Sentences with phrase «in climate debates»

The strawman is aTTP's repeated assertion that the words «dangerous» (able or likely to cause harm or injury) and «catastrophic» (involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering) are not commonly tossed around by anti-CO2 advocates in the climate debates.

It's especially popular in climate debates (evolution too).

Most participants in climate debates can agree that the atmosphere's capacity to interact with thermal radiation helps maintain the Earth's surface temperature at a livable level.

If not, I can provide numerous examples where that argument has been used in climate debates to defend bad methodologies.

Miesler's helpful role in the climate debates is more analogous to Gollum in Lord of the Rings, whose demented obsessions accidentally turned the tide of evil.

By the way, in a previous blog post, I featured a different op - ed that Dick and I wrote in The Boston Globe in July of last year («Beware of Scorched - Earth Strategies in Climate Debates»).

You have been in the climate debates for years yet only now you are discovering that Alarmists will not touch empirical studies of phenomena such as the AMO with a ten foot pole?

* We have developed a distinct set of principles that set us apart from most other stakeholders in the climate debates: * The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming — although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.

Ocean acidification is one subject in the climate debates that has always confused me.

I do think that more careful use of language can lead to progress in climate debates.

I judge skeptics (or, indeed, any participant in the climate debates) according to their willingness to admit error, willingness to learn, and quality of argument.

Pielke has been something of a lightning rod in climate debates, sometimes drawing attacks from all sides as a result of his views on research and policy.

You know, I wrote my dissertation on science in the climate debate.

The two most bizarre people in the climate debate have now had the most bizarre thing happen to them and their garbage science paper that basically become a peer reviewd smear of Dr. Susan Crockford..

We encourage the invited scientists to formulate their own personal scientific views; they are not asked to act as representatives for any particular group in the climate debate.

One of the grand challenges in the climate debate remains clarifying the different responsibilities of countries that have already built their prosperity and quality of life on coal (and to a smaller extent oil) and those on the verge of doing so.

Tipping points in the climate debate.

The Iris effect has been a controversial topic in the climate debate and has been used as an argument against a significant clobal warming, e.g. in Lomborg's «the Skeptical Environmentalist».

It just so happens that most of the posts on this site have tried to counteract arguments from those who would sow fake «uncertainty» in the climate debate.

To illustrate this, it's worth posting a transcription of Cheadle's kitchen - table exchange with Drew Farley, the preacher husband of Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University climate scientist whose become a prominent voice in the climate debate:

And it pales beside some of the extremely vicious rhetoric that has developed elsewhere in the climate debate.

In the climate debate, that's why persistent calls for those who care about stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases to pick a number, whether 350.org's favorite or Joe Romm's, are in my view a waste of time.

Carl Wunsch, an ocean and climate expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has long expressed concerns that the climate problem has been portrayed too definitively as an unfolding catastrophe, including in a story I wrote on the «middle stance» in the climate debate.

I wrote a piece on Jan. 1 for our Energy Challenge series on the «middle stance» in the climate debate that he harshly attacked.

Is this another variant on the «blah, blah, blah, bang» dynamic that some also see in the climate debate?

I have a problem with the whole idea of reconciliation in the climate debate and for once, it's not political but moral.

But the level of emotional involvement (and hence the violence of disagreement) is greater in the climate debate than elsewhere.

'» As compelling as battle with the sceptics seems to be in virtually every aspect of the climate issue, the overstated role of attribution in the climate debate has a far more prosaic origin in the fundamental design of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Prior, I think, in the way that you often make the point here that politics is prior to science in the climate debate.

For me, one of the hallmarks in the climate debate is the lack of both on the part of many.

According to some people, only a «climatologist» can be a credible scientific voice in the climate debate.

I think it would be much better if all participants in the climate debate were much clearer about their political motives.

I know my physics suxx, and I'm a newbie in this climate debate, but your POV about the infernal hyper - networked complexity of the climate system makes more intuitive sense to me than the CO2 control knob paradigm.

So when their knowledge of the arguments in currency did advance, it appeared to them as a change of argument in the climate debate.

My point was that in the climate debate they don't need to be.

In the climate debate the public now thinks the judgment of scientists is suspect.

One of the biggest mistakes that I see in the climate science community is that the meteorologists were relegated to second class citizenship in the climate debate and the physicists took over.

But in the climate debate, who is the jury?

We see this often in the climate debate: many figures, from Cook and his 97 %, through to John Gummer restyled as Lord Deben, pronouncing on «deniers» and what they deny, without ever actually taking any notice of what was being «denied» — the consensus without an object.

Ward now represents an extreme position in the climate debate, which, it seems clear, organisations and individuals will want to move away from in the near future.

How do political sociologists develop such blind spots in the climate debate, such that publishing a «lukewarm» report means a tiny organisation with few resources has radically altered its presumed position?

== >»... but they're not parallel when it comes to opinions on the quality of the science, since there's a large body of evidence on that in the climate debate that does not (to my knowledge) exist for the evolution debate.»

This is not the case in the climate debate so I do not see any motivated reasoning at work.

This has indeed arguably been one of the biggest scientific controversies in the climate debate.

This supposedly impartial broadcaster employed a partisan in the climate debate (Oreskes) to provde the words and editorial angle of this programme AND then allowed her and the programme's producer to submit a subjective, almost polemical piece in The Times about it.

======================= It's puzzling how someone who recognises that banning DDT for the sake of the environment led to an epidemic - level rise in world malaria (Pandora's Lab: Seven Stories of Science Gone Wrong) has such a crude (mis) understanding of the issues in the climate debate, for instance can not see the cost / benefit argument concerning fossil fuels.

Among the groups currently active in the climate debate and with strongest support from the Koch brothers are:

If we're going to do more than preach to our respective choirs in the climate debate, we need to recognize this.

That is not to say there are no malign forces in the climate debate, using science as a lawyer would, as a proxy for politics.

On Skeptical Science you can learn more about a disputed issue in the climate debate.