Sentences with phrase «climate debate just»

The United States witnessed an equally promising development in the climate debate just last month, when the conservative American Enterprise Institute, the liberal Brookings Institution, and the centrist Breakthrough Institute teamed up to publish a report that called for revamping America's energy system with the aim of making clean energy cheap.

E&E ClimateWire: Pruitt's climate debate just got more likely - Excerpt: Marc Morano, a former staffer for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R - Okla.)

Not exact matches

But beyond that, it's also a good time to ask because of a... let's just call it a spirited debate that recently broke out between two groups of scientists who work on climate and energy.

As to education being a requirement: well, you should just look at the current debate on climate research to see how unreliable of a proxy education is.

«And it's not just the climate change deniers and petrochemical companies throwing huge amounts of money into the debate, we've also had a huge economic crash.

A major point of debate remains whether the Gulf Stream, or Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), will just decline or could «switch off» entirely with substantial implications for Northwest Europe's climate.

He added, however, «This is not the end of Heartland's efforts to bring balance to the climate debate in our schools, but just the beginning.»

After more than a year the debate is still in turmoil and we'll just have to see how the events unfold in the future and whether the production of zombie formalist art will decrease if the art market climate changes.

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.

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.

The point being that some people are debating climate change, and whether to stop using oil, when in just 100 years or maybe less, we will be forced to stop using oil anyway as supplies dwindle, and prices escalate dramatically.

As a matter of common decency and journalistic ethics, we ask everyone in the climate change debate to sit back and think about what just happened.

Partisanship by NOAA administrators on the climate change - hurricane debate followed the partisanship by NOAA National Weather Service on climate change - skeptic debate by 12 years which started just after the Gore book on global warming book came out.

Since this post is titled «Averting our eyes», I can't help but comment that having just watched the GOP Youtube / CNN debate on TV here in Taiwan, I can not believe that not ONE question was about climate change or global warming.

Just in time for the second presidential debate tonight, 350.org is launching a new campaign to send candidates Obama and McCain thousands of invitations to the UN Climate Meetings in Poland in December 2008.

«The «normal» physicist (or simple «scientist» should be able to understand the climate debate, and should not be silenced or denied voicing his opinions, just because he is not the full blown..»

The spill and its aftermath has not just shaken an Arkansas town, but has also sparked continued debate over the controversial tar sands oil and how transporting this oil via pipelines puts communities and the climate at risk.

Also see: Cameron Morphs Into Gore, Quits AGW Debate: «Chickened out — even after he won Gore - like concessions that there would be no media and no audio or video record kept» — How does Cameron square ducking a climate debate he set up when just a few months ago he seemed so confDebate: «Chickened out — even after he won Gore - like concessions that there would be no media and no audio or video record kept» — How does Cameron square ducking a climate debate he set up when just a few months ago he seemed so confdebate he set up when just a few months ago he seemed so confident?

And it wasn't just weather porn — there was serious debate about the impact climate change had on the storm, and about the now - obvious need to prepare cities for worse to come.

But Tom Harris is tweeting up a storm arguing that the climate debate has just begun and other nonsense.

They're not reporting developments from climate science, or from the climate debate, just their own misunderstanding of what they see.

On no more than the basis that «climate change is occurring», moral philosophers tell us what is right, social historians invent lessons from history to make climate criminals in the present, science historians invent conspiracy theorists, and psychologists tell us how to apply distress to change public opinion, and why debate is just too risky to trust to the public.

Anyone who follows the climate change debate for a while must soon notice that when the denialistas have one of their argument proven wrong, or one factual misrepresentation corrected, they just continue as if nothing had happened.

It's not just climate science that needs debate but the whole enterprise of modern science is in need of transparent review.

If I were new the climate debate as of today, and just scrolled down through this thread it would be enough for me to begin to suspect where my sympathies lay.

Just staying with the climate debate I have no issue with the integrity of Ed Hawkins or Neven or Issac Held while probably disagreeing with some of their assumptions.

Dr. Brulle and Dr. Dunalp have just edited a new book, which synthesizes some of main sociological analysis on the climate change policy debate which is well worth reading by anyone interested in climate change.

Unfortunately Brian H, we are now at the point in the «climate science debate» (among others) where straight forward reporting, parody, satire, and just plain bald faced lying are indistinguishable without doing a good deal of research to determine just which case obtains.

Note also that, just like in the climate debate, Monckton's role is to clown for the camera while someone else pulls the strings.

This is just one of several major instances in the climate debate.

Ever wondered how the debate over climate change became just that — a debate?

Lets just say that I sense that both sides of the debate on climate change have biased POV's on any evidence that is placed before them and that a lot more work needs to be done before anyone can claim that the science is settled.

In my opinion it would be better if the hockey stick was laid to rest as just another piece of controversial evidence in the climate change debate.

There's been a lengthy debate in the comments threads of recent posts about whether the dry weather in much of Australia in recent years can be attributed to climate change, or is just another round in the natural cycle.

Perhaps this is just more evidence that «Climate Scientists» live in their own universe and never even try to engage their critics in an ordinary scientific debate (which they always lose), but prefer simply making baseless smears.

And again, just as I reject using analogies to Eugenicists in the climate debate, I reject using analogies to holocaust deniers in the climate debate.

Do note, however, that most of the global warming debate is not amongst climate scientists, but between climate scientists and just about everybody else.

It would make it harder to hide environmentalism's political and ethical claims, perhaps, but it would be no guarantee, either of that or a bit more reflection on certain claims and why they exist, not just in the climate debate, but more widely also.

I can't promise that the hockey stick will be as dead as Section 13 by the time this stupid trial is over, but I will do my best to ensure it - not just because the appalling and incurious prostration before pseudo-authority embodied by everyone from «Ellen» to The Columbia Journalism Review ought to be embarrassing to a functioning media, but because climate science itself, like Brandeis and the State of Ohio, needs, in Steve Huntley's phrase, more «free speech, free debate, free minds».

Thus, the Nobel committee's decision had something of a paradoxical effect: Instead of assuaging the climate debate in the US, it just stirred it up further — and even louder than before.

Rather than «rock the debate,» Climate Hustle is just another attempt to spread doubt and confusion about climate change sClimate Hustle is just another attempt to spread doubt and confusion about climate change sclimate change science.

The only sure way to keep losing public support for the consensus climate science position is to keep refusing to debate as Ms. Oreskes did with Fred Singer just this past week.

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

Instead, the goals should be to promote relevant areas of knowledge beyond just technical understanding of climate science that include understanding of the social, institutional, ethical, and economic dimensions of the debate along with familiarity with the costs and benefits of a range of policy proposals.

So I come to the climate debate now just a little chastened by that and saying well, okay, you say this is scary, show me the evidence.

Sow doubt, make up statistics, call for an «open debate,» claim that you are being «silenced and ignored by the media and politicians,» claim that your opponents are just a «few bureaucrats and environmental activists,» not real scientists — those are the tactics that will be brought to bear in the coming months by the CCDs in their attempt to derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.

# 2 Different Time Periods is often the cause of seemingly contradictory factoids issued from differing viewpoints in the climate debate — this is just a special case of «they are talking about different things».

Well, this just in: Climate scientists aren't economists or politicians and shouldn't try and flaunt their credentials to sway a debate they aren't qualified to be an authority on.

The sudden concern with heat content, where the focus has been all along, is just something new to you warmists in the public climate debate.

Debates over climate change are just the beginning, yet it is exemplary in that preconceived ideologies and political rhetoric are elevated to the point where they can confront peer - reviewed scientific findings.