Sentences with phrase «uncertainty in science with»

«Skeptics» are approaching uncertainty in science with a massive bias.

Not exact matches

Such a notion as emergence, for example, which is closely allied with the principle of indeterminacy and uncertainty and which was later to develop in physics, actually assumed more credence in physics before it took root in biology and psychology; yet it has more significant implications for the data of the organic and social sciences than for physics.

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.

Generally, this is not a good thing when embarking on a career in science, because even the most successful researchers can find their careers fraught with uncertainty.

Have discussions with people who have careers in the biological sciences about what they are doing to assess whether it is the specific area of specialization that is leading to your difficulty and level of uncertainty.

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.

«The model we developed and applied couples biospheric feedbacks from oceans, atmosphere, and land with human activities, such as fossil fuel emissions, agriculture, and land use, which eliminates important sources of uncertainty from projected climate outcomes,» said Thornton, leader of the Terrestrial Systems Modeling group in ORNL's Environmental Sciences Division and deputy director of ORNL's Climate Change Science Institute.

«There are so many variables that will affect the future of forests in northern Minnesota, forest managers will probably always have to deal with some amount of uncertainty,» said Stephen Handler, lead author of the vulnerability assessment and a climate change specialist with the Northern Institute for Applied Climate Science (NIACS).

The first installment in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest scientific assessment on climate science came out on Friday, and it's loaded with dense terminology, expressions of uncertainty, and nearly impenetrable graphics.

Through programmes informed by experts in psychology, neuroscience and the medical sciences, it equips teachers with the knowledge and tools they need to manage stress and pressure and cope more effectively with change and uncertainty.

On Monday, ATL general secretary, Mary Bousted criticised the exams regulator for not being prepared to engage with debate and uncertainty in ignoring the concerns of the science community over its plans for assessing practical skills at A-level and GCSE.

In summer 2011, I saw an excellent dual slide presentation by artists Kim Schoen and Cody Trepte, exploring the connections between their two practices, which deal in different ways with science, language and uncertaintIn summer 2011, I saw an excellent dual slide presentation by artists Kim Schoen and Cody Trepte, exploring the connections between their two practices, which deal in different ways with science, language and uncertaintin different ways with science, language and uncertainty.

I think this is a tricky communication problem that partly has to do with the common perception of «science» as something that always provides solid facts and is characterized by little uncertainty (probably a product of memorizing scientific facts in high school texts).

The most significant uncertainties do * not * lie with the science, but in knowing the consequences of various policy options.

I recently researched causes of subsidence in Bangladesh (Brown and Nicholls 2015) and struggled with the uncertainties, data errors, and in some cases, poor science when recording rates of subsidence.

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.

* Average citizens «understand» (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the «conventional wisdom» * Media «understands» (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science * Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current «conventional wisdom» * Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy * Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.

The review, which is being published in the journal Science on Friday, concludes that the human - driven buildup of carbon dioxide under way now appears to be far outpacing past natural events, meaning that, for ocean chemistry particularly, the biological implications are potentially enormous — and laden with the kind of uncertainty that is hard to see as a source of comfort.

Today and Wednesday a group of authors from across the different working groups — examining the basics of climate science, the impacts of warming and options for policy responses — are meeting at Jasper Ridge in northern California to come up with an approach for «consistent evaluation of uncertainties and risks.»

Koenig's careful description of the science and the uncertainty about what the future holds prompted a public spanking from the Center for American Progress climate blogger Joe Romm, who charged her with «scientific reticence» — alluding to NASA scientist James Hansen's paper criticizing sea - level researchers for being overly cautious in 2007 conclusions about the possible rate of sea rise in this century.

In her piece, Klein, spends a lot of time focused on the valuable body of social science research I've also explored here showing the normal nature of the wide range in human perceptions of global warming (and other kinds of risks saddled with complexity and uncertaintyIn her piece, Klein, spends a lot of time focused on the valuable body of social science research I've also explored here showing the normal nature of the wide range in human perceptions of global warming (and other kinds of risks saddled with complexity and uncertaintyin human perceptions of global warming (and other kinds of risks saddled with complexity and uncertainty).

So the issue that montford raises, and that i have raised in my posts, are general issues, about the integrity of science, how to avoid conflicts, how to deal with mistakes, how science should be conducted when there are alot uncertainties and the field is immature, when the situation is politicized, etc..

In the interview, with Andy Balaskovitz, I described the value of having a public more attuned to how science works — that new knowledge is what's left over after peers chew on each others» data and analysis, and that argument and uncertainty are normal, that science is a journey, not a set of facts:

I'm not a cloud expert, and I may be describing this particular uncertainty inaccurately, but I use this as one example, and (unless this aspect of the science has changed in recent months) I believe that one aspect of uncertainty has to do with these clouds and their ultimate net effect as the atmosphere warms.

With Carson's approach to conveying risk, they write, she appears to have created «a bridge across the is — ought divide in science - related policy making, using the uncertainty topos to invite the public to participate by supplying fears and values that would warrant proposals for limiting pesticide use.»

The climate talks in Copenhagen this month present layers of complexity, shifting alliances among nations, hidden agendas and science laced with persistent uncertainties.

These revisions are one example of a strategy we saw Carson use consistently: Add uncertainty at the level of ignorance to destabilize the science, then articulate the harms, hazards, or consequences behind our current actions, and drive it home with a visceral image of risk (which she does in this example through images of liver damage, the accumulation of DDT in milk and butter, and the ability of toxic chemicals to pass to breast - fed human infants, and to a fetus in utero).

Anyone notice the huge contradiction between an author (Curry) that declares that all of climate science is bound by uncertainty, yet in Curry's own research, the physics is stated by assertion, with zero uncertainty implied?

I have no problem with focusing the debate on the current uncertainties in the science — which a reputable scientist that Curry claims to be would do — but this tripe shows a colour of anti-science denialism that is truly shameful

I think part of this comes from scientists, both those working in that specific area of climate science and particularly those from outside that area, speaking not as scientists with their inherent tendency not to claim something conclusive without a good deal of statistically tested certainty, but speaking as someone who has been imposed upon or volunteered to give a scientific best guess without bothering the public with the details of uncertainties.

I'd say «that's the way it is» and live with it happily on most science controversies (plate tectonics, big bang / steady state, etc) because they don't have a massive impact on our daily lives and so we can easily wait for the science to work itself out, but on issues that look to have massive impacts on our daily lives (fat vs. carbs in diet, CAGW) there must be a better way of dealing with the uncertainties before we throw all our eggs into a single basket.

Their tactics and fallacies include ignoring or distorting mainstream scientific results, cherry - picking data and falsely generalizing, bringing up irrelevant red - herring arguments, demanding unachievable «precision» from mainstream science with the motif «if you don't understand this detail you don't understand anything», overemphasizing and mischaracterizing uncertainties in mainstream science, engaging in polemics and prosecutorial - lawyer Swift - Boat - like attacks on science - and lately even scientists, attacking the usual scientific process, misrepresenting legitimate scientific debate as «no consensus», and overemphasizing details of little significance.

Meanwhile, the good news (if further research bears it out) that the world's warming has been slowed, at least for a few years, needs to be leavened with the realisation, yet again, that there are significant uncertainties in science's understanding of the climate — and thus unquantifiable risks ahead.

Three years ago Smith wrote in the Washington Post, «Contrary to the claims of those who want to strictly regulate carbon dioxide emissions and increase the cost of energy for all Americans, there is a great amount of uncertainty associated with climate science.»

With a climate sensitivity of roughly 1 from «settled» CO2 science, some evidence for natural shifts in global climate of 0.5 - 1.0 degK, and a fair amount of uncertainty in feedbacks, my Italian flag (based on physics) will probably be mostly white if climate sensitivity is > 2.5.

Given that much of the science backing the consensus view is not in contention, and given that as we saw in the last entry in this series that there is an ethical need to be very careful in talking about the uncertainties associated with climate science, a PR firm led strategy that emphasizes uncertainty without regard to how much of the science is settled is extraordinarily unethical.

By looking at these different areas he will dig into the difficult questions of how to deal with uncertainty in science, the communication of this uncertainty, and the difficulties when science meets policy and the media.

Judith, I'd contend that there is a greater difference between the scientific consensus position and that of science scepticism with regard to uncertainties, even if there is little to distinguish them in the science.

It is not merely that there are uncertainties, as always with science, but that the uncertainties in climate science are of large enough magnitude that they can not be asserted to be too small to matter.

Some of that 97 per cent are genuinely grappling with the uncertainties of climate science, usually in very focused, specific areas.

The situation with your unsubstantiated certainty w / r / t economics does not necessarily generalize to your approach to climate science, but your failure to acknowledge an obvious case of being overly certain does suggest, I'd say strongly, a systematic problem in your approach to uncertainty.

With the exception of the 1991 ICE memos — which I will get to shortly — the next most favored leaked memo phrase is the one out of the 1998 API documents, «Victory will be achieved when... Average citizens «understand» (recognize) uncertainties in climate science...» That isn't a sinister industry directive, it is a basic truism.

We have the «scientist» who understands the questions, uncertainties and doubts that are inherent in Climate Science with the scientific ethos of full disclosure of all those, and the «human being» who for the good of the planet must address the non scientific audience with dramatic, simplified, scary and non realistic scenarios.

Many physical modelers, and especially climate modelers, seems to think that as long as their models are «science - based» then there is no need to account for uncertainty in their outputs, notwithstanding that the model parameters are tuned with data, and that aspects of these models are likely to be ill posed (highly sensitive to small perturbations in the values assigned to parameters).

But then came Climategate plus the revelation of IPCC screw - ups and, with them, the growing suspicion that the «science» had been «cooked» — or, at least, that IPCC had understated uncertainties in the attribution of climate change as well as in the projections for the future.

However it reminds me of a thought I had that it might be a good idea to have a guest article on this blog that deals with the ozone layer issue, uncertainties in the science, ramifications of the policies that were implemented, and implications for addressing the possibility of AGW — or not.

No data in science is ever exact — all of it comes with uncertainties, the possibility of bias, and more.

How do you reconcile very large uncertainty re climate science in general with apparently very limited uncertainty re ECS and impacts (you seem very sure both are small)?

This to me is a very pertinent conclusion as previous studies were lambasted at WUWT for showing those losses (and subsequently responded to by me over at Skeptical science) http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-One-Why-do-glaciers-lose-ice.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-2-How-do-we-measure-Antarctic-ice-changes.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Response-to-Goddard.html So even with the uncertainties lowered it is still clear that the submarine portions of EAIS are losing more ice than the center part is gaining in snowfall.

Conclusion FOMD and his Jefferson - loving / Berry - loving [milk]- brethren join with Steven Mosher and James Hansen in celebrating rational science - respecting discourse regarding climate - science uncertainty.