Sentences with phrase «warming debate in»

McIntyre has been described as a «persistent amateur who had no credentials in applied science before stepping into the global warming debate in 2003» and has been a prominent critic of temperature records that suggest increasing global temperatures over the past 1000 years.

I must admit to being somewhat frustrated with the global warming debate in that I think it's missing (and indeed drawing focus away from) the point, which is that we need to focus on long - term sustainability in our interactions with the planet.

In a really good article in the New York Times, Eduardo Porter explains the economic end of the global warming debate in terms that even the most rabid green could understand.

It seems that the individual that wrote this paper was: «Of loaded dice and heated arguments: Putting the Hansen — Michaels global warming debate in context» social epistemology, 2000, vol.

Remember when James Hansen launched the Great Global Warming debate in the hot, dry summer of 1988?

I wrote here last year about Lessl's exploration of global warming debates in relation to «scientism,» a presumption of some that science «brings clarity to all endeavors.»

Not exact matches

Turns out I'm not the only one to notice that in the debate over the best mechanism to combat global warming, the pols seem to prefer cap - and - trade systems to a carbon tax.

Alice Hill, who directed resilience policy for the National Security Council in the Obama administration, said the wider debate over cutting climate - warming emissions may have distracted people from promptly pursuing ways to reduce risks and economic and societal costs from natural disasters.

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

As with global warming, so too with the lawlessness in our society: the debates over its causes are far from finished.

Yesterday the Bill had its Second Reading debate in the Commons and here is a flavour of the warm welcome it got from the Tory backbenches.

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 warminIn 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 warminin climate research to «suppress» research conducted by those who challenge the existence of global warming.

This is just as the leading candidates earmarked for the debate are warming up to reel out their plans for the state in the next four years as contained in their manifestos.

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.

Some researchers have suggested that climate change, which has resulted in a rapidly warming Arctic, is leading to jet stream kinks that keep extreme weather in place, although that hypothesis is still being debated (ClimateWire, April 3).

That study sparked a dizzying debate — but one that will ultimately help glaciologists grasp just what is happening in East Antarctica and push scientists to consider how to handle contentious results in a warming world.

Skeptic: Let's talk in 30 years While debate flared around what to do about climate change, the notion that the earth is warming might be more widely accepted.

«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.

The recent slowdown in global warming has brought into question the reliability of climate model projections of future temperature change and has led to a vigorous debate over whether this slowdown is the result of naturally occurring, internal variability or forcing external to Earth's climate system.

A Sensitive Debate The dramatic nature of global warming captured world attention in 2001, when the IPCC published a graph that my co-authors and I devised, which became known as the «hockey stick.»

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.

Starting from the same kernel of scientific truth as did The Day After Tomorrow — that global warming could disrupt ocean currents in the North Atlantic — a study commissioned by the Pentagon, of all organizations, concluded that the «risk of abrupt climate change... should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern.»

In 2005 MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel stirred intense debate with a study indicating that global warming had caused hurricanes to nearly double in strength since the 1970In 2005 MIT climatologist Kerry Emanuel stirred intense debate with a study indicating that global warming had caused hurricanes to nearly double in strength since the 1970in strength since the 1970s.

In so far as some sceptics and deniers are proclaiming that carbon dioxide - induced anthropogenic global warming may be «the scientific fraud of the century» then surely the issues surrounding it must be the scientific debate of the century.

A study published in April in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) started this debate by projecting that a warming climate would render many of the traditional European wine - growing areas unsuitable for wine production by 2050.

The meeting coincides with a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York City, who are debating topics like «Global warming: Was it ever a crisis?»

«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.

She also emphasises the importance of the study to current debates about a human role in climate warming: «Cumulative archaeological data clearly demonstrates that humans are more than capable of reshaping and dramatically transforming ecosystems.

The debate should be at the technical aspects of this warming, in particular, what is the rate of this warming???

This suggests above all that no side in these debates should imagine it basks in warm public support.

Evidence of the «pause» in surface warming «has sparked a lively scientific and public debate», says the Nature Climate Change editorial.

Appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences November 26, the results solve a long - standing debate and reveal how pollution plays into climate warming.

from ExxonMobil, Phillip Morris and numerous other corporations and right - wing foundations with vested interest in the global warming debate.

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.

The fundamental difference in opinion (which has not changed since Michaels and Hansen started debating each other in 1988) is that Hansen (and the vast majority of relevant experts) think that climate sensitivity (how much the globe will warm under a doubling of CO2) is around 3 (+ / -1) °C, while Michaels thinks that it is much less (< 1 °C).

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.

The vast majority of climate researchers are convinced by the data that human - caused warming is underway, though spirited debate surrounds the complex feedbacks in the climate system.

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.

And there is something strangely warming about the relationship between Mr Numbers and Mr Wrench, a pair of assassins (one of whom is deaf) who bicker in sign language like an old married couple as they debate gangster etiquette, the importance of public libraries, and the eating practices of Mormons.

: A debate that may not be hot, but is at least warm, like 15 seconds in the microwave.

Much like the debate over global warming, these non-believers refuse to validate an unassailable fact: standardized testing does have positive — and predictive — value in education and in life, just as the Earth is, indeed, getting warmer.

He chuckles when it's compared to the similarly sealed — at least in most scientists» minds — debate over global warming.

LazyBoy Foley was warm when he brought up parenting in the last debate but a public official who is «committed» to public education should actually have gone through the system with his kids.

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.

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.

The point is simply that finding a warmer ocean around the medieval period shouldn't have much weight in debate about relative surface temperatures.

How come it's the lawyers and businessmen in the senate and the white house who are debating the scientific merits of ways to curb global warming and evaluating economic repercussions of their decisions?

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.