Sentences with phrase «follow climate debates»

Most ordinary people who do not follow climate debates assume that either it's not happening or it's dangerous.

As for your statement that there is only «consensus around the basics»; please enlighten me as to what that consensus is because after following the climate debate (and learning the science) for almost ten years, I haven't seen ANY consensus on anything I would call BASIC.

Will Become The Object Of Ridicule For Future Generations -LRB-...) Any fan of Hollywood films following the climate debate knows the objectives of mad scientists: They try to rule the world.

The funny thing (to me) about this is that when I first started following the climate debate, there was a slight warming trend in place.

To those of us who have been following the climate debate for decades, the next few years will be electrifying.

Folks do nt follow the climate debate because they are interested in inconsequential stuff in the weeds.

Most people who follow the climate debate — and many who do not — will have heard about the so - called Climategate.

Not exact matches

«Rather than debating which sports teams we follow, we should be debating jobs, health care and climate change.»

That could propel the climate issue into the initial GOP debates, and maybe beyond, said Barry Rabe, a professor at the University of Michigan who follows climate politics.

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.

The lessons are as follows: Lesson 1 - Intro to climate change Lesson 2 - Climate Change, real or hoax Lesson 3 - The Ice Age Debate Lesson 4 - Worst Case Scenario Lesson 5,6 - Impacts of Climate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use foclimate change Lesson 2 - Climate Change, real or hoax Lesson 3 - The Ice Age Debate Lesson 4 - Worst Case Scenario Lesson 5,6 - Impacts of Climate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use foClimate Change, real or hoax Lesson 3 - The Ice Age Debate Lesson 4 - Worst Case Scenario Lesson 5,6 - Impacts of Climate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use foClimate Change Lesson 7 - Impacts on the UK This content is suitable for year 9 but is taught to a high level and is more than suitable to use for GCSE.

The Europeans are drafting their proposal (we've posted a PDF of the European climate document here) as the United States enters into a period of intense debate over the wisdom of adopting such market - based systems following the inauguration of Barack Obama as president.

As has been hinted at here there is resistance to factual debate on climate change that amounts to intrigue — as Sir David King said, he was «being followed around the world by people in the pay of vested - interest groups that want to cast doubt on the science of climate change».

or had a heads up on the following: «Science Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate» «The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human - induced global warming.

Given the need for reliance on facts in the public climate debate, I am issuing the following statement.

Partisanship by NOAA administrators on the climate change - hurricane debate followed the partisanship by NOAA National Weather Service on climate change - skeptic debate by 12 years which started just after the Gore book on global warming book came out.

Would Myron say the following part of Trump's reply to the Science Debate question on climate change has merit?

Oliver I am not a scientist, but have been following the «climate debate» for nearly two years.

NZ Climate Truth provides the following description on their home page: «Vincent is too modest, the content is global in scope and his penetrating analysis honed by years of reviewing IPCC reports is applied to issues arising in the Greenhouse / Global Warming / Climate Change debate.»

Goodwin briefly departed from academic jargon with one suggestion for trying to move the debate forward by suggesting that climate scientists voluntarily assume «extra responsibility» as follows:

I do enjoy reading the sometimes lively debate surrounding these issues, and I certainly prefer a bit of skepticism to things like a link to a discussion on Scientific American that I followed recently where they were discussing how the recent temperature record has lead to a lowering of estimates of climate sensitivity.

Anyone who follows the climate change debate for a while must soon notice that when the denialistas have one of their argument proven wrong, or one factual misrepresentation corrected, they just continue as if nothing had happened.

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.

In 2006, the FoS website newsection made the following statement (later removed): «Large projects - such as our video and radio ads - are funded through grants out of a University of Calgary Trust Fund, directed towards debate of climate science and which is also fed by the charitable Calgary Foundation.»

Following up on his impressive rebuke of evolution / science during last night's debate with Bill Nye, young - Earth creationist Ken Ham appeared on CNN to explain how global warming is also a lie, and that climate change, as we're observing it, can all be explained by original sin.

The debate generally and Climate Etc specifically has a horrible «train - wreck» quality which is simultaneously fascinating and addictive yet entirely unproductive to follow.

Following Ed Davey's somewhat silly comments about the climate debate, I recently submitted an FOI request for more information.

Got interested in the climate debate last year after becoming aware of Dr Curry and following her blog.

Oh, and as to the Bush administration censoring science, I was following the politics of that struggle long before the climate debate exploded over the internet.

This should come as no surprise to those following the climate change debate.

My background is in science and I've followed the issues in several fields over the years (the climate debate is an interest to me, but not the main field I track with).

You certainly don't speak for all «scientists remote from climate science but who follow the debate from (a) far»

Judy, to those of us who are scientists in fields remote from climate science but who follow the debate from far, your style of arguing is much more appealing than that of your (warmist) opponents.

Would be interested in your view on that state of the debate here and the applications of these techniques to global climate time series (assuming you have been following it).

Morano debates with China Central Television (CCTV) anchor Anand Naidoo, a week following the release of the US government's National Climate Assessment.

I've been following the climate change debate for only the last several months.

As DeSmog reported, after a «red carpet premier» of the film that Morano modestly claims will «rock the climate debate», CFACT wants a US cinema release for the documentary, followed by DVD sales and then distribution in schools and colleges.

Although I am not a climate scientist I have been following the debate quite closely for about four years and during that time I have read many hundreds of articles regarding climate science.

Following the booklaunch, the Australian newspaper published an entertaining read titled «Climate sceptics ready to storm heaven with earth's geological history `, detailing the plight of Dr Barry Brook, who as the head of Adelaide University's Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability is at the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to academic debate (apparently Dr Brook is ill - fated enough to share a hallway just metres away from the good Professor Plimer)

This is a good question, much discussed by those who've been following the burden - sharing debate that's raged through the climate community in the last few years.

For those who have followed the staged «climate debate», the list of authors is revealing: Many of the usual suspects, with a history so to speak.

I do follow this debate from a layman's perspective and the one thing I find really confusing is why when talking about climate science / climate change and the models being used, they never talk about weather modification programs that have been going on for over 70 years around the world.

What followed was a continued use of «the Revelle paper» in Congressional and Vice-Presidential debates with climate change skeptics including Singer, Balling and Michaels where it was used «to harrass, embarrass and otherwise discredit Al Gore.»

The people you bash as «deniers» are actually not denying climate change, but are instead debating the following points that you seem to be ignoring.

I hope that you will be successful in the the stand you have taken: as a non scientist, who has followed this debate carefully for many years, I would like to tell you that I have been disappointed to watch how the scientific communities (not just climate scientists) have allowed the IPCC to behave so badly for so long.

The statement could be viewed as an ominous warning that some Big Green groups are prepared to follow the same course that they did during the debate over Waxman - Markey, the House climate and energy bill that passed last year — compromise early and often to get a bill, seemingly any bill, passed.

CEI, the organization singled out for Walker's separate subpoena, issued the following statement from president Ken Lassman: «All Americans have the right to support causes they believe in and the CEI subpoena is an abuse of the legal system and an effort to intimidate and silence individuals who disagree with certain attorneys general on the climate debate.

Judith — you started # 2 in this series with «The significance of the debate over the hockey stick and «hide the decline» is the following: Sir John Houghton made the hockey stick into an icon for the climate change problem, which became of substantial importance in the marketing of climate change to the public; therefore, challenges to the hockey stick, while maybe not being of particular scientific importance are highly important in the public debate on climate change.»