Sentences with phrase «fuels arguments from»

But at this point in the campaign, that only fuels arguments from the Conservatives about the risks involved in a minority Labour government supported by the SNP.

Not exact matches

He wrote his most famous book, The Naked Public Square» his 1984 argument against the attempt to secularize every part of shared life» because he thought the nation was in danger of losing the religious dynamism that had fueled everything from Abraham Lincoln's speeches to Martin Luther King's protests.

These range from the Fuel Up to Play 60 (FUTP60) initiative presented by NDC in partnership with the National Football League and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the School Nutrition Foundation's Breakfast - in - the - Classroom Resource Center, and they allow school nutrition professionals to present science - based, data - driven arguments in favor of wellness programs like school breakfast

The following items were taken from police reports: A 35 - year - old Orland Park man was charged with domestic battery after he shoved a woman into furniture during an alcohol - fueled argument at a residence on the 14700 block of Park Lane on Nov. 28.

The Atlanta report's conclusion that cheating resulted from a culture of fear, one spurred by rising test - score targets, fuels the argument that policies determined by test scores provide perverse incentives that are not in the best interests of students.

Honestly, from a BES administration standpoint, I could care less, aside from obvious cost reduction points to help aide in the ever - annoying RIMM vs MSFT arguments that are being fueled every single day.

I think, had Exxon continued in that role, there might not be such a cacophony of anti-climate arguments that are ongoing now because there would have been somebody at the table who came from the side of fossil fuel use and would have been shown to be a leader in terms of the science and this was their reasoned opinion as to what was going on.

Michael is also right to point out that the fossil fuel funded sceptics have cleverly kept the argument on whether global warming is happening and on its cause, thus diverting attention away from the dangers.

I also believe that more emphasis should be placed on economic arguments for moving away from non-renewable carbon - based fuels because those impacts are more obvious at present than longer - term environmental impacts.

Some decades ago a «climate skeptic» could make reasoned arguments against the reality of global warming from fossil fuel burning.

Without that, all he's got to sustain his opposition to government intervention against fossil fuels is the argument from consequences.

For years, it has often seemed that those most passionately pressing for a rapid transition from still - abundant fossil fuels to non-polluting energy sources have been as focused on attacking each others» arguments as they have on fighting powerful interests defending the status quo (as well as perhaps the biggest foe — inertia, both in society and infrastructure).

On September 27th, 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral argument on challenges to EPA's landmark limits on the harmful carbon pollution from the nation's fossil fuel - burning power plants.

Cooper's favorable argument for shale gas is compelling because in such a life cycle analysis — where the entire process is assessed from extraction to power plant combustion — water requirements are lower in comparison to certain fuel types.

The following quotes come from a press release sent out this morning from the fossil fuel industry - funded «Heartland Institute,» which pretends to offer science - based arguments in support of their «mission... to discover, develop, and promote free - market solutions to social and economic problems.»

To waste time talking about the «two sides» of this distracting argument, as the total consumption of fossil fuels goes up as fast as it can be removed from the ground is a shame.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island who has endorsed the use of RICO against fossil fuel industries since May, made a similar argument in his weekly climate speech, delivered Tuesday on the Senate floor.

Also, Inside Climate News recently described a new study published in Science about how fossil - fuel funded climate - science deniers disingenuously shift their arguments and use normal scientific uncertainties to deflect attention from the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and argue for no action to reduce greenhouse - gas emissions.

Considering that at least 43 % of the letter's signatories have received money from the fossil fuel industry, being given large sums of money just for being climate «skeptics» and publishing error - riddled nonsense like this op - ed, the sheer nerve it must have taken to make this «follow the money» argument is astounding.

The letter claims that climate «skepticism» is growing, and yet only has 16 signatories, at least 43 % of which have received funding from the fossil fuel industry, and not one single new argument which hasn't been long - debunked.

He then smoothly transitioned from this oversimplified argument to the myth that CO2 limits will hurt the poor because, he argued, fossil fuel energy is cheap.

I'm only interested in pointing out the folly to relying on data and argument from scientists on the payrolls of big business — particularly the fossil fuel industry.

Brian writes - «I'm only interested in pointing out the folly to relying on data and argument from scientists on the payrolls of big business — particularly the fossil fuel industry.

The EPA's draft CPP repeal, put online Friday by Politico, picks up on those arguments, saying that the CPP's provisions «raised substantial concerns that the CPP would necessitate changes to a state's energy policy, such as a grid - wide shift from coal - fired to natural gas - fired generation, and from fossil fuel - fired generation to renewable generation.»

As far as hydrogen fuel cells versus electric cars or wind - powered land sailers, you can make arguments on all sides of the alternative fuel debate until you're blue in the face from too much CO2.

Lawyers for the five cities and counties issued a statement calling Exxon's argument «just another well - funded, choreographed public relations scheme from the fossil fuel industry.

Most books about climate change that include a religious argument do not address what individuals can do to help our society transform from fossil fuel use, other than changing personal behavior — and readers suspect that will likely not suffice.

Your unstated argument, it seems clear from the general tenor of your many postings, is that the tax would reduce fossil fuel usage.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that you're right, that the denialists, the fossil fuel lobby are trying to gin up uncertainty in order to paralyze the legislative process and to stop anything from happening in this regard.

Unlike Kiehl and Trenberth who base much of their argument on published supposition and make the horrible error of not leaving any energy in their balance to create fossil fuels, Miskolczi rigorously sets about working from the actual spectral effects from atmospheric gases and provides a properly justified but theoretical scientific case for demonstrating the errors of Kiehl and Trenberth.

What they fail to understand is that their argument stems from a shortsighted view of a longer - running trend that started BEFORE widespread use of fossil fuel and BEFORE human CO2 production increased.

So I wouldn't entertain healthcare arguments from solar advocates in the same way I wouldn't entertain bird - frying arguments from fossil fuel advocates.

Oil - by - rail should be banned for safety reasons, but the explosion also adds to the argument for an urgent, emergency shift away from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

The argument for CCS is that if we can capture and sequester the emissions from these fossil fuel reserves, then we can tap them; we can deal with the climate crisis yet avoid these assets being stranded.

Epstein's writing received praise from Patrick Michaels and Matt Ridley on the book's publisher's page, which describes The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels as «the best popular - market book about climate, environmental policy, and energy,» as well as an «eloquent and powerful argument for using fossil fuels on moral grounds.&rFuels as «the best popular - market book about climate, environmental policy, and energy,» as well as an «eloquent and powerful argument for using fossil fuels on moral grounds.&rfuels on moral grounds.»

Epstein encourages fossil fuel companies to switch the conversation (from the «environmentalists» argument»)-- and embrace their product as a communications tactic — as highlighted by the creation of his Facebook page entitled «I love Fossil Fuels.»

«In this presentation, we consider the reasons for the left's alarmist statements on energy production, and we examine Epstein's key arguments and explain how a turn away from fossil fuel use would ultimately be disastrous to humanity — especially the poorest of the poor.»

Concerning the CO2 in the atmosphere I personally am 100 % (not 99.9999 % but 100 %) convinced by the arguments that — we know the emissions from burning fossil fuels, — we know the increase in CO2 concentration since Keeling started his measurements at Mauna Loa — we have a rough, certainly inaccurate, but still very significant understanding on the movements of carbon in atmosphere, biosphere, oceans and continents.

But I think Ferdinand Engelbeen (just do a search for his name here or Climateaudit) would disagree about the source of the current CO2 increase — his isotope - ratio arguments are pretty convincing that they're from fossil - fuel combustion.

The C13 / 12 ratios are a good argument against the increase coming from volcanoes but it seems to me that any biological source or sink is likely to have the same ratio as fossil fuels.

The main conclusions IMO are: (i) The argument, from C13 / C12 ratio, that fossil fuel emission must be a major control on the gain in CO2 atmospheric concentration is shown to be fundamentally unsound.

More importantly, one can very easily make the argument that as civilization gradually shifts away from fossil fuel energy and towards renewable resources, it is imprudent — perhaps even a breach of fiduciary responsibility — to bet on the long - term financial viability of the fossil - fuel industry.

Our suggestion that America should bring back the 55mph speed limit to conserve fuel was met with derision from many quarters, and the argument for a universal 30 mph a limit was apparently in danger of discrediting» the entire pro-environmental movement by making them look like a bunch of lunatic extremists.»

There's some merit to Rod's argument — and some numbers are available on how much of the food people are eating ccomes from energy - intensive, fossil - fuel - dependent farming.

I'm not arguing against the science, I'm cautioning that the enthusiasts sound like they're making the same argument still currently being made for sidestream tobacco, and methylmercury, and CO2 emission from fossil fuel.

Arguments that government needs to continue expending fuel sources it seeks to prohibit the governed from using strongly suggests a faulty premise.

Fueled by a passion for argument and debate, she knew from a young age that she wanted to pursue a legal career, and even began studying for the LSAT exam in high school.

It even fueled our relationship into more heated arguments away from her.

The new study is based on a study of 82 different interventions involving more than 97,000 students from kindergarten to high school, where the effects were assessed at least six months and up to 18 years after the programs ended, it adds further fuel to the argument for teaching the whole child and supporting out students in all their growth needs.

I help you stay away from the content issues so that we can focus on the emotions that fuel your repetitive arguments, frustration, and alienation.