I think Climate science in general is going to find itself under siege and underfunded because it has thrown itself in with AGW.
Not exact matches
A documentary about the popular
science advocate and his campaign to defend evolution and
climate change and evidence - based
thinking in general.
The other point is that so far, it seems to me that the progression of assessment reports and
climate science studies
in general seems to keep indicating «it's worse than we
thought.»
I
think you'll find it's reaching not quite as far as taking Biddles point and applying to
climate science in general.
It may be just my own bias, but I
think pharmaceutical and biomedical
science in general is closer to that ideal than
climate science.
What Willis doesn't want to accept is that it is his workings and
thinking that are wrong, not the models or
climate science in general.
According to a report
in Reason Magazine, titled Union of Concerned Scientists Cooks the Books, Media Swallow It, UCS and its analysts used corporate giving data to «imply that
General Electric executives were
climate change hypocrites,» supportive of some
think tanks that are skeptical of the «scientific consensus» on global warming, including Reason itself, which UCS accused of «misrepresenting
climate change
science.»
I
think the situation with «
climate science»
in general, as much of a muddle it may be, is not a swindle
in quite the way the IPCC process is.
One thing I
think can be guaranteed — the scientific community
in general and the
climate science community
in particular are all paying attention.
The issue isn't about
Climate Science from the
general publics perspective
in the US, the issue is about waste and inadequate
thinking.
I don't
think anyone can count on unbiased scientific research to emerge from the IPCC or
climate science in general.