Sentences with phrase «climate debate where»

This is a major issue in the current energy and climate debate where exaggeration and bias go hand - in - hand.

It is the confluence of Green «Save The Planet» demagoguery with Marxist socio - economic prophecy, that preaches free markets must inevitably self - destruct and beyond which lies a socialist utopia that has brought us to this point in the climate debate where no warmist will publicly debate the science, yet they still hold fanatically their millenarian faith.

Not exact matches

It isn't where the climate debate should be.

«We're past the point where we can seriously debate whether climate change is real» Do you mean as a society, separated from the scientific facts?

«It's time to turn this debate around, drive out the politics of despair and offer a vision for Britain and Europe, one where we protect workers» rights, tackle tax avoidance, get to grips with climate change and protect our industries like steel,» he said.

At a tense debate in February at UCLA where Jacobson argued over the merits of supporting nuclear versus ramping up renewables, sharing the stage with nuclear supporters like Environmental Progress» Shellenberger and fellow Stanford climate scientist Ken Caldeira, the question - and - answer session with the audience devolved into a shouting match.

He also cited climate change as an area where disagreements should be debated in a civil manner.

«I don't believe young people have checked out, especially on climate change, that defining issue where Hillary Clinton shifted position right before the debate [on Oct. 13],» he said on MSNBC.

This is clearest in the Americas, where the debate over whether humans or climate caused Late Pleistocene extinctions has raged for decades (the truth is probably a combination of these two factors, including a trophic cascade caused by human - mediated extinctions of large carnivores).

«It reframes part of the climate change debate by encouraging individuals around the world to better understand where their electricity is coming from before they adopt supposedly eco-friendly technologies,» he says.

This shows how important this blog is where climate scientists can openly discuss and debate their work.

People in the climate research community resisted doing this for years, believing that they were only involved in a scientific debate, where, after much back and forth, and a fair amount of snark, reality would eventually win out.

«I am reminded of debates in economics, investing, politics, religion and climate science where a good heuristic is if the person you are reading only points to evidence of one side and never raises or represents the better aspects of the opponents side.

People in the climate research community resisted doing this for years, believing that they were only involved in a scientific debate, where, after much back and forth, and a fair amount of snark, reality would eventually win out.

This debate is about your pocketbook, it's about your job, it's about whether you can still afford health care, whether we're going to do something about climate change or not, what kind of world your kids are going to be living in in ten or fifteen years, how are we going to respond to peak oil, where is the next transistor economy going to come from?

As signs grew that the Senate was in no mood to set up a trading system for curbing carbon dioxide emissions, as I noted how the climate policy debate had circled back lately to the emissions - capping plan for power plants that had been proposed in the 2000 Bush campaign for the presidency, I found myself thinking about the vacuum that's persisted where President Obama should have been on this issue (if he planned to live up to his campaign commitments).

So this is now where the climate debate is headed, towards the non linear dynamics of the earth system and whether they can magnify climate change to make it suddenly flip to a new state.

Some energy specialists will explain below why the global coal boom renders the legislative debate on climate somewhat moot from the standpoint of the shared global atmosphere, where the source of emissions is irrelevant to their ultimate heating influence.

Many readers with varied views have rightly criticized the prolonged debates about basic points in climate science that frequently spring up on Dot Earth posts where science is not the main point of discussion.

Again, with reference to Tamsin and many others who we might say fall into her camp - where is the evidence that shows the putative blowback effect within the public debate about climate change that underlies her criticism of «activism?»

But it would be hard to argue that Environmentalism has not gone mainstream in a country where Al Gore wins Nobel Prizes and Oscars, and John «The climate debate is over» McCain gets the Republicans» Presidential nomination.

A few points that have caught my interest so far: • dealing with complex problems using complex tools, ideas • the idea of reconciliation in scientific debates is to try different approaches in an experimental meeting for attempting nonviolent communication in impassioned debates where there is disagreement • reconciliation is not about consensus, but rather creating an arena where we can have honest disagreement • violence in this debate derives from the potential impacts of climate change and the policy options, and differing political and cultural notions of risk and responsibility.

I agree that the path for reconciliation in this debate is not one where the blame is put everybody but climate scientists.

The phrase has stuck and indeed so has the tactic, being used in front of audiences by all manner of advocates of all manner of things from creationism to «faked» moon landings to climate change denial, where it is a popular way of appearing to be winning a debate.

My favorite one so far is where they admit tuning the models to 20th Century climate, which in debates (e.g., one I had in person with Michael Schlesinger and others at Judith's) is strenuously denied.

Much less systematic attention — again in the context of the global climate policy debate (as opposed to domestic debates, where thanks to the environmental justice movement the topic is very much in play)-- has been paid to the problem of inequality within nations.

In no way do my values suggest that debate should be curtailed: I merely insist that a scientific debate should take place in the scientific literature and that the public be put in a position where it can make an informed judgment about the voices that are opposing mainstream science on crucial issues ranging from climate change to vaccination.

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

I do enjoy reading the sometimes lively debate surrounding these issues, and I certainly prefer a bit of skepticism to things like a link to a discussion on Scientific American that I followed recently where they were discussing how the recent temperature record has lead to a lowering of estimates of climate sensitivity.

Where in the past executives could be dismissive of the climate - change debate or leap to defend their companies, industry officials are now raising the issue themselves and proposing remedies such as the imposition of a carbon tax.

There are other blogs where the pure science is debated, and others have their own perspective on the politics of climate change.

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.

But it does suggest that if both sides of the debate paid close attention to the social consequences of policies, rather than the present intractable debate on the reality of AGW, then we might get to a point where we can agree on some action — you might think it is pointless with regard to the climate (but a substantial proportion of people think it will), but if it produces some other good outcomes it might be ok.

But it does suggest that if both sides of the debate paid close attention to the social consequences of policies, rather than the present intractable debate on the reality of AGW, then we might get to a point where we can agree on some action — you might think it is pointless with regard to the climate (but a substantial proportion of people think it will), but if it produces some other good outcomes it might be OK.

I really hope you can look beyond this label to the rest of the paper, where we were trying to find points of common ground for those who both accept and doubt anthropogenic climate change, that hopefully would help promote policies that would produce outcomes that both sides of the debate could accept.

The equity debate has taken on some new life lately, particularly in India, where the government is actively reconsidering its position on fair - shares approaches to global climate diplomacy.

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.

CBS NEWS Oct 20 2016 - Where Trump and Clinton stand on climate change The third and final presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Wednesday night in Las Vegas covered a wide range of issues from abortion to foreign policy to the national debt, but there was one glaring omission - climate change.

If you (and the editors of this blog) really believe that most of the world's climate scientists are involved in some kind of cosy conspiracy to cover up or exaggerate the facts, then I suggest you take an open - minded look at realclimate.org, where «the science per se» is debated critically and in depth by well - qualified people.

While Washington debates about whether to get serious on our climate and energy policies, Beijing this week released China's five - year energy development plan, laying out an ambitious «all of the above» strategy that where lacking in specifics more than makes up for in vision (the plan, in Chinese; and Google translated).

So when we examine the climate change debate we should consider whether this issue is like a dispassionate scientific question where we may assume that the math will be used in a neutral manner or is it like a financial or political issue where no sensible person would accept the assumption of neutrality.

Many of the biggest disconnects in the policy debate occur where climate science crosses over into climate engineering — the rules for engineers are very different, it can't be merely plausible that your bridge won't fall down or your grid won't strand people without power when it's 40 degrees below zero.

I see no difference between what is happening in the climate change debate courtesy of nutters like Lew and Oreskes and what is happening in the wider community, where the unwitting use of politically incorrect words and phrases is increasingly becoming the subject of ludicrous and lengthy official investigations which amount to little more than officially sanctioned witch hunts.

I approach this climate debate from two other different perspectives: medical, where confidence levels are calculated quite accurately, and risk management.

When the anointed leaders of the AGW (Climate Change) view will not attend events where they've been invited to debate the scientific issues I place them on a much different pedestal than the one they have adopted for themselves.

Climate Change Reconsidered is an immensely important contribution to genuine scientific debate on issues where unscientific fear - mongering has thus far triumphed.

As debates by the Institute of Actuaries have pointed out, how would pension schemes meet their funding liabilities with run - away climate change, where they have a fiduciary duty to scheme members to pay benefits.

The reason why the Australian public think that there is only a 58 % agreement between climate scientists is because the debate in the popular media is mostly political where anything seems to be said rather than it being a scientific debate based on evidence.

I then go on to speak about the context of the climate change debate, which is where the eco-presuppositions enter.

In Florida, a debate between climate change denier republican Marco Rubio and his democratic opponent Patrick Murphy was held at a site where the local street was flooding due to salt water incursion.