Sentences with phrase «written about climate science»

This isn't the first time that Rose has written about climate science.

He has not written about climate science, per se — in fact, I do not believe he even mentions it, or (if so) it is just in passing.

The controversy over the Karl et al. study flared up again in early February 2017 when the Daily Mail published an article by David Rose — who has often inaccurately written about climate science — based on a blog post by retired NOAA scientist John Bates, who maintained that the study authors failed to disclose critical information about their data.

Many stories were written about climate science in 2017, but were the ones that «went viral» scientifically accurate?

Few columnists writing about climate science are as brazen in their open contempt for the truth as Lawrence Solomon, as I showed in my analysis of Solomon's recent musings about Arctic sea ice.

Is Viscount Monckton arguing that George Monbiot, a journalist who makes no claim to being a climate scientist, should not write about climate science?

A Bit of Good News Writing about climate science can get grim: melting ice, warming temperatures, rising sea levels.

Not exact matches

The companies include Chevron Corp., ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips Co., BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Peabody Energy Corp. «The American people deserve answers from the fossil fuel corporations about their actions to massively deceive the public in regards to climate science,» Lieu and Welch wrote in a letter to their House colleagues asking for their support.

Before joining Scientific American, he was senior writer at Climate Central, a nonprofit research and journalism organization, and before that he spent nearly 21 years at Time magazine, where he wrote more than 50 cover stories on about science and the environment, along with many smaller pieces.

His time at the U.K. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), during which he helped write a four - page brief about international efforts to reduce deforestation ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, was a tremendous learning experience, says Richardson, who is now a postdoc at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, working at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

«The evidence before the committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming,» the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote in its report on the matter in December 2007.

In «A Phoenix Flies to Mars», Andrew Fazekas, the Canadian Editor for Science's Next Wave, writes about the NASA Phoenix polar lander, and Canada's contribution to the project: a sophisticated meteorological station developed by a team of Canadian scientists and engineers that will analyze Mars» arctic climate.

He writes about lawmakers» attitudes on climate change and tracks efforts by political groups to promote and stigmatize the science around warming.

«They do a nice job showing that exceptionally warm temperatures from 2012 - 2014 amplified drought conditions for California,» Nate Mantua, a climate scientist at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center who has previously written about temperature variations in the region, said.

«Coming from complexity science, the term emergence describes the dynamic and unpredictable ways through which change unfolds in organizations,» writes Shane Safir in this article about how teacher leaders can transform a school's climate and culture.

I've addressed this question before in various ways, but was prompted to dig into my ideas and feelings about the building greenhouse effect with new rigor when two very different magazines, Issues in Science and Technology (the magazine of the National Academies) and Creative Nonfiction, invited me to write an essay on my 30 years of climate inquiry.

Jim: thanks so much for writing about the attacks against climate scientists so cogently and eloquently in «The Inquisition of Climate Science&climate scientists so cogently and eloquently in «The Inquisition of Climate Science&Climate Science».

Drs Leonard Smith and Nicholas Stern wrote poignantly about how policy is nearly always set in the context of uncertainty, and that even incomplete scientific assessments can be of great value («Uncertainty in science and its role in climate policy», http://www.lorentzcenter.nl/lc/web/2011/460/presentations/Smith.pdf).

I've written in the past about other issues related to setting a numerical limit for climate dangers given both the enduring uncertainty around the most important climate change questions and the big body of science pointing to a gradient of risks rising with temperature.

The two most hateful sentences I ever wrote were in an essay of 1988, during my effort to save a nuclear plant on climate grounds: «Moreover, almost everything which science can tell us about this problem has already been conveyed.

Thanks for your comment in 249 on if the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) press release (link below) is an example about how to, or how not to, write a press release dealing with climate Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) press release (link below) is an example about how to, or how not to, write a press release dealing with climate climate change.

Also, Spencer Weart has written a guest post at Real Climate which admits the science is not settled about the climate's sensitivity Climate which admits the science is not settled about the climate's sensitivity climate's sensitivity to CO2.

Last week, I wrote about the new online climate science course taught by David Archer at the University of Chicago.

Over all, he wrote, «My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do.»

I was engaged in a discussion with Monckton about his views of climate science and some disputes we'd had over stories I'd written when Brad Johnson, a climate blogger and editor at the liberal Center for American Progress, walked by — creating one of those volatile moments, as if matter and anti-matter had come a bit too close for comfort.

As I wrote in January, when a columnist really cares about something — as was the case with Will's assault on climate science — he really puts his shoulder to it in repeated volleys.

Which basically brings us back to my original recommendation that you do a lot more open minded reading, or go to school for climate science for a while, if you wish to write intelligently about it.

The companies include Chevron Corp., ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips Co., BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Peabody Energy Corp. «The American people deserve answers from the fossil fuel corporations about their actions to massively deceive the public in regards to climate science,» Lieu and Welch wrote in a letter to their House colleagues asking for their support.

Second, I was asked to write about the science and issues at the climate science - policy interface, which I regard as of the utmost importance.

Such is the concern about ExxonMobil that earlier this year the Royal Society, considered Britain's leading scientific academy, wrote to it asking that it stop funding groups that have «misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence».

Last year the UK's prestigious scientific body, the Royal Society, wrote to Exxon asking them to stop funding the groups who were «misinforming the public about the science of climate change».

Why is it that the people who understand Law and Order work behind bar, the people who understand politics spend their time driving cabs and the people who really understand climate science write papers about nmr spectroscopy in the far, far future?

Answering a review by Michael Tobis of his book «The Honest Broker» Pielke writes «My concern about climate science is that too many science arbiters and honest brokers have decided to engage in advocacy.

If you, Pielke and Curry keep saying often enough that the science community is doing damage to itself (because obviously, all tens of thousands of climate scientists have written CAPS LOCK mails to Bengtsson to force him to leave the cigar and port club), it might just come about.

Articles written principally about the science of climate change represented less than a tenth of all the coverage surveyed.

We have written an article about the Clear Climate Code project for the IEEE Software special issue on climate sClimate Code project for the IEEE Software special issue on climate sclimate science.

If journalists wrote more stories about where uncertainty exists in the science, and if they were more aggressive about challenging scientists on transparency issues, we wouldn't have these pseudo-scandals erupt every time a climate scientist missteps.

RTB wrote: «Considering MM Co2 represents about one molecule in 62,500 in the atmosphere and it is supposed to be controlling all the Earth's climate zones seems extremely unlikely... I know science is not intuitive but this is not credible, imo.»

When a medical doctor with no prior record of publication in the learned journals of climate science wanders off the reservation and writes for a collectivist website about the totalitarians» favorite Trojan horse, global warming, one expects nonsense.

Rather than writing position documents about climate science they should worry about the integrity of climate science and making sure that science can evolve wherever it wants to go.

There are a bunch of people who write fairly regularly about climate science and climate policy in the mainstream media, but as you point out there are many more writing about it in the blogosphere.

- Quote about writing «scientific studies» for the tobacco industry by Frederick Seitz, the author of that cover letter for that petition of 30000 questionable signatures against the science of climate change.

Though not CMOS's first public statement, it was one of the most «vocal about climate change of late» due to the fact «that Canada's new Conservative government does not support the Kyoto Protocol for lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and opposed stricter emissions for a post-Kyoto agreement at a United Nations meeting in Bonn in May [2006]» and because «a small, previously invisible group of global warming sceptics called the Friends of Science are suddenly receiving attention from the Canadian government and media,» Leahy wrote.

Mr. Dickson wrote passionately about several areas in climate science that troubled him, including: first, the idea that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, caused by humans, and a threat; second, the idea that government agencies had manipulated temperature records to fit a narrative of warming; and third, that China is developing its coal resources so fast that nothing short of radical population control will save us, if burning fossil fuels really does cause global warming.

Here we have a post written by a climate scientist in order to complain about the biasing effect of a politicization of climate science, in which she openly embraces an analysis that presents a completely politicized picture of science, without even a cursory attempt to present objectively collected and analyzed evidence in support..

Science journalist Andrew Revkin who writes the Dot Earth blog for the New York Times told EarthSky his thoughts about the U.S. climate bill.

Last week, I wrote about the remarkable letter in Science supporting the accuracy of climate science, signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel lauScience supporting the accuracy of climate science, signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel lauscience, signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, including 11 Nobel laureates.

One of the most glaring differences between legitimate science - based blogs and those that deny the science on anthropogenic climate change is how they write about polar bears and Arctic sea ice.

As is usually the case in these climate contrarian letters, this one has no scientific content, and is written by individuals with not an ounce of climate science expertise, but who nevertheless have the audacity to tell climate scientists what they should think about climate science.

Jeremy Deaton writes about the science, policy, and politics of climate and energy for Nexus Media.