Sentences with phrase «change debate very»

Not exact matches

They quickly pointed out that Europe is too large simply to assume that the world can absorb large changes in its capital and trade accounts, and as they debated about the ways global constraints would affect the assumptions about European surpluses most of them quickly decided that either the markets would not permit surpluses of this size, perhaps by bidding up the euro, or the impact of these surpluses would be very negative for the world.

«The real headache is that it is easy to be the Fed when inflation is below target... a very important aspect as we go into this May meeting, is the tone of the debate changes completely as we get to 2 percent and beyond,» said Torsten Slok, an economist at Deutsche Bank.

Holding did ok but Chambers was very cocky how many miss passes in dangerous areas did he miss place why didn't he booted the ball way down the field and take the pressure off at the first half the commentator spook of the inexperience of the defense and that liverpool did nt put enough pressure klopp rectified that straight away bang bang bang with runners and no protection while wenger face went all red with nothing to say the only thing that saved us really was the injuries for the game to take a change MR wenger is far to slow to fix things what is wrong with him he most not be in good health or something personnel worrying him cause after all he is the manager his got to have a fast thinking brain smell danger and act fast not seat and debate the issue with bold

Holding did ok but Chambers was very cocky how many miss passes in dangerous areas did he miss place why didn't he booted the ball way down the field and take the pressure off at the first half the commentator spook of the inexperience of the defense and that liverpool did nt put enough pressure klopp rectified that straight away bang bang bang while wenger face went all red with nothing to say the only thing that saved us really was the injuries for the game to take a change MR is far to slow to fix things what is wrong with him he most not be in good health cause after all he is the manager his got to have a fast thinking brain smell danger and act fast not seat and debate the issue with bold

If it where just possible to take these statistics, and sit down face to face with PGMOB, the FA and some media hacks, on a public forum, and ask them to explain them, along with the coincidence of how things changed following game 50 and Riley's subsequent appointment, I think that would make for a very interesting debate, especially if video evidence was allowed.

This was one of the reasons why a change at the very top was needed but the stick the fans gave former manager, Gary Megson, wasn't called for nor deserved but we're sure Owen Coyle will get a tremendous reception at The Reebok this Sunday, although whether he leave there with the love still in tact is another question, and one that's open to debate.

The language might have changed very slightly, but the sentiment and ideology are indistinguishable from Davies's outburst in the House of Commons on Tuesday, during a debate on housing benefit and the bedroom tax.

«Change» candidates have a particular need to convince voters that they're a safe choice, as Reagan's experience in 1980 shows — he ran very close with Carter until the debates, which allowed him to convince enough Americans that he wasn't a crazed bomb - thrower.

However, one policy debate that I have been very close to over the last few years, and one that illustrates how digital technology has changed our society and also how it creates new social contexts related to rights based issues, is that of access to pornography and sexual content online.

As we saw in the debate over Lords reform, the strongest voices in favour of a referendum are often those that oppose the very change they offer.

By all means let's have a healthy debate on the conversion of our polytechnics into technical universities especially now that the NPP has had a change of heart, however, I very honestly and humbly believe that Ghana deserves a better performance from the man who claims to be the most competent Ghanaian running for President.

«Indeed, if you look at the way the national debate changed in 2012, we've been a very major catalyst in that.»

Still, those groups criticized much about the process — particularly that there was very little public debate surrounding what are major changes to the elected office.

The criteria for deciding which political leaders should be in the 2015 TV general election debate keep changing and were «not clear and very backward - looking» said Green MP Caroline Lucas.

If you were thinking of voting for Chris Allen's opponent prior to the debate, take a look at that debate on TV - 23, Lighthouse television, and you will very likely change your mind.

Labour First are very fond of calling debate and rule changes a «distraction.»

I suspect that over the next six months, this is going to be a debate that will become part of the campaign, and I will be very clear in voicing my belief that we're going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.

«Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, it is in fact the very elixir of life,» CO2 Coalition adviser Craig Idso says of the climate change debate at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.

She added: «I think that the education debate on grammar schools has been going for a very long time, but I also recognise that the landscape in which it takes place has changed fundamentally.

The bruising seven - month legislative war that ended with the passage of a compromise federal budget changed the terms of the debate on education spending and forced the education lobby to fight for the very survival of the programs it champions.

He urged his fellow university leaders to «reclaim the middle ground» between «extremists on the left and right,» writing: «Unilateral declarations by college presidents do very little to prompt a fruitful debate, let alone to change the minds of those on the other side of the matter.»

we constantly debate this when do have any issue with Biggie as I refuse to change her food... my other dog Lenny was haveing all kinds of stomach issues and skin problems before we got him on Acana by chance after a lot diffrent dog foods not helping or working... he and BIG's gobble it up and no loose stools or major skin condition (bigs eArs but after web research like I'm doing now I found a low cost ear solution Zymox Leaded it right up as the bottle said it would) with that being said do u have a preference on a protein source that might would have prevented the ear problem or itchy feet (again this not major problem) I'd be willing to try it??? This was very long winded I apologize....

Now let's talk about the progression and Star Card system that's been a very hot topic of debate around the web lately and admittedly sort of confusing since it has gone through a couple changes.

I've had a great time learning from, and sometimes debating with, two smart people with very different areas of expertise and vantage points: the blogging meteorologist Eric Holthaus and Jacquelyn Gill, who studies past climates in the context of ecological change.

There is so much very clear evidence of the devastating effects anthropogenic climate change will have on the natural environment and on us humans, that subjects of debate could just distract from the clear catastrophe we are heading towards.

I was somewhat involuntarily thrust into the center of the public debate over climate change at this very time, when the «Hockey Stick» temperature reconstruction I co-authored, depicting the unprecedented nature of modern warming in at least the past millennium, developed into an icon in the debate over human - caused climate change [particularly when it was featured in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC in 2001].

Going down this path, you'll quickly find yourself in a debate on discounting and the time value of action / resources, which will take you deep into discussions of subjects such as environmental ethics, future / present generations, the foundational assumtions of the discipline of economics, etc. — all very important and interesting subjects, but ones on which there is unlikely to be forged a new consensus on meaningful time scales related to climate change.

It is very odd and very noticeable that the issue of pollution as opposed to global warming is rarely now mentioned by all the scientific bodies engaged in the climate change debate.

I also imgaine that these right wingers (neo cons I believe they are known as) are also very religious in nature (or appear to be) and they carry a lot of power in the USA and hence considering the evolution vs creationism debate that is raging over there at the moment getting action on climate change seems to be almost impossible in the current or by a future republican administration.

I hope we can put to rest an unhelpful debate among those passionate about confronting climate change, or, at the very least, respectfully agree to disagree.

All these studies taken together show at least two things: 1) there's a considerable infusion of scientific energy into studying this topic, which is one very positive by - product of the sometimes nasty (but also extremely high profile) debate that followed the publication of the Emanuel and Webster group papers in 2005; 2) many of the precise details of how hurricanes will change in a warmer world (or have changed already) remain contested.

To make any progrtess in this debate we first of all need to agree on what we use for measuring what are after all very small changes in «global» temperatures.

California Governor Jerry Brown downplayed President Trump's influence on the climate change debate in the U.S. at a Vatican symposium Saturday, saying that his impact is «very small.»

Atmospheric physicist John Latham's idea is perhaps more down - to - Earth than most, although whether it can provide a «solution'to climate change remains very much up for debate.

One can tell by how climate change policies are being debated around much of the world that few people, including many very educated people, understand the scale and urgency of the problem now [continue reading...]

A number of commentators are very interested in debating how sensitive the climate is to CO2 (the equilibrium climate sensitivity, usually expressed as temperature change per doubling of CO2 consentration).

He is, however, a very important participant in the public debate on many things including climate change and is usually proved correct over time.

Stewart has in his possession the very facts he needs to understand that he has mischaracterised the debate, the arguments, and the motives behind objections to climate change alarmism.

Originally blogged at Realclimategate I am going along to the Spectator «climate change» debate on Tuesday 29th March in London, hopefully I can meet up with some «climate change» blog regulars (both sides very welcome) to have a chat afterwards.

And with the HUGE amounts of money that corporate polluters are pouring into this debate, not only would anyone who proved climate change be famous, they would be very, very rich.

The AGW true believers apparently have, by their sad reaction to Gleick's failings, helped Gleick make some more very poor decisions: «Gleick's lawyer John Keker, «Heartland no doubt will seek to exploit Dr. Gleick's admitted lapse in judgement in order to further its agenda in the ongoing debate about climate change, but if it wants to pursue this matter legally, it will learn that our legal system provides for a level playing field.»

We are far more interested in how the politics and science of climate change have become so conflated in public debate that it's very hard to tell them apart.

However, the debate over whether human activities are responsible for all, some, or none of the recent climate change remains very much alive and well.

That threshold, which had long been discussed and debated, was formally agreed to during the 2009 talks in Copenhagen, and it is seen by many as the best way to avoid the very worst impacts of climate change.

Generally, I think the debate on climate change research funding on this blog is not very thoughtful.

«It is very concerning that scientific disagreement, uncertainty and a complex policy debate surrounding climate change are apparently seeding what seems to be a wave of eco-terrorism...»

In retrospect this is a little ironic — for it is guilty of the very crime it accuses the «alarmists» of perpetrating — unsupported, biased views of climate change science which distort any kind of balanced analysis being undertaken by focusing exclusively on the suggested polarity of existing climate change debate — «scientists» v deniers.

Discussions about hockeysticks and feedbacks are all very interesting, but they are not the crux of why there is a such a heated and politicized debate about climate change.

Very few people, even in the 90th percentil & above in OSI, spend more than 2 seconds a day on avg thinking about climate change or the climate change debate.

Notice, also, that Mitrovica equates Smith's statement that she is watching the debate to a rejection of the very idea of climate change.