Sentences with phrase «as with the climate debate»

This enters the nuclear debate, just as with the climate debate, via the precautionary principle.

Not exact matches

Dr. Hayhoe is the co-author of the book A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith - Based Decisions and describes herself as «a spokesperson with one principal goal — to bring public awareness to the simple truth that the scientific debate is over, and now it's time for all of us to take action.»

When this new alliance - the European Conservatives and Reformists - was created after the 2009 Euro - election with «a bunch of homophobes, anti-Semites and climate - change deniers» (as Nick Clegg later described them in a TV leaders debate) I objected and was expelled from the Conservative Party.

Mr. Cohn - Bendit began the debate by characterizing the current climate as «a turning point in European history, because the European Union is confronted with one of its most serious crises, caused by the financial crisis».

-- «I welcome Lucas» engagement with Labour party debates, as she rightly notes this affects the broader climate for progressives across parties.

Cameron's creation of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)-- an association of the Tory MEPS with «homophobes, anti-Semites and climate - change deniers», as Nick Clegg described it during one of the 2010 TV leaders» debates — was initially considered a triumph by Cameron.

But with the election inside of three weeks away, the town hall - style debate at Hofstra University on New York's Long Island firmly established climate change as an outcast issue in the race.

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA — In the run - up to national elections on 21 August, the country's top science body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperatures.

As the nation debates possible structures for federal climate change legislation, many states are already moving forward with carbon - cutting plans of their own.

Even as scientists and politicians from around the world debated in December how to deal with a practical problem of profound importance — global climate change — another international group of physicists was waiting with bated breath for a more esoteric development.

In polarised and divisive policy debates, as we have seen with climate change, it is all the more important that scientifically accurate and rigorous advice is given freely and without fear or favour.

First, climate skeptics enter this debate as trial lawyers, trying to hold climate scientists to a «beyond a reasonable doubt» standard of proof, the standard we use when someone has been charged with a crime.

While we were at the Amsterdam Film Festival last week Franny took part in a debate with some climate sceptics, which was hijacked by a medieval protestor from the Flat Earth society who wanted to shake hands with them as he had been all alone for 400 years with no friends.

In addition, such school climates encourage students and teachers to bring thoughtful debate, listen to and learn from others» perspectives, and disagree with one another (as well as adults) without fear of reprisal or recrimination.

Residing at the opposite ends of the globe, and with different cultural backgrounds, the development of this piece is intended as a comment on the role of art in the debates on climate issues, among other things.

Scientific debate as seen here on Real Climate, with data certified by experts to support arguments, in completely unknown.

Second, there is a wider debate over what to do, or not do, about climate change, with peoples» preferences (a carbon tax, a technology push, building dikes or parasols in space) not so much a function of science as values.

Nigel Lawson, one of Britain's Chancellors of the Exchequer during the Thatcher Era (Secretary of the Treasury for those needing a US translation) and more recently known as the father of Nigella Lawson (a UK cooking diva), has weighed into the climate debate with a recent broadside calling for the abolition of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cclimate debate with a recent broadside calling for the abolition of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate CClimate Change).

With respect to Mr. Best's post, which I may be unfairly implying is a good example, one of the fallacious but clever debate manipulations utilized by CC deniers and (way too many) lukewarmers is to focus relentlessly (often inaccurately) on climatological research frontiers such as climate sensitivity, or relations between evaporation, cloudiness, and global albedo.

I too am not a climate scientist but I feel my years as an engineer and my grad school work in environmental studies allows me to jump into the debate with some minor qualifications.

But, as with so much of the climate debate, it is an overdrawn, overblown caricature of reality.]

Steve, aside from the fact that Climatology is not a «debate», so there are not 2 sides, the comment section posts here are NOT «the blog», that consists of the lead articles by the group of scientists known as «Real Climate», for which see the Contributors link, the comments are from folks like you and me, generally non-scientists with varied opinions and sometimes clashing personalities.

As a youth I participated in many of my father's experiments, observing first - hand the benefits of atmospheric CO2 on plant life and the manifold problems with the model - based theory of climate change, all of which events occurred long, long before James Hansen stood in front of the U.S. Senate and brought the CO2 debate to the eyes of the public in 1988.

oh, as for web resources to help understand it all, on climate and global warming there is the wonderful Climate Debate Daily, with bothclimate and global warming there is the wonderful Climate Debate Daily, with bothClimate Debate Daily, with both (all?)

He withdrew any kind of bipartisan support for an ETS (and more)» «two years ago Canadians gave majority government to Stephen Harper's Conservatives, who were pledged to a sensible use of its resources, so Australians have now elected a government with a pragmatic attitude on global warming» «Led by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, an attempt was made, by what can only be described as alarmists, to exploit these fires for the purposes of the global warming debate.

As you might expect in a debate about whether or not the U.S. should make a risky move to perpetuate the use of fossil fuels, some committee members took the opportunity to voice doubt that the constant burning of that energy source was behind the rising temperatures, melting ice sheets, and abnormal weather events most scientists associate with climate change.

Finding myself in the same foxhole as Steve Schneider when the «Nuclear Winter «balloon went up — it was launched on the anniversary of Orson Welles» War of The Worlds Broadcast with a media graphics package prepared by the Creative Department of that great K - Street PR institution Porter Novell Inc., I remarked to him that it all seemed like a bad joke on Cold War policy analysts, played at the expense of the credibility of climate modeling on the eve of the global warming debate.

In any debate or discussion with an AGWer the question will come up as to what causes climate change.

The proposition that «science» somehow dictated particular policy responses, encouraged — indeed instructed — those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue about the science.36 So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if «science» and «policy» were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.

'» As compelling as battle with the sceptics seems to be in virtually every aspect of the climate issue, the overstated role of attribution in the climate debate has a far more prosaic origin in the fundamental design of the Framework Convention on Climate ChangAs compelling as battle with the sceptics seems to be in virtually every aspect of the climate issue, the overstated role of attribution in the climate debate has a far more prosaic origin in the fundamental design of the Framework Convention on Climate Changas battle with the sceptics seems to be in virtually every aspect of the climate issue, the overstated role of attribution in the climate debate has a far more prosaic origin in the fundamental design of the Framework Convention on Climate climate issue, the overstated role of attribution in the climate debate has a far more prosaic origin in the fundamental design of the Framework Convention on Climate climate debate has a far more prosaic origin in the fundamental design of the Framework Convention on Climate Climate Change.

According to AREDAY organizers, activist Joseph Romm of Climate Progress urged Cameron not to go ahead with the debate as well.

Governor Brown seemed to want to shut down all debate, in fact, by labeling anyone not convinced by reigning climate - change theories as «troglodytes,» a favorite slur of the governor's when wishing to silence those who disagree with him.

Goodwin briefly departed from academic jargon with one suggestion for trying to move the debate forward by suggesting that climate scientists voluntarily assume «extra responsibility» as follows:

His view accords with that of a growing number of scientists concerned about the pursuit of «intensely political» areas of science, such as the debate over climate change, amid fears that views contrary to government policy were unwelcome.

He had begun his film with a preconceived idea about the climate debate, as one divided into two camps — sceptics and deniers — disagreeing about a single proposition: «climate change is happening».

Climate change has risen up the political agenda as politics has become professionalised, and managerial in character, leaving the public with less democratic choice, and public debate deprived with contested values.

«With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of «balance» on a topic as societally important as climate change, we're quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.

If you're relatively familiar with the climate «debate», you will know that the rapid cooling period from the 1940's to the 1970's led to climate «experts» (climate scientists) declaring the end of life as we know it, in the form of the «Global Cooling» scare:

How we deal with climate change is where, as a scientist, I try to keep out of the debate....

The role of SEPP is to act as chairman of NIPCC, the otherwise informal network of scientists under whose name the Climate Change Reconsidered series appears; coordinate efforts by the Center to identify and recruit scientists as lead authors, contributors, and reviewers; convene NIPCC meetings during the research and review stages to share research and debate areas of disagreement; and participate with Heartland in the release of the report as a spokesperson for the effort.

In 2011, the editors at the journal Nature recommended Nisbet's research as «essential reading for anyone with a passing interest in the climate change debate,» and the New Republic highlighted his work as a «fascinating dissection of the shortcomings of climate activism.»

Readers of Climate Etc who have not visited ATTP with respect to my post with the Editor of that website I asked him to debate offline (as I did courteously and successfully with the webmaster of ATTP) and this is what he wrote «My main communication objective is quite minimal:

On both sides of the climate debate, those with a strong position either way tend to use the facts (as they see them) to debug logical arguments instead of vice versa.

To imply as he does that this is not in dispute, based on one temperature plot, is to have been out of touch with the climate debate!

Too often the climate «debate» is reported in the media as equal between a few who challenge the science and a much larger number whose research supports current climate theory and predictions linking greenhouse warming with increasing emissions.

«So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if «science» and «policy» were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.»

He spends a great deal of time discussing their arguments about catastrophic outcomes and referenced it (along with several other of their arguments) as «a singular contribution» to the climate debate that is «worth careful study.»

You have been in the climate debates for years yet only now you are discovering that Alarmists will not touch empirical studies of phenomena such as the AMO with a ten foot pole?

In this special Cabot Institute lecture, in association with the Bristol Festival of Ideas, Professor Michael E Mann will discuss the science, politics, and ethical dimensions of global warming in the context of his own ongoing experiences as a figure in the centre of the debate over human - caused climate change.

Widely known as climate change «skeptics» or «deniers,» these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists...» — Dr. David Suzuki Foundation website, 2012