Sentences with phrase «whether other climate scientists»

Not exact matches

«The bias is just so extreme» Others seriously questioned whether the world's community of climate scientists is caught in a cyclone of self - promotion, driven by the pressure to validate past findings and to receive federal grants.

RC and the other climate scientists can not say definitively whether Hansen is «right» about 350; rather, I imagine, they're working as hard as they can to refine the science and the models, and they will be for years.

There's more in USA Today on whether climate scientists» concerns about their attackers are overblown, given other issues weighing on peoples» minds and blunting interest in climate change.

I'd like to ask you, as a climate insider, whether climate scientists privately recognise the shortcomings of their subject — such as the hockey stick, or the poor quality temperature data — or whether they simply refuse to look at what Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, and others have unearthed.

And to answer the other commenters about my opinion of climate scientists, whether they're scientists... they seem to be really bad ones.

Whether it is the unanimous opinion by scientists regarding the 18 - year «global warming» pause; or the last 9 years for the complete lack of major hurricanes; or the inexplicable and surprisingly thick Antarctic sea ice; or the boring global sea level rise that is a tiny fraction of coastal - swamping magnitude; or food crops exploding with record production; or multiple other climate signals - it is now blatantly obvious the current edition of the AGW hypothesis is highly suspect.

But after trying to follow EO's numerous claims about climate, in the particular case of (ii) at hand I have serious doubts as to whether climate scientists have anything at all to learn from rocket engineers other than that the latter should stick to rocket engineering.

He said it fell short because it was unable to access thousands of other emails to establish whether there was a conspiracy among climate scientists at the CRU.

That's why its future can't be left to the same community, whether it's just the IPCC or any other orgaization above the climate scientists.

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?

Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human - caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels).

This is a 1995 analysis by Shell International B.V. scientist Peter Langcake of whether climate change was in fact underway and if, as some scientists were suggesting, a «signal» had been detected showing human influence on climate from temperature, weather, polar ice melt and other data.

It includes his bit about fake letter - writers, his inconsistencies about whether he prompted a male or female Attorney General to question skeptic scientists attending a 1995 government hearing, the plausibility problem of that AG tipping him — a private citizen at that time — about the impending appearance of skeptic climate scientists there — plus more than a dozen other major problems.

On the other hand, a climate scientist is interested in whether the state of New Jersey will be wetter or drier on average 40 or 50 years from now.

Among other things, the authors state that [1] «scientists do not know how large the greenhouse effect is, whether it will lead to a harmful amount of global warming, or (if it will) what should be done about it» (p. 560); [2] that «profound disagreements» about global warming exist within the scientific community (p. 560); [3] that so - called «activist scientists» say that the earth's climate is warming (p. 560); [4] that «science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect Is, if it exists at all» (p. 569); [5] and that global warming is «enmeshed in scientific uncertainty» (p. 573).