Sentences with phrase «climate debate without»

Unfortunately people can't seem to study the climate debate without taking sides, as the sociologists discussed here all seem to be doing.

Not exact matches

It's like debating gun control or climate change, there is no way to win an abstract debate without the force of power because these ideas aren't rooted in a self evident righteousness.

Climate change scepticism is not official party policy, but Wilson has stated: «I think in 20 years» time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.Climate change scepticism is not official party policy, but Wilson has stated: «I think in 20 years» time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.»

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.

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.

Part of the reason that elements of the climate change debate take on religious proportions — by the activists for and against policy — is that folks have so dug in around almost every aspect of the debate that it is hard to raise a question about some uncritically accepted element of the religious canon without folks first attacking you as an untrained heathen.

Room for Debate has posted a useful new discussion on whether and how nuclear power can safely contribute to advancing energy options without climate regrets.

Steve McIntyre has offered to allow someone from this side of the debate a post on his Climate Audit site which will be without editorial interference.

Whatever the merits of that debate, there sure are a lot of seasoned experts in energy technology and economics (Daniel Nocera at M.I.T., Jeffrey Sachs at Columbia) who insist that climate stability will not happen without a huge increase in direct spending for R. & D. along with everything else.

We see this often in the climate debate: many figures, from Cook and his 97 %, through to John Gummer restyled as Lord Deben, pronouncing on «deniers» and what they deny, without ever actually taking any notice of what was being «denied» — the consensus without an object.

My view is that the energy debate as presented is too weak to be proven without recourse to what I guess are exaggerated climate cost scenarios.

I have said for a while that greenhouse gas theory is nearly irrelevant to the climate debate, because most scientists believe that the climate sensitivity to CO2 acting along without feedbacks is low enough (1.2 C per doubling) to not really be catastrophic.

Even without disputing Jenkins on climate change (I can't see how he advances the debate with ad hominem attacks — and am pleased to see he has subsequently apologised for this in a letter in The Australian), there is a clear case for exploring alternative energy now, and doing so aggressively.

So Ward was in the curious position of making an appeal to authority - yes, climate debate should be permitted, but only between fully credentialed experts - without appealing from authority.

Such actions further motivate me to expose the scientific, policy, and moral fallacies perpetrated by such climate «alarmists»: 1) in corrupting the scientific method, 2) in imposing «mitigation» without fully evaluating and debating «adaptation», and 3) in coercively imposing tyrannical totalitarian government to worship «Mother Nature».

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.

At the end of her article for the mining magazine last year, she asked for anyone who shared her «vision» for an Australia without a price on carbon and with climate science deniers leading the debate, to contact John Roskam, the executive director of the Australian free market think - tank the Institute for Public Affairs.

Why have you elected to frame (and fabricate) the «debate» in such a (ludicrous) way so as to make it impossible for someone to defend any aspect of the theory of AGW / ACC or climate science in general without being accused of defending an alleged «dogma»?

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.

Hopefully, the lawsuit will also spark public debate and real media attention to address the challenge of climate change in a responsible manner and without further delay.

Science without an object dominates debates about climate science and the impacts of climate change.

Without the IPCC report, a cacophony of national assessments would compete for relevance in debates about climate change, said Victor, an editor on next year's IPCC climate change mitigation and adaptation report.

The consensus without an object is the thing that is wielded in debates about the climate, but which the wielder needs no knowledge of.

Taken together, the planet levers laid out here give us many opportunities to get serious about climate change without getting bogged down by the distraction of old climate debates or standing by and waiting for politicians.

If this blog — now starting its NINTH year — has done nothing else, it has asked the likes of Greenpeace activists for debate about «the risks a changing climate poses to the poor and vulnerable and how to tackle that without undermining the economic livelihoods of those same people».

The UK's silent consensus to talk about climate — at some later date — simply means those choices will be made without debate, as though huge changes to our infrastructure, buildings, equipment, behaviours and food system can be delivered by a few technocrats working under the radar.

It's often hard to have a discussion about the climate change debate without recourse to language about «sides».

In today's reality, even without the Climate Debate, we should all have an automatic «Veto» button for anything that is justified by statistics by virtue of how utterly miserably they have failed us in clinical medicine.

He would know that the debate is not binary, does not divide neatly into two camps, but that at the very least, the excesses of climate alarmists within and without the IPCC, which are further from the «consensus» and greater in consequence than anything uttered by climate change «deniers».

Here we have the empirical proof that the positivist should welcome: institutional science is evidentially more easily influenced by politics than are an array of independent researchers, whether or not they are scientifically trained, because they are free to speak out of turn without fear; institutional science can not check itself for political prejudice and deviation from scientific consensus; climate sceptics can and do successfully challenge institutional science; the problems of the climate debate are problems caused absolutely and entirely by the excesses of institutional science and its proximity to political agendas.

All the journalist needs to do, now, to write a piece about climate change, is ring up any of these organisations, ask for the officially - sanctioned and hygienic comment, without ever having had to go to the trouble of understanding the debate they are reporting on.

Well, (and this is a forlorn hope) it would be helpful to report on the ongoing debate over science and policy without treating climate change like a rancorous «he said, she said» political debate.»»

This is yet another inter-governmental organisation, founded without any real mandate, to manage the perceptions of climate negotiations, and to preclude debate.

The consequence of the consensus without an object is that the debate is presented as one between «scientists» and «deniers», attached to the claims «climate change is happening» and «climate change is not happening» respectively.

Given the major environmental, jobs and energy security questions that have been raised about Keystone XL, and the fact that President Obama can take a stand for the environment on this issue without the usual (and fully tedious) Congressional debate, if he does in fact approve it, it certainly calls into question his entire environmental platform — if how he handled the climate change debate in 2009 didn't already.

So I decided the right way to drive change in the climate debate is not to rant about it but instead to continue to model what I consider good behavior — fact - based discussion and a recognition that reasonable people can disagree without that disagreement implying one or the other has evil intentions or is mean - spirited.

I think that casting climate change debate (though not the scientific basis for the existence of a serious manmade change to the world we live in) as Left versus Right has some legitimacy; the ideologies of the Right (which are, IMHO, just as flawed and ethically challenged as the Left's), are failing to find how to incorporate the requirement to deal with the serious manmade changes being wrought upon the world without international government intervention and regulation.

However you feel about climate change, I think we can all agree there should be a vigorous debate on the issue, what to do about it, and without criminalizing people who may have a different opinion.

He authored a pamphlet in which he debated climate change with other great minds such as Jefferson, and translated the Bible because he thought it was dirty and felt that «a woman couldn't read it without blushing.»

The House has a certain will in a certain climate and in that climate Tea Party people clapped during a debate when it was suggested people without health insurance should die.

With the current climate around the debate and the intention of some people to hard fork Bitcoin without near - universal consensus, Todd said there is a small chance this process could go badly.