Sentences with phrase «discussing climate change because»

He frames the talk as a result of a challenge issued on Twitter — he was debating some prominent left - leaning commentators who said they always shy away from discussing climate change because they don't know enough about the complex issue to defend the position that we should be addressing it.

Not exact matches

Engineers dealing with frequent «100 - year storms» can't talk about «climate - change» when discussing their storm - related infrastructure damage issues because the Rubios of the world shout them down!

Nominees have been locked in meetings with publicists, managers, advisers and stylists discussing whether to wear black in solidarity with the #MeToo movement, whether to steer clear of Ryan Seacrest on the red carpet because of a sexual harassment allegation, which he denies, and whether to mention diversity, sexual misconduct, racism, Donald Trump, gun control, LGBT rights and climate change in speeches should they win.

Our findings suggest that there is a climate change «spiral of silence,» in which even people who care about the issue, shy away from discussing it because they so infrequently hear other people talking about it — reinforcing the spiral.

There is all sorts of evidence for and against natural climate change at various stages of history (and prehistory) that bears discussing, but we rarely ever get to it because everyone is banging on about the hockey stick being inaccurate or accurate (depending on your point of view).

I've been discussing climate change with lots of people at campaign stalls recently, and it has opened my eyes as to how far this «balanced» climate sceptic reporting is shaping the thinking of even those people who are concerned and want to see some action («I am aware that flying might make climate change worse, but I'll still do it because the warming may just be part of a natural cycle — I would stop if I was more certain»; «I am worried, but I have also heard that it is just water vapour which makes us warmer, so we just don't kow if this CO2 thing is true, everybody seems to have a different agenda» etc.).

I find that even some of my most informed friends, people who explain to me what really happened with various space and aircraft disasters based on their own critical review of the available information on the subject, have problems discussing topics like global climate change, the end of oil as a fuel, because they haven't even asked some obvious questions, much less done any research.

[Response: We've discussed climate sensitivity many times (see here)-- the specific issue that I think confuses some is that we can't use the 20th century changes to usefully constrain this because of the uncertainties you allude to.

The policy community has been reluctant to even discuss higher thresholds of temperature rise because it does not want to be accused of botching its efforts to forestall catastrophic climate change, he argued.

Other attempts at dismissing awkward facts received less attention, because they're only discussed among those who understand climate change.

The fact that so many studies on climate change don't bother to endorse the consensus position is significant because scientists have largely moved from what's causing global warming onto discussing details of the problem (eg - how fast, how soon, impacts, etc).

Guest essay by Eric Worrall Liberals are pressing for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's resignation, because he met with Cardinal George Pell to discuss Climate Change.

Butts added that when he meets with military leaders to discuss how to tackle terrorism and regional instability, «Each time they're saying, «This is getting worse because of changes in the climate.»»

This is important because IPCC is required to discuss significant claims that appear in peer - reviewed journals and IPCC report drafts are reviewed by enough people (including «climate change skeptics») to insure that such papers are not ignored.

This is a surprise, because, as is discussed in a recent post here, Cox had an opportunity to see how the establishment's own preoccupation with climate change threatened to dominate the research agenda, and his own field of high energy physics.

In a new paper excerpted at Climate Progress he explains that «All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be,» then moves on to discuss tornadoes in partClimate Progress he explains that «All weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be,» then moves on to discuss tornadoes in partclimate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be,» then moves on to discuss tornadoes in particular:

This book shines a fascinating light on this process by revealing how climate change has been transformed from a physical phenomenon, measurable and observable by scientists, into a social, cultural and political one... This book is so important because Mike Hulme can not be dismissed as a skeptic yet he is calling for a radical change in the way we discuss climate change.

A change in stratospheric water vapour because of the increase in methane over the industrial period would be a forcing of the climate (and is one of the indirect effects of methane we discussed last year), but a change in the tropopause flux is a response to other factors in the climate system.