Sentences with phrase «understood than climate science»

This is why I get angry when AGWers equate those that disbelieve in AGW with creationists; the principles behind evolution are much easier and more intuitive to understand than climate science is.

Not exact matches

A: No, science is more complex and messy than to understand how the climate works.

Nisbet's prior research examining public opinion about climate change and energy insecurity also revealed for science communicators that understanding the public in more precise ways than partisanship or ideology allowed for improved outreach.

You don't seem to understand that, with a less than half - baked understanding of climate science, you've stumbled into a discussion with some extremely knowledgeable people, and then wonder why they don't buy into your «equal time for opposing views» viewpoint.

I seriously doubt that you know anything more about climate science than I, or understand scientific principles on anything more than an 8th grade level, but you think you can make up for it in sheer bluster and bluff.

Re: Ray # 36, in the field of climate science, I don't think you can argue for assuming that different a level of tacit understanding by the reader for the peer review literature than for blogs like this one.

They are no worse than myself but do understand climate science far better.

Rather than «leaping to the conclusion'that any climate science he doesn't understand must be deceptive, «Mr. Know It All» appeared on RC about a year ago with that conviction already firm in his mind.

This figure is quite arbitrary, based on his understanding of the political reality possibly more than of climate science.

Another way of saying it: Although we are seeing less outright false balance in climate coverage than a decade or two ago, bias against mainstream science understanding persists in the relatively subtle form of selective reporting of eyebrow - raising claims, which strengthen the impression that scientists are always changing their story, in which case, shrug.

Why not do some climate science and get it published in the literature rather than poking at studies online, having the blogosphere amplify or distort your findings in a kind of short circuit that may not help push forward understanding?

«The science emphatically proves that black carbon has a larger impact on climate change than was previously understood and we can't escape reality.

But rather than use agnotology to enhance an understanding of the complicated nature of the complex Earth's climate, the particular aim is to dispel alternative viewpoints to the so - called consensus science.

That's an argument than even deeply non-technical non-scientists of the general public (and Congress / Senate) can understand - part of their «figuring out who knows what about science» mental toolkit that Dan so admires - which is probably why climate science communicators on the sceptic side are so keen to communicate it.

Note how he just comes right out and admits what everyone already suspects to be the case: that his slurring of climate science as «junk science» is rooted in nothing more scientific than his understanding of which side his bread — and Cody's — is buttered on.

Here are some options: 1) The science of ozone depletion was clearer sooner than the science of climate change 2) The major producers of ozone depleting chemicals understood the science and knew that they did not want to face the liability for contributing to growing numbers of skin cancers.

And Joe Smith, at least seems to understand that the climate debate is about more than climate science.

Despite Garvey's claims that there is more to understanding climate change than the «science», without the «science» narrating the apocalyptic story driving environmental ethics, there is nothing for the moral philosopher to consider; it is «unethical» not to «do something» to «combat climate change».

This response is often more a reflection of the gap in their own understanding than any flaw in the climate science.

We don't get any closer to science by denying the significant possibility that we are causing significantly adverse changes in climate than we do by the ridiculous assertion that we understand the chaotic complexity of climate well enough to say with certainty how many parts per millions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to how many degrees of global warming.

Because I can explain special relativity in terms simple enough that anyone can understand, and climate science is no more complex than that.

So in climate science it seems to me that the null hypothesis is poorly understood, and honoured more in the breach than in the observance.

The system is complex, as you note, but it is that complexity, rather than spherical cows, that climate science attempts to understand, model, and predict — with a success rate to date that is modest but encouraging, albeit not likely to evolve into perfection anytime soon.

I'm not mind - blown, but as someone without relevant scientific background, I'm always encouraged by work which might contribute to a better understanding of climate and what drives changes than prevailed when the science first became «settled» perhaps 12 - 15 years ago.

«I genuinely think they understand perhaps better than myself and a lot of left - leaning liberals the consequences of climate science,» he told the Australian Broadcasting Company.

No less than President Obama's science adviser John Holdren (a man whom I greatly admire, but disagree with in this instance) has stated, when asked how to get Republicans in Congress to accept our mainstream scientific understanding of climate change, that it's an «education problem.»

Nor does he have the vaguest understanding of climate science — so it is not surprising that he misses the fact that the 2.6 scenario involves slightly more warming than the threshold set at Copenhagen as that to avoid dangerous warming.

It rather indicates that the author has a different understanding of what CO2 is supposed to do (according to climate science) than climate science has.

Please don't hijack the science, and tell people like me, who understand most of the science (other than the intricacies of climate models) better than 99 % of US citizens, and have followed the science better than 99.8 % of US citizens, that we don't know what we are talking about.

The national science agency, CSIRO, has announced it will restructure its climate change teams to concentrate on dealing with it rather than trying to understand it.

> Simon posted:» The national science agency, CSIRO, has announced it will > restructure its climate change teams to concentrate on dealing with it > rather than trying to understand it.

I judge that it is more important in the case of climate science and its bearing on climate policy to understand these limitations than to be able to change the peer review process in a major way.

But they are firmly excluded by headlines dismissing the whole of climate science as a «great green con» — despite their correspondent certainly giving me the impression he understands the problem better than that.

In this case, «remarkably similar» means remarkably similar as normally understood, rather than as used in climate science.

But as I have outlined above, few have a deeper understanding of the basic science of climate than I. Almost all big modern telescopes use my sodium guidestar to correct for atmospheric turbulence.

For instance, climate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 °C (3.6 °F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 °C.

In 2012, NOAA's climate - monitoring budget woes prompted more than 50 scientists to publish a letter in Science warning that shrinking networks would harm long - term efforts to understand and track greenhouse gases.

«This individual understands less about science (and climate change) than the average kindergartner,» Michael Mann, a Pennsylvania State University meteorology professor, wrote of Cruz's statements.

«From his groundbreaking research that expanded understanding of the hole in the ozone layer to his work in quantifying the chemical interactions that drive climate change, Don Wuebbles has been a pioneer in atmospheric science for more than thirty years.

I don't know, I'm not part of that conspiracy, and I see a lot of assertions on here and elsewhere by people who imply they are smart, or at least smart enough to know more on this issue than the climate scientists who actually professionally study it, who throw around large highfalutin science terms, but that repeatedly misconstrue the basic climate change issue itself, conflate the process of science with Climate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendumclimate scientists who actually professionally study it, who throw around large highfalutin science terms, but that repeatedly misconstrue the basic climate change issue itself, conflate the process of science with Climate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendumclimate change issue itself, conflate the process of science with Climate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendumClimate Change refutation, seem to have an extensively poor understanding of the issue, and take small select bits of data as part of the ongoing total picture of increasing overall corroboration, to falsely equate that with a flaw in Climate Change theory itself, or as a referendumClimate Change theory itself, or as a referendum on it.

IMO you can not begin to understand the folly that is climate «science» without going back much further in time than you do.

It is my experience that many people with a consistent appetite for knowledge regarding climate change have a better general understanding of the science than some specialists.

According to a new study by the University of New Hampshire, American right - wing Tea Party supporters are most likely to base their understanding of climate change on political ideology rather than science.

They have it exactly backwards: Climate change skeptics understand the science far better than the alarmists.

The complaint centred on the production of a free online course to help the public understand the rejection of climate science, which saw more than 10,000 people enroll when it was first launched last year.

Your statements on climate science are based on nothing more than your own personal beliefs about people you have never met, upon scientific reports you don't understand, and upon personal incredulity that anyone could disagree with your «consensus».

In a May 10, 2016, article, Almost Everything You Know About Climate Change Solutions Is Outdated, Part 1, Joe Romm says climate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degClimate Change Solutions Is Outdated, Part 1, Joe Romm says climate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degclimate science and climate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degclimate politics have moved unexpectedly quickly toward a broad understanding that we need to keep total human - caused global warming as far as possible below 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F)-- and ideally to no more than 1.5 degrees C.

And, yes, climate scientists really do understand the science they study better than you do.

«From what I've read of the modules he proposed writing, they seem designed to foster confusion rather than promote deeper understanding of the current science... and they certainly wouldn't fit with the science education standards framework that the National Research Council plans to release,» he said, referring to the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, which is slated to release a draft of new national science standards next month that are expected to include climate change.

Since we announced our application, we have been contacted by more than a dozen students from all over the world, keen to work with us on software to improve public understanding of climate science.