychology at Pomona College, began talking about University of Michigan Professor Dorceta Taylor report, «The State of Diversity in Environmental Organizations.»

It would measure progress by counting, among other things, the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing views.

Paul Beckwith, PhD candidate in Climate Science at University of Ottawa, talked about the wide range impact of climate change, December 2012.Climate Science at University of Ottawa, talked about the wide range impact of climate change, December 2012.climate change, December 2012.»

A few days later, [MIT climate scientist Kerry] Emanuel got a call from [House Science Committee Chair Lamar] Smith, who wanted to talk about the book.

Talk to us about artificial intelligence, Big Science, climate change, gender and racial inequalities in science cScience, climate change, gender and racial inequalities in science cscience careers.

There was an excellent talk by Emily Levine, Interpretive Supervisor at Muir Woods, about the health of redwoods and how the science and study of these beautiful trees is helping us learn about the effects of climate change and what it means for our collective future.

In light of the hard - won scientific consensus developed by the IPCC, has the time not yet come to «center» our discussion on what we know of climate change, based upon good science, and talk about what we are going to do in order to address the human - driven predicament in which humanity finds itself in these early years of Century XXI?

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.

I am not specifically talking about climate / weather, just science.»

A few days later, [MIT climate scientist Kerry] Emanuel got a call from [House Science Committee Chair Lamar] Smith, who wanted to talk about the book.

I still think climate science is uniquely difficult because it has to incorporate both theory and reality in an incredibly complex and critical discipline, but «reductionism» was the wrong tag and certainly I didn't know nearly enough about what I was talking about!

I don't believe he was referring to «authority» in the sense of expertise; in some sense the role of the IPCC in fixing belief around climate science is similar to Peirce's «authority», but it has no enforcement power and to me it seems far more like a step in the process of fixation and communication of scientific information, part of the publishing process, than anything like what Peirce was talking about in method 2.

To measure success, a media tracking service would be hired to tally the percentage of news articles that raise questions about climate science and the number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the prevailing view.

Here's my uneducated question — while I respect Gavin's comments about not abusing the science, it seems to me that many measurable indicators of climate change are (to the extent I can tell) occurring / progressing / worsening faster than predicted by most models, whether we're talking about atmospheric CO2 levels, arctic ice melting, glacial retreat, etc..

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?

I traded e-mails this morning with a communications director from a major climate NGO who said this about the whole current «discussion»: Kind of symbolic of how much time the community spends talking about how to communicate science versus actually trying to communicate science.

I find it funny that the NASA hockey team members claim any scientists outside of climate science can not talk with authority about climate change.

Frank Luntz is arguably one of the biggest reasons the United States has been able to dodge taking action to address climate change for so long — in an infamous memo (which was leaked and obtained by a green group), he revealed the rhetorical tricks and talking points conservative politicians should employ to confuse the public about the state of climate science.

One point I really like to emphasise when talking about the science is that we are not talking about a theory of AGW, but a theory of climate, which predicts AGW.

Richard Alley of Penn State talked about the hunt for «climate zombies» and explained why climate science is solid.

He follows a president who consistently stressed the unknowns about global warming and whose minions sometimes downplayed established science; whose negotiators at climate - treaty talks were instructed to enter into any kind of discussion, but no negotiations.

I'm also a big supporter of science education (in fact, I'm working myself on a book now for kids about climate, and I spend a lot of time working with and talking to science teachers).

In his reply, MacCracken (whom I've sought out on climate science since 1985) stressed he's talking about the value of the video in conveying how long - term trends will play out in Alaska:

The more people talk about climate change the better, as far as I'm concerned: the science is so conclusive now that only by not talking about the reality of it can people continue in blissful ignorance along the path they have taken.

We have plenty of evidence on how Fox News fuels rejection of climate science, and how this interacts with the processes of biased reasoning I talk about in the article.

In the last year, my discussions with people who resent AGW talk have more and more been about science and scientists that people disresepct, and less and less about climate arguments and facts that they disbelieve.