Sentences with phrase «arguing over climate science»

Not exact matches

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

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.»

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.

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.

As outlined over the past decade in articles at Science and Nature, and in reports such as the Hartwell paper and Climate Pragmatism, various experts have argued that political success will only come by pursuing a diverse portfolio of policy solutions and technologies, implemented across levels of government and through the private and nonprofit sectors.

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.

It argues that the IPCC's «heroic days» of «Herculean work» are probably over, more frequent assessments focused on policy challenges are required, and the wider review of science made possible by the blogosphere can help: New Scientist says because the case for anthropogenic climate change is firmly established («the Nobel prize is won») the IPCC really needs to revision itself.