Sentences with phrase «climate debates better»

Nobody lampoons the media's misleading — and cowardly — «he - said, she - said» climate debates better than John Oliver (5-11-14, Last Week Tonight).

«I think I understand the climate debate better than anyone, not because I know more about climate but because I know more about the logic of complex issues.

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.

Obama Secretly Laid Out Why Climate Skeptics Are Bad For Democracy Former President Barack Obama said while debating climate change policy solutions is good for democracy, questioning the underlying science is bad for sClimate Skeptics Are Bad For Democracy Former President Barack Obama said while debating climate change policy solutions is good for democracy, questioning the underlying science is bad for sclimate change policy solutions is good for democracy, questioning the underlying science is bad for society.

Howie Hawkins, the Green Party candidate for Governor, will discuss the primarily election and its impact on the campaign as well as the upcoming march for climate change in New York City, the status of gubernatorial debates, fracking and student debt.

Howie Hawkins, the Green Party candidate for Governor will discuss the primary election and its impact on November gubernatorial races as well as the upcoming march for climate change and the status of gubernatorial debates.

Given that our own changing climate is hotly debated, the fate of the ancient megafauna could help clarify the future as well as the past.

«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.

While German politicians, alarmist scientists, activists, and media are staying super-glued stuck on stupid, i.e. remaining mired in the stupidity of dogmatism and closed - mindedness, the climate debate and controversy in Germany is, well, shall we say, heating the hell up.Mark the following time and place on your calender: Wednesday, 25 May 2011, 10 pm.

It is a sign of the times that the public debate among major players over Oregon's coal - free future saw little contention regarding the reality of climate change and focused mostly on the best way to address it.

«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.

The first page has a debate topic as well as a summary of the topic - In this case climate change.

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.

Update, June 19, 10:30 p.m. Joe Romm has written a long post on Climate Progress on the Orwellian aspects of a «good» Anthropocene — «Words Matter When Talking Global Warming: The «Good Anthropocene» Debate» — and Hamilton has a long essay in Scientific American warning that «The New Environmentalism Will Lead Us to Disasgood» Anthropocene — «Words Matter When Talking Global Warming: The «Good Anthropocene» Debate» — and Hamilton has a long essay in Scientific American warning that «The New Environmentalism Will Lead Us to DisasGood Anthropocene» Debate» — and Hamilton has a long essay in Scientific American warning that «The New Environmentalism Will Lead Us to Disaster.

The really good thing about the climate «debate» is that the causations proposed by both sides — CO2 or cloud cover — will reveal themselves in the next few years.

For this reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST - action TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth's climate), whose objective is to provide a better understanding of the «hotly debated role of the Sun in climate change» (not really in the scientific fora, but more in the general public discourse).

There is good reason why every few years, hundreds of climate scientists from around the world voluntarily and unpaid tackle the big task of sifting through the scientific literature and debating it and summarizing the state of knowledge in the reports of the IPCC.

This could then lead to a wider debate about how best to respond to climate change risks in a complex world with an uncertain future.

Roughly, I'd guess the debates over global climate change took place largely between 1981 and 1995; a good bit shorter than the debates over continental drift, but then there was less radical about the idea of global climate change — it was already known that the planet's climate had changed in the past, so the idea that it might be changing in the present was less radical than the idea that the vast continents might, in fact, be drifting like huge floating islands.

There is a lively debate in climate science about how best to compare the importance of these greenhouse gases, and many climatologists deeply immersed in studying human - driven global warming reject the method used by Howarth.

The challenge, of course, is that a science - based definition of the «climate crisis» (I still think that climate scientist Richard Somerville defined that term best in a 2007 debate with Michael Crichton and others) is not the kind of message that will get people rushing to the ramparts.

I also think he's a danger to the efforts of the climate movement and did my best to warn about this in 2010 with a series of blog posts recommending nobody debate him.

The perception that you may have of the «debate» in the media or politics is mostly due to the inevitable compression of news stories, combined with an apparent journalistic need to provide «balance» (see Chris Mooney's article on this), and well - funded campaigns by interests who are worried about what the reality of climate change might imply on the regulatory front.

With respect to Mr. Best's post, which I may be unfairly implying is a good example, one of the fallacious but clever debate manipulations utilized by CC deniers and (way too many) lukewarmers is to focus relentlessly (often inaccurately) on climatological research frontiers such as climate sensitivity, or relations between evaporation, cloudiness, and global albedo.

«The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change, a Guide to the Debate» by Andrew Dessler and Edward Parson (Cambridge, 2006) is more comprehensive, gives a better - rounded brief treatment of each issue, is much better on the extra science issues, and more thoughtful than the books in Gavin's review, as good as they are.

However, since a high proportion of misnamed «skeptics» are in fact deliberate liars, who endlessly repeat assertions that they well know have been repeatedly shown to be false, it will probably have little effect on the fake, phony, Exxon - Mobil sponsored «debate» about anthropogenic climate change.

Another, which I've alluded to twice already — during the Bali round of negotiations and Senate floor debate on a climate bill, is «Talk, Talk, Talk, Talk, Talk,» by one of my all - time favorite musicians, T Bone Burnett (best known as a producer).

The techniques used by the tobacco industry to confuse public debate about tobacco science, well - documented in the materials analyzed by Ong and Glantz, closely resemble methods used by some of the people working to obfuscate climate science.

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well - funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

Potentially to ever more shouting, disengagement, and a migration of debate to the edges, in a way that obscures all the well - established science pointing to huge consequences under business as usual — for everything from the diversity of life to the stability of climate.

I stand firm in my contention that a very traditional definition of «climate» serves us well in this debate.

The scientists who communicate about climate change may regard these standards as wrong - headed or at best irrelevant, but scientists don't get to decide this in a democratic debate.

«At these climate meetings, once the negotiations start, you get the sense that they might as well be debating steel tariffs,» he said.

Focusing on the influence of greenhouse - driven climate change on weather extremes (except for rainfall and heat) takes the debate into terrain that favors those trying to exploit uncertainty because, for extremes that matter most to society, the science is murky, at best.

There are many other examples, and the pattern has been laid out many times before, as in my 2006 article «Yelling Fire on a Hot Planet» and 2007 piece on «A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate Over Climate» (which some critics saw as falsely equivalent, as well).

But in the debate over a response to global warming, there were blinders on a lot of Democrats, as well — blinders that resulted for far too long in a one - solution focus on a comprehensive, and doomed, cap - and - trade climate bill.

I was hoping that the book would be accessible to a pretty broad range of readers because I really wanted to use my personal story as sort of this reluctant and accidental public figure in the debate over climate change, to talk about the bigger issues, the reality of the problem, the threat that it represents, the need to have a good faith discussion about what to do about it.

So this is not really the «debate» that the contrarians would like to make it out to be, and most scientists, as well as people who have accepted that climate science points to the need for stronger action, have no more interest in letting the Heartland and NIPCC folks hijack the public discourse and getting the media to frame the narrative in their terms.

Politicians won't make much progress & could well get themselves into trouble when they discuss or get into debates on the first climate change.

Man, I go to bed, and when I get up in the morning, there's another tidal wave of postings... it's good thing the climate debate is settled...

The 2 °C target is a matter of substantial debate (too weak, too strong, too vague...), but it is a good yardstick for understanding the scale of climate change, and its impacts, that we are setting ourselves up for this century.

The violation of the Third Law will be only temporary as slowly scientific observation and understanding will get the better of the present situation... it is a firm conclusion that the climate change debate is distorted in its presentation and that its alleged scientific conclusions are unsound.

Glenn (13:47:49): «Christopher Monckton was on a national breakfast show here in Australia yesterday morning, «debating» some climate scientist who defended the glacier - problem on the basis of «well, one mistake doesn't make the rest of the report invalid».

And your phrase «you have failed to convince qualified climate scientists that your contribution to the debate has anything relevant and constructive to add» is disingenuous at best.

I think it would be much better if all participants in the climate debate were much clearer about their political motives.

According to AREDAY organizers, activist Joseph Romm of Climate Progress urged Cameron not to go ahead with the debate as well.

The climate bill the Senate debated last year left a good deal of regulatory prerogative to the agency, while the draft bill the House is currently working on lays out more specific guidelines.

The man - caused climate change deniers don't seem so good at debating science.

But I share MacCracken's view that this is the not forum for a full - blown debate — and that the «debate» format in general, pitting two «sides» against each other, is not the best way to assess the state of scientific understanding of climate change.