It's more of
an agreement than a debate.
Not exact matches
Fletcher said the union chose to delay the ratification vote until after winter break to give members more
than a month to study, discuss and
debate the proposed
agreement.
«If one wanted to sabotage the chances for a meaningful
agreement in Paris next year, towards which the negotiations have been ongoing for several years, there'd hardly be a better way
than restarting a
debate about the finally - agreed foundation once again, namely the global long - term goal of limiting warming to at most 2 degrees C,» Stefan Rahmstorf, an expert at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, wrote last week in an online response to the Nature piece.
«Overall, the findings suggest that if there was closer attention to the social consequences of policies, rather
than continuing with seemingly intractable
debates on the reality of AGW, then we might get to a point where there could be
agreement on some action.»
The reason why the Australian public think that there is only a 58 %
agreement between climate scientists is because the
debate in the popular media is mostly political where anything seems to be said rather
than it being a scientific
debate based on evidence.
But with the ink dry on the United Nation's historic global climate
agreement, it's more obvious
than ever that they've lost their so - called
debate.
This is nowhere more manifest
than in the heated
debates (in Germany and elsewhere) about the EU - Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement (CETA) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
After meeting for more
than 18 hours, they released a statement with
agreement on several points about the
debate.
Rather
than debate ad nauseam I'm going to table this as an
agreement to disagree.