Sentences with phrase «warming science into»

Brand new scientific findings in a just published paper by Lansner and Pepke Pedersen appearing in the journal of Energy and Environment cast global warming science into more uncertainty.

Not exact matches

There were no test tubes or Bunsen burners, but a courtroom turned into a science classroom Wednesday for a U.S. judge considering lawsuits that accuse big oil companies of lying about the role of fossil fuels in the Earth's warming environment.

You likely deny evolution and global warming for no other reason than it makes you uncomfortable and hold science to the impossibly high standard of having to explain every conceivable mystery about the natural World before you will accept it, but some moron at a pulpit doing magic hand signals of a Sundaymorning is enough to convince you he is communicating with some sky - god and turning grocery store bread and wine into flesh and blood.

Science questions the answers, e.g. hurricanes are caused by warm moist ocean air being drawn up into the cooler atmosphere and creating a wind pattern though we are still open to consider other factors that may have influence on this cycle.

NOAA has been the target of congressional scrutiny from Rep. Lamar Smith (R - Texas), who has launched an inquiry into a 2015 paper in Science prepared by NOAA researchers that disputed the existence of a recent slowdown in the rate of global warming.

But Taylor of the Heartland Institute said it should not come as a surprise that the subject of human induced global warming would become more contested as it moved out of the realm of pure science into the realm of policy.

► In a story about the animal species that are winning and losing as the Arctic warms, in this week's Science, Eli Kintisch offers a peek into the extreme working and living conditions of some of the biologists, zoologists, geoscientists, oceanographers, and atmospheric scientists conducting this research.

Warm ocean waters, driven inland by winds, are undercutting an ice shelf that holds back a vast glacier from sliding into the ocean, researchers report November 1 in Science Advances.

What happens when the world moves into a warm, interglacial period isn't certain, but in 2009, a paper published in Science by researchers found that upwelling in the Southern Ocean increased as the last ice age waned, correlated to a rapid rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Stepping into that gap — at the request of the Danish government — will be the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change, a collection of the world's top scientists and economists set to meet in Copenhagen in March 2009 to deliver an updated state of the science on global warming.

In a paper that that was recently published in Nature Geoscience, Weizmann Institute of Science researchers provide new insight into this phenomenon by discovering that mid-latitude storms are steered further toward the poles in a warmer climate.

If so, instead of clumping, the researchers report in tomorrow's issue of Science, this warm dark matter would have stretched into filaments thousands of light - years long and weighing as much as millions of suns.

When the ground is frozen above a cave no water seeps into it, making such formations «relicts from warmer periods before permafrost formed,» the researchers wrote in a study published online in Science on 21 February.

In a paper published in Science today, researchers from ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (Coral CoE) at James Cook University (JCU) and the University of Queensland (UQ), as well as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) investigated what this warming pattern means for GBR coral bleaching events into the future.

Right before this shift, there may have been a warning sign that the planet was hitting a tipping point into a warmer state, finds a new study published yesterday in the journal Science.

This sustained climate warming will drive the ocean's fishery yields into steep decline 200 years from now and that trend could last at least a millennium, according to University of California, Irvine, and Cornell University researchers in Science, March 9.

The Hot Topic: What We Can Do About Global Warming By Gabrielle Walker and Sir David King (Harcourt) In The Hot Topic, former science advisor to the British government Sir David King teams up with veteran science writer Gabrielle Walker to offer perhaps the most thoughtful and scientifically rigorous work to date on how we got the Earth into this fix, and how we can help get it out.

Between the enormous snow storm last October and the tornados we have been seeing here in the Northweast, I have been looking more and more into the science behind global warming.

With a glint in his eye and that signature crooked smile, Damon sells this direct - address device beautifully — aided by Drew Goddard's warm and wickedly smart adapted script — making dialogue like «I'm going to have to science the shit out of this» into winsome laugh lines.

Quaid's little science teacher that could may seen like a boring idea for a movie — and I can not really disagree that the character bares a boring movie — but a warm, fuzzy, and terribly conservative performance grounds the character into a Disney mold.

We are concerned that the incorporation of unsubstantiated theories into what the public understands to be the «scientific consensus» on global warming is eroding public confidence in climate science.

Climate change skepticism seeps into science classrooms Some states have introduced education standards requiring teachers to defend the denial of man - made global warming.

Re # 8 (and to expand on # 13): I also think that a basic strategy of the global warming deniers is to focus on one aspect of the science over which there is some combination of real and manufactured dispute and then try to make people think that this is the one crucial piece of evidence on which the whole theory of anthropogenic warming rests... and thus that the dispute over this aspect throws the whole theory into question.

I don't see a compelling reason for middle school science teachers to go into details of the earth's current warming, although they should be free to do that if they want to.

This might be an opportune time to remind everyone of how organized tobacco's astroturf «sound science» movement morphed into attacks on science in other areas like global warming, as ably revealed by George Monbiot, among others: http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2008/06/sound-science-and-climate-change-or.html

The piece falls into the partisan trap of painting all opponents in one color when in fact there are conservatives who care about science and energy, even some (Charles Krauthammer comes to mind) who — while challenging the portrayal of global warming as a real - time crisis — see the value in a high tax on gasoline, swapped for lower taxes elsewhere.

If science advocacy has to include statements such as «Alas, as with most over-simplified global warming claptrap, more thought goes into coming up with the alarmist concept than in actually looking into whether or not it is true», then I don't think it belongs in the discussion.

Former Vice President Al Gore has spent decades immersing himself in the science and policy of global warming, visiting the poles, writing two books largely framed around the issue, and traveling the world giving a climate presentation that began on 35 - millimeter carousels and evolved into a snazzy Keynote extravaganza and Oscar - winning documentary.

I first dug in on behavioral and social science research related to global warming views and responses in 2006, and it quickly became clear that this was the scariest body of science of all — topping ice - sheet instability and even calling into question the utility of my profession.

He follows a president who consistently stressed the unknowns about global warming and whose minions sometimes downplayed established science; whose negotiators at climate - treaty talks were instructed to enter into any kind of discussion, but no negotiations.

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research dug into the physical science underpinning knowledge of the human role in global warming.

At the root of all of those reasons is the fact that global warming was effectively massaged into an issue that could be ignored, by some very determined people funded by some very rich corporations — all of whom have worked for years to manufacture doubt about climate science.

Their fervour for cargo cult sciences may simply be mercenary, and a function of the massive government funding going into things like global warming studies.

Over time, we gathered thousands of pages of internal Exxon documents that fleshed out the picture hinted at by Henry Shaw's participation in the 1979 climate conference: that Exxon was so interested in climate science that it had launched its own ambitious research into the critical global warming questions of the day.

Wordy as the letter is, it could be boiled down much like Al Gore's 2006 movie or the collective lot of the entire catastrophic man - caused global warming into a 3 - part talking point: «the science is settled» / skeptics are industry - funded & orchestrated liars» / «reporters may ignore skeptics because of the prior two reasons.»

> By politicizing science, by appointing global warming zealots into positions of power and influence, and so forth, Obama created a scientific environment akin to Lysenkoism.

In 1991, it was nothing more than a suggestion to invite science - based rebuttal back into an issue Al Gore and his friends hijacked with assertions that catastrophic man - caused global warming was settled science; a suggestion which came out of a leaked non-profit coal association's public relations test market campaign which was so obscure that practically no one ever saw or heard about it.

Even as climate scientists, and the science underpinning global warming, have been vindicated (for the umpteenth time) the GOP has completed its descent into science - bashing and anti- «warmist» rhetoric.

The reason progressives constantly obscure the meaning of terms like skeptic, «global warming,» «AGW» (when you mean CAGW), is so you can convert your political opinions into «science,» and then falsely label your political opponents as anti-science.

Some insights into the public pressure on those that are skeptical of consensus climate change science or the UNFCCC policies are provided by a recent iaiTV interview of Benny Peiser, Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

She noted that she was welcomed into the «tribe» when she published a paper that suggested global warming could be causing more severe hurricanes, but shunned after she congratulated a skeptic, Steve McIntyre, when his blog, ClimateAudit.org, was named «best science blog» of 2007 through a Web poll.

Yet, as we can see, the unsophisticated «global warming is happening» statement can turn barking mad statements about climate science into truth, while assigning informed caution to the «denier» camp.

I can think of, and have used, many ways to attack the absurdity of CO2 - induced Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) without descending into what most lay - readers consider the realm of Science - Fiction - Fantasy (regardless of the truth or otherwise of the pure physics behind it).

«In hindsight,» wrote Littlemore, «I played perfectly into the hands of Monckton and his happy radio host, Roy Green, who share the same goal — not to win an argument about global warming science, but merely to show that there still IS an argument.

The most one could say is that these sorts of groups have opposed specific legislation, such as carbon taxes or drilling bans, that Brulle wants politicians to enact into law.50 This opposition may explain a lot about Brulle's motivations, and it definitely shows that he's more interested in political victories than science, but it says nothing about how Americans form their views of the science of Global Warming.

Geoengineering solution to global warming could destroy the ozone layer (04/24/2008) A proposed plan to fight global warming by injecting sulfate particles into Earth's upper atmosphere could damage the ozone layer over the Arctic and Antarctic, report researchers writing in the journal Science.

From the National Science Foundation, another bit of Speculative Science ™ note the caveat in bold, which is all they need for a headline that screams certainty: This sudden release of gases into the atmosphere may have created intense global warming, and acidification of the oceans, which ultimately killed off thousands of plant and animal species.

There seems to be so many contentious and contrary «opinions» about Global Warming due to CO2, how about injecting a little science, math, and logic into the argument.

It has pumped millions of dollars into research projects to cast doubt on mainstream climate science showing that the primary driver of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels.

What made all of science plunge past the tipping point into the doctrine of global warming?