Sentences with phrase «many debates about global warming»

If you've said, «it's not that big a deal, the scientists aren't sure,» you chose to ignore that there is no more debate about global warming and how it will hurt people.

I agree with Harriet Coleman (22 August, p 24) that the debate about global warming is really about preserving our...

Everything's Cool (Unrated) Cautionary documentary exposes the efforts of the fossil fuel industry lobby and conservative think tanks to manufacture an artificial debate about global warming in the face of irrefutable proof of the phenomenon provided by responsible members of the scientific community.

But in no case should a reporter who wishes to portray with accuracy the debates about global warming, present a minority view unbacked by science and promoted by businesses with a small, old dog in a very tough dog fight, as equivalent to hard science from unbiased scientists with no economic interest in anything but getting the facts and predictions right.

It should also be made clear to the public that there is no debate about global warming.

In the study scientists at Scripps and their colleagues «have produced the first clear evidence of human - produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming».

That first slide — all that debate about global warming — is almost invisible amid the other news that dominates our field of view.

It is also widely stated by people (like Lawson) expecting to have credibility in debates about global warming policy.

Even at its most simple, the debate about global warming is a debate about a property of the Earth, which is a question of degree.

People who've been following the debate about global warming closely will be aware that the economic modelling used in projections of future climate change by the IPCC has been severely criticised by former Australian Statistician Ian Castles and former OECD chief economist David Henderson.

We hope this will encourage use of our film in High Schools to balance the debate about global warming,

Another gem is mentioning that not a word has come up in the presidential debates about global warming and in the last debate Romney and Obama were competing over who could increase domestic fossil fuel production faster and cheaper.

Together they observed a real need for a new project to analyze current global surface temperature records in order to respond to concerns of critics and calm the debate about global warming.

More to the point, it was wielded in a public and political debate about global warming policy.

Moreover, as I've argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global warming almost concedes to the alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.

Tribe's comments seemed to be more aimed at giving conservative pundits some ammunition in the public debate about global warming policies than thoughtful legal reasoning.

«This book by climate scientists Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer is a tour de force on the scientific debate about global warming.

There is no debate about global warming, they announced.

The whole debate about Global Warming is exactly how much carbon dioxide one has to add in order to change world temperatures; but no one disputes that, eventually, too much carbon dioxide will increase the temperature.

But look at the evidence of those closest to bearing the real costs: private US insurers — those who place real bets indemnifying against property loss — unlike the supposedly more serious scientists — are unmoved by ACW: «The American Insurance Association, which represents 400 property and casualty insurers, says the debate about global warming has not been resolved.

The real debate about global warming isn't even about the Earth changing because the Earth is always changing.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half - truths and misunderstandings.

As Republicans piled up attacks, Sen. Bernard Sanders, I - Vt., shot back, «This is not a debate about Gina McCarthy... it is a debate about global warming and whether we are going to listen to the leading scientists of this country who are telling us that global warming is the most serious planetary crisis we face.»

Regarding Alex Merz's comment: the problem with the debate about global warming (and many other environmental issues) is that the uninformed are thinking that they ARE informed because they are getting their information well - spun from «authorities» like Crichton and Lomborg and Gregg Easterbrook and Patrick Michaels.

In a May 2006 working paper released by the Brookings Institution, «Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming is Over,» Easterbrook cited doubts surrounding global warming in the early 1990s and informed readers that, in his book Moment on the Earth: The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism (Penguin, 1995), he had «called for more research» on the topic:

Cool It is a groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns.

The SmogMaker Awards are sponsored by DeSmogBlog.com, a website dedicated to exposing the public relations spin that has so distorted the debate about global warming.

Not exact matches

After many years of vague talk by governments about fighting global warming, it is encouraging that the debate has finally begun to tackle specific mechanisms to achieve cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.Â

Since, even now, when debates about the fact of global warming is largely over, no nation is considering taking the really drastic actions that might significantly reduce the catastrophes that lie ahead, it seems that we are all too likely to experience judgment for our collective sins.

I have always thought that the global warming, or «climate change» debate, was as much about social psychology as science.

«Too often in debates about climate change risk, the starting point is a presumption that only global warming in excess of 2 °C represents a threat to humanity,» says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, College Park.

There was much public debate about the role of climate change in the aftermath of Harvey, and many Republicans were quick to dismiss links to global warming, pointing out that states like Florida and Texas have a long history with deadly storms.

When our grandchildren write the history of global warming — how we discovered and debated it, and what we finally did about it — the stinkbugs that ate Maggs's tomatoes may not loom large.

Climate Change — Want to know more about global warming — the science, impacts and political debate?

And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?

There is some debate about when the «Little Ice Age» — the last time when global average temperatures were falling — ended, but it is well documented that glaciers started receding around that time as a result of the relative warming of the planet.

But the true battle consuming leaders from 198 governments at a U.N. global warming conference that concluded yesterday after two weeks of negotiations and 32 hours of overtime debating was really about just one thing: balancing responsibilities between poor, rich and richer nations.

From stem cell research to global warming, human cloning, evolution, and beyond, the science debates are not exactly about science, but come down to a dispute between liberals and conservatives about the right way to think about the future.

I had thought there was a legitimate scientific debate about the role of global warming and hurricanes, but it appears that the deniers, although they are legitimate scientists, seem to have fallen in with the think tank ideologues and PR lobbyists who masquerade as scientists.

Or, short version: «While human - caused global warming is well established, there is uncertainty about (or debate on)....»

Facts and anecdotes examine the historic, scientific, economic, political, cultural, and literary aspects of coal, as well as the current debates about energy consumption, developing nations, and global warming.

It is a deliberate lie, scripted by ExxonMobil - funded propaganda mills disguised as «conservative think tanks», that is demonstrably false and as such it does not belong in the debate about what to do about anthropogenic global warming.

If mean global temperatures trending significantly upward over the last 100 years isn't worrying enough for you, how about that giant piece of Antarctica that is about to crack off and sink into the ocean... I don't know how the existence of global warming is still a debate!

When the debate gets to that crux, here are some crucial, verifiable facts — with citations — people need to know about human - generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming.

David Tenenbaum # 8 (Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.)

Any discussion of global warming, whether in a news story or debate over policy or Gallup poll question, ideally should start with clarity about what's being discussed.

Before delving into the paper itself, a few words about the place of our work in the global warming «debate» are in order.

Gee, when we have a bunch of candidates that don't seem to «believe» in evolution, who don't care what happens to the planet because they discount what science tells us about global warming, I can't think a «science debate» is such a bad idea.

There is a lively debate in climate science about how best to compare the importance of these greenhouse gases, and many climatologists deeply immersed in studying human - driven global warming reject the method used by Howarth.

I know some here will decry that I am not talking about the issues because I do not try to obsfuscate with a discussion of the spot market price of coal vs long - term contracts, or use of coal in locations other than Kansas, or Al Gore's footprint, but the issue of Global Warming IS politics (non-ratification of Kyoto and negative flag - waving ads about politicians who oppose coal), it IS public relations («Clean Coal», cleanest coal - fired plants, surface mining and mountain - top reoval rather than strip mining, etc.), and it IS about misrepresentation (Peobody framing the debate as coal vs NG when it is really coal vs every other energy source), and it IS about greed (the coal industry doing everything it can to scuttle every other energy alternative).