Sentences with phrase «climate argument from»

A: You have to separate the climate argument from the other arguments.

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.

Using the example of the current debate surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, Thompson sought to evaluate the argument from authority through a single prism, the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy.

«From the Right, fringes of the Conservative party and Ukip are parroting the arguments of the most discredited climate change deniers, seizing on any anomaly in the climate data to attempt to discredit the whole,» he said.

He said he had «some very heated arguments» with Gordon Brown about it, but in the end decided it was better to fight on the climate change issue from inside the cabinet.

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.

According to a new report from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, that argument is half - right.

Many of his mistakes are big ones: he bungles the issues involving reserves and resources that are critical to his core argument about oil remaining cheap; he drastically misleads his readers about the extent to which sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal - burning have been reduced; he trivializes the climate - change risks from coals carbon dioxide emissions by suggesting we know the impacts will be worth only 0.64 cents per kilowatt - hour.

However, to apply this argument directly and attribute (and quantify) the impacts from Harvey itself to human - induced climate change, neglects that climate change is not just about warming.

The argument that methane is a major climate threat from that same source is controversial.

It's something of an abstract concept, but with real world implications, and the universality of such physical models, based on things like radiative balance, atmospheric composition and density, distance from the local Sun, etc., is a very strong argument in favor of general acceptance of the results of climate models and observations on Earth.

I've had arguments with many a climate skeptic, with and without scientific backgrounds alike (arguing with those from the Engineering community can be especially difficult)

In this translation from the French, Professor Lambin, a geographer at the University of Louvain, Belgium, dissects the arguments of environmental pessimists and technological optimists and offers (no surprise here) a «middle path» to limiting disruption of climate and biology in a crowding world.

The obvious answer (from someone who is indeed receptive to arguments for lower - than - consensus climate sensitivities) is that it was on a par with recent hot years because temperatures at US latitudes of the globe really weren't as much cooler in the 1930s / 1940s (compared to the present) than GISS / Hadley's best estimates (from often sketchy global coverage) suggest.

The physics argument seems simply that (1) past climates have been very different from today (true); (2) the changes are large compared to what we see from global warming, or expect to see, anytime soon (true).

In a phone chat, he said that arguments about specific levels of climate sensitivity, or specific goals for carbon dioxide concentrations, have little meaning as long as the world is not slowing down from its accelerating path on emissions.

[Response: Hansen's argument for 350 is that it would stop the Earth from warming further — he calculates the committed warming at our current 390 or whatever it is, then dials down CO2 until the climate stays as is with no further committed warming.

Suppose that scientists are completely wrong and that no future climate change will result from increased CO2 in the atmosphere (of course we must ignore basic laws of atmospheric physics for this, but let's for the sake of argument assume that this were true).

Some decades ago a «climate skeptic» could make reasoned arguments against the reality of global warming from fossil fuel burning.

I'd love to hear a reply from real climate regarding these new arguments..

It just so happens that most of the posts on this site have tried to counteract arguments from those who would sow fake «uncertainty» in the climate debate.

Of course, another approach is to build the argument for new non-polluting energy norms around the many benefits — along with climate insurance — that could come from finding abundant, renewable sources.

My main argument that speaks for an anthropogenic influence is the long - term downward trend since 1930 inferred from the SST data in the subpolar Atlantic, and the fact that climate models driven by anthropogenic forcing predict just such a relatively cold patch in this same area.

As applied to the climate system, consider it a plausibility argument: the more rapidly and extensively the system is disturbed, the more we would expect that unexpected behaviors will emerge, and the further from expectations they will be.

It's a long road from that conclusion to an argument that variations in cosmic rays can explain a meaningful portion of recent climate change.

Here they are with his answers (with some email shorthand cleaned up), along with a fresh critique of Koonin's argument by a group of climate science and policy researchers associated with Carnegie Mellon University and a final thought from me:

But the new NASA investigation presents a detailed argument for a pattern of politicization at the agency on climate that extended to facilities from California to Maryland.

The guests in the series ranged from Joe Romm, «America's fiercest climate blogger,» to Richard Lindzen, the climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who has been variously lionized and pilloried for his arguments against science pointing to a dangerous human influence on climate.

The coalition did, however, as the article reported, remove from an internal report by the scientific advisory committee a section that said that «contrarian» theories of why global temperatures appeared to be rising «do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission - induced climate change.»

Milloy's specious argument is a characteristic example for a method frequently employed by «climate skeptics»: from a host of scientific data, they cherry - pick one result out of context and present unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy.

It appears that the endless hairsplitting arguments have one main purpose: to draw attention away from the subject of the original article, which is that GISS massages and adjusts climate data, and then does everything possible to avoid publicly archiving its taxpayer - funded raw data.

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.

The Climategate scandal played a role in the passage of the amendment, introduced by Republican Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer, who successfully made the case that the Climategate emails discredit the UN's claims to scientific integrity: «emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer - reviewed journals,» he stated.

It undermines the arguments of those who still claim that inaction on climate change from China excuses other countries from acting.

Following the Climate Change argument daily from a pro AGW position 7 years ago I have come to the conclusion that the specialisation of Science itself precludes agreement on a subject so all encompassing as Climate, it covers so many disciplines that there is no independant body that covers them all, even if there was, there is violent disagreement between branches, i.e. Cosmology — gravity v electrical universe theory.

Most of the arguments I hear from science illiterate politicians are based on an assumption that climate is a closed static system.

Which is to say that most arguments for political action to mitigate climate don't actually proceed from the science at all, and in many cases make up the content — i.e. «object» — of the consensus to suit the argument.

Many economic assessments of climate change policies completed to date, especially from opponents of the Waxman - Markey bill (H.R. 2454), make a flawed argument that meeting...

And in addition, think about all the wasted energy the «climate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» spent mitigating the impact of «deniers,» when «skeptics» could have helped out by listening more carefully to the «climate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community,» and trying to understand «the climate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community's» arguments, and adding to progress on increasing our understanding of the causes of climate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate variability and change — rather than apologizing or ignoring the input from scientists like Fred Singer — who deliberately lifts a conditional clause from a larger sentence, divorces it completely from context, and creates a fraudulent quotation in order to deliberately deceive, or Ross McKitrick who slanders other scientists on purely speculative conclusions about their motivations, or guest - posters at WUWT who call BEST «media whores,» or the long line of denizens at Climate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiClimate Etc. who falsely claim that the «climate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capiclimate community» ignores all uncertainties towards the goal of serving a socialist, eco-Nazi agenda to destroy capitalism.

The main problem for me is that the arguments of Judith make sense from the point of view of climate science itself, but not from the point of view of policy implications.

As in the preparation of my congressional testimony and the response, my arguments definitely benefited from the exchanges at Climate Etc..

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island who has endorsed the use of RICO against fossil fuel industries since May, made a similar argument in his weekly climate speech, delivered Tuesday on the Senate floor.

For a view from the ground, my friend and colleague, Hans Brenna, a climate researcher currently investigating the role of volcanoes on stratospheric chemistry, believes that the logical result of arguments against advocacy are a slippery slope.

And I started to see signs — new coalitions and fresh arguments — hinting at how, if these various connections were more widely understood, the urgency of the climate crisis could form the basis of a powerful mass movement, one that would weave all these seemingly disparate issues into a coherent narrative about how to protect humanity from the ravages of both a savagely unjust economic system and a destabilized climate system.

And through conversations with others in the growing climate justice movement, I began to see all kinds of ways that climate change could become a catalyzing force for positive change — how it could be the best argument progressives have ever had to demand the rebuilding and reviving of local economies; to reclaim our democracies from corrosive corporate influence; to block harmful new free trade deals and rewrite old ones; to invest in starving public infrastructure like mass transit and affordable housing; to take back ownership of essential services like energy and water; to remake our sick agricultural system into something much healthier; to open borders to migrants whose displacement is linked to climate impacts; to finally respect Indigenous land rights — all of which would help to end grotesque levels of inequality within our nations and between them.

But just like many of the arguments from professional climate science denialists, what at first might appear a cinematic coup d'état turns out to be little more than fakery and stage management.

On the question of hurricanes, the theoretical arguments that more energy and water vapor in the atmosphere should lead to stronger storms are really sound (after all, storm intensity increases going from pole toward equator), but determining precisely how human influences (so including GHGs [greenhouse gases] and aerosols, and land cover change) should be changing hurricanes in a system where there are natural external (solar and volcanoes) and internal (e.g., ENSO, NAO [El Nino - Southern Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation]-RRB- influences is quite problematic — our climate models are just not good enough yet to carry out the types of sensitivity tests that have been done using limited area hurricane models run for relatively short times.

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiClimate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiclimate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emiclimate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

Then he can make an argument from ignorance (GOOOOOLLLY GEE I can't mek it wurk any udder whey than wit senshititivityity at 2.8 C) like the rest of the climate monkeys.

However, if you look closely, you'll see that the evidence for the latter argument comes in one way or the other from people invested in the exact activities pointed to as being the main culprits of climate change — people who can fabricate as many believable evidence as they can — and if you believe they wouldn't do this, then, well, there's not a lot of hope in convincing you.