Sentences with phrase «debate about climate policy»

Back in 2002, a Republican pollster advised conservatives to attack the consensus in order to win the public debate about climate policy.

It has always been defended on that tired old notion that the debate about climate policy divides on the fact of climate change, between scientists who claim «climate change is real» and deniers who claim the opposite.

Obama will almost certainly veto those measures, of course, but there is no way his party will be able to avoid debate about climate policy in 2016, as it did in 2012.

Richard Tol, a professor at the University of Sussex, warned that «[t] his claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand.

This same schematic of demarcated science and politics operates at all levels of debate about climate policies.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change has been, ever since, cited in debates about climate policy, the world over, and Nick Stern has become the climate alarmist's chief guru.

Not exact matches

Obama offered no indication of whether he'll eventually issue a permit for the pipeline, whose construction has become a flashpoint in the U.S. debate about environmental policy and climate change.

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.

Similar to the debate on fracking, public opposition to the gas port became part of a larger discussion about New York State's energy policy and how the state should respond to climate change.

The letter, which included a statement on climate science by the leaders of 18 scientific societies, stated, «Although debate about policy options exists, climate change is not a scientifically - controversial topic.»

This two - valued approach would provide clarity to climate change policy analyses, which often result in misleading debates about policy trade - offs.

A Global Approach Until recently, nearly all policy debate about building institutions to protect Earth's climate focused on the global level.

Galway and Roscommon, Ire About Blog I'm interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball, film, and major league baseball.

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.

The op - ed favorably cited by Mike Mann says this explcitly, «That means we need to clearly say there is no scientific debate about climate change — and instead shift the conversation to next steps... Those of us who write opinion need to press for public - policy action, steps that move us as a planet forward.

And by all means let's ask Walmart to be a louder voice in public policy debates about energy and climate change.

But even as I push for an energy quest that limits climate risk, I'm not worried about the resilience of Arctic ecosystems and not worried about the system tipping into an irreversibly slushy state on time scales relevant to today's policy debates.

It began with the observation that public debate on climate policy has long been misinformed about the balance of evidence.

Instead, Goldston is saying that we should recognize that debate about energy policy, climate change, etc. is inherently political.

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).

This has significance for how we ought to both debate the climate issue and think about policy.

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.

The proposition that «science» somehow dictated particular policy responses, encouraged — indeed instructed — those who found those particular strategies unattractive to argue about the science.36 So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if «science» and «policy» were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.

Fierce policy debates about responsibility for climate mitigation and adaptation have long focused on the «common but differentiated responsibilities» of nations, the framework used for the Paris climate negotiations.

His view accords with that of a growing number of scientists concerned about the pursuit of «intensely political» areas of science, such as the debate over climate change, amid fears that views contrary to government policy were unwelcome.

The IMO has been talking about climate change for twenty years but the strategy agreed this week marks the beginning of a focused debate about the policies and measures that will help it to modernise and regain the status of a clean and efficient mode of transport.

Last Tuesday's debate featured extensive discussions about climate change policy, a first for a presidential candidate debate of any stripe.

It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions and the environment, it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.»

We would like now to explain in greater detail why taking the ethical reasons for support of climate change policies off the table in the debate about climate change is tantamount to a soccer team unilaterally taking the goalie out of the net.

This is journalism for the public policy debate about climate change, not written by a subject matter expert.

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).

Instead, we should have a legitimate policy debate between the center - right and the center - left on what to do about climate change.

This is a call for researchers in different nations to investigate how national debates about climate change policies have expressly considered or not ethics and justice issues in formulating climate policies.

Wouldn't you rather see all the energy that has been and will be wasted counteracting and debating this video actually go in to constructive, practical thinking about all the many climate policies that we need to get passed soon?

Common to these arguments is that they have successfully framed the climate change debate so that opponents and proponents of climate policies debate facts about costs, scientific uncertainty, or economic harms to nations that act while other large emitters don't act rather the moral problems with these arguments.

Unless the skeptics form a theory, they'll remain minor players in the debates — the climate science debate and the public policy debate about climate change (they're distinct, although often conflated).

The repeated use of the term «undeniable» by bloggers and activists commenting on the report is merely the latest attempt by the warmists to claim that there's nothing more to be said about climate policy — that the debate is over.

Moreover, as I've argued here previously, the emphasis, or hope that science can conclusively answer the debate about global warming almost concedes to the alarmist / precautionary perspective that, if «climate change is happening», then so the policies are justified.

But is it not also irresponsible to allow debate about what looks like a disastrous range of climate and energy policies — policies which have pushed up the price of energy, leaving people poorer, in colder homes, and causing other economic effects, none of which are good?

«There is a «false sense somehow that there is a two - sided debate going on in the scientific community» about the origins of climate change, said Bob Ward, the senior manager for policy communication at the Royal Society.

The climate denial countermovement has also blocked critical reflection on and serious debate about climate change through other strategies which seek to promote the idea that civil society will be better off if climate change policies are not adopted.

Debate about climate change policy in the United States has almost always assumed that US policy - makers can look to US economic interests alone in establishing US climate change policies.

In the meantime, during the debates about US domestic policy on climate change that have been taking place for almost thirty years, the US media has reported on climate issues almost exclusively by focusing on issues of scientific certainty about climate change impacts and economic cost to the US economy.

This phenomenon is partly attributable to the fact that economic interests opposed to US climate change policies have skillfully and successfully framed the US climate change debate as a matter about which there is insufficient scientific evidence or too much adverse impact on the US economy to warrant action.

Because debates about climate change policy formation at the national level have often ignored questions of equity and fairness, there is a need to publicize how debates at the national level about proposed climate change policies acknowledge or ignore questions of equity, ethics, and distributive justice.

FoS lists their goal as «To educate the public about climate science and through them bring pressure to bear on governments to engage in public debates on the scientific merits of the hypothesis of human induced global warming and the various policies that intend to address the issue.»

What should have been a political debate about energy policy, environmental quality, and reducing vulnerability to weather and climate disasters, became a debate about the nuances of climate science, with climate scientists as the pawns and whipping boys.

If a public debate about climate change and energy policies were permitted, and if the values that inform the interpretation of climate science were open to democratic contest, the climategate emails would be inconsequential.

Note: you are discussing my beliefs about the climate change policy debate.

My objections to how the public policy debate about climate change concerns methodology, and are explained here: How we broke the climate change debates.