Sentences with phrase «under as climate scientists»

Not exact matches

The former EPA regional administrator under President Obama says scientists who leaked the report on further evidence of climate change to the New York Times should be commended as «whistleblowers.»

Although scientists aren't sure exactly how warming temperatures will manifest under climate change, Morgan said that «chances are good as it gets warmer we'll get more dry years in the future.»

Under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Kießling, Chair for Palaeoenviromental Research at FAU, who has also recently been appointed as lead author for the sixth World Climate Report, and Dr. Dieter Korn from the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, the scientists examined fossils in largely unresearched geological profiles in Iran.

Traditionally, scientists have been studying recovery in terms of decades — but climate projections suggest that, on average, severe coral bleaching will become a yearly occurrence by mid-century under «business as usual» and for some reefs this will be far sooner.

Scientists have long explained that winter and record cold snaps will not disappear as a result of climate change, and that cold spikes may get worse as a result of shifting weather patterns under global warming.

Instead of trashing real climate scientists who study nuclear winter as stooges of KGB manipulation, maybe the FBI should see if the Wegman fiasco might be an actual example of their observation that «foreign researchers may be under pressure to make their research conclude what their government wants it to conclude, or they may be ordered to write completely fabricated studies.»

Many scientists have said that things got markedly worse through two terms under President Bush, as strings of incidents showed how political appointees were involved in shaping government reports on everything from climate to condoms.

A team of scientists is pioneering new strategies for ensuring that polar bears can persist even as summer sea ice — a vital feeding platform — retreats under the climate change that is already in the pipeline no matter how aggressively societies tackle the greenhouse challenge.

Some hard realities are being acknowledged as diplomats, scientists, scholars and others ponder next steps following the indeterminate Durban climate negotiations — the latest failed attempt to limit climate risk using pollution - style restrictions on carbon dioxide under a global treaty.

Michael E. Mann sounds remarkably upeat these days considering that he has been under assault for more than a decade by investigations, criticisms, and even death threats for his work as a climate scientist.

Much as the Air Force develops computer programs to simulate aircraft flight under different conditions, climate scientists develop computer programs to simulate global climate changes under different conditions.

As scientists, policymakers, diplomats and environmentalists begin to converge on Copenhagen for climate talks, the integrity of leading climate change researchers has come under attack; a release of some 1,000 hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia in Britain has created a stir, with some suggesting the e-mails demonstrate hoarding of and manipulation of data by climate researchers.

The role of SEPP is to act as chairman of NIPCC, the otherwise informal network of scientists under whose name the Climate Change Reconsidered series appears; coordinate efforts by the Center to identify and recruit scientists as lead authors, contributors, and reviewers; convene NIPCC meetings during the research and review stages to share research and debate areas of disagreement; and participate with Heartland in the release of the report as a spokesperson for the effort.

Why, some scientists wondered, were the media focusing on the «what» message of carefully cherry - picked «private» e-mail messages, and seemingly under - playing the «who» and «why»... as in who released the e-mails in the first place and why, if not to purposefully disrupt and derail last December's Copenhagen climate negotiations?

Sir, As a scientist and one who also requested data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) under the Freedom of Information Act, I am pleased that the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has found that University of East Anglia (UEA) and CRU failed in its duties under the Act («Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data», Jan 28).

Ross Gelbspan, as a self - described reporter who was angered by the discovery of skeptic climate scientists being «paid sort of under the table by the coal industry» to spread «false information,» has had entire second career promoting the idea that we could be making better headway in stopping man - caused global warming it it weren't for the industry funded coordinated misinformation campaign.

As I will discuss in Parts II and III of the Decision Making Under Climate Uncertainty series (I will get back to that soon I hope), there are a lot of other types of studies and analyses that climate scientists might be doing to support decision making, that the current focus of the IPCC is arguably distractinClimate Uncertainty series (I will get back to that soon I hope), there are a lot of other types of studies and analyses that climate scientists might be doing to support decision making, that the current focus of the IPCC is arguably distractinclimate scientists might be doing to support decision making, that the current focus of the IPCC is arguably distracting from.

The only hope of federal support for climate change is its economic and national security implications, both niches that agency scientists could carve out under Trump (though the administration just dropped it as a national security threat so...).

The agreement is being referred to as the «Under 2 MOU» for both its goal of limiting emissions to below 2 tons per capita by 2050, and the goal of limiting global temperature rise to under 2 degrees, which Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous climate chUnder 2 MOU» for both its goal of limiting emissions to below 2 tons per capita by 2050, and the goal of limiting global temperature rise to under 2 degrees, which Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous climate chunder 2 degrees, which Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous climate Climate Change (IPCC) scientists say is needed to avoid dangerous climate climate change.

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

And that enviro - activists» collective accusation against skeptic climate scientists might backfire under tough scrutiny, potentially exposing them — Shabecoff, Gelbspan, Naomi Oreskes, «Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action,» and Al Gore — as people engaging in the kind of racketeering action they claim is being done by the fossil fuel companies?

5) False premises are routinely thrown around as facts, i.e. that skeptics engage in death threats (although this is little more than an allegation by one climate scientist under investigation at the time) with no legal action taken to support it or any publication of emails etc..

Dr. Shukla was one of twenty scientists who wrote a letter to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and White House science advisor John Holdren last month, endorsing a call by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) for an investigation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of «corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate change.»

On what specific basis do you disregard the mainstream scientific view that holds that the Earth is warming, that the warming is mostly human caused, and that harsh impacts from warming are very likely under business - as - usual, conclusions supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United States Academy of Sciences and over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world whose membership includes scientists 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 the Royal Society of the UK and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate Climate Change, the United States Academy of Sciences and over a hundred of the most prestigious scientific organizations in the world whose membership includes scientists 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 the Royal Society of the UK and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate 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 the Royal Society of the UK and according to the American Academy of Sciences 97 percent of scientists who actually do peer - reviewed research on climate climate change?

Much as the Air Force builds computer programs to simulate flight under different conditions, climate scientists build computer programs to help simulate global climate.

The statements of the dissenting scientists have given both moral support and intellectual ammunition to those who have opposed the climate - control crusade as a ply to increase the power of government in developed countries and accelerate the trend toward one - world government under a «new world order.»

The «skeptic scientist accusation» is what I consistently refer to in all of my writings as the idea that their climate assessments are fabricated under a top - down directive by fossil fuel industry executives.

«A while back, University of Alabama at Huntsville Scientist Roy Spencer managed to get a study published under an implicit theory that «clouds drive climate,» rather than also serve as a response to it.

Apparently in the same manner that he glommed onto the notion that skeptic climate scientists are paid illicit industry money under instructions to «reposition global warming as theory rather than fact», it seems he didn't check the veracity of the more recently repeated «3000 IPCC scientists» figure.

Last but not least, there was Frontline's 2007 «Hot Politics» program, in which Ross Gelbspan appeared, followed with an assertion that skeptic climate scientists «attack science» under the same playbook as the old tobacco industry.

Regarding the Washington Post article in particular, the comical aspect of it is how the late WashPo editor Ben Bradlee must be spinning in his grave at the sight of Chris Mooney as its author — Mooney being nothing like the thorough reporters who investigated the Watergate scandal under Bradlee's command, but is instead apparently too much in love with Ross Gelbspan's «industry - corrupt skeptic climate scientists» accusation, as I described in my 2011 WUWT guest post.

Since wood fuel is here to stay, at least for now, scientists from the Center of International Forestry Research (CIFOR) wanted to find out how countries in the region prioritized this energy source as part of the climate actions they intend to take under the Paris Agreement.

The piece stated that while the United Nations» Copenhagen Accord climate agreement recognizes that the earth's temperature should not rise by no more than an amount just under two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), global temperature has already risen about 0.8 degrees Celsius — and that many scientists such as NASA's James Hansen believe that a rise of two degrees is too much.

Climate scientists are under concerted attack, as is the scientific information they produce and defend.

A study last July by a scientist listed as an editor on Barnes's paper — the MIT researcher Kerry Emanuel — also found there would be an increase in those major hurricanes under climate change, with up to 20 additional hurricanes and tropical storms every year by the end of the century.

In his point # 6 (Scale of Task), he states: «Scientists describe warming of two degrees Celsius (2C) not as the boundary for dangerous climate change, but as representing a boundary between dangerous and extremely dangerous CLIMATE CHANGE, pointing to a safe boundary as being under 350 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e), more than 120 ppm CO2e below the currentclimate change, but as representing a boundary between dangerous and extremely dangerous CLIMATE CHANGE, pointing to a safe boundary as being under 350 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e), more than 120 ppm CO2e below the currentCLIMATE CHANGE, pointing to a safe boundary as being under 350 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent (ppm CO2e), more than 120 ppm CO2e below the current level.

ExxonMobil's funding of the climate denial industry is under investigation by attorney generals in the United States, but it's less well known that ExxonMobil scientists under Tillerson's reign as CEO were leading developers of geo - engineering technologies

And now, right on cue, comes this article from Isabel Hilton on Guardian Environment http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jan/20/real-scandal-himalayas in which she states, among other things, that: «Kyrgyzstan, scientists predict, will lose 80 % of its water supply» [from glacier depletion] which provokes the following comment from the excellent MrEugenides: «This figure comes from an article Isabel herself wrote on 6 October 2009, quoting a local bureaucrat as saying that water supplies were under pressure from a variety of factors from river diversion and increased water usage to climate change.

One aspect of remedying this problem, which is consistent with a human rights based response to climate change, is recognising and utilising traditional environmental knowledge, which has already been identified by natural scientists as an under - used resource for climate impact and adaptation assessment.