Sentences with phrase «debate about global climate change»

Not exact matches

Carney, who now leads the Bank of England, has inserted himself into the global debate over what to do about climate change.

I have always thought that the global warming, or «climate change» debate, was as much about social psychology as science.

Professor Bruce Fitt, professor of plant pathology at the University of Hertfordshire's School of Medical and Life Sciences, said: «There is considerable debate about the impact of climate change on crop production — and making sure that we have sufficient food to feed the ever - growing global population is key to our future food security.»

«Too often in debates about climate change risk, the starting point is a presumption that only global warming in excess of 2 °C represents a threat to humanity,» says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, College Park.

There was much public debate about the role of climate change in the aftermath of Harvey, and many Republicans were quick to dismiss links to global warming, pointing out that states like Florida and Texas have a long history with deadly storms.

Climate Change — Want to know more about global warming — the science, impacts and political debate?

Mike Wallace's talk was about the «National Research Council Report on the «Hockey Stick Controversy»... The charge to the committee, was «to summarize current information on the temperature records for the past millennium, describe the main areas of uncertainty and how significant they are, describe the principal methodologies used and any problems with these approaches, and explain how central is the debate over the paleoclimate record within the overall state of knowledge on global climate change.»

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.

Anyone who thinks that there is any genuine «debate» about either the reality of anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change, or the grave threat not only to human civilization but to all life on earth if unmitigated, «business as usual» anthropogenic global warming and consequent climate change are permitted to continue, is profoundly misinformed.

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.

«[The subjects raised] made for a decent scientific debate 15 years ago, but the questions have since been settled... The Great Global Warming Swindle raised old debates that are going to be latched on to and used to suggest that we don't need to do anything about climate change.

While scientists continue to explore the consequences of climate change, there is essentially no debate among scientists about global warming's «connection to the actions of mankind.»

People who've been following the debate about global warming closely will be aware that the economic modelling used in projections of future climate change by the IPCC has been severely criticised by former Australian Statistician Ian Castles and former OECD chief economist David Henderson.

The people facing the worst impacts of climate change have virtually no voice in western debates about whether to do anything serious to prevent catastrophic global warming.

«James Hoggan's Climate Cover - Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self - interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the scieClimate Cover - Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is a valuable expose of the efforts that have been made by self - interested actors to prevent political action on climate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the scieclimate change, by manipulating the public debate and confusing people about the strength of the science....

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.

So hey, let's have a debate about whether the earth goes around the sun — there seems to be more honest disagreement with that than there is over man made global climate change.

Titled «Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming,» it suggests that probably the most widely repeated claim in the global warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangGlobal Warming,» it suggests that probably the most widely repeated claim in the global warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangglobal warming debate is that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is man - made and dangerous.

«This is a historic moment in the global debate about climate change,» said Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast.

In November, 2015, the three lead NIPCC authors — Craig Idso, Robert M. Carter, and S. Fred Singer — wrote a small book titled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming: The NIPCC Report on Scientific Consensus revealing how no survey or study shows a «consensus» on the most important scientific issues in the climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate climate change debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cchange debate, and how most scientists do not support the alarmist claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Climate ChangeChange.

The discrepancy between recent observed and simulated trends in global mean surface temperature has provoked a debate about possible causes and implications for future climate change projections.

Issues like the Medieval warm period, different possible causes of climate change (such as solar activity, or even the nature of our climate), studies indicating the last interglacial period was warmer than today, and the failure of recent dire predictions about the climate all show the debate on climate change is not nearly as settled as many global warming proponents would have us believe.

This collegiate grassroots campaign is meant to increase awareness about climate change issues, and give college students the facts they need to intelligently debate man made global warming advocates.»

The phrase «global warming» has been thrown about so much, in the ongoing debate over dangers of man - made climate change, that it can seem more like a dark shadow on the horizon, than an imminent threat.

At the core of the global warming dilemma is a fact neither side of the debate likes to talk about: it is already too late to prevent global warming and the climate change it triggers.

I think a lot of people, including politicians, are starting to notice this point, because if you look at the late 90's the debate was all about the crisis of global warming, but now they've suddenly changed the name to «climate change» instead.

... [O] ngoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change.»

And while the climate debate rages on we can at least stop worrying about the safety of the one thing that could actually cause instant global climate change — thermonuclear mass destruction.

The paper was entitled «Why Models Run Hot» and sought to provide an explanation for the most salient fact about the climate - change debate: why the turn - of - the - century climate models were all wrong and failed to foresee the two - decade global - warming «pause».

With regard to the wider public «debate» about AGW, though, I don't see how it is a «bad idea» to name names of politicians who deliberately and aggressively LIE to the American people about the reality of anthropogenic global warming and climate change, and who engage in vicious and dishonest attacks on climate scientists.

What I am talking about is, that it seems to me that with regard to climate science, this blog spends far too much time responding to the phony, trumped - up «debate» fueled by denialist drivel, and not enough time addressing the legitimate scientific question as to whether it is in fact too late to prevent global warming and climate change that will be catastrophic to human civilization, not to mention the entire Earth's biosphere.

«Too often in debates about climate change risk, the starting point is a presumption that only global warming in excess of 2 °C represents a threat to humanity,» says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, College Park.

Lord Lawson, who has written about climate change, said the corporation is silencing the debate on global warming since he discussed the topic on its Radio 4 Today program in February.

Climate Change — Want to know more about global warming: the science, impacts and political debate?

Then, replace «salt» with global warming and fears of too much CO2 as appropriate and you end up with a revealing new and quite readable article about the current climate change debate.

The debate about climate change here often dwells on the direct effects of global warming on our natural and cultural heritage, along with the damage it will cause to agriculture and tourism.

Bringing together some of the world's foremost economic experts to contribute to the global debate about climate change and economic policy, and to inform government, business and investment decisions.