Sentences with phrase «debate about the consensus»

Not that the Oreskes paper will end the debate about a consensus.

Not exact matches

There was further debate about this, but eventually, the group consensus was that Jesus was not painting a rosy picture.

The ongoing debate about which is the best defensive midfielder that Arsenal could buy this summer as backup to our new central general Francis Coquelin, and the consensus up'til now has focused on the Southampton star Morgan Schneiderlin, but today it is being reported that his Saints team - mate Victor Wanyama has publicly announced his desire to move to the Emirates.

The debate was a prime example of the House of Commons coming to a consensus about an important issue and demonstrated the best of what we have to offer the country.

Mr Clark believes there is a growing consensus among three groups that come to the debate from different directions: the green lobby; people worried about security of energy supplies (who do not want to become dependent on Russian imports); and those with concerns about economic competitiveness.

What I find striking about the mayoral control debate is the false assumption that there exists a wide consensus on the need for it.

The importance of engaging in sustained public debate to win a consensus about the problem to be tackled before solutions are unveiled lies behind the government's «big conversation» public consultation initiative.

Heated scientific debates over the past few years have not led to consensus, and they never may, because the fight is ultimately about two different philosophies of conservation.

And there was this great, it was my favorite moment of the weekend and it was this very dramatic moment, when basically Emanuel was complaining a little bit, very politely, and smiling about the fact that journalists still are doing stories about, you know, the debate around climate science, but there's not really, of course, there's not a debate, there's consensus that anthropogenic global warming is happening and that, why are you still doing these stories, asking questions?

Precisely how much protein one needs has been heavily debated, but nowadays the consensus is about 0.8 — 1.0 g per pound of lean body weight.

While there is some debate about who should ask for a second date, the main consensus seems to be that, now you've got to know each other a little, this is a chance to get a little more creative — and certainly more romantic!

While the definition of high - quality teacher preparation remains a source of significant debate, there is growing consensus among researchers about how teachers learn to improve their practice — and these findings are beginning to seep into the policy mainstream.

There is scientific consensus on that and there is no debate in the «scientific» community about this.

To the «hatchet job» inference (# 177), I listened with my ears and nobody else's to the May 6th «Fresh Air» interview, when Gore moved from an ethanol / food price debate, to his joke about some minister's absurd believe that Katrina was New Orleans» punishment for a gay pride parade, to his clear inference that Myanmar and, previously, Bangladesh, are part of an emerging consensus that the trend towards more Category 5 and stronger storms appears to be linked to AGW, specifically the heating of the upper oceans, driving convection energy, etc..

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.

One section of the memorandum, «Winning the Global Warming Debate,» asserts that many voters believe there is a lack of consensus about global warming among scientists.

Judith Curry makes a powerful case in Inquirer to drop the consensus approach in favour of open debate about uncertainties and interrelated issues.

While opinions about climate change vary greatly, even among experts in climate science, the consensus is that short - range weather events have little to do with the climate change debate.

It tells us something about consensuses and debates.

Straight from the horses mouth... the «consensus» has political, rather than practical utility: The public's perception of that scientific consensus is necessary to stimulate political debate about solutions.

This is to say that the «consensus» has political, rather than practical utility: it is more useful to the task of mobilising towards «action on climate change» than it is informing the debate about what kind of problem climate change is, and what the options for dealing with it are.

The large gap between perception and reality of scientific agreement reflects the heated nature of political debates over policy on the issue, as well as the impact of efforts to raise skepticism about scientific consensus.

The President has reportedly told U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt during several conversations that he supports Pruitt's plan for a «red - team, blue - team» debate aimed at challenging the prevailing scientific consensus about humans» impact on climate change, a senior administration official reportedly told E&E News.

I also explained I don't have any real beefs with ice core data but if you want to state something specific I'm sure I can find something to cast doubt upon it as very little in this debate is writ in granite, confirmation bias is rampant, overconfidence abounds, the race to publish by inexperienced youngsters on the tenure track is heated, and pal review let's just about anything that supports the consensus view get published while simultaneously quashing anything contrary.

So it's all about intentions obfuscated by phony technical debates that large numbers of the public accept as validating a partisan science consensus.

Since so much is riding on an uncertain art and imprecise science, only further methodological debate, exposure, and interdisciplinary consensus about legitimacy will allow us to place the needed level of confidence in results like MBH.

We can come to a democratic consensus about our shared preferences for a sustainable society through a process of discussion and debate, and then use these principles as guides to encourage people to see the inappropriateness of some preferences, given the scientifically demonstrable impacts of acting on those preferences.

Even though there is overwhelming scientific consensus, they may have bought into the myth that there is a scientific debate about the reality of climate change.

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

It is important that policymakers understand the historical context of the global warming debate, what the data does — and does not — tell us about global warming, where there is consensus in the scientific community and where there is not, and what impacts global warming regulations can realistically be expected to have on the environment.

Most US citizens are aware that there has been an ongoing debate about the science of climate change, yet most American are completely unaware of the strength of the «consensus» position on climate change.

The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect.

And it's Cox's surprisingly fragile understanding of the climate debate and his failure to subject claims about the «scientific consensus» to criticism which causes him to reproduce the same old orthodoxy:

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 Change.

Bjorn Lomborg and his economist colleagues have produced a fascinating and unexpected consensus, which can start a debate about global priorities: Should we prioritize a costly and uncertain attempt to reduce effects of global warming in a hundred years» time while millions are dying for lack of mosquito nets or condoms?»

The majority of expert climate scientists have reached the consensus view that human activity has resulted in global warming, although there is debate about how much the temperature will rise in the future.

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.

In this episode of the DesmogCAST, host Farron Cousins speaks with me, Kyla Mandel and Justin Mikulka to talk about the breakout documentary Merchants of Doubt and how climate science deniers are still manufacturing a fake debate about the clear consensus among bonafide climate experts.

The huge scientific uncertainty about the cost of inaction has obscured a surprisingly strong economic consensus about the economic cost of stabilising global CO2 concentrations at the levels currently being debated by national governments, that is, in the range 450 - 550 ppm.

Since leaving Tyndall — and as we found out in a telephone interview — he has come out of the climate change closet as an outspoken critic of such sacred cows as the UN's IPCC, the «consensus», the over-emphasis on scientific evidence in political debates about climate change, and to defend the rights of so - called «deniers» to contribute to those debates...

However, as Mr. Outing points out, presenting a «balanced» view of global heating doesn't make sense — there isn't anything resembling a serious debate about whether human beings are causing global heating because the current scientific consensus is that human burning of fossil fuels is causing global heating.

Now what do you think about Mr. Gore's stand that «the debate is over» or that steady drumbeat of press reports about the «consensus of scientists»?

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

In other words, consensus messaging has a neutralising effect, which is especially important given the highly polarised nature of the public debate about climate change.

The truth about Judith Curry, as I see it, is that she has a strong attraction for political dialogue, and refuses to see that the public debate over climate is fundamentally at odds with good science, as is the IPCC - sponsored «consensus» of climate alarmism, or in her case, of climate political - worryism (she seems deeply attached to helping bring about «reasonable» and «responsible» climate policies — whereas my view is that any and all such climate policies, now, are necessarily based upon incompetent, false science, are entirely the wrong thing to try to impose upon the people of the world, and need to be summarily thrown out, before one can even begin to have a dispassionate, competent scientific dialogue — as opposed to the political debate now being served up — on the state of climate science.).

Instead, the likes of Nurse (and Gummer) hide behind the «scientific consensus», rather than use the substance of scientific consensus to shed light on debates about the climate.

Blogosphere Can Improve Public Confidence in Science New Scientist says rather than retreat from debate about the science «in the name of spurious consensus» it needs to embrace it:

Secondly, the HS debate doesn't say much about the impact of 2xCO2, but neither is there a scientific consensus on the best action to be taken.

Answer: That is the subject of much debate, as there is no consensus about the standard rate for THC impairment and no easily available way to determine whether someone is impaired from recent pot use.

You'll be more suited to investment management if you're curious about the world, able to challenge a consensus and not afraid to debate issues with senior colleagues.