Sentences with phrase «arguing over climate»

We're still arguing over climate change and to some extent I can understand that; local knowledge has been passed down through five generations of farmers.

We'll be arguing over climate policy for a long time to come — but more and more, in my opinion, it will be about policy, and not about the existence of the problem.

The scientists could get on with the science, go to conferences, argue over climate sensitivity or the impact of CO2 on the oceans or whatever.

Not exact matches

The Republican Party's fast journey from debating how to combat human - caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favouring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over co-operation and conciliation.

In addition to suing over Clean Power Plan regulations, Pruitt has argued that climate activists should be prosecuted, and that debate over whether climate change is human - made should be encouraged in classrooms and Congress — despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the debate is settled.

After the park board approved the project over the summer, opponents continued to argue that placing the interpretive center near the shore could lead to the structure being damaged by the elements due to inclement weather and climate change.

As Matthew Hoffmann has argued [2], the ozone negotiations marked a normative shift over the desirability of universal participation in global environmental negotiations, a shift that was locked into the initial negotiations on climate change.

(I take your point that failure to achieve this might legitimate peaceful civil disobedience; I wouldn't see that it could legitimate prioritising climate change over democratic means, which has been argued eg by Mayer Hillman).

In a report published this morning, the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Committee argued Defra must now concentrate on rural communities, given that its climate change brief has been shifted over to the new Department of Energy and Climate climate change brief has been shifted over to the new Department of Energy and Climate Climate Change.

Soon after the delay to the decision was announced by Hoon last Christmas, the Miliband and Benn camps both contacted the Institute for Public Policy Research, over a pamphlet by Simon Retallack, the IPPR's head of climate change, arguing that the third runway should not go ahead unless the government required aircraft using it to meet the aviation industry's own targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions and noise in new aircraft by 50 % and nitrogen oxides by 80 % by 2020.

Rather than arguing over the science of climate change, public discussion should be about actions needed to address it, he said.

At a tense debate in February at UCLA where Jacobson argued over the merits of supporting nuclear versus ramping up renewables, sharing the stage with nuclear supporters like Environmental Progress» Shellenberger and fellow Stanford climate scientist Ken Caldeira, the question - and - answer session with the audience devolved into a shouting match.

In a changing climate, civil engineer Paul Kirshen argues, facilities will have to adapt to changing conditions over their useful lives — and, in some instances, be allowed to fail.

Rather than arguing over their respective interests, delegates to last month's climate conference at Cancún might have better spent their...

But climate activists in Bonn and elsewhere said the G7 recognition that decarbonisation of the global economy was needed «over the course of this century» was too slow, arguing it should happen by 2050 instead.

Over the past year, a number of prominent Republican voices have argued their party must rethink its long - standing opposition to measures designed to address climate change.

Greenland temperature variations Veizer's paper argues that the local preindustrial climate fluctuations over the past millennium in Greenland were not driven by CO2.

Most famously, in 2003, Soon co-authored a paper in the journal Climate Research that questioned the standard interpretation of climate change over the past millennium and argued that recent warming is not unusual by historical staClimate Research that questioned the standard interpretation of climate change over the past millennium and argued that recent warming is not unusual by historical staclimate change over the past millennium and argued that recent warming is not unusual by historical standards.

Author Madeleine Somerville argues that access to basic reproductive health services would help women around the world take greater ownership over their bodies and in turn ease the overpopulation crisis that's spurring climate change.

Perhaps the greatest contribution of MI theory, I would argue, has been its role over the past decade as a counterbalance to an educational climate increasingly focused on high - stakes testing, such as the IQ test, the SAT, and the various state assessments that have emerged from the No Child Left Behind Act.

So, I agree with Al Gore (and most, if not all, climate scientists) that the general debate about AGW is over (tho some keep arguing on and on to the contrary like zombies), even though the scientists are still doing climate science and ironing out «the details.»

What I'm arguing is that the idea that we can win the climate fight without engaging in ideological battle over these core questions about the role of government has always been a fantasy.

He questions the time scale over which climate is defined, arguing that there is no defined time scale.

In terms of the gold that a climate science denier might find in the paper, at the very least, they could argue that the fact that the troposphere isn't warming more quickly than the surface shows that the climate models are unreliable — even though the models predict just the pattern of warming that we see — with the troposphere warming more quickly than the surface over the ocean but less quickly than the surface over land.

No one would argue that the current multi-lateral climate negotiations are an attempt to establish «ultimate global authority over humanity» and this is certainly never been suggested by the Planetary Boundaries research.

Can it be argued given the paleoclimate evidence for abrupt climate changes that there is likely no strong negative feedback over any meaningful time scale?

Greenland temperature variations Veizer's paper argues that the local preindustrial climate fluctuations over the past millennium in Greenland were not driven by CO2.

Even for the Senate, where members are well - known to prefer talking to listening, the amount of unilateral jabbering on the climate change bill has been remarkable, with lawmakers both for and against the measure arguing repeatedly over how much time was allotted for them to speak.

But it would be hard to argue that Environmentalism has not gone mainstream in a country where Al Gore wins Nobel Prizes and Oscars, and John «The climate debate is over» McCain gets the Republicans» Presidential nomination.

And we argued over and over that the carbon consequences of bioenergy were far from «climate friendly» or «carbon neutral,» a myth that has been perpetuated by industry proponents and even parroted by many naive environmentalists.

Instead of developing plans to move to a greener, zero - emissions economy, we're still arguing over the pace, causes, and consequences of climate change.

One can argue over how serious any one of these climate - driven changes are, and whether or not they are harmful.

Earlier in this suit over fossil fuel funding, says the LAT, the Bush administration argued that «alleged impacts of global climate change are too remote and speculative» to be part of project reviews.

Notice, for instance, that one account of the consensus (more accurate than Grimes's) holds that «most of the warming in the second half of the twentieth century has been caused by man», and does not exclude the majority of climate sceptics, who typically argue that the IPCC over estimates climate sensitivity.

The consensus theory argues over how «sensitive» the climate is to CO2 forcing.

Forests in particular were deeply involved in the carbon cycle, and from the 1970s onward, scientists argued over just what deforestation might mean for climate.

For instance, opponents of US government action on climate change have for over 30 years predominantly argued against proposed policies on two grounds.

It is hard to argue with the evidence — the climate system as a whole is not chaotic, but rather harbors chaotic elements that average out over multidecadal timescales, revealing an underlying temperature trend.

Then why do so - called climate scientists publish peer - reviewed papers in which they argue that the AMO, PDO, ENSO, have short term effects that must average to zero over the long run?

Physicists and climate scientists have long argued over whether changes to the Sun affect the Earth's climate?

As I've argued several times, the battle over coal - export terminals in the Pacific Northwest is the key U.S. climate fight of the next few years.

Pielke warns of a greater public danger than Atlantic storms: «Public discussion of disasters risks being taken over by the climate lobby and its allies, who exploit every extreme event to argue for action on energy policy.»

In 1990, British cloud physicist John Latham published a paper arguing he could cool global climate by brightening clouds over the ocean.

The GWPF report, entitled «Oversensitive: How the IPCC hid good the news on global warming», argues the UN's official climate body glossed over the possibility of modest future warming in its latest assessment, in favour of evidence that the risks could be much higher.

This is very unreasonable of Richard Tol: As I argue over at Climate Etc, these two papers are methodologically unsound.

Drawing on case studies of past environmental debates such as those over acid rain and ozone depletion, science policy experts Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz argue that once next generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change lower - cost, then much of the argument politically over scientific uncertainty is likely to diminish.26 Similarly, research by Yale University's Dan Kahan and colleagues suggest that building political consensus on climate change will depend heavily on advocates for action calling attention to a diverse mix of options, with some actions such as tax incentives for nuclear energy, government support for clean energy research, or actions to protect cities and communities against climate risks, more likely to gain support from both Democrats and Republicans.

OF course many skeptics kid themselves over this as well, by taking a few extreme examples, and arguing that people want climate change to be a problem.

In 2008, Monbiot seemed to agree, arguing that the eco-anarcho-socialists gathered at Climate Camp were undermining themselves: «Stopping runaway climate change must take precedence over every other aim», hClimate Camp were undermining themselves: «Stopping runaway climate change must take precedence over every other aim», hclimate change must take precedence over every other aim», he said.

As I argue over at Climate Etc, these two papers are methodologically unsound.

And the view that the climate has not warmed for over a decade and a half is no longer controversial — only people assembled at the Guardian argue otherwise, albeit they argue the point with (far too much) vehemence.