Sentences with phrase «arguments over climate»

Muller is right about the globe warming, but his framing of the debate is a red herring: arguments over climate change are not about whether one accepts or «denies» that the climate has warmed in recent years.

This may let them defame anyone who disagrees with them as a «denier» of scientific reasoning, but it is an inaccurate characterization of the arguments over climate change.

Otherwise moral arguments over climate, energy and humanitarian projects are meaningless.

The news release — appended below — says it all, and the findings it describes reinforce my assertion awhile back that there's plenty of denial to go around in the arguments over climate and energy trends and policies.

Success is unlikely because Obama could veto those measures, but the strength of opposition, at 49 senators, could continue interparty arguments over climate issues heading into the primary contests next year.

The substance of his argument over climate change is to say he is not satisfied.

Notice its headline at the top says «Balancing The Argument Over Climate Change ``, not «attacking mainstream science».

Not exact matches

And it crosses over all these lines: local environmental impact, there's the climate argument, there's the First Nations rights argument, there's the stewardship argument, so it can really draw from a whole wide sector of civil society in the way that the faceless catastrophe of climate change can't.

One big challenge to U.S. efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions comes this week, as a federal circuit court hears arguments over a challenge to the White House's major climate change initiative, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) regulations targeting emissions from power plants.

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is busy girding itself for a fight over new greenhouse gas emissions rules, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case on whether lawsuits over climate ought to be permitted.

As noted by Jones and Mann (2004)[Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029 / 2003RG000143, 2004], arguments that such evidence supports anomalous global warmth during this time period is based on faulty logic and / or misinterpretations of the available evidence.

The economic argument is not a climate science issue, it is a resulting issue, a policy issue, combined with a slew of other issues such as peak oil and industry gone wild that long term has negative return on investment written all over it, due to short term thinking inconsiderate of the ramifications of egregious exploitation of the earths resources for the benefit of a few at the cost of many.

When you add up that there is more methane being emitted than E.P.A. has estimated, that methane is responsible for up to half of all the greenhouse gas emissions for the entire US, and that each unit of methane emitted is far more important in causing global climate change over the critical few decades ahead, it should be clear that bridge - fuel argument just doesn't hold up.

Until recently, on issues like the growing human influence on climate, many people have had a tendency to echo, perhaps silently, the comment made in 2006 by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when he was politely corrected for mixing up the stratosphere and troposphere during arguments over the Clean Air Act and carbon dioxide:

Momentarily setting aside the unprecedented financial firepower that foundations and environmental groups threw at the fight over climate legislation (there's more to come here on the debate over who wielded more or less influence), there's one graph that — to me — utterly punctures arguments that a meaningful cap - style climate bill had a chance (at least one with any environmental integrity).

I'm not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again.

The story concerns a recent paper by Andrew Dessler that discusses the issue of extracting values for climate feedbacks from observational data, and which reflects apparently an ongoing argument between Dessler and Roy Spencer over this issue.

In the case of climate change, those measurements after measurements by thousands of scientists for over fifty years are adding up to an extremely compelling and robust argument because they all pretty much agree with each other: we can send people to the moon, and our excess CO2 is changing the climate.

Just as Lewandowsky couldn't take the perspectives of climate sceptics in good faith — he had to probe inside their minds, using a shoddy internet survey — Read does not take issue with the arguments actually offered by actual climate change - denying libertarians, he takes issue with his own fantasy libertarian, abandoning all the rigour and practice that the discipline he belongs to has established over the course of millennia, to score cheap rhetorical points.

Yes, we may well be inducing climate change, but there may be — in fact, there is — a moral argument that places industrial and economic development over mitigation, in spite of its effect on the environment.

I also wonder about Richard Lindzen, who has made one suspicious argument in particular that lacks credibility to me (given his apparent scientific pedigree), in that he picked a short, statistically insignificant time period (1995 to 2007) to assess both climate change (which is a long - term event) and concordance amongst the scientific community over climate change during that period,.

The scientific argument about the existence of climate change itself is long since over.

Why some try to direct any discussion about the climate gate emails into an argument over hacking.

Blackburn cited two climate scientists to make her point: One who has been «wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades,» according to fellow environmental scientist Dana Nuccitelli, and another who recently said, «it's clear that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the planet.»

It really is remarkable just how resilient and useful «They did it first / do it too» arguments have been over the history of Climate Etc..

Example 4 (strawman argument): (4) I was referring to your quote: «For one thing long - term predictions of the average climate over much less than ten - year periods are less plausible than over longer periods.»

A favorite argument among climate scientist «skeptics» like Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen is that «internal variability» can account for much or all of the global warming we've observed over the past century.

There's plenty of room for argument over what to do about climate change, but cheap political point scoring of the «you didn't vote for the ETS so you don't want action on climate change» is not helpful.

By Anil Dawar Fresh doubts were cast over controversial global warming theories yesterday after a major climate change argument was discredited.

But arguments over the precise value of climate sensitivity duck the wider point, which is that even if we're lucky and climate sensitivity is on the low side of scientists» estimates, we're still heading for a substantial level of warming by the end of the century if greenhouse gas emissions aren't addressed, as the IPCC has highlighted.

With 2010 over, we now have 16 observations starting in 1995, and (unsurprisingly to anyone who followed the argument thus far) the upward trend is now statistically significant at the 5 per cent level [1] That is, if climate change since 1995 (the time of the first IPCC report, and well after Lindzen announced himself as a sceptic) had been purely random, the odds against such an upward trend would be better than 20 to 1 against.

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.

The Brussels summit was dominated by arguments over energy savings and climate policy, with countries from Poland to Portugal pleading special circumstances and threatening to veto any breakthrough unless their demands were met.

For over 35 years, opponents of climate change policies most frequently have made two kinds of arguments in opposition to proposed climate policies.

Actually Fielding's use of that graph is quite informative of how denialist arguments are framed — the selected bit of a selected graph (and don't mention the fastest warming region on the planet being left out of that data set), or the complete passing over of short term variability vs longer term trends, or the other measures and indicators of climate change from ocean heat content and sea levels to changes in ice sheets and minimum sea ice levels, or the passing over of issues like lag time between emissions and effects on temperatures... etc..

Also, permission to repost a (fair - sized) portion of your article over to Deviantart, where I post my climate - Skeptic arguments.

The substantial point here being that even if one denies climate science comprehensively, one can nonetheless be committed to the idea that such a perspective needs to make the argument, and to win it, in order for it to prevail over policy - making.

«Eric Steig: As someone who has had papers professionally peer reviewed in my own discipline — climate science — I find this argument over anonymity for reviewers baffling.

Anyway... the principle that keeps me from stumbling over anyone's arguments in support of climate change madness is that there needs to be evidence showing a link between the supposed cause and the supposed effect.

Tim Curtin, a Tim Lambert's favorite pinata, a guy so important that he has his own thread on Deltoid, has come up with a new one that he parked over at Honest Marohasy's Used Climate Argument Blog.

On blogs like Dr. Curry's I continually see learned, and heated, arguments over the meaning of fluctuations in the «annual temperature of the earth» in the hundredths of a degree range (sometimes thousandths), with data plotted over hundreds or thousands of years, while noticing that there doesn't seem to be a DEFINITION of the «Annual Temperature of the Earth» and that the climate science community, collectively, would be hard pressed to provide me with an «Annual Temperature of Bob's House» with a credible and defensible resolution and precision of + / -.01 degree, using an instrumentation system of their choice.

We also explained that for over 30 years, proponents of action on climate change mostly focused on responding to the arguments made by opponents of climate change that government action on climate change was unjustifiable due to scientific uncertainty and high costs of proposed climate policies.

The book presents the strong arguments over a wide range of climate related issues — from energy, to natural climate factors, to weather anomalies, to sea level rise, etc. — in an easy to understand manner.

In this speech, I really wanted debunk this argument I had heard over the years from some of my fellow Toastmasters: «We should not take any action on climate change until China cleans up its pollution.»

Once next - generation technologies are available that make meaningful action on climate change cheaper, Pielke believes that much of the political arguments over scientific uncertainty will diminish.

«Subsidy reform can lead to a more efficient allocation of resources, which will help spur higher economic growth over the longer term,» the IMF says — a strong argument in the ongoing climate of economic uncertainty that surrounds us.

'' trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

The climate conditions of the MWP are often compared to those of the late 20th and early 21st centuries in arguments over the causes and potential effects of modern climate trends.

While actual scientists are trying to piece together every little part of an otherwise almost un-piecable long term chaotic and variable system in response now to a massive increase in net lower atmospheric energy absorption and re radiation, Curry is busy — much like most of the comments on this site most of the time — trying to come up with or re-post every possible argument under the sun to all but argue against the basic concept that radically altering the atmosphere on a multi million year basis is going to affect the net energy balance of earth, which over time is going to translate into a very different climate (and ocean level) than the one we've comfortably come to rely on.

Instead of arguing for factories, roads, infrastructure (all the things which made Western lives better) Oxfam uses climate change to create the idea of victims and culprits, in an argument for» sustainablity» over development.