Sentences with phrase «what real climate scientists»

Learn to check your own sources, especially what real climate scientists might be saying about denialists.

Houston, Texas (CCNF) July 11, 2015 — Already a trusted source for citizens and educators wanting to hear what real climate scientists have to say about climate change, CCNF has now opened up its online forum to an ongoing discussion on values and begun hosting a bipartisan debate on climate policy -LSB-...]

What real climate scientists (not smarmy climate modelers) forget is the climate change cult is almost entirely interested in the FUTURE climate, which they «predict» with computer games.

Not exact matches

To visualize what rising seas would look like in real life, artist Nikolay Lamm enlisted help from Climate Central scientist Remik Ziemlinski to manipulate images of major cities using the latest science.

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.»

«For climate negotiators to do their job, they have to realize what climate science is telling them: climate change is real and urgent and requires strong action now,» said one of the signers, Richard Somerville, a climate scientist at the University of California, San Diego, and an I.P.C.C. author.

The idea that our finite resources can be used until they are gone and that we can continue to be irresponsible with what this planet offers is absurd and aggravating to real climate scientists.

While he is not a physical scientist, what Dr. Glantz brought to the table was a perspective on the social aspect of such climate research in a real - world setting.

It's useful to think of this as an example of Bayesian priors in action — given that 99 % of the criticisms we hear about climate science are bogus or based on deep confusions about what modeling is for, scepticism is an appropriate first response, but because we are actually scientists, not shills, we are happy to correct real errors — sometimes they will matter, and sometimes they won't.

Companies that are opposed to mandatory measures will be unhappy with a real scientist going on television and explaining what is happening and what we must do to combat climate change (i.e. setting significant and mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets), which, they think, will reduce their profit margins.

As the tit - for - tat attacks from the tail ends of the spectrum on climate change continue unabated, what was once presumed influence on the part of these scientists will likely become real influence on public opinion and political decision - making, and these scientists will be partly responsible.

Pt 7, «Cancerous Greenpeace / Desmogblog / Gelbspan Stuff»: What's detailed in this post is how Dave Rado's Ofcom complaint is first and foremost pushing absolutely nothing more than guilt - by - association «evidence» to indict skeptic climate scientists of industry - funded corruption, and secondly, how Rado, much like any other prominent accuser, is enslaved to an accusation narrative which ultimately relies on sources who repeat material which inevitably traces back to Ross Gelbspan and the clique of enviro - activists surrounding him when he and they got the first real media traction for the accusation.

... when you hear scientists say that we have about eight years left in order to really tackle climate change, I don't think what the public actually want is cautiousness, what they want is real leadership, and that is what the EU is promising to give, and yet that's what we're failing to do here.

It's not just that climate change isn't real, or isn't certain — it's that the world's leading climate scientists and climate organizations (who are all in agreement about it) are perpetrating what Senator James Inhofe calls The Greatest Hoax.

In the past I regularly read Real Climate, but it is more a site for true believers who never have self doubt (which is the opposite attitude of all good scientists who I know), so I only go there occasionally to see what the consensus is upset about.

Apparently the majority of climate scientists are too busy imagining what global warming will do to us to read that non peer - reviewed, non otherwise - reviewed, book that tells them what real climate is actually doing.

Everyone generally is taught standard AGWScienceFiction fisics as if it is real world and I have given a range of sources to show that what I am arguing against is the standard teaching in education, certainly all climate scientists working to the AGW energy budget use it as a given.

What surprises me is that the real climate scientists, at least so far as I know, never attempt to answer questions relating to data archiving and related matters.

He just can't seem to grasp what the vast majority of Americans and scientists have already figured out: climate change is real, it is happening now and human activities are causing it.»

Another way to look at it, is if one thinks real scientists are of the opinion that «climate change» is important issue, and compare this with public's opinion of what are important national interests, the divergence of this could a metric to measure this lack of trust.

What we need to do with these academic climate scientists is take them outside and introduce them to the real world.

As where Marcott et al went wrong as climate scientists, when they used paleoclimate data of long millenia time scales in natural variability, with the short decadal time scale (weather) in natural variability and claim to predict the future of where the pendulum of climatology will be in the future, when actually showing that they are confused, what they are representing as evidence of the future climate is in fact their total misunderstanding of climatology and the complex chaotic circumstances that influence the real world.

If you were able to poll each of them, what percentage of the scientists would tell you climate change is real and we humans are causing it?

He is looking at things rationally, calmly, in a considered fashion, not at all what one should be doing to be considered a real climate scientist!

What the climate scientists (and you) don't seem to understand is that for teleconnections to be usable in a analytic fashion, there must be a specific real identifiable physical effect which operates at the distant location and it is that physical effect which produces the quantitative result on whatever we are measuring.

Well, when you hear scientists say that we have about eight years left in order to really tackle climate change, I don't think what the public actually want is cautiousness, what they want is real leadership, and that is what the EU is promising to give, and yet that's what we're failing to do here.

Which is why the real target of Big Climate's thuggery is not the individuals themselves, but the thousands of lesser - known scientists who may secretly, furtively half - agree with the targets of the Warmanos, but figure that, if they can do this to Willie Soon or Judith Curry or Richard Lindzen, what'll they do to Assistant Professor Wossname at the Podunk Institute of Meteorology?

Expect the comments below to be filled with changing goalposts, poisoning of the well (something along the lines of «scientists shouldn't be investigating scientists», even though what they were investigating was Dr. Mann's scientific conduct), distractions, diversions, and just general noise — anything to bury the cold fact that the scientists involved with modeling global warming did not cheat, did not fake any data, and the bigger issue that climate change is real.

''... real scientists engaged in real research have used sound statistical methods to investigate this topic; and what they typically find does not bode well for climate alarmists... performed a series of statistical analyses on these data, seeking to determine «whether the data set can reveal the degree to which islands in the Pacific are already seeing the impact of global climate change on the risk of severe flooding.»

Surely a paper that states «x % of real climate scientists support the mainstream view» is less injurious than what boil down to investigations with the filling of criminal charges as the intent?

Picking up on Pete's point in # 123 that he is troubled by not knowing exactly what climate scientists are trying to tell us about where we currently stand in regard to tipping points and todays ABC article on the acceleration of climate change which includes the comment: «But many experts confide privately what they aren't yet ready to announce publicly: Change is accelerating at a dramatic rate» (URL below) I would find it very helpful if someone from Real Climate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hclimate scientists are trying to tell us about where we currently stand in regard to tipping points and todays ABC article on the acceleration of climate change which includes the comment: «But many experts confide privately what they aren't yet ready to announce publicly: Change is accelerating at a dramatic rate» (URL below) I would find it very helpful if someone from Real Climate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hclimate change which includes the comment: «But many experts confide privately what they aren't yet ready to announce publicly: Change is accelerating at a dramatic rate» (URL below) I would find it very helpful if someone from Real Climate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hClimate could tell us the summary message you want to get across to the public regarding tipping points — is it the «alternative version» I set out in # 75 above or is it a modified version of this, if so it would be great if you could post the modified version up here — I would love to hear it.

One thing that particularly struck me about the Copenhagen Climate Congress was a feeling consistently brought up that there is a real disconnect between what scientists are saying about climate change, the way its presented in the media and by politClimate Congress was a feeling consistently brought up that there is a real disconnect between what scientists are saying about climate change, the way its presented in the media and by politclimate change, the way its presented in the media and by politicians.

What I mean by this question is that climate change poses a real challenge to social change movements because it is gradual, delayed in its effects, and uneven in its impacts.The message that is coming from climate scientists at present, along with climate - hawkish public figures, is that we still have time to change — that international conferences, evolving public policies, steady but small annual emissions reductions, could still prove sufficient to keep us within the «safe zone».

To be clear, while the bill falls quite short of what scientists said several years ago was the minimum required to avoid catastrophic climate change, real - world changes are changing scientific understanding and heightening concerns.