Sentences with phrase «warming debate on»

Not exact matches

Despite the tensions over policies, the debate ended on a warm note, when Mrs Clinton said the first person she would call would be Mr Sanders, if she won the nomination.

Don Thanks for these interesting comments I think you were a bit warmer Perhaps one major lesson of these debates is that there seems to have been a significant under - supply on the blogosphere (i) detailed tax policy and distributional arguments.

The local fight over taxes on the rich is also a warm - up act for an intramural Democratic debate that Hillary Clinton will need to contend with next year.

Cameron also paid a warm tribute to the Lib Dem leader, with whom he has had a frosty relationship in the past, for bringing the matter to the Commons on a day set aside for a debate on a subject chosen by the third party.

In a video posted on his official Assembly website, Hanna is seen debating a bill on the floor and decrying a «conspiracy» by scientists who engage in climate research to «suppress» research conducted by those who challenge the existence of global warming.

Earlier this year, Cuomo's Republican opponent Rob Astorino said he wanted to debate Cuomo one - on - one, but has warmed up to the idea of allowing Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins to participate.

The causes of the warming remain debated, but Liu and his team homed in on the melting glacial water that poured into oceans as the ice receded, paradoxically slowing the ocean current in the North Atlantic that keeps Europe from freezing over.

The conclusion of Soon and Baliunas that the warming during the 20th century is not unusual has engendered sharp debate and intense reactions on both sides — Soon and Baliunas responded primarily via e-mail and refused follow - up questions.

«That's the way we deal with global warming, climate change or any of those problems,» Christie said in the prime - time debate on CNBC.

While there is still plenty of work to be done on the implications, the scientific debate over whether rising greenhouse gas levels are the principal cause of this warming has effectively been dead for years, despite the heroic efforts of some sections of the media to keep it on life - support.»

Among atmospheric scientists, physicists, oceanographers and others who study Earth's energy balance there is virtually no debate on either the existence or the causes of global warming.

The potential influence of rapid Arctic warming on such extremes has been a hot research topic in recent years, though it is much debated in the climate community.

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

My personal highlights included inspirational warm - ups from conductor Dominic Peckham and ex-STOMP member Ollie Tunmer and fascinating debates on the future of GCSEs and on increasing student engagement, the latter of which was filmed for James Rhodes's upcoming Channel 4 documentary on music education.

More than a decade ago, Al Gore declared the debate on global warming over.

Intelligence Squared U.S. energy and environment debates shine a critical light on the most pressing issues spurred by climate change and 21st century environmental priorities, including clean energy, fracking, organic and genetically modified foods, and whether or not global warming poses an immediate threat.

I am also very concerned that the current debate on global warming gets so specialized that the forest may well be missed out for the trees.

Many pragmatists and scientists see attempts to link warming to temporal weather patterns (e.g. Sen. Feinstein's recent remarks on Capitol Hill) as a mistake, one that undermines the real 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.

But he noted that there are plenty on both sides of important scientific debates, including many researchers finding that warming could be far higher than the predominant view.

Update, June 19, 10:30 p.m. Joe Romm has written a long post on Climate Progress on the Orwellian aspects of a «good» Anthropocene — «Words Matter When Talking Global Warming: The «Good Anthropocene» Debate» — and Hamilton has a long essay in Scientific American warning that «The New Environmentalism Will Lead Us to Disaster.

Although I don't know how the hostess picks themes or manages to manage things, in my brief experience with the blog, you are much more likely to find a sensible and creative discussion of how to actually address the issue (global warming, sustainability, and related matters of living well within our environment) on the family, local, or cultural levels than you are to find a large acrimonious debate among (often anonymous) people.

Dr. Somerville was on the losing side of a Marc 2007 debate between scientists over whether global warming was a «crisis.»

By coincidence I have been debating a denier on another forum and have suggested he read this recent IUNC report on ocean warming.

in the video summary of this story posted on nytimes.com revkin describes the warming debate being owned by the two «extremes», this is followed by shots of michael crichton's (non scientific consensus) book «state of fear» and... al gore with his (pro scientific consensus) slide lecture!

I've been fascinated by how, as the global warming debate went on, the deniers all suddenly began to attack windmills.

To understand his stance on greenhouse warming, it's worth going back to the Intelligence Squared debate in Manhattan in 2007 on global warming.

In 2006, amid persistent scientific debate over the possible role of greenhouse - driven warming in shaping hurricane patterns, 10 leading researchers in the field issued a single statement on vulnerability.

I am simply reporting an advert on page A16 of todya's TNYT: The advert states that «global warming is not a crisis» and asks one to call Al Gore to ask him to debate a Mr. Chris Horner.

or had a heads up on the following: «Science Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate» «The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human - induced global wWarming Debate» «The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human - induced global warmingwarming.

The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.

Anyone who thinks that there is any genuine «debate» about either the reality of anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change, or the grave threat not only to human civilization but to all life on earth if unmitigated, «business as usual» anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change are permitted to continue, is profoundly misinformed.

I sat in on the debate, which looked remarkably like the debate that takes place in the comment stream here every time I write on global warming...

If any readers will be attending and want to say hi, I will be giving a talk on «Science blogging: RealClimate.org and the Global Warming debate «on Friday (PA53A, 13:40, MCS 309).

As a lake ecologist (limnologist) my study will not contribute to debates about the causes of climate warming but it will show that the indirect effects of warming on food chains (over the past 30 years) can be very substantial (even dramatic).

As with the «debate» on evolution, I think it is clear (or, at least «suspect») why many people do not take global warming seriously.

This shift away from CO2 - centric emissions debates is also evident in a group blog post by analysts at the Center for American Progress, who propose a «multiple multilateralism» approach on climate that, among other things, seeks quick steps on sources of warming other than carbon dioxide — particularly sooty Arctic pollution and gases already considered under the existing ozone - protection treaty.

I wonder why action is being taken to adapt to and mitigate man - made climate change instead of «discussing» the «debate» over 10 - year old first papers and whether Algore is fat and whether the earth is cooling despite last year being the warmest on record (according to one dataset)?

Partisanship by NOAA administrators on the climate change - hurricane debate followed the partisanship by NOAA National Weather Service on climate change - skeptic debate by 12 years which started just after the Gore book on global warming book came out.

In the talk, Victor, trained in political science, warns against focusing too much on trying to defeat those denying the widespread view that greenhouse - driven climate change is a clear and present danger, first explaining that there are many kind of people engaged at that end of the global warming debate — including camps he calls «shills» (the professional policy delayers), «skeptics» (think Freeman Dyson) and «hobbyists.»

I have served my time in the «trenches of the climate war» in the context of the debate on hurricanes and global warming.

While not a scientist, I clearly understand that fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases, though the degree of warming are obviously open for heated debate and frankly, a lot of not so friendly jabs on this and other sites.

They have shown that they are not interested in an evenhanded debate on global warming and what contributes to it.»

http://humbabe.arc.nasa.gov/~fenton/ Note that this global warming as been studied by only one research team and presented in one article (to be compared to the thousands of articles studying climate trends on earth), based on partial satellite data, and there is a serious debate now amongst the planetologists community to determine if this is a persistent trend or if it will stop in a few years.

Don't worry, there is more than talking going on from the Global Warming debate.

4:15 p.m. Updated On the tiny patch of American public discourse reserved for the global warming debate (to get an idea of how tiny, find climate, or the environment for that matter, in this news map if you can), a week of blogitation over a sprawling report examining failed efforts to pass a climate bill has started to give way to constructive discussion.

If you've followed the scientific debate on global warming and hurricanes, you will recognize many of the characters in Mooney's tale (yours truly even gets mentioned a few times:)-RRB-.

Mike Crichton's latest pageturner has drawn on my earlier critique of the epic overselling of «Nuclear Winter», but fails to mention how I categorized the media hype in dialog with Steve Schneider at a 1987 symposium:» Nuclear Winter is a joke played at the expense of the credibility of the climate modeling community on the eve of the global warming debate»

Since this post is titled «Averting our eyes», I can't help but comment that having just watched the GOP Youtube / CNN debate on TV here in Taiwan, I can not believe that not ONE question was about climate change or global warming.

In the intellectual equivalent of a pro-wrestling «smackdown,» two teams of combatants enter a plush, packed auditorium on the Upper East Side for a debate titled «Global Warming Is Not a Crisis,» staged by a group called Intelligence Squared U.S..