So does anyone wonder
why academic climate researchers crank out lots of papers, try to get them published in Nature, Science, or PNAS, and don't worry too much whether their paper will stand the test of time?
Not exact matches
To reasonably ask UTR members to consider these changes, the district must clearly show how and
why these specific changes can remedy persistent school
climate issues that drive chronic teacher turnover, disrupt school culture, and diminish student
academic performance.
THis is what the professional deniers already know, and
why it is they have been able to take advantage of the naivety of the
Climate science and
Academic community, and the IPCC lack of direct engagement in the public arena.
The important question to ask, I argue, is how such an intolerant culture was allowed to develop in powerful political and
academic institutions, and
why the alarmist case was preferred by policymakers, who continue to make use of the binary view of the
climate debate.
This may be
why there seem to be so few tenured UK
academics speaking up about the bad
climate science — compared to other countries — and so much bad science put out as official answers to sceptics by BBC, Royal Society and Met Office.
It's unclear
why the committee didn't immediately exonerate Mann of the fourth allegation — seriously deviating from accepted practices within the
academic community — except that by leaving it open, the committee apparently hoped to rebuild «public trust in science in general and
climate science specifically.»
If department politics ruins
Climate science,
why does it not ruin all of science, given that science is generally done by
academics in departments?
If we already have many of the essential tools to fight
climate change from a technology,
academic and policy perspective,
why aren't we using them?