Sentences with phrase «uncertainties in the science pointing»

Not exact matches

We've reached a point now in the interdisciplinary growth of our science where we've got climate scientists, who understand the physics of climate and how that translates to uncertainties, working hand in hand with economists who will run the projected impacts through a cost - benefit analysis.

Now, it is apparent from reading even the first few pages of The Skeptical Environmentalist that Lomborg proposes to make the case that not just environmentalists, but a considerable part of the heretofore respectable environmental - science community, have been misunderstanding the relevant concepts, misrepresenting the relevant facts, understating the uncertainties, selecting data, and failing to acknowledge errors after these have been pointed out in other words, that the scientist contributors to what he calls «the environmental litany» (namely, that environmental problems are serious and becoming, in many instances more so) have been guilty of massively violating the scientists code of conduct.

But given the uncertainties involved in climate change, the widespread and heartfelt mistrust of the research backing it, and the IPCC's delicate role at the crossing point of science and politics, many reckon that the communications chief will face a difficult task.

When you do try to point out the science, they merely focus on all the «uncertainty» in the conclusions.

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

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.

My goal in creating the image (a larger version is here) was to distinguish elements in the science pointing to greenhouse - driven climate change that are clearcut from those surrounded by deep and enduring uncertainty.

Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious «science» on the web and in the media.

As Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University said a couple of months after your proclamation about the up - coming ice - age QUOTE: There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don't know anything much useful about processes or drivers» (http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/).

The point you address is the authors» statement that the science on global warming is enmeshed in scientific uncertainty.

Jim D seems to think that, if despite the obvious bias and manipulation underpinning the so - called consensus, by fluke this consensus turns out to be correct, this would point to a failure in today's science - policy interface (assuming current policy is wait - and - see, based on the huge uncertainties).

You are a time waster Eric — an odd little person putting words in my mouth interested only in trivial points scoring about an uncertainty that doesn't exist and making silly little statements about retarding science and similar.

«Many of us think that scientific knowledge is certain, so therefore if someone comes along and points out the uncertainties in a certain scientific body of knowledge, we think that undermines the science.

The problem is that the media, in the past, failed to clearly point out the «uncertainties» and it was the «Hockey Stick» graph that persuaded me that, as Al Gore put it, «the science is settled» and the «debate is over».

... In a recently published book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, the technically qualified authors (scientists all) point to four reasons: a conflict among scientists in different disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the UN's IPCC to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.&raquIn a recently published book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, the technically qualified authors (scientists all) point to four reasons: a conflict among scientists in different disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the UN's IPCC to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.&raquin different disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the UN's IPCC to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.»

So, here's a question, VikingExplorer: If, as you have it, unique solutions are not central to physical meaning in science, what's the point of physical error bars and uncertainty intervals?

When a consensus, true or false, emerges in a scientific discipline, it is not sufficient for critics to point out uncertainties and gaps in knowledge, such as always exist in science, for example Darwinian evolution or plate tectonics.

As Richard Kerr points out in Science, paraphrasing the study's author (this is something Benny seized upon), «The slowing, although sizable, is comparable to the estimated uncertainty of the observations.»