Sentences with phrase «written by climate science»

But he then admitted he had found time to read and publicly cite the book Heaven and Earth, written by climate science sceptic and mining entrepreneur Professor Ian Plimer.

Not exact matches

► «Outrage has greeted a decision by the head of Australia's premier research agency to cut jobs and eliminate work in certain fields, including basic climate science,» Leigh Dayton wrote this morning at ScienceInsider.

«Northern domination of science globally relevant to climate change policy and practice and lack of research led by Southern researchers in Southern countries may hinder development and implementation of bottom - up global agreements and nationally appropriate actions in Southern countries,» they write.

McCarthy expressed hope that the report, coming from a trusted source — AAAS publishes the prestigious journal Science — and written by a group of esteemed American climate scientists, would get across the message that 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement and that early action is needed on climate change.

They felt the climate statement was too important to be written by physicists who had little or no training in climate science before receiving a one - day crash course from a mixed bag of instructors.

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.

Rather than inheriting big brains from a common ancestor, Neandertals and modern humans each developed that trait on their own, perhaps favored by changes in climate, environment, or tool use experienced separately by the two species «more than half a million years of separate evolution,» writes Jean - Jacques Hublin, a paleoanthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, in a commentary in Science.

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

The Climate CIRCulator is a monthly newsletter covering climate science and the Northwest written by scientists and communiClimate CIRCulator is a monthly newsletter covering climate science and the Northwest written by scientists and communiclimate science and the Northwest written by scientists and communicators.

Science Trends is a leading source of science news and analysis on everything from climate change to cancer research, all of which is curated and written by a community of experts in theirScience Trends is a leading source of science news and analysis on everything from climate change to cancer research, all of which is curated and written by a community of experts in theirscience news and analysis on everything from climate change to cancer research, all of which is curated and written by a community of experts in their field.

In a letter this morning addressed to Reps. Doc Hastings and Ed Markey, the Committee chairman and ranking member, Grijalva urges the Committee to determine whether Indur Goklany, the DOI Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy, received money he was promised by the Heartland Institute for writing a chapter in a book focused on climate policy in apparent violation of federal rules, among other issues.

-LSB-...] as the cause for modern warming (for more on the science, see these articles at RealClimate — this, this, this, this, and this — written by practicing climate -LSB-...]

It's written by five leading climate scientists, all of whom have long been reliable guides to a complicated and consequential body of science — John M. Wallace at the University of Washington, Isaac M. Held at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, David W. J. Thompson at Colorado State University, Kevin E. Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and John E. Walsh at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.

In 1997 the Edmonton Sun wrote that climate science is bunk and that Alberta's economy would be crushed by Kyoto proposals.

You may be of the opinion that all climate science is merely being done to further our own personal interests and therefore nothing that is said by any of us can be trusted --(though if that were the case, I'd be writing studies on how short, balding, rotund scientists are really the best lovers).

Some scientists, like Susan Solomon, who directed the writing of the science report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, try to defer from interpreting findings.

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

This pivotal paper was written by Wallace Broecker, one of the deans of modern climate science.

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.

Letters criticizing the book's portrayal of climate science were written to the publisher and authors by James E. Hansen of NASA and Michael MacCracken, a former government climate expert and longtime contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate science were written to the publisher and authors by James E. Hansen of NASA and Michael MacCracken, a former government climate expert and longtime contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate expert and longtime contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate Change.

Re # 7, that ties in nicely with what Roger Pielke Jr recently wrote at the Prometheus science policy weblog (Follow Up On Landsea / IPCC — see last 4 - 5 paragraphs): «But more troubling than a lack of knowledge of the substance of the science of the IPCC reports is the political stance on climate taken by the head of the IPCC.

I first interviewed him in 1985 for a Science Digest cover story I was writing on another type of climate intervention by humans — the hypothesized «nuclear winter» that could follow a nuclear war.

For specific applications of non-centered PCA to climate data, consider this presentation provided by statistical climatologist Ian Jolliffe who specializes in applications of PCA in the atmospheric sciences, having written a widely used text book on PCA.

«As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science,» said the letter, signed by current and retired MIT profClimate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science,» said the letter, signed by current and retired MIT profclimate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science,» said the letter, signed by current and retired MIT profclimate science,» said the letter, signed by current and retired MIT professors.

Writing on the same climate science website, he said: «When someone talks up imminent catastrophe, they might think they are getting a quick win by getting a scary story out there, but in the long term it will be an own goal.»

Walter Cunningham wrote against climate science in a pamphlet (pdf) published by the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank fighting climate science.

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».

Written by Bernie Lewin, who has no climate science credentials whatsoever.

Hundreds: the number of scientists involved in writing the assessments of climate science by the National Research Council of the National Academies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the U.S. Global Change Research Pclimate science by the National Research Council of the National Academies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the U.S. Global Change Research PClimate Change, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

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.

Lindzen writes this after Democratic lawmakers launched an investigation into energy industry funding of climate science, looking to discredit scientists whose research challenges the underlying reasons for C02 - reducing policies championed by the Obama administration.

However, my post was not intended to introduce discussion of an illustration: I wrote in support of the assertion by Pat Frank that climate modelers lack an adequate «basic standard of science».

Our idea was to write a survey of climate science as it then existed, as a correction to the story being peddled by the UN-IPCC.

But this climate - science denial letter was different in one key respect — it was written by David Shuford, a vice president and deputy general counsel at Dominion Resources Inc., Virginia's largest energy company and the commonwealth's biggest emitter of climate - disrupting carbon dioxide.

All of these publish bogus disputes of climate science, written by people on the fossil fuel industry payroll.

He was referring to the climate model software written by CRU, I cou; dn't find an actual name for it but I did find the read me and along with it a great write up on why «open source science» would've helped avoid this scandal:

He writes basic level rebuttals and occasional blog posts for Skeptical Science, motivated in part by a concern for the environment, and partly as a counter-reaction to the demagoguery and disinformation that pervades the public discourse on climate sScience, motivated in part by a concern for the environment, and partly as a counter-reaction to the demagoguery and disinformation that pervades the public discourse on climate sciencescience.

It is a sad state of affairs for climate science that this book had to be written (it was brought on by Michael Mann's lawsuit â $ «without the lawsuit, Steyn obviously wouldn't have bothered).

The 2002 NAS report — Abrupt Climate Change — inevitable surprises — was written by a committee of climate science lumiClimate Change — inevitable surprises — was written by a committee of climate science lumiclimate science luminaries.

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.

- 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.

Rick Pilz, who worked for the US Climate Change Science Program, and whose job it was to oversee the writing of reports for policymakers, claimed that he saw the science watered down and censored by a White HousScience Program, and whose job it was to oversee the writing of reports for policymakers, claimed that he saw the science watered down and censored by a White Housscience watered down and censored by a White House aide.

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..

What hasn't been reported is the complementary role of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has peddled laws written by corporate lobbyists through state legislatures that make it easy for its dirty energy members, such as Exxon, Koch Industries and Peabody coal, to influence how climate science is presented to students.

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.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has peddled laws written by corporate lobbyists through state legislatures that make it easy for its dirty energy members, such as Exxon, Koch Industries and Peabody coal, to influence how climate science is presented to students.

S&R reviewed eight related commentaries written by Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition since mid-December.

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.