Sentences with phrase «in the climate science debate»

Judith «Diogenes» Curry seeks «Something genuinely thoughtful from some seriously intelligent individuals that don't seem to have an axe to grind in the climate science debate.»

Horner has played a prominent role in the climate science debate for many years, though he has failed to uncover wrongdoing.

Not exact matches

Using the example of the current debate surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, Thompson sought to evaluate the argument from authority through a single prism, the way in which science is handled in argumentation about public policy.

Delaying infrastructure decisions is no longer simply inconvenient, it's a matter of life and death for people in countries most affected by the adverse consequences of climate change, Mr Clarke will claim in a debate to be held during the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Festival of Social Science

Climate change scepticism is not official party policy, but Wilson has stated: «I think in 20 years» time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.Climate change scepticism is not official party policy, but Wilson has stated: «I think in 20 years» time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all.»

When compared to other religious groups, Evangelicals have often been more wary of science as evidenced in debates about evolution, stem cell research, and climate change.

In his speech, Kerry noted that the president «has repeatedly questioned the underlying science of climate change and attempted to reignite the debate over whether the threat is real.»

«The basic climate science that tells us that the zero net emissions needs to come very soon, 2050 to 2060, that basic climate science was the winner in this debate,» said Smith, «though many will say, and they're right, that the agreement could be stronger.»

Ben Lowe, a 28 - year - old organizer of the young evangelical group, went to the debate to «bear witness to the lack of climate science» in the race.

A surrogate debate on climate change was held in Washington, D.C., this week by an independent organization advocating for science - related dialogue by candidates for office

MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA — In the run - up to national elections on 21 August, the country's top science body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperatureIn the run - up to national elections on 21 August, the country's top science body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperscience body, the Australian Academy of Science (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperScience (AAS), has weighed in on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperaturein on the climate change debate with a report backing the mainstream scientific view that human - induced climate change is real and that a business - as - usual approach to carbon emissions will lead to a «catastrophic» four - to five - degree increase in average global temperaturein average global temperatures.

As the UK's most trusted media outlet, the BBC is vital to the public debate, which is why the criticisms, published this week by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in its Communicating Climate Science report, are so important.

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

Creationism and climate change may have dominated religion - science feuds in the past, but neuroscience will be the great debate of the future, according to William Newsome, a neuroscientist and National Academy of Sciences member from Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.

They say that these debates about climate change and teaching evolution in schools, you know, really comes down, it really blurs the lines; it confuses the public about the kind of the boundaries between science and ideology.

Democrats, in turn, bemoaned the continued debate over climate science among politicians.

In the debates, Perry distinguished himself by comparing the persecution of a 17th - century astronomer by a powerful religious and political body with the plight of those who doubt the science of climate change.

Meanwhile, the science of climate change is currently being overshadowed by a media - driven public debate, mainly in the U.S..

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..

This is a look into a climate science debate conference between skeptics and warmists that took place last month in Potsdam, Germany.

Perdue has accused the EPA of «overreaching» in its efforts to address climate change and has echoed the line Southern has pushed, saying that «in science, there's an active debate going on.»

Because I don't know enough science to debate contrarians scientifically, I usually fall back on: Suppose the mainstream climate scientists are wrong & the contrarians right, and we act as if the scientists are right, then we have nothing to lose & something to gain in terms of reducing other environmental harms (acid rain, local pollution), resource depletion, and increasing national security (re oil wars & protection), and lots of money to save from energy / resource efficiency & conservation, and increasing from alternative energy.

You May Also Like: 50 Years After Warning, No Debate in Paris on the Science Obama Likely to Make Keystone Decision By End of Term Climate Implications Seen in Call For Keystone XL «Pause» New York Prepares for Up to 6 Feet of Sea Level Rise

It's an opinion that's likely to spark a lot of heated debate in the climate science community.

«I am reminded of debates in economics, investing, politics, religion and climate science where a good heuristic is if the person you are reading only points to evidence of one side and never raises or represents the better aspects of the opponents side.

Heading into the 2015 True / False Film Festival in Columbia, Missouri, the last two documentaries I reviewed were Kirby Dick's The Hunting Ground, about rape on college campuses, and Robert Kenner's Merchants Of Doubt, about the industry - financed «experts» who deliberately muddy the debate over the settled science of climate change and cigarette - smoking.

But, it said, about three in 10 middle and high school science teachers «reported telling their students, wrongly, that the causes of recent climate change are the matter of scientific debate.»

This does not seem to be a central critique of Joe and Stefan against our piece, but I outline this issue here because there is a falseness in the way the whole climate science community has posed the goal - setting and crank - turning debate.

It's probably conservatives trying to seize the attack ground in view of a possible pending debate about climate change in Washington, but the chorus of denialist opinion is so coordinated and their «logic» so simple it is convincing many, even among educated people (science PhDs) who can not be bothered to look deep into things but try to form an opinion based on a few journalistic pieces.

I only possess a layman knowledge of climate science, I am in no position to debate the science and neither is 99 % (I'm guessing) of the general population, we simply have to take your word for it.

The IAC - report triggered a debate in the Dutch Parliament about the reliability of climate science in general.

The third member is Marcel Crok, an investigative science writer, who published a critical book (in Dutch) about the climate debate.

Hidden behind the flow of fact - free tweets and edge - wooing stump statements, Trump's campaign had posted reasonable ideas when the Science Debate organization asked questions on the role of science funding in fostering innovation (it's great, unless it's climate science, evidently) and the merits of a post-fossil energy Science Debate organization asked questions on the role of science funding in fostering innovation (it's great, unless it's climate science, evidently) and the merits of a post-fossil energy science funding in fostering innovation (it's great, unless it's climate science, evidently) and the merits of a post-fossil energy science, evidently) and the merits of a post-fossil energy system.

I hope you have time to listen to a related debate on The Guardian's climate change campaign that took place at a Paris climate science conference in July.

8:33 p.m. Updated Former Vice President Al Gore has swung back into the climate debate with a 7,000 - word essay in Rolling Stone under the headline, «Climate of Denial - Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?climate debate with a 7,000 - word essay in Rolling Stone under the headline, «Climate of Denial - Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?Climate of Denial - Can science and the truth withstand the merchants of poison?»

* The role of the US in global efforts to address pollutants that are broadly dispersed across national borders, such as greenhouse gasses, persistent organic pollutants, ozone, etc...; * How they view a president's ability to influence national science policy in a way that will persist beyond their term (s), as would be necessary for example to address global climate change or enhancement of science education nationwide; * Their perspective on the relative roles that scientific knowledge, ethics, economics, and faith should play in resolving debates over embryonic stem cell research, evolution education, human population growth, etc... * What specific steps they would take to prevent the introduction of political or economic bias in the dissemination and use of scientific knowledge; * (and many more...)

Our work in conducting the Review has led us to identify a number of issues relevant not only to the climate science debate but also possibly more widely, on which we wish to comment briefly.

There is a lively debate in climate science about how best to compare the importance of these greenhouse gases, and many climatologists deeply immersed in studying human - driven global warming reject the method used by Howarth.

As the policy debate around western water and climate change intensifies, it'll be ever more important to discriminate spin from science in assessing factors shaping droughts, as Roger Pielke, Jr., of the University of Colorado has been trying to stress.

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».

To be sure a «debate» over whether or not human activity is altering the climate still rages, but it is not a clear - headed objective debate about the science among scientists actually working in the relevant fields, it's a debate about the science and its impact on human society in the court of public opinion.

The challenge, of course, is that a science - based definition of the «climate crisis» (I still think that climate scientist Richard Somerville defined that term best in a 2007 debate with Michael Crichton and others) is not the kind of message that will get people rushing to the ramparts.

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.

Second, there is a wider debate over what to do, or not do, about climate change, with peoples» preferences (a carbon tax, a technology push, building dikes or parasols in space) not so much a function of science as values.

Environmental groups in the climate change regulation debate rely more on accurate science than on negative spin, and I think this is a validation of Realclimates use of accurate science.

Of course, there are quite a few experts in climate science and policy who warn that debating whether the research pointing to a disruptive human climate influence is, or is not, settled is a complete distraction from the reality that the basics are not in dispute (more CO2 = warming world = rising seas and lots of changing climate patterns).

The candidates» platforms on climate and energy make this clear, but they renewed their stances in written responses to the folks who proposed having the first presidential debate on science.

Despite the often contentious debates that erupt over climate change science, we've seen only one other retraction in the field since we launched in August 2010, when Edward Wegman was forced to retract a paper for plagiarism.

Debate over effective climate change communication must be grounded in rigorous affective science.

«The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change, a Guide to the Debate» by Andrew Dessler and Edward Parson (Cambridge, 2006) is more comprehensive, gives a better - rounded brief treatment of each issue, is much better on the extra science issues, and more thoughtful than the books in Gavin's review, as good as thScience and Politics of Global Climate Change, a Guide to the Debate» by Andrew Dessler and Edward Parson (Cambridge, 2006) is more comprehensive, gives a better - rounded brief treatment of each issue, is much better on the extra science issues, and more thoughtful than the books in Gavin's review, as good as thscience issues, and more thoughtful than the books in Gavin's review, as good as they are.